Opinion: Columbia Gas' plan will strip away critical savings tools as costs climb

Martin Kushler is a senior fellow with the non-profit organization American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy. He has worked in the field of utility energy efficiency policy for four decades, including having testified before the Ohio legislature to help lead to Ohio’s first utility energy efficiency standard (SB221 of 2008).

Over many years, Columbia Gas has been a great example in the Midwest of a utility providing strong energy efficiency programs for its customers.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, where I serve as a Senior Fellow, has often pointed to the Columbus-based utility as an industry leader.

More:Columbia Gas seeks quick approval for Intel pipeline

That is why we are so surprised by and disappointed at the settlement proposal Columbia Gas has submitted to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (Case No. 21-637-GA-AIR).

If the PUCO approves this plan, it will not only end the bulk of Columbia’s energy efficiency programs. It would also end Columbia’s role as an industry leader in helping their customers save energy.

Energy efficiency programs run by utilities — such as Columbia Gas — have a great proven record.

By providing customers incentives to purchase energy-efficient equipment or make other energy-saving home upgrades, they save households and businesses money on energy bills. They also create jobs and reduce emissions that pollute the air and harm people’s health.

Columbia Gas’ proposal would end all of their programs, except for one that just helps low-income customers. This proposal would strip Ohio families and businesses of tools they can use to reduce their utility bills at a time when gas prices are on the rise and price volatility is setting all-time records.

Moreover, and quite incredibly, their proposal attempts to go far beyond the legitimate scope of this case by including the following restriction on Columbia Gas’ future public pronouncements and policy positions:

“Columbia agrees not to pursue (and not to support others’ pursuit of) consumer- funded, low-income and consumer-funded, non-low-income energy efficiency programs (including demand side management programs) through legislation or other regulatory initiatives until Columbia files its next base rate case.”

More:Many Ohioans to pay more for natural gas this winter

They would not just be killing their own programs. They would actually be committing to a public policy position of not supporting others who might pursue policies for energy efficiency programs.

That provision would seem way out-of-bounds for anything that would be officially certified by a government agency such as PUCO. We certainly hope the PUCO rejects it or any similar provision.

Finally, there is one other harmful aspect of Columbia’s proposal we would oppose.

That is the request for a dramatic increase in the monthly “fixed charge” that customers face. Columbia’s plan would increase the current total fixed charges from about $37 to over $56 a month.

To be clear, this is a separate part of your bill than the cost of natural gas.

Reducing your gas usage will not lower this cost for you. That kind of increase is unfair to customers who are trying to reduce their bill by being more energy efficient, and would be particularly harmful for low-income customers.

This proposal for Columbia Gas contains several provisions that are especially inappropriate at a time when customers are facing high natural gas prices and are particularly in need of programs to help them become more energy efficient. We urge the PUCO to protect the people of Ohio from this unneeded and harmful request.

Martin Kushler is a Senior Fellow with the non-profit organization American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy. He has worked in the field of utility energy efficiency policy for four decades, including having testified before the Ohio legislature to help lead to Ohio’s first utility energy efficiency standard (SB221 of 2008).

This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Opinion: Columbia Gas plan will critical tools as costs climb