Saying the negatives outweigh the too-vague positives, a state administrative law judge is advising the Public Utility Commission to deny a fuel pipeline firm's plan to reverse the flow on part of its Pennsylvania system.

Proponents of the proposal to reverse the Laurel Pipeline's flow between Pittsburgh and Altoona claim the move could cut gas prices for some Keystone State customers.

However, opponents of the $200 million plan, including a coalition of major eastern Pennsylvania refinery operators, are celebrating Judge Eranda Vero's denial recommendation.

Laurel's pipeline currently transports petroleum products east to west across Pennsylvania. Laurel proposes to maintain the east-west flow from Philadelphia to the pipeline's Eldorado terminal near Altoona, but to switch to a west-east flow from the Pittsburgh area to Eldorado.

The pipeline owner, Buckeye Partners, claims state consumers would benefit because the switch would allow cheaper gas processed in the Midwest to flow through the pipeline to Pennsylvania.

In Vero's 212-page opinion, the judge found Buckeye failed to provide any witnesses or studies to support that assertion. Eastern refineries now have access to crude oil at prices competitive with the Midwest refineries, the judge noted.

"Laurel has not shown that its proposed reversal will decrease prices that consumers pay for gasoline at the pump," Vero wrote.

The reversal would, however, play havoc with eastern refineries that would be deprived of a major western distribution route, the judge concluded.

The Laurel proposal's primary opponent, the Deny Buckeye coalition, praised Vero's recommendation as "well-reasoned." Coalition members are Giant Eagle Get Go, Gulf, Guttman Energy, Monroe Energy, Philadelphia Energy Solutions and Sheetz.

"The only winners of a Laurel reversal would be Buckeye and out-of-state refineries," the coalition contended in a statement issued Thursday.

"Midwest refineries already have access to Pennsylvania markets, but they don't want competition. Pennsylvania refineries have supplied fuel throughout our commonwealth for over a half-century. It is stunning to think that a Texas-based pipeline company wants to block our own refineries from serving Pennsylvania. A reversal would send fuel prices skyrocketing and put thousands of Pennsylvania jobs in jeopardy," the group insisted.

PUC spokesman Nils Frederiksen said Vero's recommendation is only advisory. The PUC can accept, reject or modify it, he said. Both sides in the pipeline dispute will have opportunities to weigh in.

"While we are still reviewing the decision, and we appreciate the administrative law judge's consideration of our proposal which will create important benefits for Pennsylvania consumers, we respectfully disagree with her conclusion," said Buckeye Senior Vice President Bill Hollis.

"The facts clearly demonstrate that our market-driven project will enhance competition and lead to lower fuel prices for families and communities while improving energy security, all wins for the commonwealth," Hollis added. "These facts continue to be broadly echoed by business and labor organizations, elected officials as well as independent experts and academics. We believe the (PUC's) objective review of these facts should lead to the approval of the project, which will benefit Pennsylvania consumers and move the commonwealth forward."

This story has been updated with comment from Buckeye Partners.