|
|
|
|
|
Initial Decision Would Fine Choice Utility For Rejected Switch
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
An initial decision from a Pennsylvania PUC ALJ would impose a $1,200 penalty on UGI Utilities, Inc. – Gas Division (UGI) for UGI's alleged failure to execute, in what the initial decision considers a timely fashion, a customer's request to leave service with a retail supplier and return to default service
The initial decision is not final and may be appealed to the Commission
The complainant, an individual customer, had alleged that the complainant contacted their retail supplier on December 23, 2023 to cease service and return to default service. The complainant alleged that the supplier stated that the switch would take up to two billing cycles
When the switch had not been executed as of February 26, 2024, the complainant alleged that the supplier told the complainant that UGI "refused" (term used in the initial decision summary of the complainant's allegations) to execute the drop
According to the initial decision, the supplier alleged that it submitted the drop to UGI on December 12, 2023 (the supplier alleging that the contact from the customer actually occurred on December 12, 2023)
The initial decision states that the supplier alleges that the drop was "rejected" by UGI (term used in the initial decision summary of the complainant's allegations)
The initial decision states that the supplier alleges that it submitted a third drop to UGI on February 28, 2024, which was accepted by the utility (as noted below, UGI alleged that it received a second drop on February 27, 2024, which was rejected)
The supplier asserts that the February 28, 2024 drop, which was accepted, was effective April 4, 2024
UGI disputes that it "refused" the customer's drop request
Rather, UGI alleges that the first two drops from the supplier -- on December 12, 2023 and February 27, 2024 -- were incomplete and missing necessary information, prompting the drops to be rejected. UGI alleges that the supplier was notified of the rejections of such drops
UGI avers that it acted promptly, within a reasonable and prudent timeline, and consistent with its choice program rules, to switch the complainant's service upon notice from the supplier
The supplier previously resolved, to the complainant's satisfaction, claims from the complainant against the supplier, and the complainant did not continue to pursue any claims against the supplier. The entire specifics of any resolution or settlement between the supplier and complainant were not filed in any document that is publicly available on the PUC's docket site. However, the supplier did disclose that, as requested by the complainant, the supplier refunded to the complainant the difference between the default service rate, and the supplier's rate, for the billing cycles from December 12, 2023, to April 4, 2024. The initial decision notes that the supplier's rate was higher than the UGI default service rate in each bill during the period that the customer remained on supplier service after the initial drop request
The PUC's online docket for the case does not have available online (to the extent any of the following were utilized in the case): an answer from UGI to the complaint (apart from a preliminary objection to a discrete claim regarding sought damages), pre-filed testimony, a transcript of live testimony, post-hearing briefs, or similar filings
As such, ECM relies on the discussion in the initial decision to summarize the actions of the parties, and to describe UGI's defense against the complaint
In response to an inquiry concerning the matter, a media representative from UGI stated that UGI Utilities, Inc. is reviewing the Judge's initial decision, but does not publicly discuss individual customer information.
As noted, UGI avers that the first two drops were rejected because the drops were incomplete and were missing necessary information
As further detailed below, the initial decision suggests that the characterization that the drop request was allegedly missing information was due to the fact that the field (or similar) specified for listing the reason for the drop was simply filled-in as "other", and a field for the "Drop Reason Description" was left blank
The ALJ in the initial decision states, "UGI rejected [complainant's] requests to change [complainant's] NGS simply because the reason provided was 'other' and the drop reason description was not further detailed."
Specifically, per an exhibit, the "Drop Reason Code" had been listed as "Other [A13]" in the first two drops, with the "Drop Reason Description" shown as a blank field (no description listed)
The third, and successful, drop request had included in the "Drop Reason Code" the text: "Dropped By Customer Request [B38]", with the "Drop Reason Description" shown as a blank field (no description)
The ALJ in the initial decision states, "At the hearing UGI provided no basis why a reason description was necessary information, or why 'other' is an inadequate reason for [complainant's] requests, as opposed to 'dropped by customer request,' which UGI accepted as a reason on February 29, 2024."
The ALJ said, "UGI did not dispute that the December 12, 2023 or February 27, 2024 [drop] requests originated from [complainant] or provide another convincing reason why [complainant's] prior requests should have been rejected."
The ALJ would conclude that such rejected drops constitute "unreasonable" service in violation of 66 Pa.C.S. § 1501, which provides that, "Every public utility shall furnish and maintain adequate, efficient, safe, and reasonable service and facilities[.]"
The ALJ would conclude that UGI's rejection of the first two drops also contravened the PUC's rules for customer switches
"Specifically, UGI rejected [complainant's] requests and failed to send written notification to [complainant] after the requests were made and making the NGS changes subsequent to a five-day waiting period. See 52 Pa. Code §§ 59.93, 59.94," the ALJ said
The ALJ observed that the PUC switching rules only require gas utilities, in processing a switch, to verify the customer's information on at least two elements, such as name and account number, or address and account number
"There was no contention from UGI that any such data elements were missing when it received the requests from [the supplier]," the ALJ said
The complainant was seeking to return two properties to default service, with a total of four individual rejections occurring across the two dates described above
The ALJ would fine UGI $300 for each rejected drop, for a total of $1,200
Although the complainant resolved matters with the supplier, which included a refund sought by the complainant, the initial decision still addresses whether UGI should be ordered to provide any refund (it was unclear if the complainant was still pursuing this matter with respect to UGI)
In any case, the ALJ would find that the PUC may not order a refund, with the ALJ noting, among other reasons, "there is no allegation that the natural gas supply prices charged to [complainant] during the period in dispute were not prices that [supplier] was authorized to charge its NGS customers."
The ALJ said that the request for refunds is essentially a request for damages, which the PUC is not empowered to provide
Docket C-2024-3047554 et al.
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
December 19, 2024
Email This Story
Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Manager / Director of Sales, PJM Commercial
|
|
|
|
|