Court Opinion

ID: 9635834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:07:36.53637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:05.663865
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Public Utility                    :    CASES CONSOLIDATED
Commission,                                    :
                  Petitioner                   :
                                               :
              v.                               :    No. 19 C.D. 2020
                                               :
Scott Blanchard and StateImpact                :
Pennsylvania,                                  :
                  Respondents                  :
                                               :
Energy Transfer,                               :
                       Petitioner              :
                                               :
              v.                               :    No. 26 C.D. 2020
                                               :
Scott Blanchard and                            :    Submitted: August 12, 2022
StateImpact Pennsylvania,                      :
                  Respondents

BEFORE:        HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
               HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
               HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH                                          FILED: August 22, 2023

               In these consolidated Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)1                   cases, the
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) and Energy Transfer (together,
Petitioners) petition for review of the December 12, 2019 Final Determination of the
Office of Open Records (OOR), which granted, in part, the appeal of Scott Blanchard
and StateImpact Pennsylvania (together, Requester) from the PUC’s partial denial of

      1
          Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S §§ 67.101-67.3104.
Requester’s RTKL request (Request). At issue in this appeal is whether, pursuant to
the recent decisions in Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Friedman, 244 A.3d
515 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) (Friedman I), aff’d, 265 A.3d 421 (Pa. 2021) (Friedman II),
the OOR erred in assuming jurisdiction over, and directing production of, responsive
records that have been designated as confidential security information (CSI) under the
Public Utility Confidential Security Information Disclosure Protection Act (CSI Act).2
Upon review, we reverse the OOR.
                    I.      FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
                  A.     The Request and Proceedings Before the OOR
               On August 21, 2019, Requester submitted the Request to the PUC, therein
seeking the following records:
               I request [Energy Transfer’s] response to the PUC’s
               [February] 16, 2018 letter asking for information on [Energy
               Transfer’s] emergency response plans in the event of a
               Mariner East pipeline failure. That letter is attached. I am
               seeking [Energy Transfer’s] full response to all eight of the
               PUC’s demands.

               In addition, I request any notification (by letter or other form
               of communication) from PUC to [Energy Transfer] regarding
               enforcement actions if [Energy Transfer] did not meet its
               March 12, 2018 deadline; or any acknowledgement (by letter
               or other form of communication) that PUC received the
               material by that deadline.
(Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 0011a.) After initially invoking an extension of time to
respond to the Request pursuant to Section 902(b) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.902(b),
the PUC granted the Request, in part, and denied it, in part. (R.R. at 0007a, 0014a-
15a.) In its response, the PUC stated that Energy Transfer responded to the PUC’s
February 16, 2018 letter on March 12, 2018. The PUC produced Energy Transfer’s

      2
          Act of November 29, 2006, P.L. 1435, 35 P.S. §§ 2141.1-2141.6.

                                                2
March 12, 2018 cover letter and further advised that, “[t]o the extent other records
responsive to [the Request] are not exempt from disclosure, they can be accessed on
the [PUC’s] website . . . .” (R.R. at 0014a.) The PUC otherwise denied the Request,
contending that the requested records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to (1) the
CSI Act,3 (2) the infrastructure security RTKL exemption, Section 708(b)(3), 65 P.S.
§ 67.708(b)(3), and (3) the noncriminal investigation RTKL exemption, Section
708(b)(17), 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(17). (R.R. at 0015a.)
                 Requester appealed the PUC’s partial denial of the Request to the OOR
on October 15, 2019, and Energy Transfer was permitted to participate in the appeal.
The PUC argued before the OOR that, because Energy Transfer had designated its
entire production as CSI, pursuant to Sections 3 and 4 of the CSI Act, 35 P.S. § 2141.3,4

       3
        With its March 12, 2018 cover letter, Energy Transfer produced to the PUC a collection of
“information[,] responses[,] and documents,” the entirety of which it designated as CSI. (R.R. at
0008a.)

