Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania v. Public Utility Commission
25 A.3d 440
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- ECC and OCA petitioned for review of PUC orders approving PPL's 500 kV line and related facilities in PA; appeals consolidated.
- PJM/RTEP planning identified need for new transmission due to anticipated overloads by 2012; 2008 RTEP flagged multiple NERC Category A/B and C5 violations.
- PPL sought authorization to build the line and a related Blakely substation, including eminent domain applications; hearings were held; ALJ recommended approval with conditions.
- PUC adopted ALJ's recommendations with additional Condition 7(G) requiring PJM-retool/rate update analysis and deferred construction pending certain federal permit considerations.
- ECC challenged the PUC decision as legal error, arbitrary and capricious, and violating Art. I, §27 of the PA Constitution; argues failure to evaluate non-transmission alternatives and updated load forecasts.
- Court held there was substantial evidence supporting the PUC's determinations and affirmed the orders, rejecting ECC's challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PUC properly found need and considered alternatives. | ECC contends no non-transmission alternatives evaluated; 2009 retool insufficient. | PPL/PJM evaluated transmission alternatives; up-to-date studies and retool supported need. | Supported; PUC's need/alternatives finding upheld. |
| Whether PPL's lack of updated load forecasts invalidates the need determination. | ECC argues 2009 retool used outdated forecast; changed conditions not accounted. | PJM updated load forecasts in 2009 retool; need remained. | upheld; not an error given 2009 retool findings. |
| Whether construction before National Park Service permit for DEWA segment was permissible. | ECC/OCA claim requires federal permits before construction; delay unacceptable. | PUC concluded permit delay should not halt construction; project justified. | upheld; construction allowed prior to DEWA permit. |
| Whether the line's environmental impact was minimum and reasonably responsive to need. | ECC argues line too large and not minimized environmental incursion. | PUC found significant siting studies and mitigation; minimum impact. | upheld; substantial evidence supported minimal environmental impact. |
| Whether PUC erred in relying on Category C5 tests and load shedding as basis for siting. | ECC argues C5 tests improperly conducted; concerns about demand response. | Evidence showed C5 tests proper; DR/EE to be modeled in future retool. | upheld; reliance on C5 findings proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Energy Conservation Council of Pa. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 995 A.2d 465 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (substantial evidence standard for PUC rulings; deference to PUC findings)
- Popowsky v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 550 Pa. 449, 706 A.2d 1197 (1997) (review standard; cannot substitute court's judgment when substantial evidence supports PUC)
- Payne v. Kassab, 312 A.2d 86 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (public trust concept; balancing environmental and social concerns)
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 163 Pa. Cmwlth. 367, 643 A.2d 130 (1994) (PUC factfinding authority and deference on evidence)
- Pa. Power Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 155 Pa. Cmwlth. 477, 625 A.2d 719 (1993) (substantial evidence standard for PUC decisions)
- Philadelphia Gas Works v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 898 A.2d 671 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (substantial evidence and deference to regulatory agency findings)
- Casne v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 962 A.2d 14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (definition of capricious disregard and standards for review)