IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MARIA POVACZ,

Respondent

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 619 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

LAURA SUNSTEIN MURPHY,

Respondent

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 620 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

CYNTHIA RANDALL AND PAUL ALBRECHT,

Respondents

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 621 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

MARIA POVACZ :

: No. 622 MAL 2020[ 619 - 62 4 MAL 2020 and 6 63 -668 MAL 2020] - 2 v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY

COMMISSION

PETITION OF: PECO ENERGY

COMPANY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

LAURA SUNSTEIN MURPHY

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY

COMMISSION

PETITION OF: PECO ENERGY

COMPANY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 623 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

CYNTHIA RANDALL AND PAUL

ALBRECHT

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY

COMMISSION

PETITION OF: PECO ENERGY COMPANY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 624 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

MARIA POVACZ

Cross Petitioner

v. :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 663 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court[ 619 - 62 4 MAL 2020 and 6 63 - 668 MAL 2020] - 3

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

LAURA SUNSTEIN MURPHY

Cross Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 664 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

CYNTHIA RANDALL AND PAUL

ALBRECHT

Cross Petitioners

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 665 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

MARIA POVACZ

Cross Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, PECO ENERGY COMPANY, :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 666 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court[ 619 - 624 MAL 2020 and 6 63 - 668 MAL 2020] - 4 Respondents :

:

LAURA SUNSTEIN MURPHY

Cross Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,

PETITION OF: PECO ENERGY COMPANY,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 667 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

CYNTHIA RANDALL AND PAUL

ALBRECHT

Cross Petitioners

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,

PETITION OF: PECO ENERGY COMPANY,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 668 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court[ 619 - 624 MAL 2020 and 6 63 - 668 MAL 2020] - 5 ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of May , 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal at

619

- 621 MAL 2020 is GRANTED

, LIMITED TO issues a., c., and, d. The issues, as

stated by Petitioner are:

(1) Did the Commonwealth Court commit an error of law by concluding that the statute

does not mandate univ ersal deployment of smart meters, which is contrary to the plain and unambiguous statutory language of Section 2807(f)(2) of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 2807(f)(2)?

(2) On a question of first impression involving Act 129’s smart meter de ployment mandate, did the Commonwealth Court abuse its discretion by interpreting the Public Utility Code in a manner that violated the rules of statutory construction and disregarded the legislative intent of the General Assembly?

(3) Did the Commonwealth Cou rt commit an error of law by articulating a burden of proof under Section 1501 of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1501, that could result in a utility being found in violation of the Code without

evidence of harm?

The Petition for Allowa nce of Appeal at 622

- 624 MAL 2020 is GRANTED

,

LIMITED TO issue a. The issue, as stated by Petitioner is:

(1) Did the Court err when it concluded that Act 129 allows individual Consumers to reject or “opt

- out” of smart meter technology, on the grounds that A ct 129 requires that “Electric distribution companies shall furnish smart meter technology,” Webster's Dictionary defines “furnish” as meaning “to provide with what is needed; . . . supply, give,” and that this definition of “furnish” does not imply that t he recipient is forced to accept that which is offered?

The Petition for Allowance of Appeal at 663

- 665 MAL 2020 and 666

- 668 MAL

2020 is GRANTED

, LIMITED TO issue b. The issue, as stated by Petitioners is:[ 619 - 624 MAL 2020 and 6 63 - 668 MAL 2020] - 6

(1) Did the lower court err as a matter of law by upholding the PUC’s interpretation of Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code as requiring as to issues of safety proof of a “conclusive causal connection” between RF exposure from smart meters and harm to Petitioners, when this heavy and unprecedented bur den is not compelled by the language of the statute, where the statutory and dictionary definition of the word “safe” includes protection from the possibility of harm, not just the conclusively proven certainty of harm, and where imposition of this burden would render it impossible for Petitioners to prove their cases?

Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues.

The Energy Association of Pennsylvania’s application for leave to file amicus brief

in support of the petitions for allowance of appeal at 6 19

- 621 MAL 2020 and 622

- 624

MAL 2020 is GRANTED

.