       4
           Sections 3(a) through 3(c) of the CSI Act provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
                 (a) General rule.--The public utility is responsible for determining
                 whether a record or portion thereof contains [CSI]. When a public utility
                 identifies a record as containing [CSI], it must clearly state in its
                 transmittal letter, upon submission to an agency, that the record contains
                 [CSI] and explain why the information should be treated as such.

                 (b) Submission of confidential security information.--An agency
                 shall develop filing protocols and procedures for public utilities to
                 follow when submitting records, including protocols and procedures for
                 submitting records containing [CSI]. . . .

                 (c) Challenges to designation of confidential security information.--
                 Challenges to a public utility’s designation or request to examine
                 records containing [CSI] by a member of the public shall be made in
                 writing to the agency in which the record or portions thereof were
                 originally submitted. . . .
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                                    3
2141.4,5 the production was not subject to disclosure under the RTKL and was not
within the jurisdiction of the OOR. (R.R. at 0031a-38a.) The PUC also again argued
that the documents were exempt from disclosure pursuant to the infrastructure security
and noncriminal investigation exemptions of the RTKL. Id.
                In support of its position before the OOR, the PUC submitted the
affidavits of Rosemary Chiavetta and Richard Kanaskie.                       (R.R. at 0049a-50a.)
Chiavetta, who is the PUC’s secretary and records custodian, attested that the PUC’s
Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement (BIE) had commenced an investigation of
Energy Transfer’s Mariner East 1 pipeline and that the investigation was ongoing.
(R.R. at 0050a.) She further attested that all of the withheld documents had been
designated as CSI and that no challenge to that designation had been filed with the
PUC. Id. Kanaskie, the director of the BIE, also attested that the records are CSI and
otherwise exempt from disclosure under the public safety6 and infrastructure security
exemptions of the RTKL. (R.R. at 0052a-53a.)
                Energy Transfer similarly argued before the OOR that its production to
the PUC is CSI and therefore not subject to disclosure under the RTKL or the OOR’s
jurisdiction. (R.R. at 0059a-65a.) It further argued that the records were exempt from
disclosure under the infrastructure and noncriminal investigation RTKL exemptions,
and as confidential proprietary information/trade secrets.7 (R.R. at 0066a-71a.) In

35 P.S. § 2141.3(a)-(c).

       5
            Section 4 of the CSI Act provides that “[p]ublic utility records or portions thereof which
contain [CSI], in accordance with the provisions of [the CSI Act], shall not be subject to the provisions
of the . . . [RTKL].” 35 P.S. § 2141.4.

       6
           Section 708(b)(2) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(2).

       7
           Section 708(b)(11) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(11).

                                                   4
support, Energy Transfer submitted the declaration of Todd Nardozzi, Energy
Transfer’s Senior Manager of Transportation Compliance. (R.R. at 0080a-85a.) In his
declaration, Nardozzi confirmed that Energy Transfer’s production to the PUC was
designated as CSI and detailed the content of the production and the reasons why the
records were so designated. Id.
                 The OOR issued its Final Determination on December 12, 2019. It
concluded that, although the PUC established the applicability of the noncriminal
investigation RTKL exemption, pursuant to Section 3101.1 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §
67.3101.1, exemptions do not apply if they conflict with other state or federal law.
(OOR Final Determination at 7-8; R.R. at 0108a-09a.) The OOR then concluded that,
pursuant to Section 335(d) of the Public Utility Code (PU Code),8 66 Pa. C.S. § 335(d),9
records collected as part of a public utility’s noncriminal investigation are disclosable
if those records were relied upon by the PUC in making a “decision” based on the
investigation. (R.R. at 0108a-09a.) The OOR concluded that, to the extent that the
PUC has made a “decision,” any of the responsive records that formed the basis of that
decision must be produced. (R.R. at 0110a.) The OOR did not analyze the remainder
of the grounds for nondisclosure asserted by the PUC and Energy Transfer. It did note,

       8
           66 Pa. C.S. §§ 101-3316.

