Efforts by a group of news outlets to force the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission to reveal details of PPL's handling of a 2011 Poconos snowstorm that left hundreds of thousands of customers without power for days took another step forward last week.

The state Supreme Court on Feb. 26 denied a request by the PUC to present further oral arguments in the case. PPL had supported the request.The PUC asked to be allowed to make the arguments in light of recent changes to the court, including the addition of three new justices - Superior Court Judges David N. Wecht and Christine L. Donohue and Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Administrative Judge Kevin Dougherty - in January and the departure of Justice Correale F. Stevens and the suspension of Justice Michael Eakin.The petition was opposed by the news outlets, including the Times News, represented by Harrisburg attorney Craig J. Staudenmaier.The Times Leader and The Morning Call initiated the original suit to force release of the details. With the denial of the PUC's request for oral arguments, the court is expected to make its decision based on briefs previously filed and the arguments it heard in November, Staudenmaier said.The case has been wending its way through the courts for years.The information sought by the news outlets 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.PPL spokesman Paul Wirth has told the Times News the diversion was the "result of a misunderstanding that led a lower-level supervisor to make a wrong assignment for one repair crew."