Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Seder
139 A.3d 165
| Pa. | 2016Background
- October 2011 snowstorm disrupted PPL Electric service; an anonymous tip letter alleged PPL violated its restoration-priority policy.
- PUC’s Bureau of Investigation & Enforcement (I&E) informally investigated using the tip letter and produced an investigative file; I&E and PPL negotiated a settlement (no admission of wrongdoing; $60,000 fee) that the PUC Commissioners later approved at public meeting.
- I&E provided Commissioners only the settlement, transmittal letter, and supporting statements; the tip letter and most investigative materials were withheld as confidential and not released publicly.
- Reporters Kraus and Seder filed RTKL requests for the tip letter and investigative file; PUC denied, citing 66 Pa.C.S. § 335(d) and claiming redaction impractical or records exempt.
- OOR ordered disclosure with permissible redactions; Commonwealth Court reversed, holding § 335(d) requires disclosure only of documents actually relied upon by the PUC Commissioners in their official (Sunshine Act) decision-making.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Commonwealth Court, holding § 335(d) unambiguously requires disclosure (subject to permitted redactions) because “commission” means the PUC as a whole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kraus/Seder) | Defendant's Argument (PUC/PPL) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 66 Pa.C.S. § 335(d) requires disclosure of the tip letter and I&E investigative file | "Commission" means the PUC (per Code §102); §335(d) mandates public release of any documents used by the PUC in an investigation — so tip letter and file must be disclosed (with redactions permitted) | "Commission" means the PUC Commissioners for purposes of documents "relied upon" in reaching determinations; only documents actually relied on by Commissioners at public meeting must be disclosed; here Commissioners did not rely on the withheld materials | Court held §335(d) unambiguously requires disclosure: "commission" means the entire PUC (including I&E) and the PUC relied on the documents in reaching its determination to settle—OOR disclosure reinstated (with allowed redactions) |
| Interaction with RTKL exemptions for non‑criminal investigative files | §335(d) was enacted to broaden transparency beyond RTKL; its introductory clause shows disclosure duties supplement RTKL, so RTKL exemptions do not override §335(d) | §335(d)’s scope should be cabined by the Sunshine Act concept of "official action" and RTKL investigative exemptions; policy supports protecting investigative materials unless relied upon by Commissioners | Court relied on §335(d)’s plain language and its express "in addition to" clause to conclude the statute mandates disclosure beyond RTKL protections, subject to enumerated redaction exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- PUC v. Seder, 106 A.3d 193 (Pa. Commw. 2014) (Commonwealth Court decision interpreting §335(d) to require disclosure only of documents relied on by the Commissioners)
- Shafer Elec. & Const. v. Mantia, 96 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2014) (standard of review for statutory interpretation; de novo review)
- SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 45 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2012) (RTKL promotes public access to information concerning government activities)
- Pennsylvania Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Commonwealth Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 932 A.2d 1271 (Pa. 2007) (agency definitions enacted by General Assembly are binding on courts)