Somerset Rural Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

696 A.2d 251, 1997 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 257, 1997 WL 295676
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 5, 1997
DocketNo. 1854 C.D. 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 696 A.2d 251 (Somerset Rural Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Somerset Rural Electric Cooperative Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 696 A.2d 251, 1997 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 257, 1997 WL 295676 (Pa. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

FRIEDMAN, Judge.

Somerset Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Somerset) and the Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association (Association) appeal from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) granting the Exceptions filed by the Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec) and reversing the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The effect of the PUC’s order is to permit Penelec to continue providing electric service to Custom Coals International (Custom Coals) under section 7355(d) of the Unincorporated Area Certified Territory Act of 1990 (Territory Act).1

[253]*253On March 23, 1994, Somerset and the Association jointly filed a formal complaint against Penelec alleging that, under sections 7354(b) and 7355(b) of the Territory Act,2 Somerset is the lawful retail electric supplier to Custom Coals because Custom Coals is a new electric-consuming facility and Somerset is the closest retail electric supplier. Thus, the PUC should direct Penelec to cease rendering electric service to Custom Coals. Pe-nelec filed an answer with new matter claiming that Penelec is the lawful retail electric supplier under section 7355(d) of the Territory Law because, since 1973, Penelec has been continuously supplying retail electric service to the site where Custom Coals is located. The case was assigned to an ALJ, who held extensive hearings on the matter.3

Based on the evidence presented, the ALJ made findings of fact and concluded that Somerset was the lawful retail electric supplier to Custom Coals. Thus, the ALJ sustained the complaint. Penelec filed Exceptions to the ALJ’s decision, and Somerset, together with the Association, filed Reply Exceptions.

In reviewing the ALJ’s decision, the PUC noted an apparent contradiction in the ALJ’s decision. While the ALJ found that Custom Coals is building, or is planning to build, various “new electric-consuming facilities” at its location,4 the ALJ concluded that the Custom Coals complex constitutes a single “electric-consuming facility.” (ALJ’s Conclusion of Law, No. 5.) Agreeing that the Custom Coals complex constitutes a single “electric-consuming facility,” the PUC decided that Penelec is the lawful retail electric supplier under section 7355(d) of the Territory Act because Penelec has continuously provided electric service to the site since 1973 through an existing substation that will continue to be used to supply electric service to the Custom Coals’ complex. Thus, the PUC granted Penelec’s Exceptions and reversed the ALJ’s decision.

On appeal to this court,5 Somerset and the Association contend that the PUC [254]*254should have concluded that the Custom Coals complex is a “new electric-consuming facility” under section 7355(b) of the Territory Act. We agree.

Section 7352 of the Territory Act, 15 Pa.C.S. § 7352 (emphasis added), defines an “electric-consuming facility” as “everything that utilizes electric energy from a central station source.” Given this broad statutory definition,6 one could argue that each of the separate structures to be built by Custom Coals in its business complex is a new “electric-consuming facility.”7 However, under the same definition, the various pre-existing structures are also “electric-consuming facilities.” Moreover, the Custom Coals business complex, taken as an interdependent whole, (ALJ’s Finding of Fact, No. 21), is also an “electric-consuming facility.”

Like the PUC and the ALJ, we believe that the best approach here is to treat the entire Custom Coals business complex as a single “electric-consuming facility.” Otherwise, integrated industrial sites, like the one here, could have multiple retail electric service suppliers providing retail electric service. This would defeat the purposes of the Territory Act, which are:

to encourage the orderly development of retail electric service in unincorporated áreas, [2] to avoid wasteful duplication of distribution facilities, [3] to avoid unnecessary encumbering of the landscape of the Commonwealth, [4] to prevent the waste of materials and natural resources, [5] to minimize inconvenience, diminished efficiency and higher costs in serving the consumer and otherwise for the public inconvenience and necessity....

15 Pa.C.S. § 7353.

Having made this determination, we must next examine whether the single interdependent Custom Coals complex is a new “electric-consuming facility” governed by section 7355(b) of the Territory Act. Here, the PUC adopted the ALJ’s finding that Custom Coals' is constructing a “new coal cleaning/blending plant and related structures” on land which includes “the former Laurel Mine site.”8 (ALJ’s Finding of Fact, No. 4.) (Emphasis added.) Based on that finding, the [255]*255PUC could not logically conclude that section 7355(d) of the Territory Act applies here. Because the PUC found that the planned Custom Coals facility is “new” and, thus, different from the “former” electric-consuming facility, we conclude, like the ALJ, that section 7355(b) of the Territory Act controls.

Under Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 81 Pa.Cmwlth. 466, 473 A.2d 1134 (1984), the lawful retail electric supplier to a new electric-consuming facility is the one whose distribution line is closer to the center of the complex. Here, Somerset’s nearest existing distribution line is in closer proximity to the center of the Custom Coals complex than is the nearest existing distribution line of Penelec. (ALJ’s Conclusion of Law, No. 7; R.R. at 91a.) Therefore, pursuant to section 7355(b) of the Territory Act, Somerset is the lawful retail electric supplier for the Custom Coals complex.9

Accordingly, we reverse.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 1997, the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, dated June 10, 1996, is reversed.

LEADBETTER, J., did not participate in the decision in this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Heller v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
713 A.2d 694 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
696 A.2d 251, 1997 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 257, 1997 WL 295676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/somerset-rural-electric-cooperative-inc-v-pennsylvania-public-utility-pacommwct-1997.