For information contact:

Charles E. Thomas, III 717-255-7611

cet3@tntlawfirm.com

Highlights: PA PUC Public Session of October 27, 2016 Note: Video from each public meeting is available on the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s website. To access the video stream for this public meeting, please visit http://www.puc.state.pa.us/about_puc/2013_pm_videos.aspx. The public meeting calendar may be viewed at http://www.puc.state.pa.us/about_puc/public_meeting_calendar.aspx, and public meeting agendas and summaries may be viewed at http://www.puc.state.pa.us/about_puc/public_meeting_calendar/public_meeting_audio_summaries.aspx. At the October 27, 2016 Public Meeting of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“Commission”), the Commissioners adopted Staff’s recommendations for action by a vote of 5-0 on all items listed on the Main Agenda and Carry-In Agenda, except as reflected herein below under the respective Commission agenda headings. Review of particular items addressed by the Commissioners at this Public Meeting which may be of interest are addressed under the respective Commission agenda headings below. Any relevant motions and statements are attached hereto and to the original of this Session Memo filed in the Public Meeting Agenda and Session Memo binder. The next regular Public Meeting is tentatively scheduled for November 9, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. The minutes of the Public Meeting of the September 15, 2016, were, by a vote of 5-0, approved as submitted.

MAIN AGENDA OFFICE OF COMPETITIVE MARKET OVERSIGHT

All matters approved as submitted. OFFICE OF SPECIAL ASSISTANTS

CORE COMMUNICATIONS INC. VS VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA LLC, C-2011-2253750, C-2011-2253787. On 7/22/11, Core filed two Formal Complaints against Verizon alleging that Verizon suddenly ceased payment for intercarrier compensation invoices that were issued by Core pursuant to interconnection agreements entered among the Parties and long-standing practice. On 7/11/13, ALJ Colwell's Initial Decision was issued. Exceptions were filed by both parties on 8/16/13. Replies to Exceptions were filed by both parties on 9/16/13. By Opinion and Order entered 5/28/15, the Commission remanded this proceeding, in part, to the OALJ. On 1/8/16, ALJ Colwell's Supplemental Initial Decision on Remand was issued. Exceptions on Remand were filed by both parties on 1/28/16. Replies to Exceptions on Remand were filed by both parties on 2/8/16. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the proposed Opinion and Order. Postponed until the Public Meeting of November 9, 2016.

2

BONNIE ROBERTS VS VERIZON NORTH LLC, C-2015-2470550. Formal Complaint filed on 2/9/15, alleging an ongoing problem with her telephone service from Verizon North. On 11/17/15, the Commission issued ALJ Watson's Initial Decision sustaining the Complaint. The ALJ also ordered Verizon to pay a civil penalty of $3,000 for various violations. On 12/8/15 Verizon North filed Exceptions. No Replies to Exceptions were filed. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the proposed Opinion and Order. Motion by Commissioner Coleman. Statement by Commissioner Sweet. Vote 5-0.

BURGITS ELECTRIC CITY TAXI INC., A-2015-2478642. Application filed on 4/15/15, to transport persons upon call or demand between points in the City of Scranton, Lackawanna County, and within 15 air miles from the limits thereof. Scranton Transportation, LLC t/a Yellow Cab of Lackawanna and McCarthy Flowered Cabs filed Protests on 6/1/15. Evidentiary hearings were held on 11/13/15 and 1/5/16. In an Initial Decision issued 3/29/16, ALJ Jandebeur denied Burgit's application. Burgit's filed Exceptions on 4/19/16. McCarthy filed Replies to Exceptions on 5/6/16. Scranton Transportation filed Replies to Exceptions on 5/10/16. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the proposed Opinion and Order which grants the Exceptions and reverses the Initial Decision. Vote 5-0.

PUC - INVESTIGATION & ENFORCEMENT VS PECO ENERGY COMPANY, c-2015-2479970. Complaint filed on 4/30/15, concerning a natural gas explosion that occurred on 7/17/14 when PECO was performing an uprating project in Coatesville, PA. I&E alleged various violations of the Code of Federal Regulations and the Commission's Regulations and requested a $1.5 million civil penalty. On 5/26/15, PECO filed an Answer and New Matter denying it violated the Code of Federal Regulations or the Commission's Regulations. On 4/8/16, the parties filed a Joint Petition for Settlement to resolve all issues in this proceeding. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the proposed Opinion and Order which approves the Joint Petition for Settlement. Statement by Chairman Brown. Vote 5-0.

BILLIE JO KNAPP VS PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, C-2015-2511723. Formal Complaint filed on 10/30/15, requesting a payment arrangement and alleging that company threatened to terminate her service. On 11/25/15, Penelec filed an Answer and a New Matter to the Complaint. A hearing was held on 2/12/16. By Initial Decision issued on 4/7/16, ALJ Long dismissed the Complaint for failure of the Complainant to appear at the hearing. On 4/11/16, the Complainant filed a Petition to Reopen the Record. Penelec filed an Answer to the Petition on 5/12/16. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the proposed Opinion and Order which grants the petition, vacates the Initial Decision, and remands the proceeding to the OALJ. Statement by Vice Chairman Place. Vote 5-0.

PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, P-2016-2526627. Petition filed on 1/29/16, seeking approval of its Default Service Plan IV effective 6/1/17. An evidentiary hearing was held on 6/16/16. On 7/19/16, the Settling Parties filed a Joint Petition for Approval of Partial Settlement reserving one issue for litigation. On 8/17/16, the Commission issued ALJ Colwell's Initial Decision wherein she recommended approval of the Partial Settlement, with one modification, approval of PPL's Petition, as modified by the Partial Settlement and recommended adoption of the Customer Assistance Program Standard Offer Program proposed by the Parties, with one modification. On 9/6/16, Exceptions were filed by PPL, the Retail Energy Supply Association and PPL Industrial Customer Alliance. Replies to Exceptions were filed by PPL, the Commission's Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement, the OCA and the Coalition for Affordable Utility Services and Energy Efficiency in PA on 9/16/16. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the proposed Opinion and Order. Statements by Chairman Brown, Vice Chairman Place, Commissioner Powelson, and Commissioner Sweet. Vote 5-0, with a partial dissent by Vice Chairman Place and Commissioner Powelson.

3

BUREAU OF TECHNICAL UTILITY SERVICES

QUARTERLY EARNINGS OF PENNSYLVANIA UTILITIES, M-2016-2570997. Bureau of Technical Utility Services (TUS) report to the Commission regarding quarterly earnings of Pennsylvania utilities for the quarter ended 6/30/16. TUS Staff has completed a report representing the earned and adjusted returns on rate base and common equity capital for Pennsylvania non-telephone fixed utilities with jurisdictional operating revenues of over $10,000,000. Staff has included detailed, market-based analysis of the current cost of equity across industry-wide groups. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission make the earnings report public. Oral Statement by Vice Chairman Place. Dissenting Statement by Commissioner Powelson. Vote 3-2, with Commissioner Powelson and Commissioner Sweet dissenting.

LAW BUREAU

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PORTFOLIO STANDARDS ACT OF 2004, L-2014-2404361. Under its statutory duty to implement and enforce the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act (AEPS Act) of 2004, the Commission seeks to revise its revise its regulations pertaining to the net metering, interconnection and compliance provisions of the AEPS Act. The Commission finds that it is necessary to revise these regulations to comply with Act 129 of 2008, Act 35 of 2007 and to clarify certain issues of law, administrative procedure and policy. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the proposed Order. Statement by Chairman Brown. Vote 5-0.

RULEMAKING AMENDING 52 PA CODE CH 1, 3, 5, 23 & 29, l-2015-2507592. The Commission initiated a proposed rulemaking to reduce the current barriers to entry for qualified passenger motor carrier applicants by eliminating the requirement that an applicant for passenger motor carrier authority establish that approval of the application will serve a useful public purpose, responsive to a public demand or need. Comments to the proposal were filed. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the proposed Order. Joint Statement by Commissioner Powelson and Commissioner Coleman. Vote 5-0.

IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 1329 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY CODE, m-2016-2543193. On 4/14/16, Governor Wolf signed into law Act 12 of 2016, which amended Chapter 13 of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Code by adding a new Section 1329 to the Code and which became effective 6/13/16. 66 Pa. C.S. § 1329. In particular, Section 1329 of the Code addresses the valuation of the assets of municipally and authority-owned water and wastewater systems that are acquired by investor-owned water and wastewater utilities or entities. By Order entered 7/21/16, the Commission issued a Tentative Implementation Order wherein the Commission proposed procedures and guidelines to address the application process and carry out the ratemaking provisions of Section 1329. The Tentative Implementation Order also invited comments. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the proposed Order. Vote 5-0.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

JOHN J. ROUNCE VS PECO ENERGY COMPANY, C-2015-2506941. Complaint filed 9/30/15, alleging that a reliability, safety or quality problem with electricity service. Complainant avers that in his 30 years as a PECO customer, he has experienced problems with numerous outages, surges, spikes and brownouts which have persisted despite his complaints to PECO.

4

On 10/26/15, Respondent filed an answer denying the material allegations of the Complaint. A hearing was held on 2/1/16. COMMISSION REVIEW: That the Commission adopt ALJ Vero's Initial Decision denying the Complaint. Postponed until the Meeting of November 9, 2016.

NEIL AND GILDA ALTMAN VS VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA LLC, C-2015-2515583. Complaint filed 11/30/15 alleging a reliability, safety or quality problem with telephone service. Verizon filed its Answer on 12/21/15. A hearing was held on 3/3/16. COMMISSION REVIEW: That the Commission adopt ALJ Heep’s Initial Decision sustaining the Complaint. Motion by Commissioner Coleman. Statement by Commissioner Coleman. Vote 5-0.

COLUMBIA GAS OF PA INC., R-2016-2529660, C-2016-2535301, C-2016-2538051, C-2016-2541623, C-2016-2541753, C-2016-2538611, C-2016-2538843, C-2016-2547479, C-2016-2555931. Columbia Gas filed its Tariff Gas – Pa. P.U.C. No. 9, Supplement No. 241 on 3/18/16, to become effective 5/17/16, seeking a general rate increase calculated to produce $55.3 million (11.23%) in additional revenues. Complaints were filed. The Commission suspended the filing until 12/19/16. A Joint Petition for Settlement was filed on 9/2/16. COMMISSION REVIEW: That the Commission adopt ALJ Dunderdale's Recommended Decision approving the Settlement without modification. Oral Statement by Chairman Brown. Vote 5-0.

MARIE KEETS VS UGI UTILITIES INC., C-2016-2541626. Complaint filed 4/11/16 requesting a payment arrangement indicating Complainant is disabled and lives on a fixed income. UGI filed an Answer, New Matter and Preliminary Objections on 5/31/16. The Preliminary Objections assert the Commission lacks jurisdiction in the matter because the Complainant is no longer a customer of UGI. The Complainant did not file a reply to the Preliminary Objections. COMMISSION REVIEW: That the Commission adopt ALJ Guhl's Initial Decision sustaining UGI's Preliminary Objections and dismissing the Complaint without prejudice. Motion by Commissioner Sweet. Vote 5-0.

UGI UTILITIES INC. - GAS DIVISION, R-2016-2543309, C-2016-2544958, C-2016-2548840. On 6/1/16, UGI submitted its definitive purchased gas cost filing, pursuant to section 1307(f) of the PA PUC Code, 66 Pa. C.S. §1307(f), proposing a purchased gas cost rate of $4.8003 per Mcf for PGC 1 and $4.7623 per Mcf for PGC 2. On 8/16/16, a Stipulation in Settlement of Section 1307(f) Rate Investigation was filed by the parties. COMMISSION REVIEW: That the Commission adopt ALJ Haas' Recommended Decision approving the Joint Petition for Settlement. Statements by Vice Chairman Place and Commissioner Sweet. Vote 5-0.

UGI CENTRAL PENN GAS INC., R-2016-2543311, C-2016-2544964, C-2016-2548845. On 6/1/16, UGI CPG submitted its definitive purchased gas cost filing, pursuant to section 1307(f) of the PA PUC Code, 66 Pa. C.S. §1307(f), proposing a purchased gas cost rate of $3.2229 per Mcf. On 8/16/16, a Stipulation in Settlement of Section 1307(f) Rate Investigation was filed by the parties. COMMISSION REVIEW: That the Commission adopt ALJ Haas' Recommended Decision approving the Joint Petition for Settlement. Statements by Vice Chairman Place and Commissioner Sweet. Vote 5-0.

UGI PENN NATURAL GAS INC., R-2016-2543314, C-2016-2544985, C-2016-2548847. On 6/1/16, UGI PNG submitted its definitive purchased gas cost filing, pursuant to section 1307(f) of the PA PUC Code, 66 Pa. C.S. §1307(f), proposing a purchased gas cost rate of $3.0248 per Mcf. On 8/16/16, a Stipulation in Settlement of Section 1307(f) Rate Investigation was filed by the parties. COMMISSION REVIEW: That the Commission adopt ALJ Haas' Recommended Decision approving the Joint Petition for Settlement. Statement by Commissioner Sweet. Vote 5-0.

5

CARRY-IN AGENDA

BUREAU OF TECHNICAL UTILITY SERVICES

CONSOLIDATED RATE CORPORATION, A-00111016, C-00913256. Joint Petition filed on 6/8/16, for modification of the Commission Order entered 10/9/97. In the Joint Petition, the parties agree, in part, that the stone bridge at Crossing No. 10 shall be permitted to remain in place and that the Township agrees to assume ownership and all future maintenance responsibility for the stone bridge structure, perform an environs-only inspection of the bridge once every two years, relocate, install and maintain all signage, and maintain the concrete drainage facilities. No Answer to the Joint Petition was filed. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the proposed Opinion and Order. Statement by Commissioner Sweet. Vote 5-0.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

All matters approved as submitted.

----------,..------.,----~~"~---

PENNSYLVANIA PUIlLIe U'fIl,I'TY COJVIIVnSSION HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120

Bonnie Roberts

v.

Public l\1ccUng Octobcr 27, 2016 24 70550~OSA

Verizon North LLC J)ocl{ct No. (>2015-2470550

MOTION O~"' COlVIMISSI()NER ,JOIINF. COLEMAN, tn~.

Before the Pennsylvania Public Utility COfnmh~Hion by Ve1'izoll North LLC (Verizon) to the Initial Decision (ID) proceeding.

disposition are Exceptions JHed in the above-captioned

The Complainant al that her telephone provided by Vedzon oue~

when she telephone calls, 111e ID sustains the Complaint Verizon for violations of Section 150 I of the Public Utility and and directs a $3,000 penalty. Specifically, (1) a $2,000 civil penalty for failing to identify and correct cause of the probJenl and for providing confusing, J.u."-'vu.lC>.hJ ..... ' .... ,

and incorrect information to the Complainant about the cause of the problem and civil penalty for tailing to have a nlanager contact the C0111plainant about her I.:'P1·''Il1''· ...

Verizon to the ,finding of unreasonable arid to the $3!OOO civil penalty. Although [ that Verizon did not provide I do not that a civil penalty is warranted for the reasons in this ,Motion. Upon revie"v oftha record evidence and applicabJe law, I to exceptions, in part, and to in as fbllo'vvs.

I that Verizon did not provide reasonable Although Verizon appears to huve responded diligently to the customer! s conlplaint, the tact remains that the <.'t:>t"tfl"'''' problem has persisted three Morcovcr~ \1 erizon did not successfully rebut the allegation that it rrovided con (using, etc., iniomlution to the custonlcr about the cause ",,,,,,,.·<.rH"'" problem.' Vcrizon, for exampI(~> did not otler any evidence to refute \vhat Verizon technicians may have told the Ctlstonlcr the cause ofhet problem. In short, no custOIJICr should a problen1 fbI' three without utility a solid explanati0l1 and solution. For reasons, I propose to deny exception to the that it provided unreasonable service under Section 1501 of the Code.

However, I not a civil penalty is vvarnmted under our St€l,llUarCtS for detennining civil penalties. Therefore, 1 to Veriz.on~s $2,000 civil

: Verizon is l..U1der Section 1501 of the 66 Pel. C.S. § 1501, to prtwide aae~::Jllat:e, efticient nnd reasonable telephone service.

Upon a ComplainanPs pre~"cnlntHm of evidence sufficient to make a facie case that initially satisfies the burden of proof! the forward with the evidence shifts to the to rebut the Complainant's evidence. If the the the Respondent has not succeS,SfUll\ rebutted the a

penalty. First~ there is no evidence that Verizon's COIlduct here was intentional or that Verizon'8 conduct constitutes willful fraud or misrepresentation, Second, the is the only ctlstom.er by V erizoll' s conduct here, and the record evidence that Ve1'1z011 was responsive in attempting to identify and fix the problem. '[,hi.rd, [ do not believe a penalty is necessary to deter Verizon frorn sirnilar violations in the future.

