stating that the PUC’s “interpretation of the AEPS Act is entitled to great deference and will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the PUC’s “interpretation of the AEPS Act is entitled to great deference and will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous”
- extending deference to the PUC’s interpretation of the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, 66 Pa. C.S. §§2801-2812
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge SMITH-RIBNER and Judge SIMPSON
concur in the result only.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2007, the orders of the Public Utility Commission in the above captioned matter are hereby VACATED and the case is REMANDED only with respect to their denial to Penn Power of the use of a reconciliation mechanism, and REVERSED only with respect to their restriction of Penn Power’s access to alternative energy projects located in the PJM service territory but outside the Commonwealth. Penn Power’s motion to quash DEP’s notice of intervention is hereby DENIED.
Jurisdiction relinquished.