Regulatory and Legislative Actions
Legislation |
07/07 |
Electric Re-Regulation Legislation Enacted. The General Assembly passed legislation (Senate Bill 1416 and House Bill 3068) re-establishing retail rate regulation for most electricity customers in Virginia on January 1, 2009. However, the legislation continued the policy to allow retail customers of the State's two largest gas companies, Columbia Gas of Virginia and Washington Gas Light, to select other companies to provide their gas supply service. |
|
03/00 |
Modifications to Retail Choice
Legislation, HB 279 and SB 185. Legislation approved (enacted July 2000) that authorizes gas suppliers, pipeline distribution companies, and gas utilities to file a retail supply choice plan that includes provisions to implement the program, methodology to recover stranded costs, proposed unbundled rates and terms, and provisions to insure that one class of customer does not subsidize another class. The bill would also create a natural gas consumption tax, which would be added to the consumer's bill. |
|
|
03/99 |
Statewide Retail Choice
Approved, Senate Bill
1105. Legislation (enacted July 1999) authorizes
all natural gas local distribution companies to offer supply choice
to their customers. Such plans are to be approved by the SCC and
would not start before July 2000. The law also calls for a study of
gas utility taxation issues before the 2000 legislative session. The
legislation will expire on July 1, 2000, unless reenacted by the
General Assembly. |
Regulatory
Actions |
09/07 |
Annual Report on Status of Competition. Report to the Governor focuses on electric power competition
but also provides a brief summary of gas retail access programs. As of August 1, 2007, Washington Gas Light Company's (WGL)
program had 4 active marketers serving about 47,000 residential
customers and 11 marketers serving about 8,000 non-residential customers.
Columbia Gas of Virginia's program had two marketers serving
6,354 residential customers and three marketers serving 1,976 non-residential customers.
Cumulatively, choice customers account for about 12 percent of gas
consumers in WGL's service area and 4 percent of those in Columbia
Gas of Virginia's area. |
|
09/06 |
Annual Report on Status of Competition. Report to the Governor focuses on electric power competition
but also provides a brief summary of gas retail access programs. As of August 1, 2006, WGL's
program had 4 active marketers serving about 51,000 residential
customers and 12 marketers serving about 7,600 non-residential customers.
Columbia Gas of Virginia's program had two marketers providing service to
6,837 residential customers and three marketers serving 2,257 non-residential customers.
Cumulatively, choice customers account for about 13.1 percent of gas
consumers in WGL's service area and 4.0 percent of those in Columbia
Gas of Virginia's area. |
|
|
09/05 |
Annual Report on Status of Competition.
WGL's
program has four active marketers serving about 56,000 residential
customers and 12 marketers serving 6,977 non-residential customers.
Columbia Gas of Virginia's program has four marketers providing service to
7,370 residential customers and 1,988 non-residential customers.
Cumulatively, choice customers account for about 14.6 percent of gas
consumers in WGL's service area and 4.2 percent of those in Columbia
Gas of Virginia's area. |
|
|
09/04 |
Annual Report on Status of Competition.
Report appendix provides a summary of gas
retail access programs. WGL's program has four active marketers
serving 65,840 residential customers and 12 marketers serving 7,155
nonresidential customers. Columbia Gas of Virginia's program also has four
marketers providing service to 8,818 residential customers and 1,212
non-residential customers. |
|
|
08/03 |
2003 Report to the Governor on Status of
Competition. Report provides details on development of
competitive retail energy markets, with emphasis on electric power
markets. Appendix notes that marketer activity has been better in
the natural gas program than in electric programs but actual level
of competition may be distorted because of the high level of
affiliate concentration. |
|