News Stories

From Order: 

[ *** ] First, to OPC’s argument that the Commission may have misinterpreted OPC’s position regarding STRIDE and the future of gas, the Commission notes the clarification by OPC and will proceed accordingly in this Order. Second, to OPC’s argument that the Commission misinterpreted its own powers under the STRIDE statute, the Commission offers the following clarification: The language quoted by OPC concerns the related issue of whether non-pipeline alternatives can be included as projects within STRIDE plans, as noted by Staff. Currently, PUA § 4-210(a)(3) defines eligibility requirements for STRIDE projects. The Commission has not yet approved any non-pipeline alternative under that standard, though the possibility remains. The Commission is aware of the statutory standard for approval of a STRIDE plan under PUA § 4-210, which it quoted in the Order on Appeal. The Commission is not under the mistaken impression that it is required to approve a STRIDE plan, as OPC suggests. The Commission has limited discretion within the bounds of PUA § 4-210(e), which assuming the other requirements of § 4-210 are met, requires a finding by the Commission as to whether the investments and estimated costs are reasonable and prudent and designed to improve public safety or infrastructure reliability over the short term and long term. If the Commission finds that a STRIDE plan application does not meet that statutory standard, then the Commission must deny the application. Here, the Commission has found that the plan, as modified by the PULJ, meets the statutory requirements and should be approved. Third and finally, to OPC’s argument that the Commission has issued conflicting decisions, the Commission appreciates the concern raised by the near-simultaneous issuance of orders addressing related issues. The Commission notes that WGL’s STRIDE application was filed and later approved with modifications by the Commission in the Order on Appeal prior to the Commission’s issuance of the WGL Rate Order. The Commission declines to retroactively rely on the Commission’s explicitly prospective language in the subsequently issued WGL Rate Order to find, as OPC requests, that WGL’s STRIDE plan application was deficient for not having contained evidence of consideration of gas consumption reduction and cost-effective alternatives that was not required either at the time of filing or at the time the Commission’s decision was rendered. Nonetheless, as the Commission noted in its Order on Appeal, approval of the structure of a STRIDE plan does not mean WGL has project-approvals or that any proposed projects will be found prudent. When WGL presents its STRIDE projects to be moved into rate base pursuant to PUA §§ 4-203 and 4-204 at the end of this plan, those projects will be judged for prudency, and recovery may be disqualified upon a finding that the investment was imprudent if implementation of the plan ignores – among other reasons known and knowable – the risk of a measurable decline in system-wide gas consumption and the availability of non-pipeline alternatives. The Commission anticipates further development and refinement regarding this issue in Case No. 9707, as noted in the Order on Appeal. Having considered the evidence and arguments presented, the Commission denies OPC’s request for rehearing.

Order on Rehearing (04/19/2024) 
9708 (06/16/2023)
(Washington Gas Light Company’s Application For Approval of a New Gas System Strategic Infrastructure Development and Enhancement Plan and Accompanying Cost Recovery Mechanism)