HIKO Energy, LLC v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, PICS Case No. 17-0978 (Pa. Commw. June 8, 2017) Simpson, J. (89 pages).
PUC properly imposed a civil penalty on petitioner alternative energy supplier for its intentional overbilling of 5,000 customers for four months and properly calculated the penalty on a "per invoice" method because the penalty was not disproportionate due to the intentional conduct by petitioner's executives, petitioner did not mitigate and only made refunds to customers who complained and PUC properly applied the factors in determining the penalty. Affirmed.
June 30, 2017 at 01:37 PM
7 minute read
Public Utility Commission • Electric Generation Supplier • Overbilling Excessive Fine
HIKO Energy, LLC v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, PICS Case No. 17-0978 (Pa. Commw. June 8, 2017) Simpson, J. (89 pages).
PUC properly imposed a civil penalty on petitioner alternative energy supplier for its intentional overbilling of 5,000 customers for four months and properly calculated the penalty on a “per invoice” method because the penalty was not disproportionate due to the intentional conduct by petitioner's executives, petitioner did not mitigate and only made refunds to customers who complained and PUC properly applied the factors in determining the penalty. Affirmed.
In August 2013, petitioner offered customers a variable rate product that included a six-month introductory price guarantee that promised substantial savings for the first six monthly billing cycles. In January 2014, a sustained cold spell increased wholesale market prices for energy and petitioner had to pay exorbitant rates to purchase electricity. Petitioner's CEO made a business decision to intentionally overcharge 5,700 customers between January and April 2014. Petitioner voluntarily refunded $160,000 to some of its complaining customers. The PUC's I&E investigated customer complaints and in July 2014, filed a complaint alleging petitioner overcharged 5,700 customers on 14,600 invoices. I&E asserted that each invoice constituted a violation of 52 Pa. Code §54.4(a), requested a civil penalty of $1,000 per invoice, asked for the revocation of petitioner's authority to operate and ordered refunds for each customer. The commonwealth also filed a complaint against petitioner with the PUC alleging misleading marketing and improper billing. That case settled with petitioner required to establish a refund pool for customers. The ALJ in the I&E action denied the requests to revoke the EGS license and for refunds in light of the settlement in the commonwealth's PUC case and ordered a civil penalty of $1.8 million calculated by multiplying the number of violations, 14,600 invoices, by the approximate average overcharge per invoice. Petitioner appealed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 2A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
- 3The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 4Data-Driven Legal Strategies
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250