Connect with us

Pennsylvania

Have Pa. ratepayers finally scored a win against ‘Big Water’ and the PUC?

Published

on

Have Pa. ratepayers finally scored a win against ‘Big Water’ and the PUC?


Got a question about life in Philly’s suburbs? Our suburban reporters want to hear from you! Ask us a question or send an idea for a story you think we should cover.

In an important ruling for taxpayers, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed an order from the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission, which approved Aqua Pennsylvania’s acquisition of East Whiteland Township’s sewer system.

The PUC oversees utility services across the commonwealth. The state agency had approved Aqua’s application to acquire East Whiteland’s sewer system for $54.9 million.

Pennsylvania Consumer Advocate Patrick Cicero argued in his petition that the PUC failed to prove that Aqua’s acquisition would provide any public benefit. If anything, the sale would increase wastewater costs for the township’s 3,900 residents.

Advertisement

“The standard in Pennsylvania for decades has been that in order for a public utility regulated by the Public Utility Commission to acquire another system, they have to prove that there is an affirmative public benefit associated with that acquisition,” Cicero told WHYY News.

In their defense, Aqua, the PUC, and the township, which intervened into the suit, dismissed the petition as “without merit.”

The Commonwealth Court ruled in favor of Cicero on July 31 and reversed the PUC’s decision.

“The Commission erred and/or abused its discretion in concluding that Aqua established substantial affirmative public benefits that outweighed the acknowledged harms of Aqua’s acquisition of the System as required by Sections 1102 and 1103 to support the approval of the Application and grant of the [certificate of public convenience],” President Judge Renée Cohn Jubulier wrote in the decision.

Cicero said his office is not anti-privatization. He said there are definitely circumstances where a company buying a public utility could benefit ratepayers. But, this wasn’t one of those cases, he said.

Advertisement

“East Whiteland township was perfectly capable of making all of the investments and upgrades and improvements that were necessary. And when you factored in the rate impact associated with the acquisition cost of this case, what you got was essentially significant amounts of real tangible harm to ratepayers without any benefit to ratepayers,” he said.

It is unclear what this means for the deal. A spokesperson for Aqua, which serves 1.5 million customers in 32 counties across Pennsylvania, said the company is reviewing the decision and expects “to have more to say in the coming days.”

The East Whiteland Township Board of Supervisors provided a joint statement to WHYY News, leaving the prospect of an appeal up in the air.

“At this time, the Township is in receipt of the July 31, 2023 Commonwealth Court Opinion and Order with regard to the Township’s sale of the sewer system and is reviewing the Opinion and Order and considering its options,” the joint statement read.

In his own separate statement, Township Supervisor Rich Orlow called the court opinion a “clear negative” for East Whiteland residents that will impact finances and strategic improvements.

Advertisement

“It seems that a principal factor of the OCA opposition and a material basis for the Commonwealth Court opinion appears related to future Aqua sewer rate increases. However, to think and believe that East Whiteland exists in its own fantasy bubble where costs and therefore rates do not/will not increase by the Township is simply delusional and misplaced,” Orlow said.

If the parties do not file an appeal, Cicero’s office’s stance is that if there is no certificate of public convenience, Aqua cannot serve customers and must reel the deal in.

The Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate has been making arguments in similar cases for nearly 10 years, including a case involving New Garden Township, Aqua, and the PUC that all ratepayers need adequate notice before any decision is made. Cicero won that petition. He believes this latest decision will have an impact on future acquisitions across the state.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pennsylvania

Suspect in killing of woman in Pa. motel in custody in N.J., cops say

Published

on

Suspect in killing of woman in Pa. motel in custody in N.J., cops say


A suspect in the homicide of a woman in Bensalem, Pennsylvania is in custody at the Trenton Police Department, police said Wednesday afternoon.

The suspect and victim’s identities have not been made public.

The Bensalem, Pennsylvania police and the Buck County District Attorney’s Office said in a statement that officers found a woman dead at the Sleep Inn & Suites, on Street Road, early Wednesday. They did not detail the circumstances of her death.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Shapiro threatens to pull Pennsylvania out of PJM over electricity prices

Published

on

Shapiro threatens to pull Pennsylvania out of PJM over electricity prices


Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) is warning regional electricity grid operator PJM that the state will consider leaving the organization if it doesn’t do more to protect consumers against soaring power prices.

