web1_MeetingHouse.jpg

Our Opinion: Learn stories behind Wyoming Valley’s historical landmarks, and thank your tour guide

web1_Pluto.jpg

Letter to the Editor: Why pay for Pluto exploration when we have costly problems to solve on Earth?

<p>Dear PPL Electric Utilities:</p><p>We need to fine you $60,000, but don&#8217;t worry, no one will ever know why. All the best, your friends at the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.</p><p>Dear PUC:</p><p>The check&#8217;s in the mail. It&#8217;s money well spent. Thanks for keeping this our little secret. Wink, wink. Yours truly, the power brokers at PPL.</p><p>Dear PUC and PPL:</p><p>That&#8217;s what you think. Sincerely, the Times Leader, The Morning Call of Allentown, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Associated Press and The Patriot News/PennLive.</p><p>It&#8217;s been a long, drawn-out fight for public information, but the above-mentioned media outlets and some others finally prevailed last week when the state Supreme Court ordered the PUC to disclose a letter from a whistle-blower that could shed some light on this fine.</p><p>Maybe we&#8217;ll also learn why PPL, with the help of the PUC, has fought so aggressively to conceal the circumstances surrounding the penalty, which have been shrouded in secrecy.</p><p>Why should we care about a band of newspapers&#8217; battle with a big utility company and its oversight commission? Because during a brutal snowstorm in 2011, when 368,000 customers were left without power, a whistle-blower alleged that a crew was dispatched from a high-priority job to a lesser one.</p><p>The crew received a wrong assignment, PPL said. That&#8217;s why the power for 1,500 customers was delayed by about four hours, the public was told. A wrong assignment, huh?</p><p>Or was it something more? For all we know, some big shot company executive or some politically connected official pulled strings to get their power restored first, at the expense of the masses.</p><p>No one would have been the wiser if a PPL whistle-blower hadn&#8217;t stepped up. It defies logic that a PPL employee would have complained to the PUC that someone was merely given a wrong assignment. It&#8217;s more likely that this person had serious concerns about what occurred. The PUC&#8217;s Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement checked it out. Because there was no formal complaint, there was no public hearing, and PPL and the PUC reached a settlement whereby PPL would pay a $60,000 fine.</p><p>Come on: If all PPL did was inadvertently send a crew to the wrong area, would it not have appealed such a steep fine?</p><p>Maybe PPL was satisfied, but the Times Leader and The Morning Call in Allentown were not, and they filed Right to Know requests for a copy of the tip letter. Other news media later joined them.</p><p>PPL attorneys argued the letter was not public information.</p><p>The PUC underestimated the media. Unfortunately for the powerful utility company and its supposed overseer, the newspapers wanted to know what prompted the fine. Seems like a reasonable question, but the PUC fought back hard to block the answer.</p><p>The state Office of Open Records agreed that the whistle-blower&#8217;s letter should be released. But PPL and the PUC appealed, and the state Commonwealth Court sided with them.</p><p>The media coalition, to its credit, pressed on. In June, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, saying the issue was of &#8220;substantial public importance.&#8221; Late last month, that court, in a split vote, ruled that the Right To Know Law &#8220;clearly and unambiguously obligates disclosure&#8221; of this letter, <a href="https://www.timesleader.com/news/local/546691/state-supreme-court-rules-puc-must-disclose-whistleblowers-tip-letter" target="_blank">the Times Leader reported</a>.</p><p>Supreme Court Justice Max Baer wrote, &#8220;Governmental transparency is of paramount significance when the PUC enters into settlement agreements with public utilities, as such agreements are negotiated behind doors closed to the public.&#8221;</p><p>Harrisburg attorney Craig Staudenmaier, who represents the media coalition, said, &#8220;In a situation where over 380,000 customers lost power, I think the public has a right to know why and how a settlement with a $60,000 fine came about.&#8221;</p><p>PUC lawyers argued that because agency commissioners did not rely on the tipster&#8217;s letter before deciding to fine PPL, there is no statutory obligation to release it and other related documents.</p><p>Apparently, the PUC believes it can fine a public utility company $60,000, and that should be the end of it.</p><p>So just what are PPL and the PUC hiding? </p><p>Fortunately for the PUC, it has deep pockets and can keep fighting to deny the public this information. It has a $72 million budget and employs 503 people, according to its website. Part of its mission statement proclaims that it &#8220;protects the public interest.&#8221;</p><p>OK then, PUC. The public is interested. So why don&#8217;t you just tell us exactly why you slapped PPL with a $60,000 fine, because your protests are sounding more and more like a snow job.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/web1_Roccograndi.jpg">
<div class="neCaption"></div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/web1_Roccograndi.jpg</photo0><caption0></caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta><p>Zeroing In</p><p>Betty Roccograndi</p></bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta><p>Betty Roccograndi, a former Times Leader reporter and award-winning journalist, is a freelance columnist. Reach her by email at broccograndi@gmail.com.</p></shirttailMeta></div>

Zeroing In: What’s behind $60,000 fine of PPL? State’s Public Utility Commission shouldn’t keep it secret