IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CHESAPEAKE UTILITIES .
CORPORATION, : C.A. No. K17A-01-001 WLW
: Kent County
Appellant, '
V.
DELAWARE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION,
Appellee.
Oral Argument: May 12, 2017
Decided: June 7, 2017
ORDER
Upon Appeal from a Decision of the
DelaWare Public Service Commission.
Reversed and Vacated.
William O’Brien, Esquire, Associate General Counsel for Chesapeake Utilities
Corporation, Daniel O’Brien, Esquire, Venable LLP, Wilmington, DelaWare, Brian
M. Quinn, Esquire, pro hac vice, Venable LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; attorneys for
Appellant Chesapeake Utilities Corporation.
Todd A. Coomes, Esquire and Selena E. Molina, Esquire of Richards Layton &
Finger; Wilmington, DelaWare; attorneys for Appellee DelaWare Association of
Alternative Energy Providers, Inc.
Brenda R. Mayrack, Esquire of the Department of Justice, Dover, DelaWare; attorney
for the DelaWare Public Service Cornmission
WITHAM, R.J.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation v. DelaWare Public Service Commission
C.A. No. Kl7A-01-001 WLW
June 7, 2017
This appeal from the DelaWare Public Service Commission requires the Court
to resolve a single issue: may an unregulated competitor intervene to protect its
interest in a regulated utility’s rate proceeding?
Applicant-BeloW/Appellant Chesapeake Utilities Corporation (“Chesapeake”)
appeals from two orders that Were part of a final determination of the DelaWare Public
Service Commission (“the Commission”). The first order grants the petition of
Intervenor-BeloW/Appellee DelaWare Association of Alternative Energy Providers,
Inc. (DAAEP) to intervene. The second denies Chesapeake’s petition for an
interlocutory appeal and affirms the earlier order granting intervention.
This Court finds that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority When it
granted DAAEP’s petition to intervene in a public utility’s rate case because the sole
interest claimed by the intervenor Was as an unregulated competitor to the public
utility. The intervention orders of the hearing examiner and the Commission are thus
reversed. Because the orders regarding intervention are reversed on that ground, the
Court does not reach Chesapeake’s second argument: that the Commission’s
determination Was unsupported by substantial evidence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Chesapeake filed an application With the Commission in December 2015 for
a general increase in its natural gas rates and other changes to its natural gas tariff.1
The application sought to expand Chesapeake’s natural gas offerings through new
lR. at 2.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation v. DelaWare Public Service Commission
C.A. No. Kl7A-01-001 WLW
June 7, 2017
programs.2
A few months later, in February 2016, DAAEP filed a petition for leave to
intervene in the rate docl