(emphasis added). Therefore, the purpose of the act is to punish agencies that bring unwarranted actions or proceedings, not to punish agencies for their erroneous adjudications, as argued by Energy Pipeline. It is also telling to the weakness of Energy Pipeline’s argument that what it is attempting to accomplish in its application for fees and expenses is well beyond the scope of the Costs Act. Energy Pipeline requested over $600,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses in its application; however, the Costs Act provides for a maximum recovery of $10,000. Section 2, 71 P.S. lfare, 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 315, 641 A.2d 41 (1994) (finding that agency initiated an adversary adjudication by demoting employee); Department of Environmental Resources v. Oermann, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 560, 632 A.2d 603 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Joyner v. Department of Environmental
recognizing that because a district courts determination of the appropriate fine involves factual issues including the defendants ability to pay the fine imposedthe district courts calculation of the fine is entitled to deference and can be reversed on appeal only for clear error holding that when a fine is paid there is a full satisfaction of one of the alternative penalties of the law and that the fine cannot be reimbursed in order to punish the defendant instead with imprisonment holding that assessment of civil fine is adversary adjudication holding that the failure to impose a mandatory fine requires that the matter be remanded for imposition of that fine holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits