|
|
|
|
|
PSC Law Judge Rules Choice Utility's Bill Message Was Misleading
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Chief Public Utility Law Judge (PULJ) of the Maryland PSC has issued a ruling, on motions for summary judgment, finding that a bill message from the utility Washington Gas Light (WGL) which addressed the cleanliness and environmental benefits of natural gas was, "misleading based upon the lack of context, specificity, and qualifying statements."
While the relevant statement itself does not relate to the retail market, the PULJ's findings with respect to utility bill messaging, generally, and what constitutes misleading information (for all billing entities, including potentially suppliers under the now-required dual billing and/or supplier consolidated billing) may serve as precedent in the future
Washington Gas provided the following statement concerning the matter:
"Washington Gas is reviewing the decision issued today, and evaluating the course moving forward."
--- Statement from Washington Gas
The relevant WGL bill message which was subject to a complaint from the Office of People's Counsel had stated:
"Natural gas is a clean, efficient, and reliable energy. Converting an all electric home to natural gas is the equivalent of planting 2.75 acres of trees or driving 26,520 fewer miles each year. In addition, natural gas cost[s] 1/3 less than electric, which makes it a smart decision for the environment and your wallet."
As previously reported, due to an initial miscommunication, there was initially confusion in the case concerning whether such message was being provided by WGL, or retail supplier WGL Energy (the message initially seen by OPC appeared on a utility consolidated bill for which the supplier was WGL Energy, but WGL later confirmed that the message appeared on all UCBs and that the message was not being provided by WGL Energy). WGL Energy was previously dismissed as a respondent to the complaint given that WGL Energy was not responsible for the relevant message
As our concern is any broader precedent and not the intricacies of the instant case, ECM will not belabor the background of the proceeding.
See full details on the case's background here
In brief, OPC had claimed that, especially due to the lack of context or substantiation for the claims, the bill message served to, "deceive and mislead utility customers about the emissions attributes of natural gas."
WGL, among other things, argued that one of the statutes cited by OPC applies to the PSC itself and does not govern the activities of a utility. WGL also argued that the bill message was adequate, just, and reasonable because, among other things, the message aligned with certain Maryland state agencies' proclamations concerning natural gas during the relevant time period (including statements from the PSC itself about natural gas)
Most relevant is OPC's claim that the message violated PUA § 5-303 which provides that, "A public service company shall furnish equipment, services, and facilities that are safe, adequate, just, reasonable, economical, and efficient, considering the conservation of natural resources and the quality of the environment."
Of most relevance to the retail market, the PULJ, as further discussed below, found that utilities should not possess, "unchecked ability to provide potentially inaccurate and unverified information to customers."
In summarizing WGL's defense that the message was consistent with PUA § 5-303, the PULJ said, "WGL ... asserts that its billing statements sufficiently considered the conservation of natural resources and the quality of the environment, and nothing more is required."
The PULJ, however, said that mere consideration of conservation et al. is not a substitute for providing accurate information on bills
The PULJ said, "The Company’s [WGL] position is troubling as it presumes that simply referencing environmental issues satisfies the 'consideration of the environment' without regard to the accuracy of the billing statements ... WGL acknowledged that it was not aware of how the billing statements were developed or if any of the statements at issue were reviewed for accuracy or substantiated prior to inclusion on customer bills."
The PULJ said, "The General Assembly certainly did not intend PUA § 5-303 to provide public service companies with the ability to provide customers with information about the environment that is unverifiable and potentially inaccurate, and still consider those actions to be adequate, just, and reasonable simply because the environment or environmental issues were referenced. Therefore, I find WGL’s 'consideration of the environment' position to be unreasonable."
The PULJ said, "Next, consistent with the above finding that the billing statements were not reasonable, I also find the billing statements to be neither just nor adequate. As noted above, the Company’s acknowledgment that it could not verify the accuracy of the billing statements it provided to its customers is unacceptable, and WGL’s attempts to justify the content of the billing statements after-the-fact falls woefully short of just and adequate."
The PULJ said, "I also reject WGL’s reliance on the referenced statements made by State agencies ... the Commission’s statements relied upon by the Company included qualifying language, e.g., relatively clean, cleaner, and lower costs; whereas similar qualifiers are absent from the Company’s billing statement."
"I agree with OPC that regardless of any previous statements, deceptive marketing is not permitted," the PULJ said
Most relevant to the retail market is the PULJ's concern that adopting WGL's position would grant to utilities an, "unchecked ability to provide potentially inaccurate and unverified information to customers[.]"
The PULJ said, "acceptance of the Company’s position would effectively allow public service companies the unchecked ability to provide potentially inaccurate and unverified information to customers and the Commission would have no recourse unless and until regulations were enacted. I find the Commission has the authority to act on OPC’s complaint without the need for regulations and without violating the APA based upon the implicit powers provided in PUA § 2-113 and the Company’s violation of PUA § 5-303."
The PULJ said, "PUA § 2-113(a)(1)(i) provides the Commission with the authority to ensure WGL operates in the public’s interest and, if the Company’s services, specifically the billing statements, were not found to be adequate, just, reasonable, or failed to consider the conservation of natural resources and/or the quality of the environment, the Commission has the authority to find the Company violated PUA § 5-303."
The PULJ noted that public service companies are exempt from the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and that there are no specific PSC regulations related to determining whether a public service company’s marketing and billing statements are deceiving, misleading, or confusing to customers
However, the PULJ said that the lack of specific regulations adopted by the PSC does not mean that the PSC may not take enforcement action against a utility for a misleading billing statement pursuant to PUA § 5-303
The PULJ said, "I disagree that specific regulations are necessary to make a finding on the Company’s billing statements given the Commission’s authority to ensure public service companies operate in the interest of the public and the standards of service public service companies are required to provide to customers are met."
The PULJ concluded, "Public service companies must act in the public’s interest and ensuring the information provided to customers is accurate and not misleading is imperative."
The PULJ concluded, "I find that WGL’s billing statements were misleading based upon the lack of context, specificity, and qualifying statements."
The PULJ concluded, "I find that WGL’s actions violated PUA § 5-303 as it failed to meet the mandated standards of service as the billing statements were not adequate, just, and reasonable, and failed to sufficiently consider the quality of the environment."
The PULJ directed parties to confer on a proposed procedural schedule to determine whether civil penalties should be imposed pursuant to PUA § 13-201
Case 9673
Copyright 2025 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
Judge Says Utilities Can't Have, "Unchecked Ability To Provide Potentially Inaccurate ... Information"
Utilities Must Provide Accurate & Not Misleading Information, Judge Says
March 20, 2025
Email This Story
Copyright 2025 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
|
|
|
|
|