News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Parties File Briefs In Utility’s Electric Rate Case
On August 8, 2026 in Pennsylvania in UGI Utilities rate case parties filed initial briefs.
Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement or BIE argues that UGI Electric has not justified its requested $16.05 million rate increase and recommends limiting the increase to $6.082 million, for total revenues of $151.541 million. A major reason is the pending sale of UGI Electric to Argo because the transaction could close roughly halfway through the projected test year. BIE says uncertainty exists over future costs, operations, and assumptions underlying UGI’s rate request. BIE also recommends a 7.46% overall rate of return, including a 9.69% ROE, reductions to rate-case and vegetation-management expenses, and more moderate customer-charge increases because most of UGI’s proposed increases exceed 100%.
UGI Electric argues that its evidence supports a $16.05 million base rate increase, primarily to fund continued investments in its aging distribution system but asks the Pennsylvania PUC to approve its non-unanimous settlement with OSBA providing a reduced $10.7 million increase. The settlement also lowers the proposed residential customer charge from $22 to $12, creates an expanded arrearage-forgiveness pilot for certain payment-troubled customers, and establishes a small-business payment arrangement program. UGI rejects BIE’s proposed 50% reduction tied to the pending Argo transaction, arguing the adjustment is unsupported and that any transaction-related concerns should be addressed in the separate acquisition proceeding.
OCA argues that UGI Electric’s $16.05 million rate increase should be denied or, at most, limited to $5.13 million, using an 8.7% ROE and lower overall rate of return. OCA also recommends lower depreciation and expense recovery, rejecting the proposed residential customer-charge increase, and adopting stronger customer-service, affordability, and supplier-shopping protections, including clearer comparison of EGS charges to the price to compare. Specifically, OCA said OCA said that OCA’s witness reviewed, based on data from UGI, “calculations of how much customers paid to an Electric Gas [sic] Supplier (EGS) compared to UGI’s price to compare (PTC).”
Among other things an OCA witness proposed that UGI develop “targeted” communications to customers with retail supplier charges that “increase significantly” over the PTC, to alert such customers to compare the retail supplier price to the PTC. These alerts would include a calculation that serve to show the difference between the PTC and the supplier rate in the customer’s recent bills. UGI’s brief did not accept OCA’s customer pricing proposals saying that they are generally unnecessary and costly. In its brief UGI said that a “problematic” aspect of OCA’s bill presentation proposal, “is that the change of the PTC to ‘Generation Charge’ on the bill conflicts with the Commission’s regulations and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the PTC’s components.”
On August 9, 2026 OSBA filed a letter stating that they are not submitting a main brief.
Next Steps:
Parties must submit reply briefs by September 18, 2026.
UGI must file a settlement petition by September 18, 2026.
Parties must submit objections to the settlement petition by September 25, 2026.
