Ohio Commission Dismisses Complaint Regarding Use of Columbia Retail Energy Name by Interstate Gas Supply

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio dismissed a complaint by the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council, and other parties regarding Interstate Gas Supply's use of the trade name Columbia Retail Energy, finding that complainants did not meet their burden of proof.

In 2010, Interstate Gas Supply entered into an agreement with NiSource Retail Services to use the Columbia Retail Energy name in certain markets, along with a starburst logo similar to that used by various NiSource companies including regulated distribution companies.

OCC, NOPEC, and others filed a complaint alleging that the licensing agreement and use of the Columbia Retail Energy (CRE) name by a supplier not affiliated with Columbia Gas was misleading and deceptive, and therefore contrary to O.A.C 4901:l-29-03(A) and 4901:l-29-05(C).

PUCO, however, found that, "joint complainants have offered no evidence that IGS's use of the CRE name and starburst logo is unfair, misleading, deceptive, or unconscionable in violation of Rules 4901:l-29-03(A) and Rule 4901:l-29-05(C), O.A.C."

"Particularly, we believe that the disclaimers used by IGS, marketing as CRE, are appropriately crafted so that consumers receiving a solicitation from CRE can readily discern who the solicitation is from and what the relationship is between IGS, Columbia, and NiSource. Moreover, although IGS's use of the CRE name does not specifically fall under the Commission's affiliate rules contained in Rule 4901:1-29-05(C), O.A.C, we believe that IGS acted appropriately in adhering to those rules," PUCO said.

The complainants also argued that the licensing agreement gave NiSource Retail Services (NRS) a direct financial incentive to encourage customers to sign up for competitive retail natural gas service with IGS, to the detriment of the competitive market.

"We do not believe that the evidence of record substantiates the joint complainants' allegation that the use of the CRE trade name gives IGS an unfair competitive advantage in Columbia's territory," PUCO said. "With respect to joint complainants' contention that the SMLA [Service Mark Licensing Agreement] would give NRS a financial incentive to encourage customers to sign up with IGS, joint complainants have not proven that Columbia has acted to encourage customers to take service from IGS. The mere possibility that something could happen is not a violation of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, upon reviewing the evidence presented in this case, along with joint complainants' arguments, we conclude that the complaint should be dismissed and the requests for relief should be denied," PUCO ruled.