PSC Dismisses Complaint Filed Against Retail Supplier, Affiliated Utility Over Alleged "Consolidated" Bill & Bill Messages

February 7, 2022

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-21 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by EC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

The Maryland PSC dismissed a complaint filed by the Office of People’s Counsel (OPC) against Washington Gas Light Company ('Washington Gas') and WGL Energy Services, Inc. ('WGL Energy') over, what has been shown to be, a utility message appearing on all utility consolidated bills, though OPC's complaint, citing an initial communication from a utility representative, alleged that such fact was not originally clear

As previously reported, OPC had alleged, "In October and November 2021, Washington Gas sent customers enrolled with its affiliated gas supplier, WGL Energy, bills that include a marketing statement -- unattributed to either the gas distribution company or supplier -- describing natural gas as 'a clean energy' that is less emissions intensive and more environmentally beneficial than an all-electric home. Despite the well-known fact that natural gas production, distribution, and consumption are major sources of greenhouse gas emissions, the marketing statements contain no substantiating or contextual information to qualify the environmental claims. The billing statements deceive and mislead utility customers about the emissions attributes of natural gas."

OPC had alleged, "Washington Gas reports that the billing statements are unique to customers receiving gas supply from WGL Energy -- a core service provider and affiliate of Washington Gas. The inclusion of a marketing statement intended only for customers of Washington Gas’s affiliate supplier raises significant issues about Washington Gas’s billing policies, including whether it engages in joint marketing with its affiliates and whether it treats its affiliates preferentially, in violation of the utility code of conduct."

WGL Energy and Washington Gas both filed motions to dismiss the complaint

In its motion, WGL Energy contended that OPC’s complaint is based upon information that it either misunderstood, was incomplete, inaccurate, or untrue. WGL Energy noted that it has used the consolidated billing services of Washington Gas for 20 years. During that time, WGL Energy states, it, "had nothing to do with any decision to insert any environmental message on Washington Gas’ bills."

Further, WGL Energy also contested OPC’s allegation that it "uniquely" benefits from these marketing statements. In support of its position, WGL Energy provided a copy of identical language contained in a bill sent by a different third-party supplier.

In its separate motion, Washington Gas explained that it uses an identical bill message regardless of the retail supplier. In support of this claim, Washington Gas attached to its motion copies of many bills to customers of different suppliers that contain identical bill message language

The PSC noted that, "Washington Gas contends that OPC’s error arises from a miscommunication between OPC counsel and its own counsel in which OPC disclosed only the marketing language at issue and claimed that bills to WGL Energy customers contained the offending language, without providing additional context. Further, Washington Gas states that OPC neglected to provide a copy of the bill in question. Based on this limited information, Washington Gas’ 'Customer Service and Customer Choice' team assumed it was a 'supplier consolidated bill'. Washington Gas argues that if OPC shared the true nature of its inquiry as well as a copy of the bill, this misunderstanding could have been avoided. At a minimum, OPC would not have included WGL Energy in its complaint."

The PSC dismissed the complaint.

"The record is clear that Washington Gas generated the utility-consolidated bills that gave rise to this complaint. Thus, WGL Energy should not have been a party to this Complaint and therefore the Commission dismisses the Complaint against WGL Energy. This also renders the claim of inappropriate affiliate interaction moot," the PSC said

"With respect to Washington Gas and the deceptive marketing claim [with respect to natural gas' environmental attributes], the complaint fails to adequately demonstrate a violation of state law or regulation in support of its broad allegations regarding the environmental attributes of natural gas," the PSC said

"As Washington Gas notes, Maryland has allowed self-certification of marketing claims. If OPC had revealed its concerns with the language included on gas bills to Washington Gas at the outset and requested an explanation, modification or removal of the bill message, the utility would have likely done so - or, at a minimum, a conversation would have occurred. But that did not occur, and now a significant amount of time, resources, and ratepayer dollars have been spent litigating a complaint that fails as a matter of law," the PSC said

"Finally, the Commission agrees with WGL Energy and Washington Gas that a complaint against one utility is an inappropriate forum to address the broader issues raised by natural gas and its role in greenhouse gas emissions. The record establishes that Washington Gas did not provide any special benefit to WGL Energy by attaching this marketing language as Washington Gas provided numerous bills from other natural gas suppliers that contained the same language. Given that this was a utility-specific complaint that did not include the other natural gas companies in the State, it is clear that this complaint is not the proper forum in which to address such broader issues, even acknowledging that the Commission now has a statutory obligation to consider climate change," the PSC said

The PSC also denied the Office of People’s Counsel’s request that the Commission open an investigation into the transactions of Washington Gas and WGL Energy to ensure compliance with COMAR

Commissioner Michael T. Richard dissented from the PSC's order. "I support OPC, Staff, Montgomery County, Maryland and the Sierra Club’s request for an investigation into the billing relationships in place between WGL and WGL Energy Services, and between WGL and other retail gas suppliers. I also agree with OPC and the Sierra Club that WGL should cease using the gas-advertising message in question," Richard stated

Case 9673

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Energy Pricing Analyst -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Digital Marketing Manager -- Energy Marketer

HOME

Copyright 2010-21 Energy Choice Matters.  If you wish to share this story, please email or post the website link; unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication prohibited.