Court Opinion

ID: 9947917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 21:10:53.408957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:46.928720
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                               MIDDLE DISTRICT

INTERSTATE GAS SUPPLY, INC. D/B/A                 :   No. 292 MAL 2023
IGS ENERGY, NRG ENERGY, INC. AND                  :
SHIPLEY CHOICE LLC D/B/A SHIPLEY                  :
ENERGY,                                           :   Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                                  :   from the Order of the
                     Petitioners                  :   Commonwealth Court
                                                  :
                                                  :
              v.                                  :
                                                  :
                                                  :
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION,                        :
                                                  :
                     Respondent                   :

                                          ORDER

PER CURIAM

      AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioners, is:

      Contrary to the plain language and intent of . . . Section 1502 [of the Public
      Utility Code], 66 Pa. C.S. § 1502—which prohibits a public utility from
      granting any advantage to any person or corporation, or subjecting any
      person or corporation to a disadvantage—and Section 2804(6) [of the
      Competition Act], 66 Pa. C.S. § 2804(6)—which requires monopoly
      [e]lectric [d]istribution [c]ompanies like [Metropolitan Edison Company,
      Pennsylvania Electric Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, and West
      Penn Power Company] (“EDCs”) to provide distribution service to [e]lectric
      [g]eneration [s]uppliers (“EGSs”) like [P]etitioners on “rates, terms of access
      and conditions that are comparable to the utility’s own use of its system”—
      did the Commonwealth Court err as a matter of law by upholding the [Public
      Utility Commission’s (PUC)] interpretation of those sections to allow [the
      EDCs] to include charges for its own “side” products and services on its
      utility bills but exclude charges for the same or similar products offered by
      [P]etitioners, where the PUC long ago held billing to be a part of public utility
      distribution service?
      Petitioners’ Application for Leave to File Reply in Support of Petition for Allowance

of Appeal is DENIED.

                                  [292 MAL 2023] - 2