2026

First Quarter

First Energy Pennsylvania Electric Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 42 MAP 2024 and 43 MAP2024

Decided January 8, 2026.

On January 8, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s decision to uphold the Commission’s April 15, 2021, order and remanded the matter to the Commission.

The Supreme Court determined the Commission erred by adopting FCC regulations for pole attachment rates, citing there was no requirement to do so and also that the Commission lacked its own statutory authority to adopt FCC regulations. The Court similarly decided the Commission did not meet its’ burden of proof in challenging the existing pole attachment rates. The Court did concede that the Commission has the authority to regulate rates charged by electric distribution companies, however, the Court found that the Commission does not have the statutory authority to specifically regulate pole attachment rates. The PUC has no statutory authority to enact a presumptive maximum and can only require just and reasonable pole attachment rates.

Accordingly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter to the Commission.

Hendin v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 766 C.D. 2024 

Decided on January 22, 2026.

On January 22, 2026, in an unreported decision, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a memorandum opinion affirming the Commission’s January 26, 2024, and April 18, 2024, Orders denying Ms. Hendin accommodations regarding the placement of a smart meter near her home. Additionally, on March 19, 2026, the Court denied Ms. Hendin’s February 3, 2026, Application for Reconsideration.

The Court determined that Ms. Hendin was not entitled to any accommodation regarding the placement of the smart meter, as such accommodations are not necessary. The court further held that a 14^th amendment claim for bodily integrity is not viable when considering smart meters, as set in valid caselaw. Finally, the Court held that Ms. Hendin provided insufficient evidence to establish RF emissions from Smart Meters are capable of harm. Ms. Henin subsequently submitted an Application for Reconsideration on February 3, 2026, arguing that the matter was misapprehended by the Court, which was denied by the Court on March 19, 2026.

The Commonwealth Court ultimately held that Ms. Hendin failed to present evidence of her claims to meet the burden of proof required and affirmed both of the Commission’s underlying orders. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court denied Ms. Hendin’s Application for Reconsideration.

Subsequently, on April 16, 2026, Ms. Hendin filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.   The PUC filed a timely Answer on April 30, 2026.  To date, the Commission is awaiting further action by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Kline v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.  No. 918 C.D. 2024

Decided on January 22, 2026.

On January 22, 2026, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a published opinion affirming the Commission’s October 8, 2020, and May 23, 2024, Orders, which determined that a smart meter outside Kline’s home did not constitute unsafe or unreasonable service.

 The Court determined the PUC correctly applied Povacz when finding that Act 129 mandates the installation of smart meters, and that Kline failed to provide the expert testimony required for obtaining an accommodation. Furthermore, the Court found that it was Kline’s burden to show that smart meters present a fire hazard. The Court refused to consider Kline’s 14^th Amendment claim, as the matter could be resolved on non-constitutional grounds.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court affirmed both Commission Orders.

Jonathan DiBello v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission No. 159 C.D. 2024

Decided on January 27, 2026.

On January 27, 2026, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commission’s December 7, 2023, opinion and order that denied DiBello’s request for a payment arrangement with PECO while being engaged in an active Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Action.

The Commonwealth Court agreed that the Commission was without jurisdiction to authorize a payment arrangement between DiBello and PECO while DiBello’s assets were under the exclusive control of the Bankruptcy Court. The Commonwealth Court concluded that PECO may move forward in collecting DiBello’s remaining debts once the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Court it lifted.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Commission’s December 2023 Order.

Township of Marple v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission 1385 C.D. 2024
and
Uhlman v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission 1423 C.D. 2024.

Decided February 2, 2026.

On February 2, 2026, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commission’s September 26, 2024, order which found that risk of serious environmental damage and noise pollution was remote.

The Court affirmed the Commission’s finding that PECO’s proposed location for a natural gas reliability station posed little environmental concern and complied with local ordinances. The Court identified that the Government must consider environmental concerns but need not account for every consideration. The Court highlighted that the government has an obligation to reasonably account for certain environmental factors.  The Court determined that the Commission had fulfilled its’ constitutional duties by considering extensive evidence of safety, noise and emissions, and affirmed the Commission’s environmental review process.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Commission’s September 2024 Order and denied the Township of Marple’s and Uhlman’s appeal.

On March 4, 2026, the Township of Marple and the Uhlmans both filed separate Petitions for Allowance of Appeal (PAAs) with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seeking to challenge the Commonwealth Court’s February 2, 2026 Order affirming the Commission.  The PA Supreme Court docketed both PAAs as Twp of Marple v. PUC 125 MAL 2026 and Uhlman, et al. v. PUC 126 MAL 2026, respectively.  The Commission filed answers to both PAAs on March 18, 2026.