Fourth, there are other factors that support no civil he1'e. Vedzon provided credible evidence that customer is at partially responsible for hm,1\l the service problem has persisted. 'rhe customer is experiencing "line tripping"] likely caused by something inside the hornet 4 hut the customer to accept V erizon' s to inspect her inside facilities/equiplnent at no to her. In my vicvv, the C11stol11cr's refusal to accept Verizon's offer against a civil penalty. !v1oreover, the testimony that Verizonprovidcd confusing! etc. information about the cause of the service problcrn is insufficient to support a d viI penalty.:>

Verizon also to the ID's treatmcntofits testimony on the content ofVerizon's records documenting the precautionary measures that were taken to the f"H~+r", ...... ,.:. .. ·'

lIowever, I with the ID that the Verizon testiInony on this is inadillissibic hearsay, Thereforc) Iproposc to deny Verizon's exception on this issue.

previously noted~ 1\Itt. Detzel's testimony on the cause of the cust0111er'S service problem is admissible. lVfr. testimony regarding the steps he took, personally, to investigate the eonlplaint was 011 his personal kno\vledge and also is adrnissible.1

Hcrwevert the san1e cannot be said fbr the witness' testimony about the precautionary rneasures done prior to his investigative \vork. Upon review of the transcript~ testimony on this primarily directly from the company~s V\. .. JJ.Uvvi;) record or sumlnarizing the cOlnpany's business and those recordSWC1'C 110t oftered into evidence,· Therefore, the vvitness' testimony on this issue constitutes out-of-court

"Line tripping" would cause the customer's phone to 81,

once \vhen receiving a call and then disconnect. Tr. at

4 \Vitness Detzel testified that a corroded jac.k} a bad te!~mllI0ne set} or interference fwm other devices in the home like a cable or satellite TV can cause line tripping, at 84~85. Verizon witness Det7.el's on the cause of the customer's is not the testimony is his opiniotl t rationally on his perceptions from his \vork. As such r the is admissible lay opinion under P~rm<:l,!tvpmin Rule of Evidence 70 I, This follows the decision in Williams v, Duquesne Light Docket No, CM 20 14~244670 I (Order entered 24, the ConnuissinH found that a supervisor's testimony about the cause to a sidewalk adjacent to a on the wible:;;s' perceptions from multiple site and as was adlntssH)le

replacement was opinion testimony,

based

3 Although sufficient to make a prima facie case, the custorner's on this issue is somcw'hat vague, For "'A.<Ulll.l<'" the testimony "Ihat unnamed Verizon technicians to her at unidentified dates and times.

6 Verizon Witness Detzel that the following measures were taken: of the cable on the F-l cable between the centnl1 office and cross-connect box several times over the past three years at

(2) of the cable on the [;-2 cable between the cross~cormect box and terminal box. ncar the customer1s bOll)e a over the past three years (Tr. at (3) ofthe customer's network interface device that is attached to her hOLlse (Tr. at and replacement customer'S card 111 the Verizol1 central office t}lC cu~tomer (Tr. at

1 This consistent with our decision in Williams in whk,h the Commission found that a supervisor's test:tm()ny about the condition of the sidcwuJk was admissible be<.:ause [he witness inspected the sIdewalk on occasions. the witness had pctsoual about the cOIldition of the !'ttalr~\1,.llHK"

2

statements offered to prove tile truth of the matters therein. it is .-.P.;;.f'C'<';I,'\!

that in this ease is not subject to any exemption that would al10w fbr admission into the rec,ord. 9

the Commission the fValker 1uJe, This rule allows for the aCltlllSSlO·11

hAc.rel"'" evidence that is not objected to suppnrt a finding of fact but only if corroborated by competent evidence in the record. Ii} Although the Complainant did 110t object to the evidence at the t1111e of the hearing, the testimony on the precautionary repair measures that Verizol1 took rp~·~t'\1'''''.'p. to the complaint was not corroborated elsewhere in the record. Therefol'e, Verizon's testhnony on this is not admissible under Walker.

I. propose to exception and reverse the 51)000 civil penalty for failing to have a Vedzon nl8,nagcr contact the Complainant. Notwithstanding that there is no lavv} regulation, or Commission order requiring a to contact a Ctlst0111er upon request, the credible record 8110\\/8 that several Verizon contacted the Complainant on different about problern. of the contacts occurred prior to filing of the Forn1al COlnplaint, while one of the COl1tacts occurred after the Complaint was filed, the record shows that VCl'izon was to the customer's request to speak with a Inanager and did not 1501 of the Code.

TflEREFOI~E, 1 MOVE THAT:

1. The Exceptions of with this Motion,

North .LLC are granted~ in and denied, in part, ,",V.l.".:>L,':HVJl""

2, 'T'ho Initiall)ecision is modUled, consistent with this NIotioll,

3, OUice Special LiJ .. :U..;J1.1;1.LL,,;) #''\'''(:>1''':11'0, an Opinion and Order C01:lSl:neIlt with this 1vlotion.

J)~lte: Octobcr'27,2016

8 See Rule of Evidence 801, In /"{'111,Y/,,\llt'10i'U1

about the condition of the sidewalk was not lestlrlvUllZ

based primarily on J~is observations of the F!l(H~walk

I.M"."""'" J note that the DQ[, "\H'\t~''''lli.,t .. t' COrf1lnarW records. Rather,

mUiltlple site visits. tesl:ml<:my was

') 'I'he "rec(mls conducted or bUF!iness ,'ecords C.K(:epltKHl the record itself, which did not dOj rmd not to admit oral test:lm(HlY or tl1C document See JJ .. ,.,nC\lhHld'\Hl .Rule of Evidence 803. Another to admit the evidence \yould have been the but the witness was not quaHtled as such. See P"'11.1Hl'<.lh,n,nln Rule of Evidence 702.

10 rValker v. Un.fumJI<J\.lftu?lnl L'ontpefUulI'tol1 Board 367 A.2d 370 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1976).

BOJll1ie Roberts

v.

])ENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMl'\1ISSION HARRISnUR(~, PE3NNSYLV ANIA 17120

Public Meeting October 27, 2016

2470550-0SA

Verizol1 North LLC Docket No. C-2015 ... 2470550

ST A TEMJ43NT OJ~ COl\1MISSIONER IJAVIIJ W. SWEET

Before joining n1Y staff as l,egal Counsel, Regina Matz was working in the Ofl1ce of Special Assistants and worked on this case. Please note that she has not advised m,e in this matter. /11 DATE: October27,2016 ,a

PENNSYLVAl"'IA PUBLIC UTILITY CO]Vt)1ISSION . Harrisburg~ Pennsylvania 17105 .. 3265

P A PUC, Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement v. PECO Energy Company

Public !\1ecting held October 27, 2016 2479970-0SA Docket No. C-2015-2479970

ST ATEMENT OF CH .. 4IRMAN GLADYS IV£. BRO\VN

On July 17~ when PECO COTIlpany (PECO) performed an .... r-'~" .. ' .... , •• ..., Coatesvme~ a home exploded. Thankfully, no one was injured, Our of

(BI&E) investigation of the matter that problems vtith the accuracy maps of its territory to this incident. Before the Commission for

COt1SHler1:it1Cm and disposition is Joint Petition Settlement (Settlement) BI&E PECO. The Settlement provides that:

• PECO will develop a million gas plan which will allow it to map ....... "'., ........ ' ... ..., with sub·.foot

• PECO will spend an additional million on related infrastructure improvements • The re-mapping of the territory will 1 O~20 years • PECO will pay a civil penalty $900,000 not to be rates

I believe that the work which PEeo "vill undertake as a result of this Settlement is critical for public safety, this vvork is so 1 do not understand why it should, take up to 20

I urge PECa to narrow tinleline and carry out this work as svviftly as possible.

