J. Quigley & T. Mendez-Quigley v. PA PUC

── J. Quigley & T. Mendez-Quigley v. PA PUC ── Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Date: May 15, 2026 Author: Daniel Wallace Category: General IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA James Quigley and : Teresa Mendez-Quigley, : Petitioners : : v. : No. 1180 C.D. 2024 : Submitted: February 3, 2026 Pennsylvania Public Utility : Commission, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WALLACE FILED: May 15, 2026 James Quigley (Mr. Quigley) and Teresa Mendez-Quigley (Mrs. Mendez- Quigley) (collectively, the Quigleys), who represented themselves in the proceedings below and continue to represent themselves on appeal, petition this Court for review of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s (Commission) April 25, 2024 order, which denied their exceptions, adopted the initial decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ), and dismissed their formal complaint seeking to prohibit the installation of an advanced metering infrastructure meter (AMI), or “smart meter,”1 at their residence. Additionally, the Quigleys petition for review of the Commission’s July 11, 2024 order, which denied their May 9, 2024 petition for relief. After careful review, we quash as untimely the Quigleys’ petition for review to the extent it challenges the April 25, 2024 order, and we affirm the July 11, 2024 order. BACKGROUND On August 1, 2017, the Quigleys filed a formal complaint with the Commission, objecting to the installation of a smart meter at their home by PECO Energy Company (PECO). Certified Record (C.R.) at 1a. Therein, they indicated, “despite a note from a medical doctor stating that [Mrs. Mendez-Quigley] should not be exposed to wireless transmissions, PECO and [the Commission] are still attempting to force a smart meter on us.” Id. In turn, the Quigleys requested the Commission exempt their residence from smart meter installation due to health concerns, require PECO to install an analog meter, and require PECO to refrain from threatening to shut off service. Id. On August 11, 2017, PECO filed an answer, requesting dismissal of the complaint. Id. at 20a-22a. On August 20, 2017, the Quigleys filed a response to PECO’s answer, requesting a hearing. Id. at 25a. The ALJ held a hearing on April 17-18, 2018, as originally scheduled. Id. at 27a-29a, 69a-242a, 449a-686a. The Quigleys testified on their own behalf and presented no expert witnesses. PECO presented testimony from the following witnesses: PECO Senior Supervisor Bryan Uber, Professional Engineer Glenn Pritchard, Christopher Davis, Ph.D. (Dr. Davis), and Mark Israel, M.D. (Dr. Israel). 1 A smart meter “record[s] electricity consumption on at least an hourly basis using radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy.” Hughes v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 322 A.3d 982, 987 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024), reconsideration denied (Oct. 1, 2024), appeal denied, 340 A.3d 267 (Pa. 2025) (citations omitted). 2 On December 31, 2018, the ALJ issued an initial decision denying and dismissing the formal complaint. Id. at 701a-33a. Relevant here, the ALJ held Section 2807(f)(2) of the Public Utility Code (Code)2 requires smart meter installation without the ability for customers to opt out, and the Quigleys did not meet their burden of proving installation of the smart meter constituted unsafe or unreasonable service in violation of Section 1501 of the Code.3 On January 19, 2019, the Quigleys filed exceptions, id. at 737a, and on January 30, 2019, PECO filed a reply, id. at 759a. By order entered November 4, 2020, the Commission stayed active formal complaint proceedings, including the Quigleys’, “chal