On August 17, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the Township’s and the Uhlman’s Petitions of Allowance of Appeal.

Penn Renewables, LLC v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission No. 337 C.D. 2025

Decided on March 13, 2026.

On March 13, 2026, the Commonwealth Court issued a unanimous, unreported memorandum and order affirming the Commission’s February 20, 2025, Order.

The order granted a Petition of UGI Utilities, Inc.- UGI for approval of its default service plan for the period for June 1, 2025, through May 31, 2029, and dismissed a related formal complaint filed by Penn Renewables, LLC. The Court, in approving the Commission’s February 2025 Order, affirmed findings that the Commission’s approval of UGI’s Default Service Plan was in accord with applicable law and the Commission’s decision to approve UGI’s Default service plan was supported by substantial evidence. The Court determined that the Commission has the authority under the AEPS Act to determine what constitutes full retail value. The Court additionally affirmed that the Commission’s determination that GSR-2 customer-generators would be compensated for their excess retail value under UGI’s Default Service Plan. The Court determined that the requirement allowing customers to choose whether to participate in real time pricing does not apply to UGI, that Penn Renewables did not qualify as a small business customer, and that the GSR-2 rate will provide customers with the smallest cost over time. The Court found that this program would not result in unlawful discrimination. Finally, the Court found that The Commission’s approval of UGI’s use of the SPLI metric and resulting classifications was not arbitrary and capricious.

Ultimately, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Commission’s February 2025 Order.

Darryl Lawrence v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 1346 C.D. 2024

Decided on March 24, 2026.

On March 24, 2026, The Commonwealth Court Issued an unreported, non-unanimous opinion and order, affirming the Commission’s September 12, 2024, order, and found that the Office of Consumer Advocate failed to preserve disparate impact issues on appeal.

 The Court affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that a root cause analysis was unnecessary for Peoples Natural Gass LLC’s proposed tariff changes. The Court determined that the OCA waived the issue of disparate impact on appeal, because they did not preserve the issue before the Administrative Law Judge. The Court further highlighted that the OCA neither said the words “disparate impact” nor did the OCA raise the specific two-part test required for such an analysis. The Court concluded that the lower tribunal could not have comprehended the claim as a disparate impact analysis was not related to the root cause issue before the ALJ. The Court rejected the OCA’s position that the disparate impact analysis was merely additional authority on appeal, citing that a disparate impact analysis has never been applied to a Section 1501 claim and would be a matter of first impression as a result.  Furthermore, the Court highlighted hat the OCA cited no caselaw or legal authority to support its’ claims on appeal.

The Senior Law Judge Leadbetter dissented, arguing that the OCA had not waived the disparate impact issue, maintaining that the OCA’s expert testimony created sufficient evidence to preserve the issue on appeal.

Ultimately, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Commission’s September 2024 Order.

Second Quarter

George Kuzni v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.  1592 C.D. 2024.

Decided on April 17, 2026.

On April 17, 2026, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the Pennsylvania Utility Commission’s finding that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over Stillwater Lakes Civic Association/ Stillwater Sewer Corporation.

The Court examined the matter on two fronts, first it considered whether the Commission had jurisdiction over Stillwater Industries at all, second it considered the Commission’s assertion that Kuzni’s claim was barred by res judicata. The Court looked to relevant caselaw, finding that Stillwater Entities met the requirements to qualify as a bona fide cooperative association, leaving it outside the realm of Commission Jurisdiction. The Court considered the Commission’s assertion that the prior case finding Stillwater Entities to be outside the jurisdiction of the Commission effectively bared Kunzi’s claim through the effect of res judicata. The Court elucidated that res judicata requires the persons and parties of the action be the same, and that collateral estoppel requires the party against whom collateral estoppel is established to be a party to the prior action, or in privity with party to a prior action. The Court then rejected the Commission’s assertion that res judicata barred Petitioner Kunzi’s claim, citing that Kunzi was not a party, nor in privity with a party, that participated in the case that found Stillwater Entities to be outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. While the Court did not find that res judicata or Collateral Estoppel applied, it maintained that the Commission had no jurisdiction over Stillwater entities and granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss.

The Commonwealth Court granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss.

Quigley v. PECO Energy Company., No. 1180 C.D. 2024

Decided on May 15, 2026.

On May 15, 2026, the Commonwealth Court issued an unreported opinion and order affirming the Commission’s July 11, 2024, Order dismissing Petitioner’s complaint.

