News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
PUC Rejects ALJs Recommendation To Require Gas Utility To Send Rate Comparison Letters To Choice Customers
The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC’s) order declines to adopt the administrative law judges’ (ALJs) recommendation to order Columbia Gas to send targeted communications to customers who are enrolled with a natural gas supplier (NGS) and who are paying supplier rates that are higher than the Company’s PTC.
The PUC said that “[a]lthough we are generally supportive of beneficial consumer education that customers can use to make informed shopping choices; we find that it is not appropriate to impose the additional requirements proposed.”
As reported previously, the ALJs in the proposed order recommended that the proposals of the OCA and CAUSE-PA to develop a targeted letter for low-income shopping customers that are enrolled with a supplier at a rate which exceeds the applicable PTC. The ALJs recommended that this letter inform these customers of the availability of CAP and other universal service programs, including the benefits of each program and how to enroll. Further, the ALJs recommended that the Commission direct Columbia to send this letter at least once every six months.
The PUC also rejected the ALJ’s recommendation requiring Columbia Gas to send targeted letters to choice customers about how to compare retail supplier rates. “At a minimum, the Commission should require Columbia to target educational messages to the choice customers to emphasize how to compare NGS [retail supplier] charges.”
In the final order the PUC acknowledged that although “[w]e agree with the ALJs that the record evidence suggests that some Columbia shopping customers, including low income shopping customers, may be paying rates that are higher than the Company’s PTC. However, the record evidence does not support a conclusion that Columbia’s current education and outreach to its shopping customers is not compliant with the Code, the Choice Act, the Company’s tariffs, or any Commission Regulation or Order. In our view, neither the OCA nor CAUSE-PA proved that Columbia is not fully compliant with its statutory and regulatory outreach and educational responsibilities regarding this matter. Furthermore, we do not find that Columbia’s obligation to provide safe, adequate, and reasonable service under Section 1501 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1501, supports any requirement to provide the additional consumer education proposed by the OCA and CAUSE-PA at this time.”
Regarding access to eligible customer list the Commission said, “[w]e will deny Columbia’s Exception No. 17 and adopt the ALJs’ recommendation. We reject Columbia’s contention that limiting ECL access to licensed suppliers is contrary to the 2025 ECL Order and to the Commission’s Regulations, as we come to the opposite conclusion. Additionally, we find that Columbia’s arguments are at odds with both the Commission’s established guidance for the ECL, and with the stated purpose and context of the Commission’s Regulations regarding the privacy of consumer information pertaining to customer choice in natural gas supply. Columbia fails to persuade us that the 2025 ECL Order supports the Company’s position that the information contained in the ECL is intended to be produced to non-NGS third parties.”
Rewrite Opinion And Order (12/09/2025)
R-2025-3053499
(Columbia Gas Rate Case)
