that ResCom contracted with the call center to provide calls to Pennsylvania consumers in the PPL and PECO residential markets. He claimed that call center agents, acting on behalf of ResCom, called consumers whose telephone numbers were obtained from telephone directories which were not screened to omit consumer telephone numbers on lists. Settlement at 6. Upon request by BCS, I&E, by letter dated July 25, “Do Not Call” 2013, initiated an informal investigation of marketing practices regarding its ResCom’s third party agent, Consumer Energy Partners. Pursuant to letters dated July 3, 2013, and August 22, 2013, I&E notified ResCom that its informal investigations revealed sufficient data to substantiate allegations of violations of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 101 the et seq., Telemarketer Registration Act, and the Regulations. Settlement supra, Commission’s at 7. I&E was prepared to allege in a formal complaint that ResCom or its agents failed to comply with the Standards for Changing a Commission’s Customer’s Electricity Generation Supplier, 52 Pa. Code §§ 57.171 According to I&E, the Company et seq.. neglected to obtain direct oral or written confirmations to change the EGS on multiple consumer accounts, resulting in the physical switching of the EGS accounts without proper authorization or verification in violation of 52 Pa. Code § 57.173. Second, I&E would have alleged that the Company or its agents failed to comply with the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 2801 by et seq., engaging in fraudulent, deceptive or otherwise unlawful acts in the process of marketing EGS services to Pennsylvania consumers in violation of 52 Pa. Code § 54.43(f). Third, I&E would have averred that ResCom or its agents violated the provision “Do Not Call” of the Telemarketer Registration Act, by engaging in marketing efforts on multiple supra, consumer accounts resulting in telephone calls to consumers listed on a state or federal list. Lastly, I&E would have alleged that the Company violated the Code “Do Not Call”
that ResCom contracted with the call center to provide calls to Pennsylvania consumers in the PPL and PECO residential markets. He claimed that call center agents, acting on behalf of ResCom, called consumers whose telephone numbers were obtained from telephone directories which were not screened to omit consumer telephone numbers on “Do Not Call” lists. Settlement at 6. Upon request by BCS, I&E, by letter dated July 25, 2013, initiated an informal investigation of ResCom’s marketing practices regarding its third party agent, Consumer Energy Partners. Pursuant to letters dated July 3, 2013, and August 22, 2013, I&E notified ResCom that its informal investigations revealed sufficient data to substantiate allegations of violations of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 101 et seq., the Telemarketer Registration Act, supra, and the Commission’s Regulations. Settlement at 7. I&E was prepared to allege in a formal complaint that ResCom or its agents failed to comply with the Commission’s Standards for Changing a Customer’s Electricity Generation Supplier, 52 Pa. Code §§ 57.171 et seq.. According to I&E, the Company neglected to obtain direct oral or written confirmations to change the EGS on multiple consumer accounts, resulting in the physical switching of the EGS accounts without proper authorization or verification in violation of 52 Pa. Code § 57.173. Second, I&E would have alleged that the Company or its agents failed to comply with the Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 2801 et seq., by engaging in fraudulent, deceptive or otherwise unlawful acts in the process of marketing EGS services to Pennsylvania consumers in violation of 52 Pa. Code § 54.43(f). Third, I&E would have averred that ResCom or its agents violated the “Do Not Call” provision of the Telemarketer Registration Act, supra, by engaging in marketing efforts on multiple consumer accounts resulting in telephone calls to consumers listed on a state or federal “Do Not Call” list. Lastly, I&E would have alleged that the Company violated the Code
1274193.docx