Upon review, the Court considered three of the Quigleys allegations. First, PECO’S alleged accommodation offer, second, whether smart meter installation violates the Quigleys constitutional right to bodily integrity, and finally, if the Commission accurately weighed the Quigleys evidence that was presented before the ALJ. Regarding the first issue, the Court asserted that a customer may obtain an accommodation through presenting a preponderance of evidence that the installation of the smart meter violates Pa. C.S. Section 1501. The Court reiterated that 14^th amendment claims are not viable when considering smart meters and will not consider them. The Court then considered the weight and credibility of the evidence before the ALJ. The Court maintained that while the Quigleys did provide scientific articles, the caselaw requires the presence of expert opinion to support these claims, and that the ALJ had discretion to attribute more weight PECO’s evidence.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court held that the Quigleys did not present the evidence required to meet the burden of proof and affirmed the Commission’s July 11, 2024 Order.

Norman v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission., No. 58 C.D. 2025

Decided on May 18, 2026

On May 18, 2026, the Commonwealth Court issued an unreported Opinion and Order affirming the Commission’s October 4, 2024, and December 19, 2024, orders dismissing Petitioner Norman’s complaint and attempt to prevent the installation of a smart meter.

 Upon appeal, the Court considered three of the Norman’s five issues raised. Normans first issue alleges that the installation of a smart meter at his residence was governed by 52 Pa. Code Section 57.225(a), not Act 129. Second, Norman alleges that the Commission incorrectly found his refusal to permit PECO. Finally, Norman alleges the Commission was in error by failing to find PECO in competent of its prior issue and affirmed in Norman II. The Court rejected Norman’s first allegation, citing that this issue has been fully litigated and could not be re-litigated on appeal, and that Norman incorrectly characterized the type of meter in question. The Court also rejected Norman’s second argument, citing that PECO had the authority to cutoff service to Norman upon him not allowing PECO to replace his current meter. The Court also rejected Norman’s third claim, citing that the prior order does not conflict with PECO’s current actions, as the order concerns a payment arrangement, not PECO’s right to meter access. Accordingly, the Court determined that Norman did not meet the burden of proof required of these claims and affirmed the Commission’s underlying orders.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court affirmed both of the Commission’s October 2024 and December 2024 Orders.

Pennsylvania-American Water Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission No. 355 C.D. 2024.  
Borough of Brentwood v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission No. 356 C.D. 2024.

Decided on May 28, 2026

On May 28, 2026, the Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded the Commission’s March 4, 2024 opinion and order denying the PAWC’s application to purchase Brentwood’s water and wastewater collection service.

The Court determined that the Commission’s denial of PAWC’s application was in error because the Commission relied upon the Commonwealth Court’s since-overruled decision in Cicero v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 300 A.3d 1106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (Cicero).  Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court remanded the matter to the Commission for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 348 A. 3d 108 (Pa. 2025) (Lawrence), which had reversed and remanded the Commonwealth Court’s prior decision in Cicero.  Specifically, the Commonwealth Court directed the Commission on remand, to give the parties an opportunity to file supplemental briefs and present additional evidence, if needed.

Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission No. 131 CD 2025.

Decided on June 3, 2026.
On June 3, 2026, the Commonwealth Court issued a unanimous opinion and order vacating the Commission’s January 2, 2025, Declaratory Order that found Conrail responsible for inspecting and maintaining the Delair Railroad Bridge’s drainage facilities.

 The Commission’s January 2025 Declaratory Order was built on the interpretation of its own 1996 order, which would have made Conrail, not PennDOT, responsible for maintenance of drainage facilities.  The Court first found that a reviewing court must grant substantial deference to an administrative agencies’ interpretation of their own orders, and only overturn that reading if it is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and unsupported by evidence.  The Court then held that the Commission and PennDOT erroneously relied on the order when assigning responsibility to Conrail, finding that the relevant sections assigned no such responsibility. The Court instead found the plain language of the Commission’s 1996 Order, inescapably made PennDOT responsible for maintenance of all drainage facilities associated with the rail-way crossing, as well as the drainage facilities on the Delair Bridge.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded the Commission’s January 2025 Declaratory Order.

The Commission and PennDOT both filed an Application for Reargument on June 17, 2026.  On July 31, 2026, the Court denied the Applications for Reargument. 

On August 27, 2026, the Commission filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  PennDOT filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal on August 31, 2026.  On September 2, 2026 Conrail filed a Petition for an Extension of Time to File an Answer.  To date, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not acted on Conrail’s Petition.   

Third Quarter

Fourth Quarter