web1_WBS-Penguins.jpg

Pens preparing for Binghamton’s smaller surface

Community Meetings

HARRISBURG &#8212; Justices from the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case pitting PPL Electric Utilities and the state Public Utilities Commission against a media coalition led in part by the Times Leader.Attorney Craig Staudenmaier, who represents the media organizations, said predicting when the court might issue a ruling in the matter is impossible, but said he felt the judges had a clear understanding of both the issue in intepreting a section of the PUC code as well as the potential consequences of accepting either side&#8217;s interpretation.While PPL and PUC&#8217;s interpretation could severely hinder access to public records, Staudenmaier said, the media organizations&#8217; interpretation would provide for broader access.The Times Leader and the Allentown Morning Call led a statewide media coalition in petitioning the court to hear an appeal of a Commonwealth Court ruling that kept private an anonymous letter that led to a $60,000 misconduct settlement in 2013 between the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and PPL.Under normal circumstances, a ruling might be issued in about six months, Staudenmaier said, but impending lineup changes on the Supreme Court could affect the timetable.The court previously noted the case was of &#8220;substantial public importance,&#8221; saying the Commonwealth Court&#8217;s ruling could affect &#8220;public access to documents involved in (other) investigations of the Public Utility Commission and resulting settlements,&#8221; to which state lawmakers &#8220;sought to provide broad access.&#8221;The letter in question &#8212; reportedly written by a PPL employee and sent to the PUC in November of 2011 &#8212; alleged that a PPL crew one month earlier was transferred from a higher priority job to a lower priority job while working to restore service in a snowstorm that knocked out power to more than 388,000 PPL customers.PPL said the crew received a wrong assignment, resulting in a restoration delay of about four hours that affected some 1,500 customers.The PUC launched an investigation and, without a formal complaint or public hearing, the PUC and PPL entered a settlement that required PPL to pay a $60,000 civil penalty.Following a right to know request from the Times Leader and the Morning Call, the state Office of Open Records ordered the tip letter released, however PPL and the PUC appealed the decision to Commonwealth Court.The court ruled in favor of PPL and PUC deciding that because the letter initiated the investigation, it is exempt under the open records law.<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta>Times Leader Staff</bylineMeta></div>

State Supreme Court judges hear arguments in PPL ‘tip letter’ case