determine whether the conduct alleged constitutes a violation of State or Federal law, including the TRA, when it has a matter before it. OAG/OCA Joint Brief at 7. The Joint Complainants distinguish the holdings of 1999 MAPSA v. PECO, Pa. PUC LEXIS 30, and 786 A.2d 288, Harrisburg Taxicab & Baggage Co. v. Pa. PUC, 292-293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), as discussed in the August 20 Order. OAG/OCA Joint Brief at 7-9. The Joint Complainants also argue that the Commission has the authority to determine whether the prices charged to customers by an EGS conform to the EGS’s disclosure statement. at 10. They cite the case of Id. Grmusa v. Dominion Retail, Inc., Docket No. C-2009-2124359 (Order entered April 16, 2010), as a case directly on point for the proposition that the Commission has asserted jurisdiction over the misrepresentation of an EGS when such misrepresentations are related to price quotation. OAG/OCA Joint Brief at 12. Finally, the Joint Complainants assert that the Commission has the authority to order equitable remedies, including restitution. at 13-14. The Joint Id. Complainants refer the Commission to the proceeding at Docket No. C-2012-2427656, involving Energy Service Providers, Inc. d/b/a Pa. Gas & Electric, wherein they discuss, at length, the authority and jurisdiction to order refunds. at 13 n. 7. Id. Commission’s IDT IDT takes the position that the only violation of the TRA that is alleged in the Joint Complaint pertains to the provision at 71 P.S. § 2245(a)(7). “signed contract” This requirement does not, in legal opinion, apply to EGSs. Therefore, argues IDT’s IDT, there is no compelling reason for the Commission to grant interlocutory review. IDT Brief in Opposition at 4.
determine whether the conduct alleged constitutes a violation of State or Federal law, including the TRA, when it has a matter before it. OAG/OCA Joint Brief at 7. The Joint Complainants distinguish the holdings of MAPSA v. PECO, 1999 Pa. PUC LEXIS 30, and Harrisburg Taxicab & Baggage Co. v. Pa. PUC, 786 A.2d 288, 292-293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), as discussed in the August 20 Order. OAG/OCA Joint Brief at 7-9. The Joint Complainants also argue that the Commission has the authority to determine whether the prices charged to customers by an EGS conform to the EGS’s disclosure statement. Id. at 10. They cite the case of Grmusa v. Dominion Retail, Inc., Docket No. C-2009-2124359 (Order entered April 16, 2010), as a case directly on point for the proposition that the Commission has asserted jurisdiction over the misrepresentation of an EGS when such misrepresentations are related to price quotation. OAG/OCA Joint Brief at 12. Finally, the Joint Complainants assert that the Commission has the authority to order equitable remedies, including restitution. Id. at 13-14. The Joint Complainants refer the Commission to the proceeding at Docket No. C-2012-2427656, involving Energy Service Providers, Inc. d/b/a Pa. Gas & Electric, wherein they discuss, at length, the Commission’s authority and jurisdiction to order refunds. Id. at 13 n. 7. IDT IDT takes the position that the only violation of the TRA that is alleged in the Joint Complaint pertains to the “signed contract” provision at 71 P.S. § 2245(a)(7). This requirement does not, in IDT’s legal opinion, apply to EGSs. Therefore, argues IDT, there is no compelling reason for the Commission to grant interlocutory review. IDT Brief in Opposition at 4.
1333508.docx