Sunrise Energy, LLC v. FirstEnergy Corp. and West Penn Power Company
2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 435
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Sunrise Energy operates a 950 kW solar facility and entered a five-year Electric Service Agreement with West Penn (an EDC) under which West Penn purchased Sunrise’s excess generation via net metering.
- West Penn required and received two infrastructure payments from Sunrise; later (May 2014) West Penn terminated the agreement claiming Sunrise was not a "customer-generator" (lacked sufficient native retail load) and proposed different compensation and recovery of alleged overpayments.
- The PUC proposed (2014) a regulatory amendment requiring customer-generators to maintain an independent retail load; the IRRC later disapproved that proposal as exceeding PUC authority.
- Sunrise sued in Washington County Court of Common Pleas seeking declaratory relief and damages for breach of contract and related equitable claims; West Penn filed preliminary objections arguing PUC exclusive or primary jurisdiction.
- The trial court overruled West Penn’s objections, holding a court of common pleas may decide whether Sunrise is a customer-generator under the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act (AEPS Act); West Penn appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PUC has exclusive jurisdiction to decide if Sunrise is a "customer-generator" under the AEPS Act | Sunrise: statute defines customer-generator; courts may construe statutes and no enforcement scheme delegates adjudicatory power to PUC | West Penn: PUC is the proper forum to construe AEPS and determine eligibility for net metering | Court: No exclusive PUC jurisdiction—AEPS contains no statutory remedial/enforcement scheme delegating adjudicatory power to PUC; courts may decide statutory construction |
| Whether PUC has primary jurisdiction (court should defer) over statutory construction and related claims | Sunrise: primary-jurisdiction doctrine not triggered because AEPS gave PUC limited rulemaking authority only for technical/net-metering interconnection; statutory question is for courts | West Penn/PUC: primary jurisdiction appropriate to ensure uniformity and use agency expertise; PUC should resolve definitional issue first | Court: Declined to defer—statutory text establishes eligibility; PUC rulemaking authority is limited and does not confer a roving adjudicatory role; courts may decide now |
| Whether incorporation of West Penn’s Net Energy Metering Rider/tariff makes this a PUC rate/tariff case | Sunrise: rider merely restates AEPS statutory mandate (full retail value); result of dispute won’t change tariff language | West Penn: rider is on file with PUC, so dispute implicates tariff and PUC expertise | Court: Not a traditional rate/tariff case subject to PUC exclusive jurisdiction; rider reflects statutory command and does not require PUC discretion |
| Whether PUC may use declaratory-order procedures (GRAPP) to assume jurisdiction | Sunrise: agency cannot expand its authority by rule; GRAPP presupposes statutory basis for adjudicatory power | PUC: may issue declaratory orders under GRAPP to resolve uncertainty and avoid inconsistent judicial rulings | Court: Agency cannot self-create jurisdiction; PUC’s GRAPP power does not supplant need for legislative grant—PUC may clarify technical rules but not decide eligibility absent statutory authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Feingold v. Bell of Pennsylvania, 383 A.2d 791 (Pa. 1977) (administrative remedies must be adequate and complete; PUC lacks authority to award contract damages)
- Elkin v. Bell Telephone Company, 420 A.2d 371 (Pa. 1980) (primary jurisdiction doctrine; agency expertise is important but not talismanic to oust court jurisdiction)
- DeFrancesco v. Western Pennsylvania Water Co., 453 A.2d 595 (Pa. 1982) (not every dispute involving a regulated utility must first go to the PUC; ordinary tort or contract questions may be resolved by courts)
- Morrow v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, 479 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super. 1984) (matters involving utility rates/tariffs lie peculiarly within PUC jurisdiction)
- ARIPPA v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 966 A.2d 1204 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (PUC can adjudicate issues involving construction of its own regulations implementing AEPS program)