PUC Fines Retail Supplier $2,500, Orders Refund To Customer

The Pennsylvania PUC affirmed without modification an initial decision from a Pennsylvania ALJ, as the PUC imposed a civil penalty in the amount of $2,500 on Blue Pilot Energy, Inc., and also required the company to issue a refund, in granting a customer complaint

In the complaint, the customer alleged that he enrolled in a one year fixed rate plan with Blue Pilot in May, 2014, at an introductory rate of 8.49 cents per kilowatt-hour, and alleged that, with no prior written notification, he was charged higher rates up to 25 cents per kilowatt-hour during the months of June, July, and August 2014.

Although Blue Pilot responded to a complaint (a response which the ALJ called procedurally deficient), Blue Pilot failed to attend a hearing on the complaint, the ALJ had said

Therefore, the ALJ concluded that the complainant's, "unrefuted testimony is sufficient to bear his burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that Blue Pilot violated the Commission’s regulations."

The PUC denied Blue Pilot's exceptions to this conclusion, as well as other exceptions raised by Blue Pilot

"As we have stated on many prior occasions, clear customer communications are key to the development of a robust competitive market. In this case, Mr. Darlington presented unrefuted testimony of his understanding of the rate that was marketed, sold, and billed. Blue Pilot presented no evidence to the contrary, having been provided notice and an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the Complainant’s testimony is the only evidence available for review. We find no basis upon which to disturb the ALJ’s conclusion that the Complainant satisfied his burden of proof, nor do we find grounds to disturb the ALJ’s evidentiary findings, with which we agree and find to be supported by the record. For these reasons, we adopt the Initial Decision of the ALJ," the PUC said

The ALJ had found that, "The unrefuted testimony of Complainant is sufficient to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that Blue Pilot failed to bill prices to reflect the marketed prices when Complainant enrolled with Blue Pilot in May, 2014. Further, I find the incorrect billing occurred three times (in June, July and August 2014) in violation of 52 Pa.Code § 54.4(a). Further, Complainant’s testimony that he never received terms of agreement or a welcome letter from Blue Pilot is sufficient to meet his burden of proving Blue Pilot failed to give him the requisite disclosure statement pursuant to Section 54.5. As a result, pursuant to 66 Pa.C.S. § 3301, Complainant is entitled to a refund in the amount of the difference between what he was actually billed and what he should have been billed, a rate of 8.49 cents per kilowatt hour during the months of June, July and August, 2014."

The ALJ had arrived at a civil penalty of $2,500 based on $500 per each of three monthly overbilling occurrences plus a civil penalty of $1,000 for failure to provide a disclosure statement

Docket F-2015-2500535