We expressly concluded that directing a billing adjustment for an EGS over bill of supply charges is within the Section 501 powers to carry out the consumer Commission’s protections in the Act that are applicable to competitive electricity generation supply service. at 17-18. As a billing adjustment is a potential remedy in a litigated See IDT Order setting, a voluntary refund of disputed EGS charges is also an outcome that can be accomplished in the context of a comprehensive settlement. Additionally, we agree with the positions of the Joint Complainants that the discussion of the Consumer Protection Law was not in express reliance on those ALJs’ statutory provisions, but necessary to place the issues before them in the proper context for purposes of reviewing the terms of the Settlement. See Kiback v. IDT Energy, Inc., supra, at 33, n. 10. Finally, we conclude that Mr. reliance on and Delmarva Virgilli Sobiech’s are injected out of context. discussion of Exception No. 4, Contrary to the See infra. position of Mr. Sobiech, the court has expressly that courts have Virgilli construed the Code as creating many areas of concurrent jurisdiction between the Commission and the courts. citing, ; . See Virgilli, e.g., Commonwealth’s Mr. Exception No. 3: The Administrative Law Judges Erred in Approving Sobiech’s the Settlement Without Knowing and Taking into Consideration How Many of the Customers Were Harmed by its Conduct and Without Knowing and Company’s Taking into Consideration the Extent of the Financial Harm Caused by the Company In Exception No. 3, Mr. Sobiech requests that the Commission reverse the Initial Decision and decline to approve the Settlement. This request is based on allegations that the Settlement resolves the formal complaints against Pa. G&E without knowing and taking into consideration how many customers were harmed by the conduct and Company’s without knowing and taking into consideration the extent of financial harm caused by the conduct. Exc. at 11. He cites the pertinent portion of the discussion of Company’s ALJs’
We expressly concluded that directing a billing adjustment for an EGS over bill of supply charges is within the Commission’s Section 501 powers to carry out the consumer protections in the Act that are applicable to competitive electricity generation supply service. See IDT Order at 17-18. As a billing adjustment is a potential remedy in a litigated setting, a voluntary refund of disputed EGS charges is also an outcome that can be accomplished in the context of a comprehensive settlement. Additionally, we agree with the positions of the Joint Complainants that the ALJs’ discussion of the Consumer Protection Law was not in express reliance on those statutory provisions, but necessary to place the issues before them in the proper context for purposes of reviewing the terms of the Settlement. See Kiback v. IDT Energy, Inc., supra, at 33, n. 10. Finally, we conclude that Mr. Sobiech’s reliance on Delmarva and Virgilli are injected out of context. See discussion of Exception No. 4, infra. Contrary to the position of Mr. Sobiech, the Virgilli court has expressly that courts have construed the Code as creating many areas of concurrent jurisdiction between the Commission and the Commonwealth’s courts. See Virgilli, citing, e.g., ; . Mr. Sobiech’s Exception No. 3: The Administrative Law Judges Erred in Approving the Settlement Without Knowing and Taking into Consideration How Many of the Company’s Customers Were Harmed by its Conduct and Without Knowing and Taking into Consideration the Extent of the Financial Harm Caused by the Company In Exception No. 3, Mr. Sobiech requests that the Commission reverse the Initial Decision and decline to approve the Settlement. This request is based on allegations that the Settlement resolves the formal complaints against Pa. G&E without knowing and taking into consideration how many customers were harmed by the Company’s conduct and without knowing and taking into consideration the extent of financial harm caused by the Company’s conduct. Exc. at 11. He cites the pertinent portion of the ALJs’ discussion of
1421997.docx