Pennsylvania Transportation Service, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
165 A.3d 1033
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- PTS purchased call-or-demand (taxicab) operating rights from Concord on April 3, 2015; those rights had originated with Boston Coach.
- The ALJ’s preexisting description of the transferred rights included a geographically‑defined area in part of the City of Philadelphia (the “Philadelphia rights”) and the phrase “vice versa.”
- The PUC’s March 1, 2016 secretarial letter approving the transfer omitted the Philadelphia rights and deleted “vice versa,” stating the Philadelphia portion falls under the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) and the PUC lacked power over it.
- PTS petitioned for reconsideration arguing the PUC unlawfully modified its transferred rights without a hearing; the PUC partially granted reconsideration by restoring “vice versa” but maintained the PPA has authority over City rights.
- PTS appealed to this Court, asserting due process violations from partial revocation of rights without a hearing; the Court considered statutory allocation of jurisdiction between the PUC and the PPA post–Act 94.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PUC lawfully excluded the Philadelphia portion of the transferred operating rights | PTS: The PUC lacked authority to alter/deny portion of transferred rights and thus could not exclude Philadelphia rights without approval/hearing | PUC: Act 94 transferred authority over taxi service within the City to the PPA; PUC lacks jurisdiction to grant or transfer City rights | Court: PPA has exclusive authority over transfer/approval of rights within the City; PUC retains authority outside the City — omission was lawful given lack of PUC jurisdiction |
| Whether PTS was denied procedural due process when the PUC omitted Philadelphia rights without a hearing | PTS: Omission effectively revoked part of its acquired rights without notice and hearing, causing prejudice | PUC: It stated it lacked authority and did not expressly revoke rights; PTS could seek PPA approval — no demonstrable prejudice from the informational omission | Court: No due‑process violation shown because PUC lacked jurisdiction to grant City rights and the March 1 letter did not effect an express revocation producing demonstrable prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Germantown Cab Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 97 A.3d 410 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (PUC retains regulation outside Philadelphia after Act 94)
- Bucks Cnty. Servs., Inc. v. Phila. Parking Auth., 104 A.3d 604 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (PPA regulates pre‑Act 94 city rights within Philadelphia)
- Susquehanna Area Reg’l Airport Auth. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 911 A.2d 612 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (commission must describe territorial limits when approving transfers)
- Ronald Cab, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 76 A.3d 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (taxicab service is a public utility requiring a certificate)
- P.D.J. Cab Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 501 A.2d 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (PUC may revoke or amend certificates for cause)
- Popowsky v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 910 A.2d 38 (Pa. 2006) (standards for appellate review of PUC orders)
- Sobat v. Borough of Midland, 141 A.3d 618 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (demonstrable prejudice is key to procedural due process inquiry)
- Lehigh Valley Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 56 A.3d 49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (procedural requirements for PUC certificate applications)