Transource PA, LLC, & PPL Electric Utilities Corp. v. PA PUC, 689 C.D. 2021

Background

Transource Pennsylvania, LLC (with PPL Electric) sought siting and construction approval for two high‑voltage transmission lines (IEC Project) as Pennsylvania portion of PJM Project 9A to relieve market congestion and address potential reliability issues.
PJM had selected Project 9A after a market-efficiency RTEP analysis; Transource obtained a provisional certificate of public convenience (CPC) in Jan. 2018 tied to the IEC Project, with the parties reserving the right to challenge need during siting proceedings.
In lengthy ALJ proceedings (hearings, testimony, exhibits), Transource relied primarily on PJM’s cost‑benefit analysis and PJM witness testimony; intervenors (OCA, Franklin County, STFC) countered that PJM’s analysis was flawed or outdated and that APSRI congestion had materially declined.
The ALJ recommended denial of the siting applications and rescission of the provisional CPC, finding Transource failed to prove “need” under 52 Pa. Code § 57.76(a)(1) and Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code.
The Pennsylvania PUC affirmed the ALJ: it held PJM/FERC approval is evidence but not binding on state siting decisions, weighed regional costs and benefits (including rate impacts), found opposing evidence persuasive, and rescinded the provisional CPC.
Commonwealth Court affirmed the PUC, holding the Commission’s interpretation of Section 1501 and § 57.76(a) and its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and within its discretion.

Issues

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Commission/Intervenors' Argument	Held
1. Must the PUC defer to PJM/FERC determinations of need for state siting?	PJM/FERC determination of need is authoritative for interstate regional projects and should be controlling evidence for Pennsylvania approval.	PJM findings are relevant evidence but not dispositive; PUC must make an independent Pennsylvania‑law determination.	PUC not bound by PJM; independent state review is required and permissible.
2. Standard under Section 1501 vs. §57.76(a): is “proper” alone sufficient?	“Proper” is distinct from “necessary” and would permit approval if the project is an appropriate means to address congestion or reliability.	PUC correctly applied “necessary or proper” in context and applied §57.76(a)’s “need” inquiry; propriety is contextual and not a lower free‑pass standard for HV lines.	Court finds no clear error: PUC may apply the disjunctive standard but properly required evidence of need/necessity in this HV siting context.
3. Were PUC factual findings (declining APSRI congestion, flaws in PJM B/C, insufficient reliability proof) supported by substantial evidence?	Transource: PJM studies and witness testimony were the robust technical proof; intervenor critiques oversimplified engineering; PUC improperly rejected PJM.	Opponents: PJM analysis was flawed/outdated, omitted some region costs, and later‑asserted reliability bases were weak.	Held: PUC’s credibility and weight determinations are supported by substantial evidence; Court will not reweigh.
4. Did PUC err in rescinding the provisional CPC and in declining to address other Exceptions?	Rescission improper because CPC was granted and/or PUC should resolve remaining claims (eminent domain, zoning, other §57.76 factors).	Provisional CPC was narrowly tied to IEC Project; lack of demonstrated need renders CPC’s justification void and other issues moot.	Held: Rescission was within PUC discretion; other Exceptions rendered moot by denial on need.
5. Did the PUC violate §2805(a) obligations to support regional planning by focusing on Pennsylvania impacts?	Petitioners: PUC overemphasized local rate impacts and failed to honor §2805(a) regional coordination goal.	PUC: §2805(a) requires consideration of regional planning but does not bar independent weighing of regional costs/benefits and state impacts.	Held: PUC complied with §2805(a); it considered regional effects and may weigh adverse regional or local impacts in state siting decisions.

Key Cases Cited

Energy Conservation Council of Pa. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 995 A.2d 465 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (PUC may consider PJM evidence but must independently review under state law)
Hess v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 107 A.3d 246 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (necessity for HV lines can be shown by reliability improvements or lower prices)
Elite Indus., Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 832 A.2d 428 (Pa. 2003) ("necessary or proper" read disjunctively; propriety may justify approval in some contexts)
Popowsky v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 910 A.2d 38 (Pa. 2006) (standard for appellate review of PUC orders)
Riverwalk Casino, L.P. v. Pa. Gaming Control Bd., 926 A.2d 926 (Pa. 2007) (agency determinations entitled to strong deference)