On October 29, 2026, a divided Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) issued an important decision affecting regulated utilities, municipal authorities, and real estate developers that addresses where municipal authorities may provide utility service and who regulates that service. In Conyngham Township v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission,1 (Conyngham), the Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court) and held that municipal authorities created under Pennsylvania’s Municipality Authorities Act (MAA) generally are not regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), even when they provide utility service outside the municipalities that created them. The Supreme Court further held that an MAA authority does not need to obtain a PUC Certificate of public convenience (PUC Certificate) merely because it extends utility service beyond the boundaries of its incorporating municipality.2
Briefly, the dispute initially arose after the Sanitary Sewer Authority of the Borough of Shickshinny (Authority) began directly providing and billing for wastewater treatment service to customers in neighboring Conyngham Township (Township). The Township argued that the Authority could not provide service outside the borough without first obtaining a PUC Certificate under Section 1102(a)(5) of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Code. However, under prevailing case law, the PUC does not regulate municipal authorities, even when those authorities serve customers beyond the boundaries of the municipality that created them. The “courts of common pleas have exclusive jurisdiction concerning the utility services of municipal authorities beyond, as well as within, the limits of the municipality which created the authorities.”3
The administrative law judge (ALJ) initially found in favor of the Township, but the PUC disagreed with the ALJ’s jurisdictional finding. The PUC therefore dismissed the complaint, ultimately denied the Township’s petition for reconsideration, and concluded that Section § 5607(d)(9) applied such that the PUC lacked jurisdiction over the Authority.4 The PUC reasoned that the MAA places jurisdiction over questions involving a municipal authority’s rates or service in the courts of common pleas, rather than the PUC. Accordingly, it rejected the Township’s effort to require the Authority to obtain a PUC Certificate.5
The Township appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which vacated the PUC’s order and remanded on October 4, 2024.6 The PUC then appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the Commonwealth Court on October 29, 2026.
The Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and largely agreed with the PUC’s jurisdictional analysis. The Supreme Court held that an MAA authority is not subject to PUC regulation merely because it provides utility service outside the boundaries of the municipality that incorporated it.7
The Supreme Court further concluded that a dispute regarding an authority’s service area is a question involving its “service” under § 5607(d)(9) of the MAA, placing the matter outside the PUC’s jurisdiction and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas.8 It therefore rejected the premise that the incorporating municipality’s borders define the authority’s permissible service territory and held that the Authority was not required to obtain a PUC Certificate merely to serve customers outside Shickshinny Borough.9 Justice Brobson dissented, joined by Justice Wecht, and concluded that the PSC has jurisdiction to hear the Township’s complaint and interpret whether the Public Utility Code required the Authority to obtain a PUC Certificate. Therefore, Justices Brobson and Wecht would have upheld the Commonwealth Court’s remand so that the PUC could decide whether Section 1102(a)(5) of the Public Utility Code required the Authority to obtain a PUC Certificate.10
Following the Conyngham decision, challenges involving the rates or services of an MAA authority are affirmed to generally belong in the courts of common pleas rather than before the PUC. Accordingly, parties seeking to challenge an MAA authority’s provision of service, including service outside its incorporating municipality, generally must pursue their remedies under the MAA rather than through a complaint before the PUC. The Conyngham decision therefore continues to limit the circumstances in which the Public Utility Code may be invoked to regulate an MAA authority’s service activities.
Cozen O’Connor Can Help
Cozen O’Connor’s Utility & Energy Group advises utilities, developers, investors, and large commercial and industrial customers on utility service, data center and other infrastructure development, site diligence, regulatory approvals, transactions, and related regulatory matters in many states, including the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest.
1 Conyngham Township v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 34 MAP 2025, slip op. at 1-2 (Pa. Oct. 29, 2026).
2 Conyngham,at 29-30.
3 Borough of Sewickley Water Authority, 118 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 246, 544 A.2d at 1124 (quoting Graver v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 79 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 528, 531-32, 469 A.2d 1154, 1156 (1984)).
4 Conyngham Township v. Sanitary Sewer Authority of the Borough of Shickshinny, Docket No. C-2021-3023624, at 10 (Pa. P.U.C. Nov. 1, 2023).
5 Id. at 9-10.
6 Conyngham Township v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 321 A.3d 1130 (Pa. Cwlth. 2024).
7 Conyngham, at 29-30.
8 Conyngham, at 29-30.
9 Id. at 30.
10 Conyngham, slip op. at 5-6 (Brobson, J., dissenting).