October 27 t 2016 Date

~~~6~ Gladys M. Brown, Chairman

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY CO[\tlJVIISSION BARRISBUItG, PENNSYLVANIA 17105 .. 3265

BillIe .To Knapp v.

l)ennsylvania Electric ConlJ>any

PUBLIC l\fEETING: October 27, 2016 2511723-0SA J)ocket No. C-2015-2511723

STATEMENT OF VICE CHAIR:MAN ANDRE\V G. PLACE

Before us for consideration arc the Exceptions of the Complainant, Billie Jo Knapp, to the Initial Decision issued 011 April 7, 2016 ill the above docket. On October 30, 2015> Ms. Knapp filed a Fonnal Complaint agai11st Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec or Company) requesting an affbrdable payment anangen1ent because she only per Inonth from her disability benefits. She also has requested to be placed in the COlnpany's CustOlner AS!,lStan(;c Progranl (CAP) and bas asked that her not be tenninated while an aflordable paytl1ent plan is deterlnined.

Penelec adlnitted that the Complainant was sent a tennination notice for the past due amount of $716.43 but the Company stated that it did not intend. to terminate service to Ms. Knapp because of the filing of the CODlplaint. Pcnelec indicated that a paYll1ent arrangement was granted by the C0111mission but defaulted due to nonpayrntmt. Also, the Cornpany asserted that Ms. Knapp was previously on the CAP but was removed due to her failure to recertify her eligibility. Further, Penelcc indicated that the Complainant would need to pay her entire outstanding balance because she already received the one ... tirn.e benefit of arrearage defen"a! and was provided verification of incOlne eligibility.

In addition, there are other cases before· us today, such as Rago v. Philadelphia Gas Works and Matthew and Traci Kolar v. \N' est Penn Power COlnpany, that draw attention to the hardship and dire circmnstances faced by fItr too m.any of our feHow citizens who have profound difficulties paying for basic utility services. The struggle to maintain essential utility services in people's lives impacts the fundatllcntal needs of families to stay in their homes, to work, to go to school and to participate in their C01nIDUllities throughout the Comrnonwealth. In addition, lack of utility service may \ve111ead to unsafe living conditions.

I do not draw attention to these cases before us today to imply a lack of concenl or effort on the paJt of these utilities. III fact there is luucb to C01nJl1cnd in the substantive efforts made by regulated utilities and social service organizations, through statutory and voluntary programs, to provide assistance to Iow .. income and payn1ent troubled cllstOlners. I am also keenly attentive to the obligatory reciprocity for utilities to render service and for customers to provide payment. However, to further the public interest as we are mandated to more should be done to penn it Pennsylvanians to maintain essential utility services. In particular, I beHeve that the large lutnp sum paytllents requiredto reCOllnect essential utility services are all too often out of reach for many low-income, paynlent troubled Pennsylvanians. I remain concerned that \ve are relegating residents to a pernlanent inability to access essentiul utility services.

These all too com,mon cases must cOlnpel all of us to further address the arrearage and payment challenges of utility customers and to contribute to the lnaintenance of essential utility services. Although it may require regulatory and statutory change, I suggest that it is likely that there are novel policiesti1at would fu11her in mitigating these chalJenges. 'For example, the Commission's Energy Burden guidelil1es, which are used to determine what a low·incmne customer can afford, are antiquated> unsupported by sufficient analysis and fail to account for regional climatic heterogeneity. They sinlply need updating. Also, greater education and coordination efforts anlong all parties can also assist in alleviating much of the existing hardship. Some education and coordination steps are taking pJaee but 1110ro can be done.

If further solutions can be crafted to more thoroughly address disconnection of essential utility serviceB for low income and payment troubled customers, substantive benefits accrue not only to the affected custonlCIs, but also to utilities, ratepayers, and communWes throughout the Conlnlonwealth.

DATED: October 27,2016

PE~'"NSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY C01\fMISSION Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-3265

Petition of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for Approval of a Default Service Program and Procurement Plan

Public lVleeting held October 27, 2016 2526627~OSA

Docket No .. P-2016 ... 2526627

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMA:N GLADYS M. BROv\lN

the for consideration and Olsomnncm is the Petition of PPL Utilities Corporation (PPL) for Approval of its Default Program for the period of June 1) 2017 through IvIay 31, 2021.

On July 19,2016) the Parties to this proceeding filed a Joint Petition for Partial Settlement (Partial Settlement). On August 17, 2016, the presiding Administrative Judge issued an Initial Decision recommending approval of the Partial Settlement, as modified in the Initial Decision. Exceptions and Reply Exceptions to the Initial Decision were filed on September 6, 2016 and September 16" 2016 respectively_

Consistent with my position on previous default filings, I wish to elaborate 'why I believe this Partial Settlement does establish a default plan that procurement requirements under Act 129, specifically, Section 2807(e) Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S. § 2807( e). This section provides that a default provider must procure electric power via a prudent mix of spot market, and long .. teml contracts designed to ensure adequate and reliable service at the cost to customers over time, I PPL' s proposed default service program includes short-term products in the residential and commercial and industrial portfolios,

market purchases in the large and industrial portfolio, and long-term contracts in the residential portfolios?

I note that none of the default plans that I voted on during my tenure include long-term contracts, only long .. tcrm contracts inherited from previous default plans. The

proceeding is no different. Since grandfathered contracts will eventually in my opinion, it will be incumbent upon electric distribution companies and this Commission to carefully consider long-term contracts of four to twenty year terms, consistent with Section 2807(e) of the in future default plans unless the Legislature decides otherwise.

October 27, 2016 Date

~~6~ Gladys M. Bro,\~; Chairman

I For the purposes of Section electric power includes not only electric supply but also Alternative Portfolio Standards credits. 2 PPL is entered into a five year 50 MW block energy contract that on May 31, 2021.

IlENNSYLVANJA PUULIC UTILITY COMl\rfISSION !L\RRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17105

Petition of PPL I'~Iectric Utilities Corpor~ltiof1 for Approval of a Default Service Progranl and Procurement Plan for the Period June 1, 2017 Through l\<lay 31, 2021

Public Ivleeting: October 27, 2016 2526627-0SA Docket No. P-2016-2526627

STATEl\tlENT OF VICE CIIAII~'1AN ANDRE\V G.PLACli:

Before us for consideration is the Petition for Approval of a Default: Service Prograrn and Proeurerncnt: Plan (nSp IV or nsp IV Plan) for the period June 1, 2017 throll.gb May 31, 2021 (Petition) and the Joint Petition for Approval ofPaltial Settlement (Settlement or Partial Settlement) at this docket. Also, for our consideration are the of PPL Utilities Corporation (PP.L, PPL Electric or the Company), the Retail .Energy Supply Association (RBSA) and PP&L Industrial Customer AlJiance (PPLICA) flIed on Scptelnber 6, 2016 to the Initial Decision (I.D.) issued 011 August 17, 2016, in the abovc~captjoned proceeding.

I fu] [y support approval of the Partial Settle1nent reached ill this proceeding. The parties arc to be commended for their collaborative work to craft a resolution oftbe vast lnajority

issues in this very complex case. Their work product \-vill serve the general public welL

However, I wish to express concerns regarding the shopping restrictions imposed on customers served under our Customer Assistance Prognml, or CAP. I run not able to support the Joint ljtigation Position which severely limits the ability for CAP cllstOlners to avail thenlselves

cOlnpetitive market products. The terms oftbe proposed CAP-Standard Offer Program~ or CAP SOP are as follows:

• Effective June 1,2017, the CAP-SOP is the only vehicle that a CAP custolner can use to shop and receive supply froIn an EGS. Any CAP customer shopping request that does not

processed through the CAP-SOP will be denied. • EGSs participating in the CAP-SOP Inust agree to serve customers at a 7% discount off

tbe PTC at tho time of cnrolhncnt. Tb.is shall rClnain fixed for the 12-month CAP-SOP contract unless ter.minated earlier by the custolner.

• CAP customers may terminate the CAP-SOP contract at any thne and without any tennination or cancellation fees or other penalties.

• A CAP customer who termi11ates a CAP-SOP contract or whose CAP-SOP contract reaches the end of its term can re-enroll in the CAP-SOP.

