products to the two former affiliates is not in violation of the Natural Gas Choice and non-discrimination provisions. Columbia M.B. at 12-13. Competition Act’s Columbia reasoned that different treatment between an NGS entity and another non-affiliated entity with respect to non-utility products and services is not prohibited. Columbia asserted that because the two entities authorized to include charges for non-commodity services on Columbia’s bill are not and do not offer “NGSs” “natural gas supply service” as those terms are defined in the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 2202, its decision to limit bill” billing to the two former affiliates does not favor one NGS over another, “on does not favor an affiliate over an NGS, and is therefore, not discriminatory pursuant to the Columbia M.B. at 12-13. Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act. Columbia further asserted that even if a discrimination standard were applied, discrimination must be unreasonable to constitute a violation of Section 1502. Columbia argues that because the Commission has held that some level of discrimination is allowable so long as it is not unduly discriminatory, Columbia could discriminate between its former affiliates and the NGS Parties, so long as the basis for the different treatment is reasonable. Columbia M.B. at 13., citing, Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Nat’l 2000 Pa. PUC LEXIS 883, *13 (June 29, 2000) citing Fuel Gas Distribution Corp., 22 A.2d 752, 757 (Pa. Super. 1943). United Natural Gas Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Finally, Columbia argued that the factual distinctions between the NGS Parties and its former affiliates justify Columbia’s choice to offer bill” billing “on exclusively to its former affiliates. Columbia noted its former affiliates are non-NGS entities offering clearly defined non-commodity services, service plans for i.e. natural gas facilities, pursuant to legacy contracts. Columbia St. No. 18-R at 3. Conversely, the NGS Parties may market products and services unrelated to natural gas service, products bundled with loyalty rewards and/or home protection which e.g., Columbia alleged may be detrimental to customers. NGS Parties St. No. 2 at 4.
products to the two former affiliates is not in violation of the Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act’s non-discrimination provisions. Columbia M.B. at 12-13. Columbia reasoned that different treatment between an NGS entity and another non-affiliated entity with respect to non-utility products and services is not prohibited. Columbia asserted that because the two entities authorized to include charges for non-commodity services on Columbia’s bill are not “NGSs” and do not offer “natural gas supply service” as those terms are defined in the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 2202, its decision to limit “on bill” billing to the two former affiliates does not favor one NGS over another, does not favor an affiliate over an NGS, and is therefore, not discriminatory pursuant to the Natural Gas Choice and Competition Act. Columbia M.B. at 12-13. Columbia further asserted that even if a discrimination standard were applied, discrimination must be unreasonable to constitute a violation of Section 1502. Columbia argues that because the Commission has held that some level of discrimination is allowable so long as it is not unduly discriminatory, Columbia could discriminate between its former affiliates and the NGS Parties, so long as the basis for the different treatment is reasonable. Columbia M.B. at 13., citing, Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Nat’l Fuel Gas Distribution Corp., 2000 Pa. PUC LEXIS 883, *13 (June 29, 2000) citing United Natural Gas Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 22 A.2d 752, 757 (Pa. Super. 1943). Finally, Columbia argued that the factual distinctions between the NGS Parties and its former affiliates justify Columbia’s choice to offer “on bill” billing exclusively to its former affiliates. Columbia noted its former affiliates are non-NGS entities offering clearly defined non-commodity services, i.e. service plans for natural gas facilities, pursuant to legacy contracts. Columbia St. No. 18-R at 3. Conversely, the NGS Parties may market products and services unrelated to natural gas service, e.g., products bundled with loyalty rewards and/or home protection which Columbia alleged may be detrimental to customers. NGS Parties St. No. 2 at 4.