|
|
|
|
|
PUC Rescinds Prior Order Penalizing Retail Supplier For Slamming, Concedes Supplier Did Not Receive Notice Of Complaint
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Pennsylvania PUC rescinded a prior order which had accepted an initial decision penalizing Palmco Energy PA LLC (Palmco) for an alleged instance of slamming, as the PUC accepted evidence that Palmco had not been served with the initial complaint or any subsequent notices in the proceeding
As previously reported, the initial decision, which was addressing a complaint from an individual, single customer, would have found that Palmco had engaged in slamming, and would have imposed a $2,000 penalty.
The initial decision had stated that Palmco did not present a defense in the proceeding
Palmco, learning of the case only upon publication of the initial decision, said in a PUC filing that it had no record of having been served with the complaint at either of the two email addresses that are on file with the Commission.
Palmco also stated that it had no record of receiving either of the Hearing Notices or the Prehearing Order in the case, which Palmco suggested had been served to an incorrect email address
The PUC agreed that Palmco, "has presented evidence to show that there was a due process issue associated with the failure of proper service of important and relevant filings and Commission documents on [Palmco]."
As such, the PUC rescinded an order adopting the initial decision (which had been made in error in any case as such adoption was issued despite Palmco properly protesting the initial decision prior to a deadline), and the PUC sent the case back to an ALJ for further proceedings, if needed
The initial decision had noted that Palmco did, as a result of discussions with the customer, credit the complainant all amounts that had been paid to Palmco and transferred the customer back to the utility
The $2,000 fine proposed under the initial decision for a single instance of slamming is notable as it is generally higher than most settled Pa. PUC penalties for slamming ($1,000 per violation), but the initial decision favored a higher penalty, in part, due to Palmco's ostensible non-participation in the proceeding (which, as noted above, was due to not being served with the complaint). See more discussion on the penalty amount here
F-2024-3046076
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2025 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
January 23, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Manager / Director of Sales, PJM Commercial
|
|
|
|
|