       9
           Section 335(d) of the PU Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
                 [W]henever the [PUC] conducts an investigation of an act or practice of
                 a public utility and makes a decision, enters into a settlement with a
                 public utility or takes any other official action, as defined in the
                 Sunshine Act[, 65 Pa. C.S. §§ 701-716], with respect to its investigation,
                 it shall make part of the public record and release publicly any
                 documents relied upon by the [PUC] in reaching its determination,
                 whether prepared by consultants or [PUC] employees, other than
                 documents protected by legal privilege[.]
66 Pa. C.S. § 335(d).

                                                    5
however, that the transmittal letter from Energy Transfer designating the records as
CSI “does not explain why the information should be treated as confidential.” (OOR
Final Determination at 7 n.2; R.R. at 0108a.) Regarding the PUC’s and Energy
Transfer’s challenge to the OOR’s jurisdiction in light of Energy Transfer’s CSI
designation, the OOR concluded that
              [the] CSI Act and the regulations specifically mandate that
              certain records are public and/or subject to the RTKL.
              Accordingly, in this adjudication, the OOR is not determining
              the propriety of a CSI designation; rather, we are analyzing
              applicability of the RTKL to the records requested, which are
              subject to the RTKL.
(OOR Final Determination at 9 n.4; R.R. at 0110a.)
              The PUC and Energy Transfer filed their petitions for review in this Court
on January 9 and 10, 2020, respectively. They argue fundamentally that the OOR erred
in exercising jurisdiction over records designated as CSI and in concluding that the
PUC must produce any records that form the basis of any “decision” it rendered after
concluding its investigations of Energy Transfer’s pipelines.
                                   B.     Friedman I and II
              Subsequent to PUC and Energy Transfer filing their petitions for review
in the instant cases, we decided Friedman I.10 In that case, the requester (Friedman)
submitted a RTKL request to the PUC for records produced to the PUC by Energy
Transfer regarding its pipeline operations. The PUC denied the request in its entirety
because the responsive records had been designated as CSI. Friedman appealed to the
OOR, which concluded that the PUC had not proven that the requested records were

       10
         We stayed these cases pending our disposition of Friedman I and the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court’s decision in Friedman II. Thereafter, we directed the parties to file supplemental briefs
addressing the impact of Friedman II. Petitioners have done so. Requester has not filed a principal
or supplemental brief in this Court, and we therefore are without the benefit of Requester’s written
arguments.

                                                 6
CSI and, accordingly, directed their disclosure. The PUC and Energy transfer appealed
to this Court, arguing, in pertinent part, that the OOR erred in finding that the records
requested were not protected from disclosure pursuant to the CSI Act. We agreed,
concluding that, under the plain language of the CSI Act, the “OOR does not administer
the CSI Act and is not directed by the statute to oversee the determination of whether
requested information qualifies as CSI.” Friedman I, 244 A.3d at 519-20. Instead, we
concluded that “the administration of the CSI Act rests with the PUC,” and the OOR
acted outside its authority by determining that the requested information was not CSI.
Id. at 520. We did not reach the issues regarding whether the requested records were
exempt under the RTKL because all the responsive records involved were designated
as CSI.
             Friedman appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which affirmed
in Friedman II. The issue considered by the Supreme Court was “whether the OOR
had any statutory authority to identify and release to the public records that a public
utility has submitted to the PUC with a designation of CSI.” 265 A.3d at 428. The
Court concluded that,
             [b]ecause the disclosure of a public utility’s CSI-records
             could present a significant risk to public safety, we conclude
             that the General Assembly intended to provide a unique
             vehicle in the CSI Act for protecting CSI from disclosure. To
             that end, it removed CSI from the domain of the OOR under
             the RTKL and placed it squarely in the hands of public
             utilities and qualified agencies under the CSI Act. In other
             words, where CSI-designated records are at issue, the General
             Assembly intended the specific provisions of the CSI Act to
             prevail over the general provisions of the RTKL.

