|
Search |
Pa. PUC to Examine Responsibility for Executing Switches Back to Default Service
September 22, 2011
Email This Story
Due to "ambiguity" in the current natural gas switching regulations, the Pennsylvania PUC directed its Office of Competitive Market Oversight to consider revisions to clarify the switching regulations for both electric and gas service, particularly with respect to executing returns to default service.
The matter arose from a complaint from a customer whose request to return to default gas supply was not executed from approximately 10 months.
In an adopted motion, Vice Chairman John Coleman and Commissioner Pamela Witmer said that ambiguity in the switching regulations contributed to the delay.
Current regulations were primarily intended to address a switch from the incumbent suppler to the utility, or between two different suppliers.
The current regulations, "do not squarely address the process for a customer that wishes to return from a competitive supplier to the incumbent utility," Coleman and Witmer said.
In terms of the specific case, a customer alleged that they were improperly switched to Novec Energy, and the customer then made a request to their utility, Columbia Gas, to return the customer to default service.
Columbia Gas did not immediately complete the requested return to default service because Columbia took the position that PUC regulations required the competitive supplier, Novec Energy, to initiate the switch.
While the PUC found no violation of the specific switching regulations from Columbia's actions, the PUC did rule that Columbia did not provide reasonable service due to its actions, amounting to a violation of Section 1501.
"We agree that Columbia Gas should not have insisted upon Novec initiating the switch for such a significant period of time. When a customer requests a return to the incumbent gas or electric utility for supply service and the existing alternative supplier has not complied with the request within a reasonable period of time, the EDC or NGDC may and should process the switch request," Coleman and Witmer said.
No civil penalty was levied against Columbia, but the PUC did order Columbia to reimburse the customer for the difference between the default service costs and Novec Energy's charges during part of the period in which the switch was not completed.
The PUC further referred Novec Energy's actions to its Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement. The customer may have been misinformed during the evidentiary hearing that a complaint could not be brought against Novec, which is why its actions were not subject to the initial proceeding.
The complaint was Docket C-2010-2153353.
Email This Story
Be Seen By Energy Professionals in Retail and Wholesale Marketing
Run Ads with Energy Choice Matters
Call Paul Ring
954-
|
Search |
