|
|
|
|
|
Final Order Dismisses Pennsylvania Utility's Attempts To Allow Non-Commodity Services To Be Billed On Utility Consolidated Bill (Including Services From Utility's Selected Vendor)
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
An initial decision from two Pennsylvania PUC ALJs has become final, and the final order dismisses, without prejudice, an application from Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. for an affiliated interest agreement that was filed as part of Columbia Gas' intent to enter into a Billing Agreement with Pivotal Home Solutions, LLC, which would have allowed for charges for Pivotal’s warranty service plans and products & services to be included on Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania customers’ utility bills
No party filed exceptions to the previously reported initial decision, thus allowing the initial decision to become final without further PUC action
The final order also closes another proceeding, an old rate case, in which Columbia had filed to allow all third parties, subject to conditions, to include non-commodity costs on Columbia's utility bills (on-bill billing). Columbia had filed a letter in such docket, several years after an initial compliance filing, stating that Columbia would comply with non-discrimination provisions by providing all third parties (including retail suppliers) with on-bill billing for non-commodity services, rather than eliminating all on-bill billing for all non-commodity services for all parties, as had been Columbia's original means of complying with the non-discrimination directive
See full background on the proceedings in our prior stories here:
• Affiliated interest agreement proceeding, as a step needed to facilitate Pivotal's billing on Columbia bills
• Rate case proceeding in which letter allowing on-billing by all third parties was filed
As previously reported, the PUC in an order in a rate case filed in 2018 had found that Columbia's prior offering of on-bill non-commodity billing service to only selected vendors was discriminatory. Columbia chose to comply with the anti-discrimination provision by ceasing allowing any third-party to bill non-commodity services on its bill (including its previously selected vendors), rather than complying by opening bill access to all third parties on an equal basis
However, some six years after making the election to comply by ending on-bill billing, Columbia, in a letter styled as a compliance filing, informed the PUC that Columbia would comply with the anti-discrimination provision by opening on-bill billing to all third parties, subject to conditions (described in our prior story linked above)
Consumer advocates argued that Columbia could not choose to re-institute on-bill billing, after its prior termination, through a mere "compliance" filing, and argued that Columbia had not met the requirements for an application for such re-introduction to be considered by the PUC
In the initial decision, the ALJs had agreed, and further found Columbia's related affiliated interest agreement (AIA), to facilitate Pivotal's billing on Columbia bills, to be procedurally deficient
The final order adopts the findings and reasoning from the initial decision
Notably, with the ALJs dismissing the AIA case, and closing the old rate case, based on procedural issues, the ALJs made no findings as to the merits of on-bill billing for non-commodity services, or any proposed terms governing such
The ALJs had concluded that, "To re-institute any on-bill billing program and to seek relief from the Commission regarding the proposed affiliated interest agreement, Columbia is required to file a petition pursuant to Section 5.41 or other appropriate pleading."
Concerning the old rate case in which Columbia filed [in a June 30, 2025 Letter] to update its means of compliance by re-introducing on-bill billing, the ALJs said, "It is unreasonable to conclude that the Commission’s orders in the 2018 Rate Case permit or invite a subsequent compliance filing, nearly seven years later, and that would disrupt a long-resolved proceeding."
The ALJs said, "The June 30, 2025 Letter [from Columbia], which contains scant details about the mechanics of a newly proposed on-bill billing program is not a 'compliance filing' and will be stricken from Docket No. R-2018-2647577."
The ALJs dismissed Columbia's June 30, 2025 on-bill billing letter filed in Docket No. R-2018-2647577, and further struck from the record Columbia's June 30, 2025 Letter filed in Docket No. R-2018-2647577 in which Columbia had proposed to re-institute on-bill billing
The ALJs closed the rate case at Docket No. R-2018-2647577.
G-2025-3056022, R-2018-2647577
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 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
April 22, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Energy
• NEW -- Manager of Sales, Commercial -- Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Commercial Sales Support Specialist -- Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager - TX -- Retail Supplier
• NEW / Refreshed 2/24/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|