5788686 Public Service Commission - Public Interest Hearing - FC 1128 and GT 2014-03 - Settlement Agreement filed by Washington Gas Light Company and Integrys Energy Services-Natural Gas, LLC and other Settling Parties - January 14, 2016
-
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC INTEREST HEARING
FORMAL CASE NO. 1128, IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINT OF INTEGRYS ENERGY SERVICES-NATURAL GAS, LLC FOR ITSELF AND IN ITS CAPACITY AS AGENT FOR PEPCO ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC; NOVEC ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC.; AND BOLLINGER ENERGY, LLC, REGARDING OPERATIONAL FLOW ORDER NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES LEVIED BY WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY THROUGH MARCH 2014,
And
GAS TARIFF 2014-03, IN THE MATTER OF WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY’S APPLICATION TO AMEND RATE SCHEDULE NO. 5
The Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia ("Commission") hereby gives notice, pursuant to Section 130.11 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, of a public interest hearing to consider the Settlement Agreement filed by Washington Gas Light Company (“WGL” or “Company”) and Integrys Energy Services-Natural Gas, LLC, Compass Energy Gas Services, LLC, Direct Energy Services, LLC, NOVEC Energy Solutions, Inc., Bollinger Energy, LLC, and Stand Energy Corporation (“Settling Parties”).[1] The public interest hearing will convene Thursday, January 14, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission Hearing Room, 1325 G Street, N.W., Eighth Floor, Washington, DC 20005.
BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2014, the Joint Suppliers filed a Formal Complaint against WGL alleging that WGL improperly levied $1.4 million in penalties against them for failure to comply with the Company’s Operations Flow Orders (“OFOs”) during the period January through March 2014 (the “Subject Period”).[2] On October 14, 2014, WGL filed its Response to the Formal Complaint requesting that the Commission “issue an Order requiring Joint Suppliers to pay the penalties assessed for failing to deliver the DRV and non-compliance with OFOs over the period January to March 2014.”[3]
On March 25, 2015, the Commission issued Order No. 17843, which, among other things, scheduled a hearing for June 17, 2015.[4] However, on April 16, 2015, WGL and the Joint Suppliers filed a Joint Motion stating that they “have reached an agreement in principle that would include a settlement of all issues in this proceeding, as well as certain tariff-related issues currently pending in GT-2014-03.”[5] Consequently, WGL and the Joint Suppliers requested additional time to memorialize the agreement, discuss its elements with the Commission Staff and the Office of [the] People’s Counsel as necessary, and present the finalized agreement to the Commission.[6] As a result, the Commission suspended the proceedings to allow the parties’ time to memorialize a settlement agreement.[7]
Subsequently, on August 21, 2015, WGL and the Joint Suppliers filed a Joint Motion for Approval of the Unanimous Agreement of Stipulation and Full Settlement which resolves all of the disputed issues related to the Joint Suppliers’ Formal Complainant and provides revisions to Rate Schedule No. 5.[8] According to the Joint Suppliers and WGL, “This Settlement Agreement is contingent upon Commission acceptance of the revised tariff pages attached hereto for the Company’s Rate Schedule No. 5 as well as all of the other terms of the Settlement.”[9] On October 2, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Tariff (NOPT) soliciting public comment on proposed tariff revisions. No comments were filed in response to the NOPT.[10]
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The Settlement Agreement has six major provisions: (1) a Pipeline Delivery Matrix that all Competitive Service Providers (“CSPs”) participating in WGL’s Customer Choice Program in the District of Columbia must comply with; (2) penalties for failure to comply with Pipeline Delivery Matrix and the Daily Required Volume (“DRV”); (3) a requests for waiver of Delivery Matrix; (4) a section addressing Daily Imbalance Trading; (5) an Interruptible Delivery Service Tolerance Band to compute penalties for failure to deliver the DRV on any day when the Company has not issued a balancing curtailment or Operational Flow Order (“OFO”); and (6) Capacity Assignments.[11] Also, the Settlement Agreement states that concerning “penalties assessed to the Joint CSPs by WGL for failure to comply with the Delivery Matrix and balancing Curtailment order over the January through March 2014 period, WGL, the Joint CSPs and Stand Energy agree to pay their proportional amount of a dollar value equal to $1.4 million, without interest, in full and complete settlement of the Settling Parties’ respective claims in Formal Case No. 1128.”[12] According to the Settlement Agreement, “Each CSP that was assessed a non-compliance penalty by WGL will pay its pro-rata share of the 1.4 million settlement amount.”[13]
PUBLIC INTEREST HEARING
The purpose of this public interest hearing is to determine if the proposed Settlement Agreement is in the public interest pursuant to Section 130.11 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.[14] During the course of the hearing, the settling parties will present witnesses to testify regarding the proposed Settlement Agreement.