Id. at 431. The Court further concluded as follows:
             The PUC is . . . the administrative body that oversees public
             utilities in Pennsylvania, . . . receives records from public

                                           7
utilities[,] and has developed protocols and procedures for the
filing of a CSI record, the maintenance of CSI records, and
challenges to CSI-designations and requests to examine CSI
records. 35 P.S. §§ 2141.2 & [2141].3; 52 Pa. Code §§ 102.3
& [102].4. Such challenges include claims that a public utility
failed to comply with the filing requirements of the CSI Act.
In such cases, the PUC has express authority, and the
expertise, to determine if a public utility record has been
properly designated, both substantively and procedurally, and
to afford a public utility with the opportunity to resubmit a
record that was improperly, defectively, or not designated as
CSI. 52 Pa. Code § 102.3(d)-(f). Thus, determining the
consequences of failing to comply with the CSI Act or PUC
regulations is also an express function of the PUC, not the
OOR.

Based on our interpretation of the RTKL and the CSI Act, we
conclude the General Assembly intended for the RTKL to
yield to the CSI Act in the dual areas of designating and
accessing CSI. In short, a CSI-record is not a “public record”
under the RTKL and, therefore, is not subject to disclosure
through a RTKL request. . . .

....

. . . [T]he OOR had authority to interpret the CSI Act as to the
public nature of Energy Transfer’s CSI, but it was not in a
position to enforce the CSI Act’s procedures for public access
to CSI. Although Friedman specifically requested non-CSI
records from the PUC through the RTKL, the PUC
determined, as it was authorized to do, that Energy Transfer
had designated records responsive to Friedman’s request as
containing CSI. That designation and determination triggered
the protections of the CSI Act, including the procedure for
challenging a CSI-designation or the denial of a request for
records that contain CSI in the PUC. The OOR had only to
consider the definition of “public record” in the RTKL to
realize that CSI-designated records fall outside its bailiwick
and that it lacked authority to apply the substantive or
procedural provisions of the CSI Act or to conclude that

                               8
              records designated by Energy Transfer as CSI and accepted
              by the PUC as CSI were, in fact, public and accessible.

Id. at 432-33. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed Friedman I, directing that,
“[u]pon receipt of CSI-designated records and supporting affidavits [from the PUC],
the OOR should have yielded jurisdiction of [the RTKL] request to the PUC.” Id. at
434.
                                    II.    DISCUSSION
              Both the PUC and Energy Transfer argue that Friedman I and II are
dispositive of these appeals because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that
CSI-designated records categorically are outside the jurisdiction of the OOR, which
cannot direct disclosure of such records on any grounds. We must agree.11
              Subsequent to Friedman I and II, this Court had the opportunity to assess
the impact of those decisions on similar and related RTKL requests seeking records
from the PUC regarding its investigations of Energy Transfer’s pipeline operations. In
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Friedman, 293 A.3d 803 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2023), we considered, in pertinent part, whether under Friedman I and II the OOR
could direct the disclosure of CSI-designated records provided by Energy Transfer to
the PUC where the OOR determined that the PUC and Energy Transfer had not proven
that the withheld records were considered or contained CSI and had not complied with
the procedures for designating and protecting CSI set forth in Section 3 of the CSI Act

       11
          We exercise a de novo standard of review and a plenary scope of review of OOR
determinations. Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453, 472 (Pa. 2013). De novo review
permits the court to determine the case anew, including matters pertaining to testimony and other
evidence. Id. at 466 n.14 (citing Commonwealth v. Emerick, 96 A.2d 370, 373-74 (Pa. 1953)).
Accordingly, this Court may consider facts and legal arguments not brought before the OOR when
deciding petitions for review of OOR decisions. Id. at 475-77.

                                               9
and the PUC’s related regulation, 52 Pa. Code § 102.3(b).12 293 A.3d at 812. The
PUC and Energy Transfer argued that the OOR could not direct disclosure of the
records because they were designated as CSI and, under Friedman I and II, were not
within the OOR’s jurisdiction. In rejecting that argument, the OOR concluded, as it
did in the instant case and with identical language, that
                 the [CSI] Act and the regulations specifically mandate that
                 certain records are public and/or subject to [the] RTKL.
                 Accordingly, in this adjudication, the OOR is not determining
                 the propriety of a CSI designation; rather we are analyzing
                 applicability of the RTKL to the records requested, which are
                 subject to the RTKL.

Id. at 813.
                 We agreed with the PUC and Energy Transfer that, under Friedman I and
II, Energy Transfer’s designation of the requested records as CSI removed them from
the OOR’s jurisdiction:
                 Regarding the CSI[-designated r]ecords, a review of the
                 OOR’s [f]inal [d]etermination here reflects the OOR made
                 the same errors reversed in Friedman I and II. The OOR made

       12
            This regulation provides as follows:
                 (b) Filing requirements. When a public utility is required to submit a
                 record that contains [CSI] to the [PUC], the public utility shall do the
                 following:
                    (1) Clearly state in its transmittal letter to the [PUC] that the record
                    contains [CSI] and explain why the information should be treated as
                    confidential. The transmittal letter will be treated as a public record
                    and may not contain any [CSI].
                    (2) Separate the information being filed into at least two categories:
                        (i) Records that are public in nature and subject to the [RTKL].
                        (ii) Records that are to be treated as containing [CSI] and not
                        subject to the [RTKL].
52 Pa. Code § 102.3(b).

                                                    10
            an express determination that, in order for a record to be
            nondisclosable CSI, [the p]etitioners were required to comply
            with the procedures for submitting and protecting CSI as a
            condition precedent for preventing their disclosure under the
            CSI Act. However, Friedman II rejected a similar procedural
            argument by the [r]equester, which . . . was based on the
            OOR’s finding that the CSI Act’s procedural requirements
            had not been met.
            As the Supreme Court explained, the PUC has express
            authority, and the expertise, to determine if a public utility
            record has been properly designated, both substantively and
            procedurally, and to afford a public utility with the
            opportunity to resubmit a record that was improperly,
            defectively, or not designated as CSI. Determining the
            consequences of a public utility’s failure to comply with PUC
            regulations or the CSI Act regarding the submission of
            documents is an express function of the PUC, not the OOR.
            Regardless of the protocols and procedures developed by the
            PUC . . . , upon its review, the PUC determined that at least
            some of the responsive records here did include
            nondisclosable CSI. Pursuant to Friedman II, once the PUC
            made this determination and advised the OOR of its position
            through affidavits and supporting evidence, the OOR’s
            inquiry should have ended with regard to those [records], and
            the OOR should have yielded jurisdiction of [the] request to
            the PUC. Thus, the proper forum . . . to challenge the PUC’s
            determination that there are responsive records containing
            CSI or are CSI is with the PUC, not the OOR. As a result,
            any challenge to [records] that contain CSI . . . is outside the
            OOR’s authority, and the [f]inal [d]etermination directing
            their disclosure is reversed.

Id. at 820 (quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added).
            We conclude similarly here. The OOR bypassed entirely the fact that
Energy Transfer designated as CSI its entire production of documents to the PUC. That
fact is not disputed in the record. The OOR concluded that, although the noncriminal
investigation exemption otherwise applied to the records, they nevertheless could be

                                          11
disclosable under Section 335(d) of the PU Code if the PUC made a “decision” based
on those records. As is now clear, under Friedman I and II, the OOR had no
jurisdiction to make those determinations once the CSI designation was established in
the record. It should have turned the Request over to the PUC prior to performing any
further analysis under the RTKL, the PU Code, or otherwise. Because it did not do so,
we reverse its Final Determination.

                                          ________________________________
                                          PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

                                         12
               IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Public Utility          :    CASES CONSOLIDATED
Commission,                          :
                  Petitioner         :
                                     :
                   v.                :    No. 19 C.D. 2020
                                     :
Scott Blanchard and StateImpact      :
Pennsylvania,                        :
                  Respondents        :
                                     :
Energy Transfer,                     :
                    Petitioner       :
                                     :
          v.                         :    No. 26 C.D. 2020
                                     :
Scott Blanchard and                  :
StateImpact Pennsylvania,            :
                  Respondents

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2023, the December 12, 2019
Final Determination of the Office of Open Records is hereby REVERSED.

                                         ________________________________
                                         PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge