The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission will now decide whether migration riders will be permitted for electricity customers, at the same time it is moving forward with its Retail Markets Investigation and its notable efforts to make the electricity markets more competitive.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) recently extended the Fuel Cost Recovery Surcharge for household goods carriers for an additional year, until April 18, 2013, to enable carriers to continue to recover increased diesel fuel costs.

Does a natural gas company that is not currently authorized to provide service in a  territory, but with  future plans to file for such authorization,  have standing to contest another gas company’s application to provide service in that same territory?  This issue was addressed in an Initial Decision by ALJ David A. Salapa, who answered it in the negative.  Application of Leatherstocking Gas Co., L.L.C. for Approval To Supply Natural Gas Service to the Public, A-2011-2275595 (Initial Decision, issued March 20, 2012).

Shell Oil Co. chooses Pennsylvania as home for its new natural gas processing facility.

The PUC yesterday took a big first step toward creating an electricity market where most customers are served by competitive suppliers, and not by utilities, and unanimously voted to adopt recommendations for the next round of default service plans that will be filed by Pennsylvania’s electric utilities.

Two electric distribution companies, First Energy and PECO Energy Company, have filed their default service plans for service that will begin in 2013 – before the PUC has issued final guidance on what those plans should include.

Pennsylvania’s electric utilities need consider potential adverse environmental impacts only for the route proposed and the considered alternate routes when siting high voltage transmission lines, and need not consider the environmental impact of other potential engineering solutions considered to address the underlying reliability issue, said a majority of the Commonwealth Court in affirming the PUC’s approval of PPL’s Lehigh Valley Region transmission upgrade.  Board of Supervisors of Springfield Township v. Pa.PUC, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (No. 1624 C.D. 2009, filed January 13, 2012).

Utility customers who challenge billing practices under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) must bring their challenge first to the Public Utility Commission (PUC), but may pursue their claim in civil court under the UTPCPL if the PUC concludes that the utility violated its tariff, the Commonwealth Court has ruled.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission held a workshop on Wednesday, January 4, 2012, to present a summary of Pennsylvania’s new Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipelines Act (“Act 127”) and to solicit comments and suggestions from industry members and other interested parties about details of the implementation of the Act’s provisions.  The PUC indicated that it will schedule another meeting between its staff and industry representatives in early-mid February to obtain further comments and input as it finalizes its plans for the implementation of the Act.

On December 15, 2011 the PUC issued two orders designed to make Pennsylvania’s retail electricity market fully competitive. Both orders are a product of the PUC’s ongoing Investigation of Pennsylvania’s Retail Electricity Market (“RMI”), Docket No. I-2011-2237952. The first order (“RMI Final Order”) addresses the desired features of soon-to-be-filed electric utility default service plans and programs that will be implemented as part of those plans. The second order (“RMI Work Plan Order”) provides granular detail on specific components, including consumer education, accelerating of switching time frames, customer referral programs, and retail opt-in auctions.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) granted Laser Northeast Gathering Co.’s (“Laser”) petition to withdrawal its application to become a public utility.

By a 3-2 vote adopting  a motion by PUC Vice Chairman John F. Coleman Jr., the PUC approved Laser’s petition to withdraw its application and denied the request of certain parties to rescind its prior Orders in the case. PUC Commissioner Pamela A. Witmer and Commissioner James H. Cawley dissented not as to granting withdrawal but as to the issue of whether the prior Orders should be rescinded.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) recently announced the Agenda for their November 10, 2011, en banc hearing, which is part of the PUC’s ongoing investigation into Pennsylvania’s competitive retail electricity markets.

Following a presentation of consumer survey results, the en banc hearing will be divided into five panels addressing issues such as consumer survey results; a statewide consumer-education campaign; accelerated switching timeframes; customer referral programs; retail opt-in auction; and default service plans beyond June 2013.  The panels include a mix of consumer advocates as well as utility and supplier representatives.

