The opinion
DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge COHN JUBELIRER.
Because I would conclude that The Pennsylvania State University (PSU) did not receive adequate notice that the 2004 Petition’s rate cap extension would not apply to all of PSU’s Tariff accounts, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the majority’s opinion. In Part V, the majority concludes that the customer bill inserts sent by Allegheny Power and the publication of the 2004 Petition in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on September 25, 2004, provided PSU with adequate notice of the “Petition case and that its Tariff 37 rights could be impacted.” The Pennsylvania State University v. Public Utility Commission, 988 A.2d 771, 783 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010).
Adequate notice of a proceeding is required by the constitutional mandate for due process under both the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Wilkes v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company, 851 A.2d 204, 210 (Pa.Super.2004), rev’d on other grounds, 587 Pa. 590 , 902 A.2d 366 (2006). Our Supreme Court has stated that “[n]otice is the most basic requirement of due process.” Pennsylvania Coal Mining Association v. Insurance Department of Pennsylvania, 471 Pa. 437, 452 , 370 A.2d 685, 692 (1977). To satisfy due process, notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them *784 an opportunity to present their objections.” Wilkes, 851 A.2d at 211 (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)). “Although the notice need not be entirely comprehensive, the notice must not be misleading or materially incomplete.” Wilkes, 851 A.2d at 211 . “The notice must contain an adequate description of the proceedings written in objective, neutral terms” and “must ‘contain information that a reasonable person would consider to be material in making an informed, intelligent decision.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Nissan Motor Corporation Antitrust Litigation v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., 552 F.2d 1088, 1104 (5th Cir. 1977)).
Contrary to the majority’s holding, I would conclude that the customer bill inserts did not provide notice that was reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise PSU that its Tariff 37 rates would be excluded from the rate cap extension. Allegheny Power included this bill insert in its September and October 2004 electricity bills notifying its customers, in relevant part, that:
Generation rate protection through generation rate caps, which was to end in 2008, will be extended for two years until the end of 2010 to all customers. The generation rate caps for all customers increases each year between 2006 and 2010 to specified levels.
(Allegheny Power Customer Bill Insert, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 286a (emphasis added).) Although the notice was technically accurate that it applied to all customers even if the Tariff 37 rates were excluded (because PSU has Tariff 39 accounts), I would conclude that the bill inserts were misleading as to what rates would be subject to the rate cape extension. Like the Tariff 39 accounts, PSU’s Tariff 37 account was subject to “[generation rate protection through generation rate caps, which was to end in 2008.” (Allegheny Power Customer Bill Insert, R.R. at 286a.) This notice does not differentiate between rates or tariffs and expressly states that the generation rate protection that would have ended in 2008, like the rate cap on PSU’s Tariff 37 account, was being extended for two years for all customers. Given this very broad language, I would conclude there was no reason for PSU to inquire further into whether the rate caps on its Tariff 37 account, which were to expire in 2008, were included in the rate cap extension that applied to those generation rate caps ending in 2008.
Furthermore, I disagree with the majority that the text of the 2004 Petition, published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on September 25, 2004, 34 Pa. B. 5326, provided adequate notice that PSU’s Tariff 37 account was excluded from the 2004 Petition rate cap extension. The text of the 2004 Petition offers no indication as to which tariffs would be affected; rather, the 2004 Petition broadly states: “The period of the generation rate cap shall be extended from the end of 2008 through 2009 and 2010.” 34 Pa. B. at 5326. As noted above, PSU’s Tariff 37 rate cap, like the Tariff 39 rate cap, was scheduled to end in 2008. Appendix A, which was referenced in the text of the Pennsylvania Bulletin publication of the 2004 Petition and relied upon by the majority as support for its conclusion that PSU received adequate notice, was not published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. However, a review of Appendix A reveals that, although it offers a detailed list of rate schedules, it makes no reference to which tariff accounts these rate schedules fall within.
I would, therefore, conclude that these notices do not contain an adequate description of the 2004 Petition written in objective, neutral terms that contain infor *785 mation that a reasonable person would consider to be material in making an informed and intelligent decision. Accordingly, I dissent from Part V and concur with the remainder of the majority opinion.