News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Comments Filed In 5-Year Review Of Minimum Gas Service Standards
Parties filed comments regarding the five-year review of the minimum gas service standards.
Highlights of utility comments include:
Columbia Gas proposed “that when it comes to these specific, sophisticated customers, gas utilities be permitted to allow the customer to test its own pipeline infrastructure downstream of the utility’s meter.”
Duke recommended that retaining the current 10 business-day requirement in Rule 13-10(C), rather than adopting the proposed 7 business-day standard, to remain consistent with the electric service provision in O.A.C. 4901:1-10-21(D). Alternatively, the Duke requests that the rule include an exception allowing utilities that provide both gas and electric services to continue operating under the 10 business-day requirement.
Enbridge filed in-depth comments on the proposed changes. Enbridge notes that if bills are due no earlier than 21 days from the postmark, it would impact their operations.
Highlights from other comments filed include:
IGS “Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-13-10(H)(3) is unnecessary because of Staff’s authority to enforce the rules in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-29. Slamming complaints against Competitive Retail Natural Gas Service (CRNGS) suppliers are already covered under Adm.Code 4901:1-29-08(C). If a violation is found, Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-34 gives Staff authority to “enforce the rules for *** the minimum requirements for competitive retail natural gas set forth in *** 4901:1-29 of the Administrative Code, and commission orders issued thereunder.” Included in the authority that Staff has to address a supplier’s noncompliance is the assessment of a forfeiture. In fact, the rules give Staff deference in determining the amount assessed. Because penalties for slamming are covered in Chapter 29, including further penalties in Ohio Adm.Code 4901:1-13-10(H) in the form of “incremental costs” and “switching fees” is unduly punitive, particularly when natural gas utilities have not alleged a need for the reimbursement of switching fees or incremental costs due to slamming complaints. Staff has a clear and deferential process for addressing slamming complaints against suppliers elsewhere in the rules, making these proposed changes unnecessary.”
OCC recommended among other things that PUCO should:
- Add rules to require natural gas utilities to provide one free meter test to a residential consumer once every twenty-four months referring to O.A.C. 4901:1-13-04(D)(4).
- Strengthen the PUCO Staff’s recommendation by requiring the natural gas company to seek reimbursement from the retail natural gas supplier or government aggregator that improperly initiates the switch by providing an itemized list of any incremental costs incurred by the gas or natural gas company to correct the unauthorized switch, including any fees.
- Require natural gas bills to include shadow billing that informs the consumer if they saved or lost money obtaining natural gas commodity through a retail natural gas supplier compared to the natural gas standard offer
- Require natural gas companies to include the current Standard Choice Offer (“SCO”) or Gas Cost Recovery (“GCR”) rate to the current price-to-compare statement on residential consumers’ bills.
RESA opposes Staff’s proposed rules 4901:1-13-10(H)(3) and (H)(4)(c). RESA further stated that the PUCO should adopt other changes to the rules in Chapter 4901:1-13 that were not a part of Staff’s proposals.
22-0507
(Distribution Rate Gas for Duke Energy)
