Pennsylvania PUC Denies Application of Electric Broker

The Pennsylvania PUC yesterday denied the application of J. Andrews Associates, Inc. d/b/a Seven-Utility Management Consultants, LLC for approval to supply electricity or generation services as a broker/consultant engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Docket No. A-2011-2241747).

The Pennsylvania PUC adopted the recommended decision of an Administrative Law Judge, which had recommended the denial (see prior story for more details).

As previously reported, the recommended decision had concluded, "this Applicant has failed to sustain its burden of proving entitlement to licensure in that it is neither fit nor able to provide the level of service that the citizens of this Commonwealth deserve." This conclusion was based, in part on, "information omitted [on the initial application] but then admitted [which] included the identification of numerous affiliates and lawsuits, as well as the open admission that Applicant has been operating in Pennsylvania without a license since at least 2009," the ALJ said.

The PUC also denied Seven-Utility Management Consultants' (SUMC) petition to withdraw its application without prejudice. The petition to withdraw without prejudice was filed by Seven-Utility Management Consultants after the recommended decision was issued.

"[W]e find that it is in the public interest to deny SUMC's request to withdraw its Application, primarily because SUMC desires to withdraw its Application without prejudice to its right to re-file in the future," the PUC said in its order.

"SUMC has been afforded the opportunity to present evidence and submit briefs in support of its amended Application. We are not persuaded that the public interest is furthered by permitting the withdrawal of the instant application at this late date, and the submission of a new application when the Protestant [Keith Bulls] will be effectively barred from the subsequent proceeding," the PUC said.

"The Parties and the Commission have expended significant resources in litigating the proceeding to the point that the ALJ's Recommended Decision is now before us for decision. These resources would be wasted if the Applicant could simply withdraw the Application with the intent to re-file it at a later date, when it believes circumstances will be more favorable," the PUC said.

"We specifically note that SUMC has engaged in electric generation brokering services for several years in Pennsylvania without being licensed to do so. The OCA [Office of Consumer Advocate] further asserts that, although SUMC claims that this was an oversight, it continues to broker electric generation supply in Pennsylvania without a license. Under these circumstances, we believe the public interest favors immediate consideration of the Application," the PUC said.

"In the instant case ... SUMC admits to certain mis-steps during the instant litigation, and seeks to wipe the slate clean and resubmit its Application under more favorable circumstances in the future. For example, SUMC admits that, when it filed its Application, it omitted certain information regarding litigation between itself and several employees, and also that it should have identified several newly organized affiliates. The Applicant offers no compelling reasons why it should not bear the consequences of its actions in this litigation," the PUC said.

"Also, as noted above, there is evidence in the record that SUMC engaged in electric generation brokering services for several years in Pennsylvania before being licensed to do so. (SUMC entered into a contract with Auburn, Pennsylvania, on May 9, 2011, the same day it filed its Application with the Commission in this proceeding). Taken as a whole, we conclude that SUMC's actions and omissions with regard to the instant Application do not support a grant of that Application, and the ALJ correctly so found," the PUC said.