Uber Week for Uber in PA - Commonwealth Court Affirms PUC’s Authorization of Raiser’s Service (an Uber Subsidiary) and PUC Decreases Recommended $49 Mil Civil Penalty to $11 Mil


            In an April 19, 2016 Opinion, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court[1] affirmed the Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) grant of a certificate of public convenience (CPC) for experimental authority to operate as a common carrier to Raiser-PA, LLC (Raiser) in Pennsylvania, excluding Philadelphia.[2]  Raiser is a subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), which licenses the technology to Raiser that allows users to request a ride via smartphone app. 

Continue reading
1389 Hits

“Tip Letter” and Records Related to Investigation Leading to PUC-Approved Settlement Not Subject to Disclosure


The PUC is not required to disclose a utility employee’s “tip letter” or other records relating to an investigation of the utility’s practices where the documents are not considered by the Commissioners when approving the resulting settlement. 

Continue reading
6246 Hits

Commonwealth Court Upholds PUC's Approval of PPL's Poconos Transmission Line

In January 2009, PPL Electric Utilities Corp. (“PPL”) sought Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) approval to construct a 500kV Pennsylvania-New Jersey transmission line, part of which, subject to the issuance of appropriate permits, will run through the National Park system in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains.  The project involves modernization of an existing 230kV transmission line and the exercise of eminent domain over five parcels of land.  A PUC Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended decision granting PPL’s application on the condition that PPL not begin construction on the 230kV line prior to obtaining all approvals necessary for construction.  The PUC's final opinion and order adopted the ALJ’s recommended decision but also required that PPL inform the PUC whether it intended to defer its construction schedule and refrain from constructing a certain portion of the 230kV line until obtaining a National Park Service permit.  On reconsideration, the PUC clarified that PPL could begin construction on any other part of either line that was not subject to the National Park Service permit because to hold otherwise “would result in a significant, unacceptable delay in light of the demonstrated need for the line.”

Continue reading
14319 Hits

New Federal Insurance Office gets a Director, but will it get regulatory authority?

 

Michael McRaith officially began his new job earlier this month as the first Director of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO or Office) after serving for the past six years as Director of the Department of Insurance in President Obama’s home state of Illinois.  The FIO was established by the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation of 2010 as an office within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and represents a part of the Congressional response to concerns about the financial stability of certain large domestic insurers and their subsequent taxpayer bailouts in 2008 and 2009.  Director McRaith will report to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

At this time the FIO has only an advisory role and monitoring authority over the business of insurance, while regulatory authority remains vested at the state level.  However, the establishment of the Office has caused a great deal of speculation, both within the industry and among state regulators, regarding whether it represents a significant first step towards shifting insurance regulation to the federal level in the future.

Continue reading
15351 Hits

Attorney-Client Privilege: A Two Way Street

Bringing welcome clarity for regulated entities, especially those that rely heavily on in-house legal teams whose members interact on a day-to-day basis with business decision makers, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week reversed the Superior Court’s narrow “client to lawyer” limitation on the attorney-client privilege and held that the privilege operates “in a two-way fashion to protect confidential client-to-attorney or attorney-to-client communications made for the purpose of obtaining or providing professional legal advice.” Gillard v. AIG Insurance Co., _A.3d ___(Pa. 2011) (10 EAP 2010; filed February 23, 2011) (Saylor, J.).

Continue reading
12059 Hits