Feature Articles

On February 17, 2026, a federal judge in Illinois allowed a class action lawsuit, Bickel v. Nordic Energy Services, LLC (No. 1:2025cv03454), to proceed, finding that plaintiff Andrew Bickel plausibly alleged the supplier overcharged customers. The suit accuses Nordic of a “bait-and-switch” scheme, using high variable rates after initial fixed-rate periods, thereby appearing to defy contract terms.

The judge ruled that “Nordic’s motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) [17] is granted in part and denied in part.  Bickel is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days.  Nordic’s separate motion [18] to dismiss under 12(b)(1) was stricken as moot.

As background, “Plaintiff Andrew Bickel contracted to purchase natural gas from Defendant Nordic Energy Services, LLC (“Nordic”) for Bickel’s home in Demotte, Indiana.  He alleges that after a period of fixed pricing, Nordic began charging variable rates that are consistently higher than promised in the contract.  In this lawsuit he characterizes Nordic’s conduct as an unlawful “bait-and-switch” scheme and seeks to represent a class of Nordic customers.”  NAs part of the class action lawsuit,  the Plaintiff brings  claims  for  breach  of  contract,  breach  of  the  implied  covenant  of  good  faith  and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of various states’ consumer protection laws.

Also on behalf of a proposed sub-class of Indiana-based Nordic customers, the Plaintiff alleges violations of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (“IDCSA”).

Nordic moved to dismiss the complaint under FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) [17] and FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(1) [18].  Nordic’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [17] was granted in part and denied in part.  The Plaintiff’s claims on behalf of customers outside of Indiana were dismissed without prejudice.  But the court did grant the Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.  As Nordic’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss [18] challenges the court’s jurisdiction on those class claims only, it is stricken as moot.

1. Facts Specific to Bickel

As background, in  2022,  “Bickel  entered into an agreement (“Nordic Terms & Conditions”) with Nordic for the purchase of natural gas for his home in Indiana on the following price terms:

Nordic Energy agrees to act as Customer’s exclusive natural gas supplier as set forth in this Agreement and is offering Customer a fixed rate of $.0990 per therm for your metered usage for the first three (3) months of the term, for your natural gas,  plus  the  other  charges  outlined  below  associated  with  gas  delivery  and  storage. After that, the price will be a variable price equal to Nordic’s cost to acquire  your  supply  plus  25  cents  per  therm.3    Please  note  that  the  fixed  price and the variable price apply only to the price of natural gas, not to the other  charges  associated  with  gas  delivery  including  interstate  pipeline  demand  and  capacity  charges  as  well  as  interstate  transportation  and  storage  and  related  storage  mitigation services.  .  .  .  Interstate  transportation  and  capacity charges shall be billed to Customer at the rate listed for Nordic Energy on the NIPSCO Choice website.”

“Thus, the VCC is set at “Nordic’s cost to acquire” Bickel’s supply “plus 25 cents per therm,” and the TSC is defined as “the other charges associated with gas delivery,” including transportation and storage costs, as  well  as  additional  charges  referred  to  vaguely  as  “storage  capacity  charges”  and  “storage mitigation services.”  (Compl. ¶ 4.)  These two charges determine the total price Nordic customers pay for natural gas.”

“Bickel alleges that during the two years in which he was under contract with Nordic, Nordic charged more than the promised rate with respect to the VCC and TSC components.  First, as to the  VCC,  while  Nordic’s  actual  costs  are  unknown,  data  on  the  market  price  of  natural  gas  is publicly available.  (Id. ¶¶ 38–39.)  These prices are known as the “city-gate price,” or the price of natural gas when it is transferred from inter- or intra-state pipelines to local utilities, and it reflects the wholesale price in addition to the cost of transportation to the city gate.  (Id. ¶ 40.)  An ARES can purchase natural gas at the city-gate price or find lower cost alternatives.  (Id.)    Whether an ARES might in some instances pay a higher price when it purchases from an alternative source is not stated, but Bickel maintains that the city-gate price is a conservative figure for estimating Nordic’s cost of acquiring his natural gas supply.  (Id. ¶ 41; see Opp’n [21] at 9–10.)”

“When  Bickel’s  VCC  charges  are  compared  with  the  corresponding  city-gate  price  of  natural gas, plus twenty-five cents per therm—the price anticipated by the contract—it appears that Nordic consistently overcharged Bickel by anywhere from 6% to 100% for all but one month of his nearly-two-year contract term.  (Id. ¶ 39.)  Further, when VCC charges are compared to the rates charged by the local legacy utility provider, NIPSCO (for which Nordic claims to be a less-expensive alternative), Nordic overcharged Bickel anywhere from 3% to 70% each month.  (Id. ¶¶ 43–45.)”

“Bickel alleges that he was overcharged on the TSC component as well.  Again, the TSC component  is  described  as  “the  other  charges  associated  with  gas  delivery,”  including  certain  transportation and storage costs, referred to as “storage capacity charges” and “storage mitigation services.”  (Id. ¶ 4.)  Bickel contends that a reasonable consumer would interpret this to mean that Nordic passes through its delivery charges without a markup.  (Id. ¶¶ 49–50.)  In fact, Bickel alleges, Nordic includes a substantial markup that is not disclosed to the consumer.  (Id. ¶ 51.)   Again, as compared with   the transportation and storage prices charged by NIPSCO (which Bickel alleges is an appropriate comparator for Nordic), Nordic overcharged Bickel anywhere from 52% to 1,400%.    (Id.  ¶¶  52–53.)      Nordic  also  charged  significantly higher  transportation  costs  than  other  ARES.    (Id.  ¶  54.)    Taken  together,  Bickel  claims  that  these  overcharges  on  both  components  of  his  monthly  Nordic  gas  bill  constitute  a  breach  of  contract  and  a  breach  of  the  implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”

1. Class Action Claims

“Bickel alleges that Nordic violated the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (“IDCSA”), IND.CODE ANN. § 24-5-0.5-3, by “intentionally deceiv[ing]” customers—specifically, he alleges that Nordic intentionally overcharged customers by affirmatively misrepresenting that it would “charge a rate based on the formulas in its contracts knowing full well that it would charge a much higher rate.”   (Compl. ¶ 95.)  He brings this claim on behalf of himself and a proposed Indiana subclass.”

“Bickel also alleges  that  Nordic  uses  this  same  contract  language  across  the  country  in  promoting  its  natural  gas  and  electricity  supply.    Accordingly,  he  brings  claims  “on  behalf  of  a  class of all residential and commercial customers of Nordic in the United States whose contracts have either a Variable Commodity Component or a Transportation and Storage Component.”  (Id.¶ 58.)   These  are  claims  for violations  of  “materially  identical”  consumer  protection  statutes  in  Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  and  Virginia.    (Id.  ¶¶  111–112.)    Bickel  does  not,  however, lay out any facts to demonstrate that Nordic overcharged customers in states outside of Indiana.