Providence Gas Co. has asked the Division of Public Utilities and
Carriers to reconsider its Aug. 31st decision to fine the company
$23,000 and order it to refund almost $300,000 to some natural gas
suppliers.
The Division fined Rhode Island’s largest gas utility for 23 alleged
violations of marketing rules established by the state Public Utilities
Commission, which governs how regulated utility companies that control
natural gas delivery pipes can conduct business and deal with employees
from sibling companies.
Among the violations cited in the report were
the improper use of corporate logos in a newspaper advertisement, and 13
instances of Providence Gas disclosing “market sensitive, individual
customer information” to an affiliate company’s employee.
“We have questions with respect to some of the data we used (to support
the ruling),” explained Thomas F. Ahern, the Division’s administrator.
“We may have erred. If we erred I’ll be the first one to correct a
mistake. At this point, I’m not sure we made a mistake.”
Providence Gas filed its Request for Reconsideration and Rehearing on
Sept. 28 with Ahern, who appointed the panel that issued the decision.
It had not paid any fines or refunds to any gas marketers as of last
Tuesday, according to Division officials.
Aurora Natural Gas of Dallas, which filed the original complaint against
Providence Gas, submitted its response on Oct. 19th asking the Division
to deny the utility company’s petition. In its complaint, Aurora charged
that notice by Providence Gas about technical requirements for new
meters being used for gas accounts came too late for it and other
marketers to sign up new customers before last year’s deadline.
The Division’s ruling indicated that notice came too late for other
marketers, but found that Providence Gas’s affiliate company, Providence
Energy Services, Inc., did not receive word any earlier than its
competitors.
NorAm Energy Management Inc. of Houston has made a bid to get involved,
by petitioning for “intervenor” status in the case, according to Ahern.
That means it would like an opportunity to present its own position on
the matter, he explained.
NorAm was not included in the decision’s list of six energy marketing
companies that were supposed to receive refunds from Providence Gas.
“They want to come in and represent their interests in the case,” Ahern
explained. “I’m a little concerned, however. This is 10 months after the
case was originally filed.”
In its own petition, Providence Gas contends that any violations that
occurred were basically part of a misinterpretation of the rules and
were not intentional. Through the decision and fines “it has become
apparent that the Division has different interpretations of the specific
language in the regulations.”
The petition further states: “Public statements made by representatives
of the Division, however, confirm the Division’s belief that these were
not intentional violations by (Providence Gas) but rather the result of
‘growing pains’ associated with introducing a whole new process. Thus,
it seems that findings of violations and imposition of maximum fines is
an unduly harsh result of well-intended and good-faith Company
interpretation of an entirely new regulatory framework.”
Ahern was scheduled to meet with staff members last Tuesday to discuss
the matter. A decision could be issued before Thanksgiving.
Options include denying or accepting the petition outright, or reopening
parts of the case for rehearing. If Ahern rejects Providence Gas’
petition, he said, “then we will start the clock again and they’ll have
30 days to do something.”
The company would then have to file any appeals in Superior Court, he
said.
The Division is the public advocacy side of the state’s utility
regulatory agency, while the PUC acts as the rulemaking authority.
The decision was the result of a complaint filed last December by
Aurora, which is an independent natural gas marketer. An Aurora
spokesman could not be reached for comment before deadline last Tuesday.
When the original decision was released, the Division’s hearing officer,
Stephen Scialabba, said the order exceeded the scope of Aurora’s
original complaint and addressed several issues that surfaced during
four days of hearings last spring. “We saw it as an opportunity to
address the relationship between marketers,” he told Providence Business
News at that time.
Scialabba, the Division’s chief accountant, co-wrote the 90-page
decision with fellow hearing panelists Paul J. Roberti, head of the
Attorney General’s utilities division, and Bruce Oliver, a natural gas
industry consultant.
Aurora is one of about 28 natural gas supply companies now registered to
do business in Rhode Island as the result of efforts to bring price
competition to the natural gas industry. At present, marketing companies
are only allowed to compete to supply gas to large industrial and
commercial customers.
The incumbent utilities, such as Providence Gas, maintain control over
the pipes that deliver gas throughout the state and can have sibling
companies that sell gas.
