Georgia News and Analysis
September 2003
| Breaking News | Other Resources |
HighlightsPSC Approves Hefty Fines for Violations of Consumer
Protection Rules
Regulated Natural Gas Provider Has Highest 2002-03 Prices
Background
Georgia's 1997 Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act, which
allowed Atlanta Gas Light to offer choice to its 1.4 million customers, required the
"random assignment" of all of the companys customers by May 1999:
Customers had to select a marketer, and if they did not, they were randomly assigned to a
company. (United Cities, the states only other large investor-owned natural gas
utility at the time, decided not to open up its territory.) |
The rules are in the law,
they are not tricky. We hope we wont have these [consumer protection violation]
cases in the future and that our staff can spend more time assisting consumers.
Robert B. Baker, Jr., Chairman,
Georgia Public Service Commission, July 2003 |
Nineteen marketers entered a field previously dominated by two
companies, bringing with them new pricing methods, delayed billings, erroneous billings
and, in some cases, illegal practices such as slamming. The results were increases in
consumer gas bills and consumer complaints. The Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC)
responded with regulations outlawing slamming and rules that addressed record-keeping and
sign-up verification requirements.
To complicate matters, Georgia consumers were hit with increased
prices for natural gas during the winter of 2000-01, an unusually cold winter after a
series of mild winters. In response to public outcry over high heating bills, the PSC
voted in January 2001 to prohibit natural gas marketers from disconnecting residential
customers for nonpayment until April 1, 2001. However, when that moratorium expired,
natural gas marketers disconnected 124,000 customers.
About 64,000 customers remained disconnected as the winter of
2001-02 began, and many did not have the means to have their gas turned back on.
Then-Governor Roy Barnes announced that he had appointed a task force to investigate how
to protect natural gas customers from high prices and disconnection. He also proposed that
the PSC designate an emergency natural gas supplier for people whose service had been shut
off. This supplier of last resort would offer service to customers with payment problems
without requiring that arrearages be paid before service was restored
After initially rejecting the governor's proposal in early
December, the PSC approved the proposal in December 2001 and designated Infinite Energy of
Florida as the supplier of last resort. For its last-resort service, Infinite Energy did
not require customers to pay off arrearages before it would begin providing service, but
the company charged 10 cents more per therm of natural gas than its standard rates and
required a $150 deposit and $11.95 monthly fees.
In February 2002, the Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on
Natural Gas released its
final report, calling for a "multi-pronged approach"
that neither dismantled deregulation nor relied on the free market. The task force
dismissed the increasingly popular idea of returning to a natural gas monopoly because of
serious financial and legal barriers. Its report noted, for example, that legal claims
from marketers could run as high as $500 million if the state were to put them out of
business.
Instead, the task force recommended that the PSC designate a
provider with regulated rates that could serve low-income and other residential consumers
who want an alternative to competitive marketers.
The state legislature rated the natural gas issue a top priority
for its 2002 session and passed the Natural Gas
Consumers Relief Act. The new law required the Georgia Public
Service Commission to select a natural gas provider, to be regulated by the Commission.
The regulated natural gas provider would serve two groups of consumers: low-income
customers and customers who can't get service from a marketer because of payment problems.
The regulated provider's rate would establish a price to beat for other, unregulated
marketers.
In June, the PSC selected Scana, one of three marketers to bid,
as the regulated natural gas provider. (The other two bidders were Southstar Energy, the
retail affiliate of Georgia Natural Gas, and Infinite Energy, the original
provider-of-last-resort). The company began accepting customers August 15, 2002 and began
selling gas to the two customer groups on September 1.
Scana offers the lowest gas price for low-income consumers and a
special discount for low-income senior citizens. Households with incomes at 150 percent or
less of the federal poverty level qualify for the company's low-income rates, which were
10 to 14 cents less per therm than other variable residential rates, plus a $4.95 monthly
service charge. (In Georgia's deregulated natural gas market, all residential consumers
pay rates that vary with changes in the wholesale prices). Low-income seniors receive an
additional discount of two cents per therm.
Consumers with a risky credit history pay considerably higher
rates: 71 cents per therm at the time, based on current wholesale prices, plus a monthly
customer service charge of $11.95.
Scana has a two-year contract with the PSC that guarantees the
company a one-cent per therm profit on each monthly bill. Scana receives $77 per year per
low-income customer to cover any unpaid arrearages.
Money for the arrearage guarantee and per-customer fee comes from
the Universal Service Fund (USF), as does $275,000 for the company's customer education
programs.
The Universal Service Fund was established by the original
deregulation law and funded through distribution charges, paid mainly by residential
consumers and certain kinds of profits from Atlanta Gas Light (AGL), the deregulated
natural gas company. Originally, the USF was designed to reimburse marketers for
uncollectible accounts and pay for extension of natural gas service into new territory;
any balance at the end of the fiscal year was to be reimbursed to customers.
The Natural Gas Consumers' Relief Act changed the law so that
low-income energy assistance is now the primary goal of the universal service fund. It
also directed the PSC to establish a surcharge on about 600 large industrial customers so
that they pay "an equitable share" of gas distribution costs. The provision was
intended to shift more of these costs from residential consumers to the large industries.
A group of large industrial gas users that had bitterly opposed
the surcharge during the legislative session filed suit in September, asking that the
PSC's designation of Scana as the regulated provider be declared "null and
void." The lawsuit, brought by the Georgia Natural Gas Group and Georgia Textile
Manufacturers Association, described the PSC-ordered programs as a "gross abuse of
discretion and an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable exercise of its authority."
