Dominion Retail, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

831 A.2d 810, 2003 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 676
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 10, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 831 A.2d 810 (Dominion Retail, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dominion Retail, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 831 A.2d 810, 2003 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 676 (Pa. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

OPINION BY

Judge LEADBETTER.

Dominion Retail, Inc., a natural gas supplier, appeals from the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) which approved the fixed sales service rate (rate FSS) proposed by Equitable, a natural gas distribution company. The PUC determined that rate FSS does not have to be reconciled under Section 1307(f) of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa.C.S. § 1307(f), and is not subject to the standards of conduct for affiliated natural gas suppliers under Section 2209 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 2209. We affirm.

Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act

The Pennsylvania General Assembly passed the Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act 1 (Act) in June 1999, providing for the restructuring of the natural gas industry to allow all retail consumers to choose their natural gas supplier. In the past, gas was supplied and delivered by a single natural gas distribution company serving the area. The Act allows all gas customers the option of purchasing natural gas supply services from a natural gas supplier, just as customers currently purchase electricity from an electric supplier under the Electric Choice Program.

Regardless of whether consumers choose a new supplier, the natural gas distribution company will continue to provide distribution service, make repairs to its delivery system and respond to emergencies.

The Act required the PUC to promulgate regulations covering various topics as part of implementing natural gas choice. When possible, electric choice regulations were used as the template. The PUC formulated regulations dealing with such issues as safety and reliability, 2 customer information disclosure, 3 standards of conduct for changing suppliers 4 and the licensing of natural gas suppliers. 5

A natural gas distribution company (NGDC) is a state regulated natural gas utility which owns the gas lines and equipment necessary to deliver natural gas to the consumer. A natural gas supplier (NGS) is an entity that sells or arranges to sell natural gas that is delivered to customers through the distribution lines of an NGDC. NGSs offering service in Pennsyl *812 vania must be licensed by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. In this case, Equitable is the NGDC. Dominion Retail is an NGS in Equitable’s territory.

There are three parts to natural gas service: Commodity, Transmission and Distribution. Commodity refers to the natural gas from the gas well. The commodity is the basic natural gas supply service which is sold either by volume (ccf or Mcf) or heating value (dekatherms). Transmission involves moving the natural gas from the gas well through a series of underground pipelines called the interstate transportation system. The interstate transportation system delivers the natural gas to the NGDC. Distribution refers to the NGDC’s sending the natural gas to consumer homes through underground pipelines. Under natural gas choice, the consumers choose the company that supplies their commodity and transmission.

The price of natural gas is based primarily on the volume of gas delivered to the consumer. It consists of three main parts: (1) commodity costs — the cost of the gas itself, (2) transmission costs — the cost to move the gas by pipeline from its source to the NGDC, and (3) distribution costs — the cost to bring the gas from the NGDC to the consumer. The NGDC passes the commodity cost to the consumer without any additional markup. Although increased commodity prices are passed along to consumers, residential customers enjoy some protection from sudden, severe price fluctuations. This is partially because residential bills reflect monthly average commodity prices rather than daily market prices. Also, transmission and distribution services make up a large fraction of residential bills. Competition under the act is for commodity service, not distribution.

Procedural History

Equitable is an NGDC serving residential, commercial and industrial customers in southwestern Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Pursuant to Section 1307(f) of the Code, Equitable submitted its purchased gas cost rate proposing therein a fixed sales service rate (rate FSS), establishing a new fixed rate offering for residential and small business customers. Through rate FSS, Equitable would provide residential and small business customers the option of locking in the price for natural gas service for one year. Rate FSS includes only the supply component.

The Office of the Consumer Advocate (OCA) filed a complaint regarding Equitable’s proposal. The Office of Trial Staff (OTS), the Office of the Small Business Advocate (OSBA) and Dominion intervened. In June 2001, the parties filed a joint petition for partial settlement with the PUC addressing all issues except the rate FSS issue, which was litigated through written testimony. In July 2001, OTS and Equitable entered into a stipulation which implemented substantial modifications to the rate FSS proposal, resolving the rate FSS issue as between those two parties. In August 2001, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision recommending approval of the joint petition for partial settlement and the approval of Equitable’s rate FSS proposal as modified by the stipulation.

In September 2001, the PUC entered an order approving the joint petition for partial settlement and reserving decision on the rate FSS issue because the issues were not sufficiently developed. The PUC offered and Equitable accepted the option of participating in a collaborative where the parties would seek to develop parameters for implementing a rate FSS offering. The collaborative filed its final report with *813 the PUC. In the report, Equitable, OTS, OCA and OSBA agreed upon various modifications to the rate FSS proposal and identified two issues that had not yet been resolved, the timing of rate FSS offerings and the rate components to be included in rate FSS. In an opinion and order dated June 13, 2002, the PUC approved rate FSS.

Pertinent to this appeal are two features of rate FSS, both a part of the original proposal, and both ultimately accepted by all parties except Dominion. First, Dominion refused to agree that Equitable may offer rate FSS without reconciliation 6 of natural gas revenues collected and natural gas costs incurred. Second, Dominion refused to agree that the standards of conduct applicable to affiliated natural gas suppliers 7 would not apply to Equitable’s rate FSS. Dominion contends that: (1) under Section 1307(f) of the Code, Equitable, as a natural gas distribution company, must reconcile all natural gas costs including those imbedded in a fixed rate mechanism like rate FSS, and (2) under Section 2209 of the Code, Equitable’s provision of rate FSS is a marketing activity related to natural gas supply services by the marketing division/operation of a natural gas distribution company, and therefore Equitable must adhere to the standards of conduct in providing rate FSS.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Peoples Natural Gas Co., LLC v. PUC
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2022
Pennsylvania Power Co. v. Public Utility Commission
932 A.2d 300 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2007)
Consumer Education & Protective Ass'n v. Public Utility Commission
847 A.2d 789 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
831 A.2d 810, 2003 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dominion-retail-inc-v-pennsylvania-public-utility-commission-pacommwct-2003.