Skytop also asserts that being subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction will be burdensome, with attendant costs for rate cases and other regulatory costs, with such costs being borne by the users of the systems. 27. Petition, ¶ Skytop argues that, pursuant to the policy statement found at Commission’s 52 Pa.Code § 69.1401, and relevant Guidelines for Determining Public Utility Status, Commission decisions and appellate case law, it is not a public utility and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction regarding the provision of water and sewer Commission’s service to these 74 customers. Skytop argues that its circumstances meet the policy criteria to support a determination of non-public utility status because the utility service is merely incidental to primary business, its systems would require significant Skytop’s revision to serve others, and that service is provided to a defined, privileged, and limited group of customers where the purveyor of services has control over the person selected to be provided service. Skytop argues its circumstances are distinguishable from a line of Commission decisions (and related appellate decisions) that hold that a private entity generally situated like Skytop that provides utility services only to renters of residences is not a public utility, whereas a private entity that provides utility services to purchasers of residences is a public utility. 418 Pa. 430, 430-432, 212 A.2d See Drexelbrook Assoc. v. Pa. PUC, 237, 237-40 (service customers were renters, therefore landlord not a public utility because landlord could control selection of renters); Warwick Water Works Inc. v. Pa. 699 A.2d 770 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1997) (Warwick) (service customers owned their PUC., townhouses and could sell their house to anyone, and thus utility provider could not select customers and hence was a public utility); Nemacolin Woodlands Resorts and Spa 91 Pa. PUC 654, 1998 WL 1748541 (Pa. PUC 1998) (Nemacolin) d/b/a NWL Co., (materially similar to Skytop must distinguish these cases because Warwick). Skytop’s customers are purchasers of their residences; thus if this line of cases is followed, Skytop would be a public utility.
Skytop also asserts that being subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction will be burdensome, with attendant costs for rate cases and other regulatory costs, with such costs being borne by the users of the systems. Petition, ¶ 27. Skytop argues that, pursuant to the Commission’s policy statement found at 52 Pa.Code § 69.1401, Guidelines for Determining Public Utility Status, and relevant Commission decisions and appellate case law, it is not a public utility and therefore not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction regarding the provision of water and sewer service to these 74 customers. Skytop argues that its circumstances meet the policy criteria to support a determination of non-public utility status because the utility service is merely incidental to Skytop’s primary business, its systems would require significant revision to serve others, and that service is provided to a defined, privileged, and limited group of customers where the purveyor of services has control over the person selected to be provided service. Skytop argues its circumstances are distinguishable from a line of Commission decisions (and related appellate decisions) that hold that a private entity generally situated like Skytop that provides utility services only to renters of residences is not a public utility, whereas a private entity that provides utility services to purchasers of residences is a public utility. See Drexelbrook Assoc. v. Pa. PUC, 418 Pa. 430, 430-432, 212 A.2d 237, 237-40 (service customers were renters, therefore landlord not a public utility because landlord could control selection of renters); Warwick Water Works Inc. v. Pa. PUC., 699 A.2d 770 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1997) (Warwick) (service customers owned their townhouses and could sell their house to anyone, and thus utility provider could not select customers and hence was a public utility); Nemacolin Woodlands Resorts and Spa d/b/a NWL Co., 91 Pa. PUC 654, 1998 WL 1748541 (Pa. PUC 1998) (Nemacolin) (materially similar to Warwick). Skytop must distinguish these cases because Skytop’s customers are purchasers of their residences; thus if this line of cases is followed, Skytop would be a public utility.
1299199.docx