• At the conclusion of a 12~month CAP-SOP contract, the CAP customer will be returned to the CAP-SOP pool and be re-enrolled in a new CAP-SOP contract, unless the CAP customer requests to be retunled to default service or is no longer a CAP customer.

• EGSs lllUSt enroll separate from the standard SOP to a participating supplier in the CAPwSOP; would be to voluntarily elect to participate in none, one or the other, or both the traditional SOP and the proposed CAP-SOP. Enrolhnent will for a

three-m.onth period) and shan conform to the enrollment process for the standard SOP. EGSs 11lay opt in to participate in the CAP-SOP on a quarterJy basis, and are free to leave the CAP-SOP on a qu~uierly basis,

• CAP cust0111erS already shopping as of the J1111e 1, 2017 effective date of the new plan will be subject to these rules.

• All CAP customer shopping fixed-tel111 contracts in effect as of effective date of the CAP-SOP will remain in place until the contract term expires and/or is tenninated.

• Once the existing CAP Cu.stOlner shopping contract expires or is terminated, the CAP customer \vill have the option to enroll in the CAP-SOP or return to default but in any event will only be pemlitted to shop through the CAP-SOP.

• PPL Electric will revise its CAP recertification scripts/process so that all existing CAP shopping C1.1ston1er8 receiving generation supply on a 1110nth-to-month basis after June 1, 2017 will be required at the time of CAP recertification to enroll in the CAP-SOP or return to default service, but in any event wiH only be pertnitted to shop through the CAP-SOP.

These changes \villlikely force all CAP customers to return to default service over time. it is unlikely that BGSs will participate in the CAP-SOP program, as articulated by EGSs

all the record in this case. Second} the order inappropriately limits shopping only to the CAP SOP progranl, Thus, customers seeking offers frOtll BGSs below the current default service price: even products that offer prices for multiple years, will not be able to lock in and he,dge lo\v rnarkct priced flx~d rate products. Third, such rigid rules win not an ow EGSs and custol11crs to participate in spot 111at'ket-priced products that, over time, may be priced \vell below hedged default service products. Fourth, CAP Ctlstolners will not have access to new, innovative EGS products that n1ay help them better control their energy costs. I hope that future proceedings will provide us with solutions that will provide CA"P cust0l11erS with more substantive access to a range of competitive Inarket products while remaining cognizant ofnlarket risk exposure. Some solutions might include:

• New, non-CAP SOP contracts should include fixed offers not to exceed the Default Service price at time of offer. After expiration of the fixed rate period, this satllC

1 itnitation shouJd appJy. The new offered rate would need to be at or below the then current Default Service Price.

• New, nOll-SOP cOl1tracts which are variable rate offers should require the 6 consecutive month average rate to be below tbe 6 month average rate for default service rate [rolling 6 month average test].

• The post SOP roll-over option should be limited to 111eet the saIne rolling 6 lnonth average test If the EGS is unable to accntnplish this, it would imm,ediately return the custolller to Default Service, or have the customer sign up for the SOP program or another tlxed ~ate EGS contract at or below the current default service rate.

• Any existing, fixed rate contract, or any rollover contract option must lneet the same requirements.

This should not be viewed as all exhaustive list of alternative shopping restrictions) but provide concepts that respond more appropriately to the CAP custOl'ncr issues identified in this case. I. fear that the CAP custom.cr resolution proposed wil1 cause more long term harm than good,

Therefore, I concur in pmt and dissent in palt.

DATED: October 27,2016 Andrew G. Place, Vice Chainnan

PENNSYL VANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION HARRISBURG, PENNSYL VANIA 17120

Petition of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for Approval of a Default Service Program and Procurement Plan for the Period June 1,2017, through May 31, 2021

Public Meeting October 27,2016 2526627-0SA Docket No. P-2016-2526627

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT F. POWELSON

Before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC or Commission) today are the Exceptions and Reply Exceptions to the Initial Decision regarding PPL Electric Utilities Corporation's (PPL) Petition for approval of its Default Service Program and Procurement Plan for the period of June 1) 2017, through May 31, 2021 (DSP). The parties to this proceeding reached a settlement on all issues except one, While I support the settlelnent, I do not agree with the parties' resolution of the remaining issue reserved for litigation, which was whether customers who participate in PPL's Customer Assistance Program (CAP) should be permitted to shop for an Electric Generation Supplier (EGS).

During the course of litigation, all of the parties except Retail Energy Supply Association (RESA) reached an agreement on the CAP shopping issue. These parties propose to limit the ability of CAP customers to shop for an EGS unless they do so through PPL' s Standard Offer Program (CAP-SOP). Under the CAP~SOP, EGSs must agree to serve CAP customers at a rate that is 7% less than the Price-to-Compare (PTC), and this price will remain fixed for 12 months. The rationale behind this proposal is that the costs recovered through PPL's Universal Service Rider (USR) are going up and that limiting CAP shopping will help address the issue,

There is no disputing that universal service costs are rising not only in the PPL service territory, but across the Commonwealth, and that controlling this increase is an important issue for all electric customers. However, the solution developed by the parties to this proceeding is not the correct answer to the problem, Limiting the ability ofPPL's approximately 41,000 CAP customers to choose an'EGS and have control over their electricity costs is a drastic step that should not be undertaken lightly,

In reaching a decision on this matter, we cannot forget the value that robust competition in the electricity supply market provides for all Pennsylvanians. It brings lower prices, innovation, and a broader array of product offerings. If we start placing lirnitations on the ability of certain custom.ers to shop out of a fear that they, will not do it well, where will that end? It is important to remember that 45% ofPPL's CAP customers who are shopping are doing it well and the proposal 'advocated in this proceeding will take that option away from them, despite that they have done nothing 'but use the system wisely. I have consistently disagreed with those who assert that being low-income equates to being unable to make reasoned, rational choices when purchasing electricity, and continue to do so here.

The period that PPL considered when examining its CAP costs (January 2013 to October 20 15) included the Polar Vortex, when many shopping custon1ers across the Commonwealth experienced higher electricity costs. AdditionalIy~ in the wake of the Polar Vortex, the Commission took great lengths to enhance consumer education and implement safeguards such as 3-day business switching, contract expiration notification rules, and greater disclosure requirements for variable rate contracts. These I11eaSUres take tiIlle to have an impact on the market and nlay 110t have been fully captured in PPL's data.

Further, I am concerned that under PPL~s proposal, no EGSs will choose to participate in the CAP~SOP program, thereby depriving CAP customers of their right to shop for an EGS entirely. To serve CAP customers, EGSs not only have to agree offer a product at 7% belo\\' the PTC, they also have to pay PPL a $28 referral fee to serve the customer. As noted in Initial Decision, this requirement is burdensome and Inay greatly discourage EGS participation in the program. It is entirely possible that PPL will see so little or no EGS patiicipation in the CAP­SOP. Ifthis occurs, CAP customers will not have m~y oppOliunity to take advat1tage of the innovative product offerings or low prices offered by EGSs in the Conunonwealth.

In CA USE-PA v; PUC, the COlnnlonwealth Court found that the COlnmission could approve l'estrictions on CAP shopping "as long as it provides substantial reasons why there is no reasonable alternative ... ,,1 Here} there are other alternatives that the Commission and the parties should explore before taking the extrenle ste,p of lhniting the ability of certain PPL custOlncrs to shop for an electricity supplier.

In its exceptions, RESA suggested that PPL should iInpose no restrictions on CAP shopping and encourage cnstOlners to use the SOP if they do shop. The ALJ disll1isses this idea as insufficient. Howevt;t, I believe this more moderate solution has the possibility of 11laking a genuine impact. Customer education is a powerful tool that should not be underestimated. The parties' speculation that educating customers on both the value of "shopping smart" and the benefits of the SOP program will not work is just that - speculation. We ccrtainly do not know if this solution could be successful unless we try. Given what is at stake, it is l111portatlt that we exhaust all reasonable options before limiting shopping for certain categories of customers.