The hearing will be broadcast live on the Commission’s website, www.dcpsc.org, and the video archived at http://www.dcpsc.org/public_meeting/index.asp.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Copies of the Settlement Agreement may be obtained by contacting the Office of the Commission Secretary, Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia, 1325 G Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20005, or by visiting the Commission’s website at www.dcpsc.org. The proposed Settlement Agreement will also be located on the Commission’s eDocket system in Formal Case No. 1128, item 17or Gas Tariff 2014-03,item 32 and can be obtained at http://www.dcpsc.org/edocket/docketsheets_pdf_FS.asp?caseno=FC 1128&docketno=17&flag=D&show_result=Y.
[1] Formal Case No. 1128, In the Matter of the Formal Complaint of Integrys Energy Services-Natural Gas, LLC for Itself and in its Capacity as Agent for Pepco Energy Services, Inc.; Direct Energy Services, LLC; NOVEC Energy Solutions, Inc.; and Bollinger Energy, LLC, Regarding Operational Flow Order Noncompliance Penalties Levied by Washington Gas Light Company for the Period January through March 2014 (“Formal Case No. 1128”), Joint Motion and Unanimous Agreement of Stipulation and Full Settlement, filed August 21, 2015 (“Settlement Agreement”).
[2] Formal Case No. 1128, Joint Suppliers Complaint filed September 16, 2014 (“Joint Suppliers’ Complaint”).
[3] Formal Case No. 1128, Response of Washington Gas Light Company to Formal Complaint, filed October 10, 2014 (“WGL’s Response”) at 8.
[4] Formal Case No. 1128, In the Matter of the Formal Complaint of Integrys Energy Services-Natural Gas, LLC for Itself and in its Capacity as Agent for Pepco Energy Services, Inc.; Direct Energy Services, LLC; NOVEC Energy Solutions, Inc.; and Bollinger Energy, LLC, Regarding Operational Flow Order Noncompliance Penalties Levied by Washington Gas Light Company for the Period January through March 2014 (“Formal Case No. 1128”), Order No. 17843, rel. March 25, 2015 at 11.
[5] Formal Case No. 1128, Joint Motion to Suspend Procedural Schedule, filed April 16, 2015 (“Joint Motion”), at 2.
[6] Formal Case No. 1128, Joint Motion at 2.
[7] Formal Case No. 1128, Order No. 17867, rel. April 24, 2015 at 2-3.
[8] Formal Case No. 1128 and GT 2014-03, Settlement Agreement.
[9] Formal Case No. 1128 and GT 2014-03, Joint Motion for Approval of the Unanimous Agreement of Stipulation and Full Settlement at 8. Also, the Joint Suppliers and WGL state that “The Settlement Agreement is also contingent upon acceptance of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the applicable revised tariff sheets by the Maryland Public Service Commission and the Virginia State Corporation Commission.”
[10] 62 D.C. Reg. 013139-013141 (2015).
[11] Formal Case No. 1128 and GT 2014-03, Settlement Agreement at 4-8.
[12] Formal Case No. 1128 and GT 2014-03, Settlement Agreement at 8-9.
[13] Formal Case No. 1128 and GT 2014-03, Settlement Agreement at 9.
[14] 15 DCMR § 130.11 (July 10, 1992).
