On March 31, 2021, the Public Service Commission of Maryland (Commission) issued Order No. 89795 which proposed to drastically re-write the Maryland Telephone Solicitations Act (MTSA) and, if permitted to stand, may fundamentally change the way business is conducted in the state. In Order 89795, the Commission was resolving a complaint filed by Commission staff against SmartEnergy, a Maryland retail energy supplier. The complaint alleged that SmartEnergy engaged in false and misleading advertising in connection with a mailing solicitation campaign that resulted in consumers calling SmartEnergy to sign up for the service advertised in the mailed postcards, and then subsequently becoming disgruntled with the service or the terms. Ultimately, the Commission found SmartEnergy had violated the MTSA and imposed penalties and sanctions, but Order 89795’s re-writing of the MTSA has much broader implications than just the issues and interests alleged in the complaint.

The mechanic’s lien (“lien”) is a statutory mechanism that enables contractors, and sometimes subcontractors (“claimants”), who are providing services or supplies to improve a property to place a lien on that property to secure payment for their work. This is a powerful tool common to construction contractors and subcontractors, but likely is a foreign concept to most other people. The basic purpose of the lien is to provide contractors with security for the services or materials they provide – the mechanic’s lien can only be used to secure services or materials actually provided, it is not intended to be a shortcut to sue for a breach of contract or any other civil matter. But, consequences of the lien can be severe, including a sale of the property to pay off the lien. But fear not, the mere filing of a lien does not permit a claimant to sell your property as the lien must be reduced to a judgment which occurs only once a lawsuit is filed and only if the court finds for the claimant.

            In Sunrise Energy v. FirstEnergy Corp. and West Penn Power Company,[1] the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, in a 5-2 decision, that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission does not have primary, let alone exclusive, authority to adjudicate claims arising under the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act[2] (“AEPS”) because the General Assembly failed to delegate such authority to the Commission.

            On June 30, 2016, at its most recent public meeting, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission”) set a precedent important to Pennsylvania Uber (operating in Pennsylvania under its subsidiary Raiser-PA) and Lyft users alike by granting Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh, Inc. (“Yellow Cab”), a temporary extension of one year of operating authority to provide Transportation Network Service (“TNC”) in Pennsylvania.[1] Although Yellow Cab may no longer be a household name like Uber and Lyft, the service that it provides is identical. In fact, Yellow Cab was the first Transportation Network Service (“TNC”) or app-based transportation provider that was granted temporary authority to operate in Pennsylvania.[2] But under the Commission’s regulations, TNC authority is considered “experimental” and therefore is temporary and only valid for two years.[3] Yellow Cab was granted authority to operate beginning in July 2014 and without the Commission’s June 30^th Order, it would have been required to cease operating on July 1, 2016.