Spectrum Arena Ltd. Partnership v. Commonwealth

921 A.2d 585, 2007 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 175
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 18, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 921 A.2d 585 (Spectrum Arena Ltd. Partnership v. Commonwealth) 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
Spectrum Arena Ltd. Partnership v. Commonwealth, 921 A.2d 585, 2007 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 175 (Pa. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

OPINION BY

Judge PELLEGRINI.

Spectrum Arena Limited Partnership (Taxpayer) appeals from an order of the Board of Finance and Revenue (Board) sustaining a decision of the Board of Appeals denying its refund petition for sales tax paid on distribution, transmission and transition charges associated with its purchase of electricity.

I.

A.

For the period of April 11, 2000 through April 11, 2003 (Refund Period), Taxpayer owned and operated the Wachovia Center Complex in Philadelphia, a facility featuring sporting events and concerts. Through its operation of the Wachovia Center Complex, Taxpayer used a large amount of electricity to heat, cool, amplify and light the facility which was generated by Exelon Energy (Exelon) until May 29, 2001, when PECO Energy Company (PECO) became the sole provider of electricity to Taxpayer. 1 In dispute is the sales tax Taxpayer paid on delivery services and related costs associated with its consumption of electricity during the Refund Period.

Historically, electric utilities sold electricity to its consumers bundled as part of one transaction that included generation (creating electricity) and delivery of that electricity to the customer’s place of service. Delivery included transmission (moving electricity from the generating sources to other areas of a utility’s service area), and distribution (delivering electricity to the consumer). Indianapolis Power & Light Company v. Public Utility Commission, 711 A.2d 1071 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998). The entire cost of generation and delivery was subject to sales tax.

In 1996, the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act (Competition Act) 2 was enacted to encourage a competitive wholesale electric market and to provide cost savings to consumers. Lloyd v. Public Utility Commission, 904 A.2d 1010 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006). It allowed customers to purchase electricity from any supplier thereby creating competition in the area of generation while maintaining transmission and distribution as services which one utility could hold a natural monopoly on subject to the supervision of the Public Utility Commission (Commission). Section 2802(16) of the Competition Act, 66 Pa.C.S. § 2802(16). While customers would have to use the public utility to deliver electricity, they were free to purchase electricity from any supplier.

Although they were free to purchase from any supplier, customers still had to pay “stranded costs” that the public utility had incurred as part of its obligations to serve a territory but could not be recovered by the utility in a competitive market. “Stranded costs” were “the difference between the amount of revenue that could have been recovered in a regulated market and those recoverable under the new deregulated Competition Act.” Lloyd, 904 A.2d at 1014. To recover stranded costs, Section 2808(a) of the Competition Act, 66 *587 Pa.C.S. § 2808(a), imposed on every customer using the transmission or distribution network to pay competitive transition charges (CTCs) to the electric distribution company in whose certificated territory that customer was located.

Even though a customer was allowed to purchase electricity from any supplier under the Competition Act, the regulated public utility providing distribution services was not totally separated from that transaction because it was required to provide that electricity to the customer if the supplier was unable to do so. Section 2807(e)(3) of the Competition Act provided that “[i]f a customer contracts for electric energy and it is not delivered or if a customer does not choose an alternative electric generation supplier, the electric distribution company or commission-approved alternative supplier shall acquire electric energy at prevailing market prices to serve that customer and shall recover fully all reasonable costs.” 66 Pa.C.S. § 2807(e)(3).

B.

The Competition Act also changed several aspects of the Tax Reform Code of 1971 (Code). 3 First, it modified the Utilities Gross Receipts Tax (UGRT) base by expanding the definition of “sales of electric energy” found in Section 1101(b) of the Code, 72 P.S. § 8101(b), which only contemplated the charge for generation, not transmission, distribution, CTCs, and intangible transition charges (ITCs). The expanded definition of “sales of electric energy” included:

[r]etail sales of electric generation, transmission, distribution or supply of electric energy, dispatching services, customer services, competitive transition charges, intangible transition charges and universal service and energy conservation charges and such other retail sales in this Commonwealth.

66 Pa.C.S. § 2810(j). Electricity for nonresidential use was still considered to be tangible personal property pursuant to Section 201(m) of the Code, 72 P.S. § 7201(m), and sales tax was imposed upon its sale at retail at a rate of six percent of the purchase price. 72 P.S. § 7202(a). However, unlike the definition for the UGRT, the definition of “sale at retail” used to calculate the sales tax was not changed. 72 P.S. § 7201(k)(l).

To ensure that deregulation of electric utilities did not adversely affect the Commonwealth’s tax revenues, Section 2810(a) of the Competition Act adopted the revenue-neutral reconciliation (RNR) formula to recoup losses that would result from the restructuring of the electric industry. 66 Pa.C.S. § 2810(a). 4 The RNR formula operates according to an annual comparison of the total amount of taxes collected in five separate tax types from electric utilities in the base fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1995, and ending on June 30, 1996, to the total amount of taxes collected from *588 the five categories by utilities in the years after deregulation. 5 In the formula’s application, when the amount of taxes collected in a year following deregulation falls short of that amount collected in the base fiscal year, the formula compensates for the loss by increasing the UGRT rate in the following year. Conversely, if taxes collected in subsequent years exceed the amount of the base fiscal year, the UGRT rate is reduced. With the RNR formula, the Commonwealth is able to maintain the same level of revenue it gathered prior to the passage of the Competition Act.

II.

PECO, the public utility who delivered the electricity purchased by Taxpayer from Exelon, billed Taxpayer for the following charges: 1) electricity (generation); 2) transmission services; 3) distribution services; 4) CTCs; and 5) ITCs. 6 Because PECO was the collector of the sales tax, the bill included state and local sales tax for each of these separate charges.

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

Related

Penn Renewables, LLC v. PA PUC
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2026
American Electric Power Service Corporation v. Commonwealth of PA
160 A.3d 950 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)
Spectrum Arena Ltd. Partnership v. Commonwealth
983 A.2d 641 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)
Spectrum Arena Ltd. Partnership v. Commonwealth
951 A.2d 1226 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
921 A.2d 585, 2007 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spectrum-arena-ltd-partnership-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-2007.