|
Consulting |
Search |
PUCT Staff, dPi Energy File Revised Settlement in Revocation Proceeding
July 8, 2011
Email This Story
PUCT Staff, dPi Energy, and other parties in the case, "have been unable to reach agreement on every issue discussed at the last open meeting, including whether dPi will pay additional administrative penalties," Staff said in presenting a revised settlement which does answer several of the Commissioners' concerns.
The Commission is currently considering a settlement which would resolve Staff's petition to revoke dPi Energy's REP certificate for, among other reasons, lack of managerial and technical competency due to its 50% ownership by Zahed "Ed" Lateef (through Amvensys Telecom Holdings), who was a principal of Riverway Power when it experienced an involuntary mass transition. The stipulation would require Amvensys Telecom Holdings to divest all of its ownership and control of dPi Energy, by a redacted date (7/6).
The revised settlement was to be addressed at today's open meeting, but has been held.
The amended settlement includes:
- Provisions prohibiting Lateef and affiliated entities from doing business with dPi after divestiture;
- Provisions requiring dPi to file quarterly compliance reports for three years;
- A provision requiring a Commission order for any extension of the deadline for the sales contract and
- Provisions highlighting the violations Lateef and dPi are admitting in the settlement.
Additionally the settlement provides that there will be an automatic revocation of dPi's REP certificate if the Commission does not approve the sale of dPi. "This gives the Commission control to ensure that dPi is purchased by a responsible buyer and with proper conditions set for its future activities," Staff said.
"The Settlement, however, does not provide for any additional administrative penalties against dPi and does not revoke their certificate (unless the sale is not executed by the date certain or if the Commission disapproves the sale)," Staff noted.
Staff also stressed that even if the case is referred back to the State Office of Administrative Hearings, additional administrative penalties are not currently available to the Commission with the existing record in the proceeding, since the assessment of penalties is required to be done through the Notice of Violation process specified in Chapter 15 of PURA.
Email This Story
Copyright 2010-
Be Seen By Energy Professionals in Retail and Wholesale Marketing
Run Ads with Energy Choice Matters
Call Paul Ring
954-
|
Consulting |
Search |