Sabree, N. v. PUC of: Darryl A. Lawrence, Consumer Advocate (Granted)

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

NAZAARAH SABREE, SMALL BUSINESS : No. 722 MAL 2025 ADVOCATE :

: : Petition for Allowance of Appeal v. : from the Order of the : Commonwealth Court :

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY : COMMISSION :

: :

PETITION OF: AQUA PENNSYLVANIA, INC. : AND AQUA PENNSYLVANIA : WASTEWATER, INC. :

NAZAARAH SABREE, SMALL BUSINESS : No. 723 MAL 2025 ADVOCATE :

: : Petition for Allowance of Appeal v. : from the Order of the : Commonwealth Court :

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY : COMMISSION :

: :

PETITION OF: PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC : UTILITY COMMISSION :

NAZAARAH SABREE, SMALL BUSINESS : No. 724 MAL 2025 ADVOCATE :

: : Petition for Allowance of Appeal v. : from the Order of the : Commonwealth Court :

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY : COMMISSION :

: :

PETITION OF: DARRYL A. LAWRENCE, : CONSUMER ADVOCATE :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2026, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED at 722 MAL 2025 and 723 MAL 2025. The Petition for Allowance of Appeal at

724 MAL 2025 is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED

as to the remaining issue. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether, in a case of first impression and statewide importance, the Commonwealth Court erred as a matter of law in holding that the [PUC]’s ratemaking treatment of a wastewater cost subsidy as an indirect cost of providing water service violated or misapplied Section 1311(c), violated the cost causation principle of Lloyd[ v. PUC, 904 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006)], and violated other established ratemaking principles, where the Commission correctly applied Section 1311(c), Lloyd, and established ratemaking principles?

[722 MAL 2025, 723 MAL 2025 and 724 MAL 2025] - 2