§ 501 (“in addition to any powers expressly enumerated in this part, the commission shall have full power and authority, and it shall be its duty to enforce, execute and carry out, by its regulations, orders or otherwise, all and singular, the provisions of this part, and the full intent thereof”). According to the ALJs, the Commission noted that it’s “powers have been interpreted broadly to include both the express powers conferred by the Code and those implied powers necessarily implicit in the Code.” In this regard, the ALJs stated: Directing a billing adjustment for an EGS over bill of supply charges is within the Commission’s Section 501 powers to carry out the consumer protections in the Electric Competition Act that are applicable to competitive electricity generation supply service. These consumer protections include the Section 2809(b) requirement that EGSs comply with the Commission’s regulations, including the Chapter 54 billing and disclosure regulations. I.D. at 36-43. With regard to the second aspect of the Settlement, the civil penalty and contribution to hardship funds, the ALJs found these provisions in the Settlement are in the public interest and support adoption of the Settlement without modification. The ALJs explained that the Settlement provides that IDT shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of $25,000 to the General Fund and shall not claim a tax deduction for the amount. The ALJs noted that the Settlement further provides that IDT shall make a contribution of $75,000 to the EDCs’ hardship funds and that the contribution shall be allocated by the ratio of IDT customers in the EDCs’ territory to the total amount of IDT customers in Pennsylvania as of January 1, 2014. The ALJs found this provision of the Settlement is also in the public interest and supports adopting the Settlement without modification. The ALJs asserted that this was particularly true because of the strain placed on hardship funds and low-income consumers as a result of the increased bills consumers paid during the months at issue in this
seek a refund directly from the Company and file a formal complaint with the Commission if they are not satisfied with the Company’s response. IDT asserts that the Settlement provides options, and nothing in the Settlement forces customers to waive their private causes of action against IDT as Mr. Ferrare alleged. IDT R. Exc. at 4. IDT states next that Mr. Ferrare’s Exception also makes the erroneous argument that because the Commission does not have jurisdiction over private causes of action against EGSs, the Commission is precluded from approving a settlement that includes a general release provision. IDT avers that the Settlement does not ask the Commission to limit any individuals’ cause of action against IDT but rather includes a voluntary refund procedure under which specified customers will be given the opportunity to participate in a Refund Pool administered by the OCA and OAG. According to IDT, no customer is compelled in any way to participate in the Refund Pool or execute a general release, and the Settlement clarifies that customers who choose not to participate in the Refund Pool are able to pursue an alternative method to obtain a refund. IDT R. Exc. at 4-5. Finally, IDT states that other than his misguided “lack of jurisdiction” argument that mischaracterizes the Settlement’s actual terms, Mr. Ferrare has provided no reasons why the Settlement’s refund provisions are not in the public interest. As such, IDT avers that his objections to the Settlement’s refund provisions should be rejected. IDT R. Exc. at 6. In their Replies to Exceptions, the Joint Complainants submit that the ALJs did not err in approving the Settlement as the Commission has not adjudicated or interfered with Mr. Ferrare’s private causes of action. The Joint Complainants first note that to the extent Mr. Ferrare’s Exception regarding the release language in the Settlement purports to be made on behalf of all IDT customers, it must be rejected pursuant to the ALJs’ Order granting his Petition to Intervene, wherein the ALJs held that Mr. Ferrare was permitted to intervene on his own behalf only. According to the Joint Complainants, Mr. Ferrare’s