In October, the PSC capitulated to the industrial groups
demands. Basically, the industrial gas users will not be charged the surcharge for one
year; the charge will then be restricted to the amount necessary to cover losses for the
regulated provider and to pay for gas line extensions.
As of September 2003, the following issues are of importance
to Georgia consumers:
Regulated provider blues
Despite legislative planning and PSC oversight, the regulated
provider programs didnt work out as planned. As a result, the PSC approved a
one-time $50 credit in June 2003 for most low-income customers of Scana after the
companys gas prices jumped to $1.30 per therm, the highest in the state.
Scanas contract with the PSC allowed the company to adjust
prices in June to reflect higher wholesale prices the first half of 2003. Because that
adjustment was so severe forcing the companys 24,000 low-income enrollees to
pay the highest prices in the state the PSC tapped the USF for $750,000 to help
soften the blow by giving the regulated-provider enrollees the $50 bill credit. Customers
transferred to Scana because of credit problems did not receive the bill credit.
The situation was not as serious as it could have been because
many low-income households have not signed up with Scana. (Between 30,000 and 50,000 were
estimated to be eligible during the winter of 2002-03.) Joyce Hull, Georgias LIHEAP
director at the Department of Human Resources (DHR), noted that many low-income senior
households, for example, did not switch because of the price hikes and the forecast of
continued rising prices this winter.
This was the second PSC response to the high gas prices during
2003 in February, the Commission approved the disbursal of $5 million from the USF
to the DHR to provide gas bill payment assistance to low-income or low-income senior
households.
As of August 2003, gas prices for Scanas low-income
customers were back down to $1.24 per therm, the lowest offered by any supplier. It is
unclear whether the regulated provider will continue to be able to offer the lowest rates
in the face of predicted high prices during the coming winter.
Consumer protection, rate caps and competition
In addition to a regulated gas provider, the Natural Gas Consumers Relief Act required the
PSC to develop consumer protections, including more notice before termination of service
(previously, a five-day written notice was standard). Marketers must give consumers 15
days written notice before disconnecting, late fees cannot exceed $10 or 1.5 percent of
the past-due amount (whichever is larger), and charges can't exceed the marketers' prices
published at the start of the billing cycle for variable rate plans.
With more regulatory muscle provided
by the 2002 legislation, the PSC has begun imposing hefty fines on companies that violate
consumer protections. In early July, the Commission approved an agreement that requires
Southern Company Gas to credit $45,000 to customers accounts and contribute $100,000
to the Georgia LIHEAP in order to resolve allegations that the company violated state and
commission laws.
Southern Company Gas, the third-largest gas marketer in the
state, was accused of sending notices to customers threatening to disconnect their service
with less than the required 15-day notice. The company also allegedly required customers
to pay their entire bill rather than simply the amount past due.
In September, the PSC ordered gas marketer Energy America to pay
$400,000 to LIHEAP and $100 to each of 138 customers "slammed" last year. Energy
America which has been fined for slamming in New Jersey, Michigan, and Ontario and
is being investigated in Texas was accused of misleading customers into switching
suppliers.
Since issuing the consumer protection rules, the PSC has also
begun considering rate caps. PSC staff research has found that natural gas prices are
higher in Georgia than in surrounding states that have regulated gas utilities. This is of
particular concern since the number of natural gas suppliers has dwindled to four. The
Natural Gas Consumers Relief Act allows the Commission to consider rate caps if 1) three
or fewer marketers are supplying more than 90 percent of customers in any of the state's
nine delivery zones, or 2) if the PSC finds that prices are "not constrained by
market forces and are significantly higher than such prices would be if they were
constrained by market forces."
A February PSC staff proposal recommends that the Commission consider rate caps when retail natural gas
prices have been higher than competitive prices by: 1) 50 percent for one month, 2) 30
percent for three months, or 3) 20 percent for 12 months.
To determine what competitive retail prices should be, the PSC
would have to take into account the wholesale prices, the costs of transporting natural
gas and providing service to customers, and what retail customers pay in other parts of
the Southeast and in other states that have retail competition.
The PSC is waiting for marketers comments on the proposal
and has not yet set a hearing on the possibility of rate caps.
Below is a history of residential natural gas rates in Georgia
since 1995:
| Georgia Average Annual Price per Thousand Cubic
Feet |
| |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003* |
| Residential |
6.17 |
6.68 |
7.41 |
6.78 |
4.37 |
7.83 |
10.33 |
9.92 |
13.27 |
Source: Energy
Information Administration
*Price as of March 2003 |
Other resources
National Center for Appropriate Technology, The
Transition to Retail Competition in Energy Markets: How Have Residential Consumers Fared?,
September 2002. A study of the impacts of electric and natural
gas markets restructuring on low- and moderate-income consumers in five states including
Georgia. The study termed Georgia's natural gas program the model for what can go
wrong when well designed consumer protection measures are either not adopted or not
enforced at the onset of the retail competition program. The Georgia natural gas
restructuring legislation had several unique features that no other state has
replicated, chief among them its requirement that all customers switch natural gas
providers or be assigned to a competitive provider. This requirement resulted in a
situation marked by confusion, complaints, unexpectedly high prices, an unprecedented
number of disconnections, high arrearages, large scale public dissatisfaction, and
finally, corrective actions by the states governor and legislature.
Back to News |