Sprague additionally states that reconsideration should be granted because its oversight was administrative in nature and it has put procedures in place to ensure that such oversights will not happen in the future. Sprague avers that, in response to the cancellation of its license, Sprague and its affiliates have updated their Commission’s compliance procedures to ensure that each regulatory license is associated with the correct mailing address and to ensure that the dockets are routinely Commission’s reviewed. Id. Further, Sprague contends that reconsideration should be granted because the cancellation of license has impacted and prejudiced, or may Commission’s Sprague’s impact and prejudice, Sprague and its affiliates in the fourteen states in which they conduct energy marketing of natural gas and electricity due to the negative perception associated with a certification cancellation and any resulting undue regulatory requirements in Pennsylvania and other states in which Sprague and its affiliates hold licenses. at 5, 6. Sprague explains that one of its affiliates, Sprague Energy Solutions, Id. Inc. (Sprague Energy Solutions) has been impacted by the cancellation of Commission’s license. Sprague avers that its license cancellation caused electric market Sprague’s participants, including electric distribution companies, to question Sprague Energy the licenses are separate. Sprague Solutions’ good standing, although two companies’ also avers that the cancellation of its license presents a compliance issue Commission’s that is larger than failure to file its bond, because nearly every state in which Sprague’s Sprague holds an EGS license requires notification of a license cancellation. at 6. Id. The Petition for Reconsideration is predicated on the assertion that Sprague had a bond in place, although it was not on file with the Commission during the period in question; that Sprague had no Pennsylvania customers during the period in question; and that failure to file the bond and to respond to the many Sprague’s Commission’s communications was a matter of administrative inadvertence. Although we do not find these arguments persuasive, we conclude that under the standards, we will grant Duick
Sprague additionally states that reconsideration should be granted because its oversight was administrative in nature and it has put procedures in place to ensure that such oversights will not happen in the future. Sprague avers that, in response to the Commission’s cancellation of its license, Sprague and its affiliates have updated their compliance procedures to ensure that each regulatory license is associated with the correct mailing address and to ensure that the Commission’s dockets are routinely reviewed. Id. Further, Sprague contends that reconsideration should be granted because the Commission’s cancellation of Sprague’s license has impacted and prejudiced, or may impact and prejudice, Sprague and its affiliates in the fourteen states in which they conduct energy marketing of natural gas and electricity due to the negative perception associated with a certification cancellation and any resulting undue regulatory requirements in Pennsylvania and other states in which Sprague and its affiliates hold licenses. Id. at 5, 6. Sprague explains that one of its affiliates, Sprague Energy Solutions, Inc. (Sprague Energy Solutions) has been impacted by the Commission’s cancellation of Sprague’s license. Sprague avers that its license cancellation caused electric market participants, including electric distribution companies, to question Sprague Energy Solutions’ good standing, although the two companies’ licenses are separate. Sprague also avers that the Commission’s cancellation of its license presents a compliance issue that is larger than Sprague’s failure to file its bond, because nearly every state in which Sprague holds an EGS license requires notification of a license cancellation. Id. at 6. The Petition for Reconsideration is predicated on the assertion that Sprague had a bond in place, although it was not on file with the Commission during the period in question; that Sprague had no Pennsylvania customers during the period in question; and that Sprague’s failure to file the bond and to respond to the Commission’s many communications was a matter of administrative inadvertence. Although we do not find these arguments persuasive, we conclude that under the Duick standards, we will grant
1437524.docx