The hearing is to be held:
12:30 p.m. Nov. 10, 2011
Hearing Room 1
Commonwealth Keystone Building
400 North St., Harrisburg, PA

The hearing is designed to provide insight on key issues that the PUC plans to address either before or as part of the intermediate work plan to promote competition.  The PUC has selected panel participants representing a diverse set of perspectives.  Panel participants will make a short presentation then the Commissioners will conduct a question and answer session of each panel.

Interested parties are welcome to submit written comments after the en banc hearing no later than Nov. 23, 2011. Comments along with any questions about the hearing should be directed to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . The comments will be considered as part of the process to develop an intermediate work plan.

The first product of the PUC’s Retail Markets Investigation is expected in the form of a Tentative Order to be voted on at the PUC’s October 13, 2011 Public Meeting, and will address the Electric Distribution Company (“EDC”) Default Service Plans for June 1, 2013 and beyond.

The FCC has been considering comprehensive intercarrier compensation reform for more than a decade, and on more than one occasion has appeared to be on the brink of issuing a major decision.  Now, once again, there are signs that the FCC may finally take action in this complex area which presents some of the most intractable issues in telecommunications.  This post will provide some background on this issue and focus on one of the more controversial aspects of the debate – possible preemption by the FCC of what have traditionally been intrastate ratemaking decisions.

The Ethanol Blenders’ tax credit, which has existed for decades, is in serious jeopardy of being repealed or at a minimum non-renewed.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission recently proposed revisions to the policy statement, at 52 Pa. Code §41.11, that defines the scope of the exemption, from Commission regulation, for the provision of transportation service to injured or ill persons for medical treatment.

The proposed revisions, which were published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and issued for public comment on June 11, 2011, are intended to eliminate confusion about the application of the policy to non-emergency transportation of injured or ill persons.

On July 28th, 2011, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission entered an Order intended to provide guidance to the PUC Staff and interested stakeholders regarding issues to be addressed in Phase II of the PUC’s Investigation into the competitiveness of Pennsylvania’s retail electric market.  The Phase II process will involve a series of technical conferences to be chaired by the PUC’s Office of Competitive Market Oversight (OCMO) as well as additional en banc hearings.

The PUC recently issued a Tentative Order seeking comment on a number of issues involved in the implementation of the deployment of smart meter technology throughout the Commonwealth and the data transactions required to support that implementation. Smart Meter Procurement and Installation, Docket No. M-2009-2092655 (Tentative Order entered June 30, 2011).

In January 2009, PPL Electric Utilities Corp. (“PPL”) sought Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) approval to construct a 500kV Pennsylvania-New Jersey transmission line, part of which, subject to the issuance of appropriate permits, will run through the National Park system in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains.  The project involves modernization of an existing 230kV transmission line and the exercise of eminent domain over five parcels of land.  A PUC Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended decision granting PPL’s application on the condition that PPL not begin construction on the 230kV line prior to obtaining all approvals necessary for construction.  The PUC's final opinion and order adopted the ALJ’s recommended decision but also required that PPL inform the PUC whether it intended to defer its construction schedule and refrain from constructing a certain portion of the 230kV line until obtaining a National Park Service permit.  On reconsideration, the PUC clarified that PPL could begin construction on any other part of either line that was not subject to the National Park Service permit because to hold otherwise “would result in a significant, unacceptable delay in light of the demonstrated need for the line.”

Last week, the en banc Commonwealth Court  upheld in Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, No. 532 C.D. 2010 (Jun. 14, 2011), the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s (“Commission”) decision in two consolidated cases in which the Commission held that “marginal transmission losses” or “line losses” are generation-related costs and are not recoverable from ratepayers under the Companies’ Transmission Service Charge Riders.  In a surprising upset for the Commission, however, the court remanded the case in-part for further consideration on whether Companies should be permitted to collect carrying charges.