King v. Public Service Commission
This text of 963 A.2d 140 (King v. Public Service Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This case is before the court on appeal from an adverse final order from the Public Service Commission dismissing a petition for reconsideration as untimely filed. See D.C.Code § 34-604(b) (2001). The Commission had earlier concluded that petitioner had failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was charged excessively for electric service. Instead of filing a petition for reconsideration to seek review of the Commission’s decision on the merits, as is required by statute, petitioner appealed to this court. That appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A belated petition for reconsideration was dismissed by the Commission as untimely. (A copy of the order is an appendix to this opinion.) Petitioner’s request for relief from the order is the subject of this appeal.
In the area of administrative law, it is a familiar principle that an agency’s interpretation of a pertinent statute or regulation is entitled to deference when reviewed by an appellate court. Genstar Stone Co. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 777 A.2d 270, 272 (D.C.2001). Thus, this court has consistently upheld the Commission’s interpretation that the statutory requirement to file a petition for reconsideration from an adverse decision is jurisdictional. See Peoples’ Counsel v. Public Serv. Comm’n of the District of Columbia, 414 A.2d 520, 521 n. 3 (D.C.1980); see also Moore Energy Res., Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of the District of Columbia, 785 A.2d 300, 305-06 (D.C.2001) (holding that timely filing of petition for review on appeal is jurisdictional in nature, irrespective of counsel’s failure to sign petition on behalf of corporation). We therefore conclude that the Commission did not err in dismissing the instant petition as untimely. 1
*141 We hereby vacate the order entered by this court on September 17, 2008, insofar as it dismisses the appeal. The order of the Commission dated October 30, 2007, is hereby affirmed.
So ordered.
APPENDIX
CC9074993-53
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1333 H STREET, N.W., 2nd FLOOR, WEST TOWER WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
In the Matter of: Jacqueline M. King Complainant v. Potomac Electric Power Co. Respondent
CC No. 9074993
Date: October 30, 2007
Order No. 14613
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
I.INTRODUCTION
1. This matter is before me Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia (“Commission”) based on a petition for reconsideration filed by the Complainant, Ms. Jacqueline M. King (“King”) against Potomac Electric Power Company (“PEP-CO”). 1 The facts of this case have been set forth in detail in prior Orders and we will not repeat them here.
II. BACKGROUND
2. By Order dated June 8, 2007, the Hearing Officer dismissed King’s complaint. 2 King appealed that decision to the Commission on June 20, 2007, and the Commission affirmed and adopted the Hearing Officer’s decision by Order No. 14373, issued July 16, 2007. 3 Rather than file a petition for reconsideration as required by D.C.Code § 34-604(b), King appealed directly to the D.C. Court of Appeals. 4 The Court subsequently found that King had failed to file a petition for reconsideration as required by law and, on October 2, 2007, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 5 On October 9, 2007, King filed a petition for reconsideration of Order No. 14375 with the Commission.
III. DISCUSSION
3. D.C.Code § 34-604(b) states, in pertinent part:
[a]ny public utility or any other person or corporation affected by any final order or decision of the Commission may, Within 30 days after the publication thereof, file with the Commission an application in writing requesting a reconsideration of the matters involved, and stating specifically the errors claimed as grounds for such reconsideration. 6
*142 The language of the statute clearly states that parties affected by a final Commission order must file a petition for reconsideration within 30 days of that order. Timely filing of a petition for reconsideration has been determined to be a jurisdictional prerequisite for appeal. 7
4. In this case, Order No. 14373 was issued on July 16, 2007. If King wished to seek reconsideration of that Order, she had until August 16, 2007, to do so. She did not file her petition until October 9, 2007, well beyond the statutory time limit. 8 Inasmuch as King did not file the petition for reconsideration within the time limit prescribed by law, the petition is dismissed. 9
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
6. The petition for reconsideration of Order No. 14373 is DISMISSED as untimely.
A TRUE COPY:
CHIEF CLERK:
BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION:
/s/ D Wideman
DOROTHY WIDEMAN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
. Upon review of the record and pleadings filed, we also conclude, on the merits of the *141 case, that the adverse order to petitioner was not unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. See D.C.Code § 34-606.
. CC 9074993, In the Matter of Jacqueline M. King v. Potomac Electric Power Company ("CC 9074993”), Motion for Reconsideration of Order No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
963 A.2d 140, 2008 D.C. App. LEXIS 497, 2008 WL 5413178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-public-service-commission-dc-2008.