Joint Applicants mischaracterize Staff’s position Sample Clauses

Joint Applicants mischaracterize Staff’s position. ‌ The Joint Applicants attempt to characterize Staff’s position as being motivated by “subjective dislike” and “personal[] dislike.” (JA IB, p. 11) However, Staff’s position is based upon the relationship between a regulated utility and its affiliates and the requirement that the Commission find that transactions between them be in the public interest. (220 ILCS 5/7-101(3)) The Joint Applicants focus primarily on the GLCG product itself and the argument that the product is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction. By arguing that Staff opposes solicitation because it dislikes the product, the Joint Applicants attempt to have the Commission focus on the product itself and ignore the Joint Applicants’ provision of solicitation services in furtherance of the product. The fact remains that the regulated entity provides services, via affiliated interest transactions, towards the provision of GLCG. The Joint Applicants argue that Staff and AG/CUB want to “eliminate customer choice about a product they personally dislike.” (JA IB, p. 11) First, this presumes that customers can freely choose from products competitive with GLCG. Staff and AG/CUB have demonstrated that this is not true, because Nicor Gas has historically prevented competitors from offering similar warranty products (Staff Ex. 4.0, pp. 42-46, 67) and has misled customers about the need for this product ()and the incremental benefits it provides (Staff IB. pp, 18-19). Second, Staff’s position is focused on removing the regulated utility’s promotion of the product, and does not ask the Commission to dictate whether or not the unregulated affiliate can offer the product. The Joint Applicants misstate Staff’s position when they argue that “Xx. Xxxxxxx wants the Commission to conclude that GLCG is not a worthwhile product for purchase by consumers and hinder its sale despite the fact that the Commission’s jurisdiction does not extend to the terms of the product being marketed.” (JA IB, p. 14) While Staff has considerable doubts about the product and how it is marketed to suggest it provides a service not otherwise available, Staff is not requesting the Commission to assert jurisdiction over the affiliate. Staff is not requesting the Commission to order the affiliate to cease offering GLCG. Staff is only requesting the Commission to assert its authority over the public utility’s transactions with its affiliate. Staff focused on solicitation of and provision of services by the utility for the product throug...