Utility regulators to investgate Columbia Gas rate hike proposal
Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania's proposed 23.45 percent rate hike will be investigated by state utility regulators.
The Public Utility Commission voted 5-0 Thursday to look into the natural gas utility's request to increase revenue by $77.3 million a year, a typical step in rate cases. The request is suspended for up to seven months, and a PUC administrative law judge will make recommendations.
Cecil-based Columbia, part of NiSource Inc., has been replacing old pipelines. It has 415,000 customers in 26 counties. A typical bill for a residential customer who uses 73 therms of gas a month would rise by $15.75 to a total $82.92 under the rate hike proposal.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.