Transfer of Call or Demand (Taxi) Rights Public Utility Commission Philadelphia Parking Authority "Partial Rights"

Pa. Transp. Serv., Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, PICS Case No. 17-1145 (Pa. Commw. July 3, 2017) Brobson, J. (11 pages).

PUC properly held that it had no authority over the transfer of "partial rights" to operate a taxi in Philadelphia because the Philadelphia Parking Authority had complete authority over taxi companies providing service within the city and had exclusive authority to grant, deny or impose conditions on the transfer of the portion of operational rights within the city. Affirmed.

Petitioner was a for-hire taxi business and purchased certain call or demand rights issued to a limousine company and filed an application with the PUC for approval of the transfer of rights. Those rights included "partial rights" in Philadelphia. The PUC approved the application but modified the description of the transferred rights, omitting the city of Philadelphia and noting that the city fell under the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia parking authority. Petitioner filed for reconsideration, arguing that the PUC did not have the authority to make material changes to the transferred rights. The PUC maintained that the PPA had authority over the rights in Philadelphia and petitioner appealed.

Petitioner argued that the PUC violated its right to due process by partially revoking its operational rights without holding a hearing. The court found that "partial rights" taxi companies like petitioner were regulated by the public utility code 101-3316. In 2004, the legislature repealed the medallion act which regulated taxis operating on a city wide basis in Philadelphia and transferred jurisdiction for those services from the PUC to the PPA. The PUC continued to regulate taxi companies to the extent that they operated outside of Philadelphia. Petitioner's argument failed because it was based on the faulty assumption that the PUC had authority to grant the rights it sought. The "partial rights" had been within the jurisdiction of the PPA since the 2004 repeal of the medallion act and only the PPA had the authority to issue a new certificate of public convenience that included rights within the city.

Furthermore, the PUC did not expressly deprive petitioner of its operational rights by omitting the Philadelphia rights. The PUC did not revoke or modify petitioner's rights to exclude the Philadelphia rights, but only noted that it had no authority to grant a transfer of those rights. Thus, petitioner could not show "demonstrable prejudice" from the PUC's action.