Staff recommends refelTing the issue of rising universal service costs and the complex role that CAP shoppingplays in this problem to the PUC's Office ofColnpetitive Markets Oversight (OeMO). I agree with this reCOTI11nendation and believe that we should give OCMO a chance to address this issue on a statewide basis before approving on a case-by-case basis proposals to linlit CAP shopping. Restricting CAP customer shopping in the PPL territory alone will result in a piecemeal solution to the problem, rather dealing with the entire issue.

For these reasons I cannot support the position advocated by the majority of the pmiies to the proceeding and I respectfully partially dissent on the CAP shopping issue.

DATE: October 27,2016 ROBERT F. POWELSON COMMISSIONER

1 Coalition/or Affordable Utility Services and Energy Efllcienc:y in Pennsylvania v. Pa. PUC, 120 Ad, 1087 CPa. Cmwlth. 2015) (CAUSE-PA'v. PUC).

2

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY C()MMISSION HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120

PPL Electric Utilities Corporation Public Meeting October 27,2016

2526627-0SA

Docket No. P .. 2016-2526627

STATEMENTO.F COMMISSIONER DAVID \V. S\VEET

Before joining Iny staff as Legal Counsel~ Susan CohveH was worldng in the Office of Administrative Law Judge and \vorked on this case in hcr capacity as an Administrative Law Judge, Please note that she has not advised me in this matter,

DATE~ October 27, 2016

Commissioner

----------------------------_ ..... .

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-3265

Re: Bureau of Technical Utility Services Report on the Quarterly Earnings of Jurisdictional Utilities for the Year Ended June 30, 2016.

Public Meeting: October 27, 2016 2570997-TUS Docket No. M-2016-2570997

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT F. POWELSON

Before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) today for consideration is the Bureau of Teclmical Utility Services' (TUS) Report on the Quarterly Earnings of Jurisdictional Utilities (Quarterly Earnings Report) for the Year Ended June 30, 2016. As part of this Quarterly Earnings Report, the Commission determines the Return on Equity (ROE) that will be applicable for those utilities that implement a Distribution System Improvement Charge (DSIC) but have not had a rate case within the past two years. My position is that the Commission should not change the ROEs for this quarter.

The ROEs in the Quarterly Earnings Reports are important because they directly impact a utility's ability to implement a DSIC. As a preliminary matter, it is important to recognize that the DSIC mechanism does not require customers to pay more over the life of a capital asset. The timing of recovery is the only factor affected. In this way, the DSIC mechanism is very customer friendly in that it helps to insulate customers from rate shock in the wake of a utility rate case by allowing utilities to gradually fund necessary upgrades to system. DSIC also provides an immediate benefit to customer safety and quality of service by encouraging utilities to maintain and upgrade their systetns at an accelerated pace. If the Commission truly places a high value on the accelerated replacenlent of aging utility infrastructure, then we should set ROEs in a manner that will encourage utilities to engage in this important work. Along those lines, I believe the Commission should keep the following principles in mind when setting ROEs for DSIC:

First, I believe that the DSIC ROE should generally exceed Staffs market based equity calculations by a healthy margin. Setting the DSIC ROE at a rate that is equivalent to or slightly above the Staff's calculations places an unnecessarily tight collar on the DSIC mechanism, thereby discouraging capital formation. Over the last five quarters, the Commission has reduced the DSIC ROE even where the market rates have held steady or even increased. For example, in the electric industry we have dropped the DSIC return consecutively over the last three quarters by 35 basis points and, now, at least one company is a risk of losing their DSIC recovery. This is problematic. We need to maintain the DSIC ROE at healthy margin above market rates in order to encourage capital investment.

Second, regulatory certainty should be a key factor in our analysis. It is crucial that the Commission not only set appropriate ROEs, but take a deliberate approach to changing these numbers. The DSIC returns have traditionally been very stable over the period that this statute has been in effect, basically at either 10.1-10.2. These rates have now been the subject of serial

qualierly reductions even where the n1arket indicated rates have been increasing. This is not a good trend for utilities looking to invest capital in Pennsylvania.

Instead of nlaking incremental changes to the ROEs, the Commission should view the returns over the long tenn and better understand temporary market fluctuations before reacting to them. The calculations of a Inarket based return will invariably fluctuate fi'Oln quarter to quarter. That is a given, but it is important for the Commission take a tneasured approach to those changes. Ratenlaking is ali based on science and determining ROEs is always a complex and challenging process that involves weighing a variety of factors.

Third, we should resist the temptation to set an ROE tor DSIC purposes that varies across industries. This is counterproductive. Historically, the industries that are eligible for DSIC treatment have varied by only 10 basis points. Now we are starting to range by 25 basis points between industries (gas and electric in this instance) with m.ore divergence anticipated. It is much more administratively efficient to have one unified number instead of a wide divergence anlong cOlnpanies that are dipping into the same capital pools.

In sumn1ary, I do not believe the downward pressure that the Commission has been placing on ROEs. recently should continue. I am concelued that should these nUll1bers go any lower, it could jeopardize utilities' ability to invest in infrastructure replacetnent,which is an important safety issue for the Commonwealth. Moreover, the reductions in ROEs will not go unnoticed by investor-owned utilities that devote capital to jurisdictions that reward those investments. I support gradualisll1 and caution in luaking ROE changes and believe the COlumission should continue to watch the trends in the markets before nlaking any nlore modifications.

Date: October 27, 2016

2

ROBERT F. POWELSON COMMISSIONER

PENNSYL V A.NIA PUBLIC UTILITY CO l\;l1VIISSl ON ·Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-3265

Imp1ementation of the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act of 2004

Public Meeting held October 27,} 2016 2404361 .. LA \V Docket No. L .. 2014-2404361

STATEMENT OF CHAIRt.\1:AN GLA.DYS M. BROWN

the Commission n"I"",!,r..1"'.'''''rt' and interconnection pursuant to the Aitenlative Portfolio "T~n[l'::lr""'C to definition of "utility'~ included in this iteration of concerns by the Independent General, and stakeholders in rulemaking nrr,,"p<,c

utility is consistent with the

I also wish to state that the aU{lre:iS any court ""u~""uvUF-,'~'" being vcry reason are Hongoing" and not

October 27, 2016 Date

~ A ,£fA..-. Gladys M. Brown, Chairman

""" ""-----------..,.,.,-".,..,-

PENNSYLV ANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120

Final Rulemaking Amending 52 Pa. Code Chapters 1,3, 5, 23 and 29 to Reduce Barriers to Entry for Passenger Motor Carriers and to Eliminate Unnecessary Regulations Governing Temporary and Emergency Temporary Authority

Public Meeting October 27,2016 2507592-LA W Docket No. L-2015-2507592

JOINT STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ROBERT F. POWELSON

AND COMMISSIONER JOHN F. COLEMAN, JR.

Before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (Commission) today for consideration and disposition is the Final Rulemaking Order (Rulemaking Order) amending several of the Conimission's Regulations to reduce barriers to entry for passenger motor carriers. The Rulemaking Order specifically reduces current barriers to entry by eliminating the requirement that an applicant for passenger motor carder authority establish that approval of the application will serve a useful public purpose, responsive to a public demand or need (i, e., the "need" requirement). 1

The elimination of the need requirement for passenger carriers highlights the Commission's efforts to ensure regulatory flexibility in light of the changing transportation industry. Due to 'increased competition in the motor carrier industry, the need requirement had become outdated. Instead of serving a useful purpose, this requirement posed an obstacle to otherwise viable applications and served to protect monopoly interests to the detriment of healthy competition.

It is important to note that with the elimination of the need requirement, the Commission will continue to ensure that passenger carriers are technically and financially fit and can operate safely and legally. Passenger carriers must provide service that is safe, reliable, and fully insured. The elimination of the need requirement will simply provide consurners with more choices and more competition among passenger can-iers as to price, quality, and reliability.

