involving expert testimony of Daniel Mumford for I&E, Dr. Charles J. Cicchetti for HIKO, as well as the testimony of Harvey Klein, CEO of the Company. Our Initial Decision in that case contains further detail explaining our reasoning in calculating the civil penalty. In summary, we found a civil penalty totaling $1,836,125 to be a sufficient deterrent to HIKO. With regard to the provision in the Settlement that the Company will make a total contribution of $25,000 to the Hardship Funds with the contribution allocated by the ratio of EDCs’ HIKO customers in the territory to the total amount of HIKO customers in Pennsylvania as EDC’s of January 1, 2014, we find this provision of the Settlement is also in the public interest and supports adopting the Settlement without modification. This is particularly true because of the strain placed on Hardship Funds and low-income consumers as a result of the increased bills consumers paid during the months at issue in this case. The Hardship Funds benefit all low-income consumers in the territories, not solely the customers of HIKO. As a result, we find the EDCs’ $25,000 contribution to Hardship Funds to be reasonable and a pragmatic compromise EDCs’ between the parties allowing them to more expeditiously implement the agreed upon remedial actions. 3. Injunctive Relief With regard to the third aspect of the Settlement, injunctive relief, we note that the settlement discusses modifications to business practices as equating to injunctive relief. parties’ This as described in the settlement appears to be which “injunctive relief” “corrective actions” HIKO agrees to going forward, changing the disclosure statement, marketing and i.e. Company’s sales activities. These are terms of settlement which we are approving as they are in the public interest. The Settlement provides extensive provisions requiring numerous modifications to business practices. The Settlement provides significant detail regarding changes to HIKO’s HIKO’s product offering, marketing practices, third party verifications, Disclosure Statement, training of internal and external sales representatives, compliance monitoring, reporting and customer service. These provisions address many of the issues raised in the Complaint. The parties agree HIKO will not accept any new variable rate customers in Pennsylvania until June 30, 2016.
involving expert testimony of Daniel Mumford for I&E, Dr. Charles J. Cicchetti for HIKO, as well as the testimony of Harvey Klein, CEO of the Company. Our Initial Decision in that case contains further detail explaining our reasoning in calculating the civil penalty. In summary, we found a civil penalty totaling $1,836,125 to be a sufficient deterrent to HIKO. With regard to the provision in the Settlement that the Company will make a total contribution of $25,000 to the EDCs’ Hardship Funds with the contribution allocated by the ratio of HIKO customers in the EDC’s territory to the total amount of HIKO customers in Pennsylvania as of January 1, 2014, we find this provision of the Settlement is also in the public interest and supports adopting the Settlement without modification. This is particularly true because of the strain placed on Hardship Funds and low-income consumers as a result of the increased bills consumers paid during the months at issue in this case. The Hardship Funds benefit all low-income consumers in the EDCs’ territories, not solely the customers of HIKO. As a result, we find the $25,000 contribution to EDCs’ Hardship Funds to be reasonable and a pragmatic compromise between the parties allowing them to more expeditiously implement the agreed upon remedial actions. 3. Injunctive Relief With regard to the third aspect of the Settlement, injunctive relief, we note that the parties’ settlement discusses modifications to business practices as equating to injunctive relief. This “injunctive relief” as described in the settlement appears to be “corrective actions” which HIKO agrees to going forward, i.e. changing the Company’s disclosure statement, marketing and sales activities. These are terms of settlement which we are approving as they are in the public interest. The Settlement provides extensive provisions requiring numerous modifications to HIKO’s business practices. The Settlement provides significant detail regarding changes to HIKO’s product offering, marketing practices, third party verifications, Disclosure Statement, training of internal and external sales representatives, compliance monitoring, reporting and customer service. These provisions address many of the issues raised in the Complaint. The parties agree HIKO will not accept any new variable rate customers in Pennsylvania until June 30, 2016.
1391344.docx