A group of news media outlets has replied to arguments filed by the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission and PPL against the group's appeal of a Dec. 3, 2014, Commonwealth court ruling allowing the PUC and the power company to keep secret documents concerning a 2011 Poconos snowstorm that left more than a thousand customers without electricity.

The customers were left in the dark for about four hours longer than they would have been had PPL repair crews not been diverted to another area.But the PUC is keeping secret documents that would explain why the crews were sent elsewhere, and where they went.The media groups, spearheaded by the Allentown Morning call and the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, and including the Times News, in August 2014 sued to have the documents released under the state's open records laws.The matter is scheduled to be heard before the Supreme Court, Harrisburg, on Nov. 18.In the latest development, the media group responded to the PUC and PPL's arguments against the group's appeal of the December 2014 ruling, filed Sept. 2. The Energy Association of Pennsylvania joined the PUC and PPL in the matter.The reply argument is three-pronged: that public record access granted by the Sunshine Act is not triggered only by "official action" of the PUC commissioners as defined by the Sunshine Act; that public disclosure of documents relied upon by the commission as a whole in reaching a settlement with an offending public utility neither undermines nor frustrates the investigative/prosecutorial functions of the PUC; and that the noncriminal investigation exemption embodied within the Right To Know law simply does not apply here.In the first prong, the media groups contend that the PUC and PPL took sections of the Sunshine Act out of context and are "attempting to rewrite the statute from its explicit and unequivocal language."In the second prong, the media groups dispute the PUC and PPL's arguments that disclosing the documents would have a "chilling effect" on public utilities and their employees from cooperating with PUC investigations.That argument fails, the media groups contend, because the "requirements to cooperate in such investigations are legally required and cannot be 'rewarded' with the promise of a veil of secrecy cast over documents which are to be publicly accessible."Further, the Sunshine Act "clearly provides that not all documents involved in an investigation which leads to a settlement between the PUC and an offending utility are to be made public."The act provides exemptions to protect various information and identities.The exemptions include information considered to fall under legal privilege, trade secret and proprietary information, documents that would reveal identifying information that may prejudice or impair a person's reputation or personal security, or reveal the identity of a confidential source, or subject a person to economic retaliation because of their cooperation with an investigation.Lastly, is not exempt from disclosing the documents because they are related to a noncriminal investigation, the media groups argue.The section of the Right To Know Law "specifically states that when 'the commission conducts an investigation of an act or practice of a public utility' and 'enters into a settlement with a public utility … with respect to its investigation,' the documents relied upon by the commission in reaching that determination 'shall (be made) part of the public record and (the commission shall) release publicly such documents.'"The December 2014 ruling reversed a Nov. 4, 2013, state Office of Open records decision that would have forced PPL and the PUC to release the documents.The information includes details of a PPL employee's tip to the PUC that the power company diverted crews from restoring power in a high-priority area after the Oct. 29, 2011, storm, delaying restoration of power to 1,400 PPL customers.The PUC found PPL at fault, but eventually reached a $60,000 settlement with the power company.As part of the settlement agreement, PPL would not disclose details of where the crew was sent, the locations of where the restoration was delayed when the crew was diverted, who sent them, and who benefited from the diversion.