Chesapeake Utilities Corp. v. Delaware Public Service Commission, K17A-01-001 WLW

Chesapeake Utilities filed for a general increase in natural gas rates and tariff changes (Dec. 2015), including expanded service offerings.
Delaware Association of Alternative Energy Providers (DAAEP), an association of unregulated fuel/alternative energy dealers, petitioned to intervene in the rate docket claiming competitive and public‑interest harms.
A Commission hearing examiner granted DAAEP leave to intervene; the full Delaware Public Service Commission (PSC) affirmed by 4–1 vote.
Parties settled the rate case but preserved the intervention ruling for appeal; Chesapeake appealed only the question of DAAEP’s standing to intervene.
The Superior Court reviewed whether the PSC exceeded its statutory authority by allowing an unregulated competitor to intervene and whether the PSC’s intervention ruling was supported by substantial evidence (the latter was not reached after deciding jurisdiction).

Issue	Chesapeake's Argument	DAAEP's Argument	Held
Whether the PSC may permit an unregulated competitor to intervene in a regulated utility rate proceeding	PSC lacks statutory authority to consider or balance competitive interests of unregulated competitors; competitors should not be allowed to intervene	PSC has rulemaking and discretionary authority to permit intervention; prior practice and prior interventions justify permissive intervention	Court reversed: PSC exceeded statutory authority — unregulated competitors may not intervene to protect their competitive interests
Whether the PSC’s intervention order was supported by substantial evidence	Examiner’s factual findings (e.g., that Chesapeake would "virtually extinguish" fuel dealers) lacked evidentiary support and were suppositional	PSC relied on multiple factors and prior practice; findings supported the discretionary intervention decision	Court did not reach this issue after resolving the jurisdictional question; reversal based on lack of statutory authority to entertain competitor interests

Pub. Water Supply Co. v. DiPasquale, 735 A.2d 378 (Del. 1999) (standard for reviewing agency statutory interpretation and factual findings)
E. Shore Nat. Gas Co. v. Del. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 635 A.2d 1273 (Del. Super. Ct. 1993) (Commission powers limited to statute; balancing consumer and utility interests)
Delmarva Power & Light Co. v. City of Seaford, 575 A.2d 1089 (Del. 1990) (role of Commission in rate regulation)
Central Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 382 A.2d 302 (Me. 1978) (association of oil dealers lacked standing to intervene in utility rate proceedings)
Dayton Commc’ns Corp. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 414 N.E.2d 1051 (Ohio 1980) (commission may not balance interests of utility versus competitors in complaint proceedings)
Pennsylvania Petroleum Ass’n v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 377 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1977) (limitations on intervenor standing where regulatory scheme doesn’t govern competition between parties)
Public Service Co. v. Trigen‑Nations Energy Co., 982 P.2d 316 (Colo. 1999) (denial of intervention where allowing competitors to intervene would frustrate statute’s purpose)