acceptable means for an EGS to resolve a dispute arising under the Code or Commission Regulations. at n.1. Id. Joint Replies Complainants’ The Joint Complainants respond that in the and also in similar IDT Order proceedings involving EGS companies, the Commission has approved the issuance of refunds that an EGS agreed to as part of a settlement to resolve a complaint. OAG/OCA R.Exc. at 6-7, citing IDT Order, Public Power, Pa. PUC, Bureau of Investigation & Docket No. M-2013-2325122 (Order entered October 2, Enforcement v. Pa. Gas & Electric, 2014) (Pa. Thus, they argue that Mr. Sobiech fails to distinguish this settled G&E Gas). – proceeding from a fully litigated one. OAG/OCA R.Exc. at 7. The Joint Complaints additionally assert that Mr. Sobiech mischaracterizes the nature of the Complaint filed against Pa. G&E as a dispute, in his reliance on “rate” OAG/OCA R.Exc. at 7. They explain that the Complaint encompassed Delmarva. allegations, of specific violations of the Chapter 54 Regulations, inter alia, Commission’s 52 Pa. Code § 54.1-54.204. Id. Regarding the allegations of Mr. Sobiech that Section 501 of the Code, 66 Pa. C.S. § 501, does not provide the Commission with the requisite authority to approve the Joint Petition and Settlement, the Joint Complainants extensively quote from the IDT Order to highlight the discussion of the applicability of this provision to disputes Commission’s involving EGS companies. OAG/OCA R.Exc. at 8-9. Finally, in reply to the allegations that the presiding ALJs improperly applied statutory authority from the Consumer Protection Law to this proceeding, the Joint Complainants point out that the ALJs did not expressly rely on these provisions in concluding that refunds are proper. OAG/OCA R.Exc. at 10. Instead, argue the Joint
acceptable means for an EGS to resolve a dispute arising under the Code or Commission Regulations. Id. at n.1. Joint Complainants’ Replies The Joint Complainants respond that in the IDT Order and also in similar proceedings involving EGS companies, the Commission has approved the issuance of refunds that an EGS agreed to as part of a settlement to resolve a complaint. OAG/OCA R.Exc. at 6-7, citing IDT Order, Public Power, Pa. PUC, Bureau of Investigation & Enforcement v. Pa. Gas & Electric, Docket No. M-2013-2325122 (Order entered October 2, 2014) (Pa. G&E – Gas). Thus, they argue that Mr. Sobiech fails to distinguish this settled proceeding from a fully litigated one. OAG/OCA R.Exc. at 7. The Joint Complaints additionally assert that Mr. Sobiech mischaracterizes the nature of the Complaint filed against Pa. G&E as a “rate” dispute, in his reliance on Delmarva. OAG/OCA R.Exc. at 7. They explain that the Complaint encompassed allegations, inter alia, of specific violations of the Commission’s Chapter 54 Regulations, 52 Pa. Code § 54.1-54.204. Id. Regarding the allegations of Mr. Sobiech that Section 501 of the Code, 66 Pa. C.S. § 501, does not provide the Commission with the requisite authority to approve the Joint Petition and Settlement, the Joint Complainants extensively quote from the IDT Order to highlight the Commission’s discussion of the applicability of this provision to disputes involving EGS companies. OAG/OCA R.Exc. at 8-9. Finally, in reply to the allegations that the presiding ALJs improperly applied statutory authority from the Consumer Protection Law to this proceeding, the Joint Complainants point out that the ALJs did not expressly rely on these provisions in concluding that refunds are proper. OAG/OCA R.Exc. at 10. Instead, argue the Joint
1421997.docx