We want to recognize our legal and technical staff for their work in crafting today's Rulemaking Order. The elimination of the need requirement together with our Transportation 2.0 initiatives to undertake a comprehensive examination of all of our transportation regulations,

1 The Commission similarly issued a Final Rulemaking Order on June 191 2014 to eliminate the need requirement for household goods carriers. Final Rulemaking Amending 52 Pat Code Chapters 3,5,23,31,32, and 41,. Household Goods in Use Carriers and Property Carriers, Docket No. L~2013-2376902 (June 19,2014). The Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) approved the rulemaking on April 16, 2015, stating that the regulation is consistent with the statutory authority of the PUC and the intention of the General Assembly. fRCC Approval Order for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Household Goods in Use Carriers and Property Carriers, Regulation No. 57-298 (#3041) (Apri116~ 2015).

will result in a current set of rules that will ensure the transportation industry in Pennsylvania not only operates safely and reliably, but continues to innovate.

Date: October 27,2016

ROBERT F. POWELSON COMMISSIONER

2

PENNSYLVANIA PUIU"Ie UTfLITY (~(JMl\tnSSION

HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120

N en and Gilda Altman

Verizon l)ennsylvarlbt LtC

Public l\ieeting October 27,2016 2515583-A[;.J

I)odwt No. C-2015 .. 2515583

MOTION OF COMMISSIOl"ER JOHN F. COLElVIAN, JR.

is an Initial Decision (ID)

<:'"on: ... ,;;;, the Complaint, in part, finds that conduct in this case violated the and the Public Utility with the in the ID and move that the, decision adopted. However, I note that the total civil penalty recolTInumded the ID is $4,750, not $3,750 as erroneously st'tted in the ID,

TfIEREFORE, I I\10VE TJIAT:

1. The Initial Decision is moditied, consistent with this '\1otion.

2. 'I.'he Office of Special Assistants prep arc, an Opinion and Order consistent with this 1\1otioll.

Date: October 27, 2016

1

----------,..---~-~-~-'-----"

PENNSYLVANIAPUIILIC UTILITY COMlVIISSHJN HAIUUSBUI"G, PENNSYLVANIA 17120

Neil and Gilda Altman

v.

Verizon Pennsylvania LLC

l)ubUc "Meeting October 27, 2016 25 1 5583·ALJ Docket No. C-2015-2515583

STATEMENT OF COIVIMISSIONER JOIINF. COLIGMAN, .JR.

the Pennsylvania Public Utility for disposition is a11 Initial (ID) issued in the above-captioned formal complaint proceeding.

that their provided Pennsylvania LLC (Verizon) deteriorated in 2015, induding a outage early in early 2015 and line distortion later in ther.Al'. Altl11an complain about 'rransforrnatiol1 project in their wire center (Kirklyn). VerizOlfs Transfbrnlation involves Verizon customers in a particular copper-based to a As relief: Complainants based telephone froll1 Vedzoll.

COJnplaillt~ in part, and that Verizon violated the ,-.0\J,l.UIU,t0JAVU

regulations. The ID also tinds that did not provide ('£"""\J1<''''' under 1501 of the Public Utility Code (Code)] by issUll1g to multiple and conflicting dates as part ltsNelwork 'fransfbrmationin the Kirklyn Wire Center. violations~ the recol1uuended civil penalty is $4,750. I agree with this outcome for the reasons set fbrth the ID.

The ID the C0111plainants} t'~~fl"''''''''T to restore their copper "vire telephone .. ·",.1"'1111",,;;, thnn Vedzol1, I agree \,vi th outcome as record evidence shows that

t'IJerWlnl'1< 'l'ranstl]fInation in the Kirklyn \\I'ire cornplied with the (FCC) copper in at the time of the

Furthermore, I with the ID that 110 Penllsylvania law, rcgulation, or order the Cornmission the to require Verizon to restore to Cornplainants. This Code~ which is \.:vhen it comes to the technology used to provide in In othcr words 1 the Code not Verizon to deploy a particular technology vvhen offering telephone the key requirement is that technology m.ust support prtlV1S10n eff:lcient~ reasonable, and reasonably continuous in accordance with Code 1501.

1 VerizQn is ObIllgatlea under Section ]501 ofthe 66 P£1.. c.s. § 501, to adcquate~ emdeut and reasonable service.

1 '

At the sanle time, case highlights the for Verizon to cO!mll11nicate clearly, accurately, and consistently with uflectcd Cllst0111CrS about its Network Transfbrnlation. Here, Ver1zon provided the with tnultiple and contlicting termitlation that would be triggered if the did not make an appointment to vV.lJcUJJl\".<",,'"

the migration tvloreover, is evidence that Verizon did not intend to actually service to the Conlplainants on the dates provided and that Verizon

have retained the telephone number fbr up to a case they wanted to the ID! this information was not conveyed to the Complainants.

'",vith the ID that cOinmunication failures um'easonable that warrant,; the recom.m.ended civil penalty. In view, proper corrnnunicat1on is critical to ensuring that the transition of from copper to fiber is a one for affected cllston1ers. Although tbis of little comfort to the Altnlans, I expect this case to serve as a

so that forward, these con1munkation do n01 occur as Verizon ,,,,,r'HH.,'H·'''' TrarlSf()nncltion in P("'lnrHc',j

I note that C0l11111issiol1 been to ensure thatVerizon~s Network TrfUlSfoi111ution notices that wm be sent to affected customet.'s in Pennsylvania com.ply v'lith Pennsylvania lavv. This includes compliance with the Commission's rules regarding suspension and termination in Chapter 64 of our I believe the Commission is doing

part, and will continue to do part, to ensure that affected custorners receive lawful and appropriate notice as Verizon continues with Network Trallsfonnation in Pctulsylvania.

Date: October 27, 2016 " (lHNF. COl,fi:MAN, tT . ':Ol\1MISSIONER

2

Marie Keets

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMlVIISSION HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17105-3265

PUBLIC MEETING: October 27, 2016 2541 626 .. AL.J

VGI Utilities, Inc. Oockct No. C-2016-2541626

MOTION OJ<' C()MMlSSION.ER SWEET

BeChre the COn1Jnission is an initial decision sustaining the preJiminary objections

filed by UGIUtilities, Inc. and the formal complaint of Marie Keets without

pr~judice. For the reasons set forth below~ I aln Inoving that the initial decision be reversed and

the matter relnanded for additional proceedings.

There are a number of abnonnalities in this case which have caused the

proceeding to becorne muddled.

Pirst~ Chapter 14 of the Public Utility Code requires that the utility contacted

prior to the complaint being accepted for filing. 66 Pa.C.S. § 1410. Here, the form.al complaint

tU1111 indicates that Ms. Keets did not contact the utility prior to filing her fonnal cOll1plaillt. I

recognize 1hat~ routinely, where there is an informal detennination oft11e Commission's Bureau

of Consumer Services. the BeS proceeding is normaHy counted as contact with the utility that

">~ ..... :,. .. u",,,, the Chapter 14 requirement 1 can see \vhere this formal c01nplaint might have

seen as an untimely appeal ofth.e informal deterlllination issued on November 30,2015, in which

case, the existence of the BeS determination 'would the requirement of Section 141 () as a

contact with the utility prior to the tiling of the formal complaint. However, upon closer

inspection~ the records show that tbe complainant's address changed from one in VGl's territory

the Bes proceeding to one in PECO's territory as shown on her formal complaint form. Any

assumption that this an untimely appeal of the BCS detern1ination is un\varranted.

Next) the tornlal cOlnplaint names both UOI Utilities, Inc., and PECO

COlupany as respondcnts~ hut lJGI named as a respondent and by the

..... "'.,., ... ""t'C>'t"" \vith the formal cornplaint. Again~ if this were an untimely appeal of the BCS infonnal

proceeding, this action would be a natural one,

Then, UGr flIed answer, new matter and preJitninary objections stating that the

compia.inant had been a UOI customer but was no longer a customer. Therefore, VOl moved to

dismiss the complaint against it by filing preliminary objections.

The initial decision states the correct legal standard to apply to preliminary

objcctions~ Le., that the ComJuission may not rely upon the factual assertions of the Inoving party

but must accept as true for purposes of disposing of the motion all well pleaded~ lnaterial facts of

the nonmoving party, as well as every inference from those facts. ID at 4. Then, the ID

correctly states that facts alleged in ne\v matter which are not contested Illay be deemed to be

admitted under Cotnmission regulations. Pa. Code § S.63(b). complainant did not file a

rcsponse to nevv matter, the If) deemed the facts to be admitted.

However, the [D relied upon the facts from the respondent's nevv tl1atter to support

the grant of prelhninary objections, when only those facts set forth by the complainant may be

considered under the applicable standard. Nowhere in the complaint does it vvbich utility is

the correct one to the allegations, and neither is it clear whethe.r the billing in question is

an arrearage frOln the prior address or deals with the current account.

Where the relied upon to support a motion to dismiss a complaint appear ill

the respondent's own pleadings~ the proper filing is a Illotion, for judgment on the pleadings. This

