I.D. at 8-14. Recommendation Refund Pool ALJs’ – ALJs Cheskis and Barnes concluded that the provisions in the Settlement which addressed the creation and administration of a Refund Pool were in the public interest. I.D. at 37-43. After a thorough discussion of recent Commission proceedings See involving formal complaints against EGS companies, the ALJs concluded that the Refund Pool and its process to give financial relief to consumers who voluntarily agree to participate, was in the public interest and consistent with the the IDT Order, Commission’s Order in Pa. PUC, Bureau of I&E v. Energy Services Providers, Inc. d/b/a Commission’s Docket No. Pa. Gas and Electric and U.S. Gas and Electric d/b/a Pa. Gas and Electric, (Order entered October 2, 2014) (October as well as other 2014 Order), Commission precedent. I.D. at 41. The ALJs duly acknowledged the concerns raised by Mr. Sobiech regarding the signing of a general release as a condition of obtaining payment from the Refund Pool. The ALJs rejected the objections and position of Mr. Sobiech that the inclusion of the provision (Paragraph # 43 of the Settlement), regarding the signing of a general release was an impediment to Commission approval of the Settlement without modification. The pertinent reasoning of the ALJs concerning the Refund Pool, its operation, and the primary objections of Mr. Sobiech, is reprinted below: With regard to Mr. that it is not in Sobiech’ s contention the public interest to require the harmed customers of PaG&E to sign releases in order to receive a refund under this Settlement agreement, we disagree. If a customer is an active plaintiff in a separate proceeding (i.e. averring breach of contract) against PaG&E, he or she has the choice of 1) receiving the refund amount offered to him/her as determined by the third party Administrator of the Refund pool in the
I.D. at 8-14. ALJs’ Recommendation – Refund Pool ALJs Cheskis and Barnes concluded that the provisions in the Settlement which addressed the creation and administration of a Refund Pool were in the public interest. See I.D. at 37-43. After a thorough discussion of recent Commission proceedings involving formal complaints against EGS companies, the ALJs concluded that the Refund Pool and its process to give financial relief to consumers who voluntarily agree to participate, was in the public interest and consistent with the Commission’s IDT Order, the Commission’s Order in Pa. PUC, Bureau of I&E v. Energy Services Providers, Inc. d/b/a Pa. Gas and Electric and U.S. Gas and Electric d/b/a Pa. Gas and Electric, Docket No. (Order entered October 2, 2014) (October 2014 Order), as well as other Commission precedent. I.D. at 41. The ALJs duly acknowledged the concerns raised by Mr. Sobiech regarding the signing of a general release as a condition of obtaining payment from the Refund Pool. The ALJs rejected the objections and position of Mr. Sobiech that the inclusion of the provision (Paragraph # 43 of the Settlement), regarding the signing of a general release was an impediment to Commission approval of the Settlement without modification. The pertinent reasoning of the ALJs concerning the Refund Pool, its operation, and the primary objections of Mr. Sobiech, is reprinted below: With regard to Mr. Sobiech’ s contention that it is not in the public interest to require the harmed customers of PaG&E to sign releases in order to receive a refund under this Settlement agreement, we disagree. If a customer is an active plaintiff in a separate proceeding (i.e. averring breach of contract) against PaG&E, he or she has the choice of 1) receiving the refund amount offered to him/her as determined by the third party Administrator of the Refund pool in the
1421997.docx