|
|
|
|
|
Retail Suppliers Object To Pennsylvania Gas Utility's Application Of Electric Bill Non-Commodity Precedent To Gas Billing, Given Unique Statute; But Welcome Any Non-Discriminatory Bill Access
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In an answer to a petition from Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, the Retail Energy Supply Association objected to Columbia's reliance on a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent concerning the billing of non-commodity services in the electric industry, given Pennsylvania's unique natural gas billing statutory provisions, but RESA welcomed any non-discriminatory bill access for non-commodity services that Columbia may provide, though RESA said that details on bill access have not been provided for entities with which Columbia's affiliate does not have a marketing agreement
As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, Columbia's instant petition is Columbia's latest approach for approval to offer and bill for certain service plans and products from Oncourse Home Solutions, LLC, a selected non-affiliated third party, on the Columbia bill.
In its latest petition for a declaratory order, Columbia seeks affirmation from the PUC that the on-bill billing program related to an affiliated interest arrangement (necessary for billing, with the provider [Oncourse] not being a Columbia affiliate) does not constitute the provision of utility "service" under the Public Utility Code and is thus not subject to PUC jurisdiction. Columbia says that the PUC must make such a finding in light of a 2025 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision [Interstate Gas Supply, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 343 A.3d 1152 (Pa. 2025)]
In September 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in such proceeding that FirstEnergy Pennsylvania's provision of on-bill billing for FirstEnergy Pennsylvania's own non-commodity services does not constitute the provision of utility "service" under the Public Utility Code, and therefore FirstEnergy Pennsylvania does not violate any anti-discrimination provisions to the extent on-bill billing is not made available to retail suppliers
See a full discussion concerning the Court's finding here
RESA argued that Columbia misapplies the Court's finding in the FirstEnergy case because the natural gas statute specifically addresses, unlike the electricity statute, the obligations of NGDCs for "billing services", including for an "other entity".
Pa. C.S. § 2205(c) states in part: "Incremental costs relating to billing services designed, implemented and rendered by the natural gas distribution company, at its election, on behalf of a natural gas supplier or other entity may be recovered through fees charged by the natural gas distribution company to the natural gas supplier or other entity. Either party may request that the commission consider the appropriate level of the fee. In doing so, the commission shall consider fees charged by other natural gas distribution companies for similar services. The commission shall either permit the fee to continue as set or shall establish an alternative mechanism to permit full recovery of unrecovered just and reasonable costs from the supplier or the supplier's customers. Nothing in this section shall permit the recovery of such costs from natural gas supply service customers of the natural gas distribution company."
In short, RESA argues that, unlike electricity, the gas statute, "specifically provides for the billing of services that are not natural gas supply services, but are
nonetheless authorized and thus fit withing the definition of 'service' in Section 102."
RESA argued that, unlike for electricity, the relevant natural gas service billing is an obligation of the NGDC, and therefore must comply with statutes and PUC rules governing utility obligations, including non-discrimination provisions
While RESA objects to Columbia's statutory interpretation concerning Columbia's obligations, RESA does not object, in
general, to Columbia’s provision of non-commodity billing services to non-affiliated third parties, as generally proposed in
Columbia’s petition, so long as Columbia does not refuse to also provide such billing for other third parties on the same terms
and conditions.
RESA alleged that, "Columbia has so far refused to provide the details of those terms and conditions,
and RESA reserves the right to oppose or support those terms and conditions once it has been
granted access to review them".
Separately, the Office of Consumer Advocate objected to Columbia's petition for a declaratory order as not ripe for adjudication given the broad issues raised in the petition, and OCA sought that the matter be referred to an ALJ for litigation
Docket P-2026-3063860
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
August 5, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Strategic Sales Channels Manager - Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Controller - Retail Provider
• NEW -- Manager, Product I - VXRetail (Retail Energy)
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|