Times-Leader appeals PUC decision not to release ’tip letter’
October 05, 2013 Right to Know Law
By Andrew M. Seder | Times-Leader
The Times Leader has filed an appeal with the state’s Office of Open Records after the Public Utility Commission denied the newspaper’s request to release an anonymous letter used as the basis of an investigation into PPL.
Melissa Bevan Melewsky, a media law attorney with the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said as she reads the open records law and the PUC’s own statutes, the letter should be released and treated as a public document.
“I think the PUC’s statutes require disclosure though they can redact the name, but in this case, as the letter’s anonymous, there wouldn’t be much to redact,” Melewsky said.
The Times Leader filed a request with the PUC’s right-to-know officer asking for the commission to release a copy of the anonymous letter sent to the PUC from a person purporting to be a PPL employee. The letter alleges the region’s largest electric utility violated its own internal guidelines and state law as part of its response to a late-October 2011 snowstorm that left 388,318 of PPL’s 1.4 million customers, including many in Luzerne County, without power.
Allentown-based PPL Corp. faces a $60,000 fine from the PUC, which has asked for public comment on the matter before approving the settlement, though all details of the matter are not being given to the public.
Melewsky was provided with a copy of the five-page document emailed to The Times Leader on Friday and signed by Rosemary Chiavetta, the secretary of the PUC’s right to know office. After reviewing it, she urged the newspaper appeal saying that the reasoning behind the denial is not based on open record laws or the PUC’s own statutes.
The PUC letter notes a settlement between PPL Electric Utilities, Inc. and the PUC’s Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement “provides for a civil penalty but keeps the details regarding the ‘tip letter’ and most of the investigation confidential.”
Melewsky said that PUC statutes dictate that “the PUC shall release the records by which it relies on to make decisions.”
She said this letter clearly fits the bill and while there are provisions calling for the redaction of names and statements that may cause security issues or hurt the reputation of someone, she said without seeing the letter there’s no way to know if this would be the case but redacting such names or information could satisfy the requirements. Denying the letter’s release outright does not, she added.
“The PUC statute requires public access to this,” she said.
According to a summary of the incident offered by the PUC:
On April 26, 2012, after receiving an anonymous letter from a PPL employee, the PUC’s independent Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement, or I&E, began an informal investigation into PPL’s alleged improper transfer of a restoration crew in the wake of the Oct. 29, 2011, snowstorm.
The allegation was that the restoration crew was transferred from a higher priority job in order to restore service to a lower priority job. The bureau alleged this was a violation of PUC regulations, the Public Utility Code and the company’s restoration procedures.
The state Office of Open Records has 30 days to make a ruling on The Times Leader’s request.
The Times Leader has filed an appeal with the state’s Office of Open Records after the Public Utility Commission denied the newspaper’s request to release an anonymous letter used as the basis of an investigation into PPL.
Melissa Bevan Melewsky, a media law attorney with the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said as she reads the open records law and the PUC’s own statutes, the letter should be released and treated as a public document.
“I think the PUC’s statutes require disclosure though they can redact the name, but in this case, as the letter’s anonymous, there wouldn’t be much to redact,” Melewsky said.
The Times Leader filed a request with the PUC’s right-to-know officer asking for the commission to release a copy of the anonymous letter sent to the PUC from a person purporting to be a PPL employee. The letter alleges the region’s largest electric utility violated its own internal guidelines and state law as part of its response to a late-October 2011 snowstorm that left 388,318 of PPL’s 1.4 million customers, including many in Luzerne County, without power.
Allentown-based PPL Corp. faces a $60,000 fine from the PUC, which has asked for public comment on the matter before approving the settlement, though all details of the matter are not being given to the public.
Melewsky was provided with a copy of the five-page document emailed to The Times Leader on Friday and signed by Rosemary Chiavetta, the secretary of the PUC’s right to know office. After reviewing it, she urged the newspaper appeal saying that the reasoning behind the denial is not based on open record laws or the PUC’s own statutes.
The PUC letter notes a settlement between PPL Electric Utilities, Inc. and the PUC’s Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement “provides for a civil penalty but keeps the details regarding the ‘tip letter’ and most of the investigation confidential.”
Melewsky said that PUC statutes dictate that “the PUC shall release the records by which it relies on to make decisions.”
She said this letter clearly fits the bill and while there are provisions calling for the redaction of names and statements that may cause security issues or hurt the reputation of someone, she said without seeing the letter there’s no way to know if this would be the case but redacting such names or information could satisfy the requirements. Denying the letter’s release outright does not, she added.
“The PUC statute requires public access to this,” she said.
According to a summary of the incident offered by the PUC:
On April 26, 2012, after receiving an anonymous letter from a PPL employee, the PUC’s independent Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement, or I&E, began an informal investigation into PPL’s alleged improper transfer of a restoration crew in the wake of the Oct. 29, 2011, snowstorm.
The allegation was that the restoration crew was transferred from a higher priority job in order to restore service to a lower priority job. The bureau alleged this was a violation of PUC regulations, the Public Utility Code and the company’s restoration procedures.
The state Office of Open Records has 30 days to make a ruling on The Times Leader’s request.
