PA Senate Ponders Bill to Give PUC Unlimited Authority

On April 30, 2024, the Senate Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee passed SB 1174, which was introduced by its Chairman, Senator Stefano. The bill is now awaiting third consideration in the Senate.  The Bill, if passed and signed into law, would allow the Public Utility Commission (“PUC”), without consideration of any other law, to grant a waiver of ANY statute over which it has any authority, including the Public Utility Code, the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act and others, so long as the waiver “enables the utility to reduce its ratepayer impact and operate in a more effective, efficient or economical manner.”  With those simple words the Bill would create a standard (more effective, efficient, or economical), that could arguably be met by any utility for just about any reason.  The practical impact would be that any requirement of the Public Utility Code would become optional. The PUC would have the authority to not enforce mandatory provisions, such as their requirements that rates be just and reasonable, or that rates don’t unreasonably discriminate, or more fundamentally that utilities not provide reasonably continuous service. And to make it happen, the PUC would have to do nothing, because if they did not act within 60 days of a utility petition asking for such a waiver, the request would become effective without any PUC action being required.

This is a far reaching and unwise bill, that would abdicate the General Assembly’s exclusive authority to pass legislation to the PUC.  Under SB 1174, the PUC would be free to waive whatever it chose to waive.  That the low bar for granting the waiver makes it even worse.  No agency should ever be authorized to allow itself to break free from the constraints that enacting legislation necessarily imposes. To do so is to delegate the authority to make law, since the ability waive a statute is the same as that of General Assembly to repeal legislation, even if it is more limited in scope.

The only comfort here is that this bill would violate the PA Constitution’s ( Article 3, Section 1) express assignment of the exclusive authority to legislate to the General Assembly – not to any agency.  

Commonwealth Court Confirms Affirmative Public Benefits Standard Still Has Teeth in Fair Market Value Acquisitions (Reversing PA PUC Approval of Aqua Acquisition of East Whiteland Township)

In Cicero v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ___ A.3d ___, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 910 C.D. 2022, filed July 31, 2023) (“Cicero”), the court reversed the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) approval of Aqua Pennsylvania Wastewater Inc.’s acquisition of East Whiteland Township’s wastewater system assets.  The court found Aqua had not proven that the acquisition would provide affirmative public benefits and confirmed that proving net benefits outweigh detriments of a transaction remains the standard for approving fair market value (FMV) acquisitions of municipal assets.  Cicero, slip op. at 21 (“[I]n every Section 1329 case, it must be shown that the affirmative public benefits that arise from and are specific to a transaction outweigh the harms of the transaction, such that approval of the transaction will ‘affirmatively promote the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public in some substantial way.’”).

Cicero does not change the law; it finds the PUC failed to apply the law and provides clarification on fact-specific application of the affirmative public benefits test in FMV acquisition proceedings where the selling entity is already providing safe and adequate service.  The court reasoned that the PUC cannot merely rely upon benefits derived from the technical, managerial, and financial fitness of a utility like Aqua because general fitness characteristics: (1) are not specific to the system being acquired and thus do not arise from the transaction; and (2) do not outweigh the burdens to consumers of Aqua’s FMV acquisitions.  Cicero, slip op. at 19 (“Holding that a transaction will result in substantial affirmative public benefits because it will provide the same services as already being provided is not a benefit, let alone a substantial affirmative public one as required by statute and our caselaw.”).  The court further held that while “aspirational statements” are substantial evidence of an affirmative public benefit, the benefit must be considered in context and here the benefits do not outweigh the burdens to consumers of Aqua’s FMV acquisitions.  Cicero, slip op. at 20-21(“[T]hese cases[1] do not support a conclusion that the public benefits arising from aspirational statements will always constitute affirmative public benefits that will be substantial enough to outweigh known harms.”).

The burdens on consumers derive from changes to how a utility can earn profit and recover costs from a municipal acquisition.  Act 12 of 2016 added Section 1329 to the Public Utility Code, which allows for utilities to acquire municipal or municipal authority assets at FMV and recover transaction and transition costs of the acquisition with a truncated six-month approval process.  Section 1329 incentivizes utilities to acquire municipal/authority assets through various changes. The most drastic of which is allowing the acquiring utility to include the FMV of the assets in its rate base on which it earns a profit; whereas prior to Section 1329, the value of the assets includable in rate base was original cost minus depreciation.  As opponents to various Aqua 1329 acquisitions have pointed out, Aqua’s acquisitions at FMV of systems that are already operating adequately and safely needlessly increase customer rates because unlike a municipality or authority which does not earn a profit, does not pay taxes, and has a generally lower cost of debt, Aqua is entitled to a profit on its investments, pays taxes, incurs higher debt costs, and then recovers these profits and costs from ratepayers.  Thus, a 1329 acquisition will result in higher costs to ratepayers than if the acquisition had not occurred.

That is not to say that all FMV acquisitions are a net detriment to the public. Section 1329 acquisitions can have affirmative public benefits that outweigh the higher rates under public utility ownership. For example, where a municipal system is failing to provide safe service and the municipality is unwilling or unable to make improvements, a Section 1329 acquisition can provide much needed investment in infrastructure and customer service.

Despite a lack of net affirmative benefits in some transactions, the PUC has approved every Aqua 1329 acquisition to date.  Thus, Cicero disrupts the PUC’s repeated refusal to appropriately apply the affirmative public benefits standard to Aqua’s 1329 acquisitions and likely results in enhanced opportunities to challenge acquisitions and prevail.

Whitney Snyder, a partner at HMS legal, represents a variety of entities dealing with Public Utility Commission regulation and litigation, such as utilities, large customers, and municipalities, including opposing Aqua 1329 transactions.

 

[1] Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 937 A.2d 1040 (Pa. 2007); City of York v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 295 A.2d 825 (Pa. 1972).