Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Andrew Seder/The Times Leader; Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Scott Kraus/The Morning Call

Summary

This is a dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Saylor of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in consolidated appeals concerning disclosure obligations under Section 335(d) of the Public Utility Code. The dissent argues that the statute does not require public disclosure of an anonymous tip letter and an investigative file that were not relied upon by the Public Utility Commission in taking official action on a settlement. Justice Dougherty joined the dissent.

Holdings

1. The dissent would hold that Section 335(d) does not require the anonymous tip letter and Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement investigative file to be included in the record of approval of the settlement agreement or released publicly when those materials were not relied upon by the Commissioners.
2. The dissent would interpret “commission,” in the context of Section 335(d), to mean the Commissioners when only the Commissioners are empowered to take the relevant official action, rather than the PUC as a whole or its investigative arm.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Section 335(d) of the Public Utility Code requires disclosure of an anonymous tip letter and a Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement investigative file when those materials were not relied upon by the Commissioners in approving a conditional settlement agreement.
2. Whether Section 335(d)'s reference to the Commission's entry into a settlement agreement applies to subordinate administrative action by the PUC's investigative arm or only to official action by the Commissioners.

Disposition

other