PUC Reverses ALJ, Dismisses Complaint Against Retail Supplier Concerning Whether Customer Was Authorized To Enter Sale

The Pennsylvania PUC has reversed an ALJ's initial decision and dismissed a complaint against Respond Power, LLC, which concerns whether the customer who authorized the contract with Respond Power was authorized to do so.

According to the ALJ, all parties agreed that the complainant’s sister changed the complainant’s account from PECO to Respond Power on March 12, 2013. The complainant sought a refund from Respond Power arguing that the complainant never authorized the switch.

The ALJ sustained the complaint, concluding that the complainant’s sister was not a PECO customer, as defined in 52 Pa. Code § 57.171, and was not authorized to make changes to the complainant’s account in accordance with 52 Pa. Code § 57.175. The ALJ ordered a refund to complainant

The ALJ stated that Respond should have followed the Commission’s Regulations and secured a signed document from PECO identifying persons with authority to initiate changes of the Complainant’s EGS.

However, the PUC reversed this finding.

"We find that the Complainant did not meet his burden of proving that Respond Power is responsible for the problem described in the Complaint or that Respond Power violated the Code, a Commission Regulation, or a Commission Order," the PUC said.

Specifically, the PUC noted that the complainant, "did not allege during the hearing that his sister was unauthorized to change his EGS."

"While the ALJ relies on Section 57.175 to reach her conclusion, the record is devoid of any information regarding whether or not [complainant] identified persons authorized to make changes to his account. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the Complainant met his burden of proof to establish a prima facie case," the PUC said

"Even if we were to conclude that the Complainant presented evidence sufficient to initially satisfy the burden of proof, the Respondent presented enough evidence to rebut the Complainant’s evidence. Respond Power’s witness, Mr. Foreman-Murray, testified that, during the third-party verification, the Complainant’s sister indicated that she was authorized to switch the electric service provider to Respond Power. Mr. Foreman-Murray also testified that Respond Power sent [complainant] a disclosure statement upon enrollment in March of 2013, which explained Respond Power’s terms of service and provided that the Company’s rates may vary on a month-to-month basis. [The complainant] acknowledged receipt of the disclosure statement and bills listing Respond Power as the EGS starting in April of 2013. Based on the record before us, we cannot reach a conclusion that the Company violated the Code or a Commission Regulation or Order," the PUC said

While reversing the ALJ, the PUC reiterated that it has authority to require EGSs to issue refunds in certain circumstances, such as slamming or non-conformance with a disclosure statement

C-2014-2417540