Shapiro’s letter marks a sharp escalation of his dispute with PJM, the largest U.S. wholesale power market and transmission coordinator, serving 65 million people from the Atlantic Seaboard to Chicago.

The risk of more power price escalation “threatens to undermine public confidence in PJM as an institution,” Shapiro said in his letter to Mark Takahashi, chair of PJM’s board of managers.

In a statement Tuesday, PJM said, “We appreciate the governor’s letter and have reached out to his office to discuss next steps.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Group weighs potential and peril of performance funding for Pa. universities • Pennsylvania Capital-Star

Published

on

Group weighs potential and peril of performance funding for Pa. universities • Pennsylvania Capital-Star


A group of lawmakers, university administrators and the head of the Department of Education heard Tuesday about the possibilities — and perils — of tying public funding of state-related universities at least in part to their performance and students’ academic outcomes.

The Performance-Based Funding Council was created by the General Assembly last summer and tasked with making recommendations on a performance-based funding formula by the end of April. Members include four lawmakers, Interim Acting Secretary of Education Angela Fitterer and three non-voting members from the state-related schools that would be affected: Penn State, Temple University and the University of Pittsburgh. Lincoln University, an HBCU and a fourth state-related university, would not be affected.

Currently, the three state-related schools collectively receive more than $550 million in state funding annually. The move to a performance-based funding formula has been supported by lawmakers from both parties, as well as Gov. Josh Shapiro.

“These legislative hearings offer a unique opportunity to fundamentally reassess how we align public resources and educational outcomes,” said Rep. Jesse Topper (R-Bedford), the council chairperson. “I believe we need to show the public how those resources are used and why — why we invest in higher education.”

Advertisement

More than 30 states already use a performance-based funding model. According to testimony heard by the council, the most common academic targets in states with performance-based funding models include graduation rates, student retention and degree or credential completion. But a potential formula could also take into account factors like research output, administrative efficiency, and employment rates of graduated students.

While policies vary greatly around the country, about 10% of money sent to four-year schools in states with performance-based funding formulas is based on the targeted metrics, according to testimony by Andrew Smalley, a policy specialist who focuses on higher education at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

But experts warned that coming up with a comprehensive formula can be “daunting.”

“Everyone knows that colleges and universities subject to these formulas find themselves in a bit of a Catch-22,” said Charles Ansell, vice president of research, policy and advocacy at Complete College America, a nonprofit focused on best practices in higher education. “They need funds for their performance and improved graduation rates, but they cannot access funds without demonstrating improvement first.”

One potential solution, another expert testified, could be awarding funds based on improvements at an individual school over time instead of an arbitrary benchmark, like graduation rate, that applies to all schools.

Advertisement

Experts also warned that some performance-based funding models can exacerbate disparities in educational outcomes between high- and low-income students, and between white and minority students.

“Performance funding is typically tied to advantages for the advantaged students and disadvantages for the disadvantaged,” said Justin Ortagus, an associate professor of higher education administration and policy at the University of Florida. Though he noted that a funding formula can take these pitfalls into account by incentivizing enrollment and degree or certification attainment for students in impacted groups.

Speakers also highlighted the benefits of performance-based funding models. Ortagus noted that they can promote institutional accountability.

It could also provide predictability when it comes to school budgets.

As it stands, Pennsylvania’s method for funding these universities requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature, which has led to months-long delays in the past. Creating a predictable funding formula that would be distributed through the Department of Education would mean future appropriations would only require a simple majority.

Advertisement

Moreover, lawmakers could use performance metrics to encourage specific educational outcomes. Part of the funding formula, for example, could rely on students enrolling or graduating in programs of study that would lead to them entering high-demand fields in the job market.  

The state could also target specific outcomes based on goals like increasing low-income, veteran or minority student graduation rates, encouraging adult education and incentivizing students to enter high-demand jobs by focusing on particular majors. And the formula can be adapted when new needs or issues arise.

“It’s very common for states to revise these frequently,” Smalley said.

The council expects to hold three more hearings, some at the campuses of affected state-related universities.  Its recommendations are due to the legislature and governor April 30.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending