decided: August 4, 1986.
MORGAN DRIVE AWAY, INC., PETITIONER
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT
Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, in case of Application of John K. Ryan and George R. Richard, Co-partners, t/d/b/a R.V. Transport, No. A-105465.
David H. Radcliff, with him, Christian V. Graf, Graf, Knupp & Andrews, P.C., for petitioner.
H. Kirk House, Assistant Counsel, with him, Alfred N. Lowenstein, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Charles F. Hoffman, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
William A. Chestnutt, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for intervenors, John K. Ryan and George R. Richard.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judges Rogers, Craig, Doyle, Barry Colins and Palladino. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 99 Pa. Commw. Page 421]
Morgan Drive Away (Morgan) appeals a Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) order granting the application of R.V. Transport (R.V.) for a certificate of public convenience as a motor common carrier. We affirm.
The certificate authorized tow-away service to transport recreational vehicles and trailers between points in Pennsylvania. Morgan, which holds a certificate to provide transportation services, protests the granting of a certificate to R.V.
[ 99 Pa. Commw. Page 422]
Where, as here, the PUC grants a certificate of public convenience, this Court may not alter its decision absent an error of law, a violation of constitutional rights or a lack of evidence to support its findings. Yellow Page 422} Cab Co. of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 50 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 448, 412 A.2d 1385 (1980).
Morgan contends initially that the PUC erred in using revised evidentiary criteria in its decision.*fn1 It argues that R.V. should have been required to prove inadequacy in the existing service.*fn2 We disagree. We have held recently that the PUC exercised proper discretion when
[ 99 Pa. Commw. Page 423]
it formulated new evidentiary criteria and excised the inadequacy requirement from an applicant's burden of proof. Seaboard Tank Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 93 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 601, 502 A.2d 762 (1985).
Morgan additionally contends that R.V. failed to establish a public need for an additional statewide service. However, R.V. is merely required to show that a need existed within the area generally served, not at every point within the proposed territory. Purolator Courier Corp. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 51 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 377, 414 A.2d 450 (1980). A review of the record discloses that there has been an expansion in transportation and a need for back-up service. Moreover, R.V. provides a timely service, especially during the peak of the selling season, and there is an increased need for tow-away service due to factory relocation to Pennsylvania. R.V.'s certificate provides tow-away transportation service only, unlike Morgan, which provides a more general service. There is substantial evidence in this regard to establish a need for the services R.V. seeks to provide.
Finally, Morgan argues that the evidences adduced fails to support the conclusion that R.V. is providing a different service. We disagree. Our review of the record satisfies us that there is sufficient testimony to support the finding that R.V. offers a different service than does Morgan. For example, R.V. offers a personalized service which includes a thorough inspection of all units it tows and a specialized local service. The PUC's findings are supported by substantial evidence.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission order, No. A-105465 dated June 11, 1985, is affirmed.