|
|
|
|
|
Initial Decision Would Fine Retail Supplier $2,000 For Slamming
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
An initial decision from a Pennsylvania PUC ALJ would impose a civil penalty of $2,000 on Palmco Energy PA LLC (Palmco) for what the initial decision would determine was one instance of customer slamming
Palmco Energy PA LLC (Indra Energy) provided the following statement concerning the matter:
"Indra Energy is aware of the ALJ’s initial decision today in Pennsylvania PUC Docket No. F-2024-3046076. While this is an ongoing matter, Indra denies the allegations of the complaint and any wrongdoing. Indra remains committed to serving customers in Pennsylvania and all markets with integrity and value while complying with statutes and regulations."
--- Statement from Indra Energy
Generally, initial decisions are not final and may be appealed to the full Commission by parties to the proceeding
The matter arises from a complaint proceeding brought by a single individual customer, and addressed only such individual customer's alleged single instance of an unauthorized switch
According to the initial decision, Palmco did not file an answer to the complaint, did not appear at a hearing, and did not otherwise actively participate in the case
The settlement, notes, however, that Palmco eventually credited the complainant all amounts that had been paid to Palmco and transferred the customer back to the utility
The initial decision would find that the complainant provided credible testimony in support of the alleged slamming, including that the customer allegedly never received a notification of a change in supplier. The initial decision notes that there was no rebuttal from Palmco to complainant's testimony and thus the ALJ concludes that complainant's burden of proof was met
Under PUC rules, the ALJ noted, a defendant which fails to answer a complaint may be deemed to have admitted to the allegations, as the ALJ thus concluded, "I deem the allegations in the Formal Complaint admitted."
The ALJ would adopt a penalty of $2,000 for the one instance of slamming which the ALJ finds did occur
The ALJ noted that various settlements previously adopted by the PUC have relied upon a $1,000-per-instance fine for slamming
The ALJ cited various customary factors which the PUC considers to determine a penalty, and in such discussion the ALJ noted that, "The Company failed to file and answer to the Formal Complaint and failed to appear for the hearing, suggesting an indifference to the Complainant’s concerns and the Commission’s processes."
"I also note that unlike the cases cited above which suggest a $1,000 fine per account, this case was not a settlement and Indra [Palmco] either refused or did not care to participate in the resolution of this Complaint. This suggests a higher penalty," the ALJ said
The ALJ also cited the PUC's stated "zero tolerance" policy for slamming
"Slamming is serious and must be deterred. However ... it is not clear from the evidence whether this is conduct by the Company [Palmco] as a whole or by a wayward salesperson. Therefore, it is not clear, currently, that a large penalty is needed to deter Indra from committing this violation in the future," the ALJ said
In a move not irregular in sustained individual customer complaints, the ALJ directed that the PUC's Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement be made aware of the initial decision, for further investigation and action as I&E deems appropriate.
The civil penalty under the initial decision would be paid to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
A copy of the initial complaint was not available electronically, but it did not appear that the complainant was seeking specific relief under the complaint, other than deterrence. As noted, the complainant had already been made whole by Palmco for service under the allegedly unauthorized enrollment
Also notable is that the complaint was an appeal of a decision from the PUC's Bureau of Consumer Services (BCS). The nature of the underlying complaint filed with BCS was unclear, and whether the complainant had been seeking other relief which prompted BCS's decision which was appealed
F-2024-3046076
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
October 10, 2024
Email This Story
Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Director of Policy and Research, Retail Energy
• NEW! -- Director, Load Forecasting
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Wholesale Markets Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Origination Analyst
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Settlements Analyst
-- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Billing Supervisor
|
|
|
|
|