IJ"' ..... U.·,lJ the Conunission to consider all tiled pleadings and their contents~ including facts found

in new matter that have been deenled to be adtnitted. It is true that, in those instances where it is

clear that respondent is entitled to relief and the cornplainant has not responded to new matter,

the Commission has construed preliminary objections to be a motion for judgment on the

pleadings, after explaining its actions completely and not 111ix111g the applicable legal standards.

Sfee Utility JVorkers Union afAmerica System Local j), Penrujylvania-American "fater

Company, Docket No. C-2012-2287204, 2012 Pu. PLJC LEXIS 944 (Order entcred June 21,

2(12). The C0l1)111ission may waive a requirement when necessary or appropriate, if the waiver

110t adversely affect a substantive right of a party. Pa. Code § 1

According to wellwestablished law, the COlnlnission will grant a m~otion for

judgment on the pleadings \vhcn the pleadings sbow there is no genuine issue as to a material

fact and that the tnoving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.Code

§ 5.l02(d)(l). Only in a case where the moving party1 s right to prevail is so clear that a trial

would be a fruitless should judgtnent on the pleadings be {fill/jams v. L£H4Jis,

466 A.2d 682 (Pa. Super. 1983))' Employees International Union, Local 69, AFL-CIO v,

The Peoples Natural eras Company: d/b/a Dominion Peoples, Docket No. C .. 20028539 (Order

entered December 19,20(3), Judgment on the pleadings should be entered only when the ease is

clear and free from doubt Reuben v. 0 JBrien, 496 A.2d 913 (Pa. Super 1985). But those

instances are the exception, not the rule, and the facts must be clear. This case is not clear.

'fhe ID recognizes that there nlay be a c0111plaint against PECO and di slnissed the

complaint against lJGT without prejudice to the complainantfs right to file it again, this time

against PEen. But a review of the formal complaint form 8hO\V8 that the Conlp1ainant

did file her cOlnplaint against PEeD, and she should not have to do so again. Returning this case

to its Origills and requiring service of the conlplaint against PECO wiH cure the procedural

flAY,::. .... "'£,, which have occurred in this nlatter. Service of the Conunission's Order wiH notify PECO

that the conlplaint "viU be filed, thus curing the f~tilure to contact PECO prior to the of the

fonnal conlplaint

As always, the parties are encouraged to pursue atnicable resolution of the matter.

Therefore, I move:

1. That the initial decision in this case is reversed and that the cOlnplaint be

reinstated.

2. 'Inat the Secretary serve the Commission's Order in this matter and the

fOl'lllUl complaint on PECO Energy Company and begin the case over vvith both PECO Energy

Company and UOI Utilities, Inc. Electric Division as named respondents.

3. That the preliminary objections ofUGI Utilities, ]nc.~ are denied.

4. . That OSA prepare an Order r>nn, p",-"""n II

Dated: October 27,2016

Commissioner

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY C()M'l\1ISS(ON HAlmISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17105

UGI Utilities, Inc. - Gas Divlsion and UGI Central I1eun Gas, Inc. 2016 Annnal Purchased Gas Cost l'ariff l~'iUn,g

Public lVIeeting: October 27" 2016 2543309 .. AL.J, 2S43311~ALJ Docket Nos. R .. 2016-2543309, R-2016-2543311, et al.

STAT,El\I,ENT OF VICE CHAIRlVIAN ANDREW G. PLACJf:

Before us for consideration is theUGI Utilitics} Inc. - Division (UG1), fmd UGI Central Pellll Inc. (CPG) (collectivelyUGI Companies) annual purcha~ed cost tariff's (POC) pursuant to 52 Pa. Code and 53.65, For both of cases, Joint Petitions for Full Settlenlent (Settlements) 'vvere SUh111itted by the Parties and supported by the Reconlnlended Decisions of the Administrative I.Jaw Judge in the consolidated litigation.

A provision of the Settlements involves the long terill of llpstrcarn capacity on the ANR Pipeline. Under the ten11S of the Settlements, the Parties agree to apply the 25/75% revenue sharing mechanism in tariff to the release of firn1 transportation capacity on the ANR Pipeline. vVhile I am diSInclined to upset the overall benefits and balanc,e of the Settlelnent, noting that the Companies may have provided other values to offset this concession on the part of the Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement (I&B) of the Comnlissiol1, I wish. to Illy

concern regarding revenue sharing of long ten11 capacity releases. Such upstrerun capaeity assets often have no current, substantial used and usefuJ purposc) and cllstonlcrs, who bear the fb11 costs ofthi5 capacity, should not be required to share revenues with the Companies for assets that have de !11inimis long teon or seasonal value to PGC cllst01ners and Natural Gas Suppliers.

\Vhite I a111 voting in support of the overall Settlement, I respectfully express IUY concern regarding revenue· sharing lor such long tenn releases of capacity that are not substantially used and useful. Such should provide a fuJI credit to custorners who bear the costs this capaoity.

HATE: October 27, 2016

PENNSYIAVANIAPUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION HARH.lSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120

lJGI UtiUties Inc, Gas Dh'ision Public Meeting October 27, 2016

2543309-AL.l

llocket No. H.-2016-2543309

ST ATE}\:lENT OF COJ\tIMISSIONER DAVIn W. SWEET

Bcfbrc joining my staff as Counsel, Susan Colwell was workil1g in the Ofllce of Adlninistrative Law Judge and worked on this case in her capacity as an Administrative L,a\:\l

Judge. Pleastt: note that she has not advised me in this matter.

DATE: October 27, 2016

PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY C01V[1\1lSS10N HAlUUSBURG, PENNSYLVAl'\{IA 17105

UGI Utilities, Inc. - Gas Divi,sioJl and UGI Central Penn Gas, Inc. 2016 Annual Purcbased Gas Cost Tariff }!'Hing

Public ~feeting! October 27, 2016 2543309 .. AL.J, 2543311-AL,J llocket Nos. R-2016-2543309, R-2016-2543311, et af.

STATE1\1ENT OI~ VICE CHAIRlVIAN ANDRE\V G. PLACF~

Before us for consideration is the UOI Utilities, Division (UGI)} and VGl Central Penn Gas, Inc. (CPG) (collectively UGl Companics) annual purchased cost tariffs (POC) pursuant to 52 Pu. Code and For both of these cases, Joint Petitions for Fun Settlcrnent (Settlements) were SUbll1itted by the Parties and supported by the Recomm.ended Decisions of Administrative Law Judge in the consolidated litigation.

A provision of the Settlements involves the long term release ofllpstrearrl capacity on the ANR Pipeline. Under the tem18 of the Sett1enlents~ the Parties agree to apply the 25/75% revenue sharillg mechanism in tariff to the release of firm transportation capacity 011 the ANR Pipeline. \Vhile I am disinclined to upset the overall benefits and balance of the Settlenlent, noting that the Companies nlay have provided other values to offset this concession on the part of the Bureau of Investigation and Enfbrcement (l&E) of the Comtuissio111 I wish to express Iny concern regarding revenue sharing of long tenI1 capacity releases. Such upstreanl capacity assets often have no current, substantial used and useful purpose, and c'Ustolners, who bear the full costs

this capacity, should ,not be required to revenues with the COlnpanies for assets that have de n1inimis long term or seasonal value to POC cllstolners and Natural Gas Suppliers.

\Vhile I am voting in support of the overall Settlement, I respectfully express Iny concern regarding revenue sharing for such long (COO releases of capacity that are not substantially used and usefuL Such releases should provide a full credit to cllstonlers who bear the costs of this capacity.

BAtrE: October 27,2016 !~j~\~~

Andrew G .. J»Iace, , Ice Chairmall

PENNSYLV ANIA PlJULIC {YTILITY COJ\tlMISSION HAl~RISHURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120

UGI Central }'enn (ias Inc. l'ublic Meeting ()ctober 27,2016

2S43311 .. ALJ

Doc){ct No. R-2016-2543311

STATEMENT OF COMl\tIISSIONER DAVID W. SWEET

Before joining Iny staff as Counsel, Susan Colwell was in the Oftice Administrative Law Judge and worked on this case in her capacity as an Adn:dnistrative Law Judge. Please note that she has not advised me in this malter.

DATE: October 27, 2016

Commissioner

]lENNSYLV ANIA PUBLIC UTILITY C()MlVHSSION HARnISBlJRG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120

UGI Penn Natural Gas Inc. Public Meeting October 27, 2016

2543314*ALJ

Docket No. R-2016w 2543314

ST ATEl\,IENT OF COMM.lSSIONEn DAVID W. SWEET

Before joining my staff as Legal Counsel, Susan Colwell was working in the Office of Administrative Law Judge and 'worked on this case in her capacity as an Administrative Law

PJease note that she has not advised me in thismattel"

J)ATl~: October 27, 2016

Commissioner

J>ENNSYL VANIA PUBLIC UTILITY C01VIMJSSION HAIUUSBlJRG,PENNSYLVANIA 17120

Consolidated Rail Corporation Public Meeting October 27, 2016

l087149-TUS

Docket No. A ... 001II016; C-00913256

STATEMENT OF C()IVfl\'IISSIONER DA VII) W. S'VEET

Before joining ll1Y staff asL,egal Counsel, Susan Colwell previously held a position in the Comlnission as an attorney during which she was assigned to this nlatter. Please note that she has not advised tne in this matter.

DAT'E: October 27, 2016

COMJnissioner