As such, we find that the provisions contained in the Settlement “injunctive relief” agreement are in the public interest and support adopting the Settlement in its entirety without modification. 4. Application of the Policy Statement Factors The Commission has promulgated a Policy Statement at 52 Pa. Code § 69.1201 that sets forth ten factors that the Commission will consider in evaluating litigated and (“Rosi Factors”) settled proceedings and determining whether a fine for violating a Commission order, regulation or statute is appropriate, as well as whether a proposed settlement for violations is reasonable and approval of the settlement agreement is in the public interest. When applied in settled cases, the factors will not be applied in as strict a fashion as in a litigated proceeding. 52 Pa. Code §69.1201(b). The parties in settled cases will be afforded flexibility in reaching amicable resolutions so long as the settlement is in the public interest. Id. The Policy Statement notes that factors and standards will be utilized by the “these Commission in determining if a fine for violating a Commission order, regulation or statute is appropriate, as well as if a proposed settlement for a violation is reasonable and approval of the settlement agreement is in the public 52 Pa.Code § 69.1201(a). The factors in the Policy interest.” Statement are applied to both the Settlement in general and the civil penalty specifically. A review of the factors articulated in the Policy Statement, as applied to both the Settlement and the civil penalty, as well as the various positions of the parties with regard to each of the factors, supports finding that the Settlement should be adopted without modification as being in the public interest. With regard to the first Rosi Factor, we find the allegations are of a serious nature including that HIKO: 1) did not provide the savings or benefits promised to customers by its salespeople or welcome letters; 2) failed to provide rate information; 3) failed to provide pricing information in plain language in its Disclosure Statement; and 4) charged prices in early 2014 that did not conform to its Disclosure Statement. 52 Pa. Code § 69.1201(c)(1). The Commission held in Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Law Bureau Prosecutory Staff v. MXenergy Electric Inc., Docket No. M-2012-2201861, Order at 5 (May 3, 2012) as conduct of a serious follows. “When
As such, we find that the “injunctive relief” provisions contained in the Settlement agreement are in the public interest and support adopting the Settlement in its entirety without modification. 4. Application of the Policy Statement Factors The Commission has promulgated a Policy Statement at 52 Pa. Code § 69.1201 that sets forth ten factors (“Rosi Factors”) that the Commission will consider in evaluating litigated and settled proceedings and determining whether a fine for violating a Commission order, regulation or statute is appropriate, as well as whether a proposed settlement for violations is reasonable and approval of the settlement agreement is in the public interest. When applied in settled cases, the factors will not be applied in as strict a fashion as in a litigated proceeding. 52 Pa. Code §69.1201(b). The parties in settled cases will be afforded flexibility in reaching amicable resolutions so long as the settlement is in the public interest. Id. The Policy Statement notes that “these factors and standards will be utilized by the Commission in determining if a fine for violating a Commission order, regulation or statute is appropriate, as well as if a proposed settlement for a violation is reasonable and approval of the settlement agreement is in the public interest.” 52 Pa.Code § 69.1201(a). The factors in the Policy Statement are applied to both the Settlement in general and the civil penalty specifically. A review of the factors articulated in the Policy Statement, as applied to both the Settlement and the civil penalty, as well as the various positions of the parties with regard to each of the factors, supports finding that the Settlement should be adopted without modification as being in the public interest. With regard to the first Rosi Factor, we find the allegations are of a serious nature including that HIKO: 1) did not provide the savings or benefits promised to customers by its salespeople or welcome letters; 2) failed to provide rate information; 3) failed to provide pricing information in plain language in its Disclosure Statement; and 4) charged prices in early 2014 that did not conform to its Disclosure Statement. 52 Pa. Code § 69.1201(c)(1). The Commission held in Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Law Bureau Prosecutory Staff v. MXenergy Electric Inc., Docket No. M-2012-2201861, Order at 5 (May 3, 2012) as follows. “When conduct of a serious
1391344.docx