Scranton officials ask PUC for hearing on proposed UGI gas rate increase

Mayor (name not specified) and Scranton officials said they and legal counsel have sent a letter to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission asking for a hearing on UGI’s statewide rate increase request, and urged residents to submit personal testimony to the PUC.

The officials said the PUC acknowledged receipt of the letter within minutes. “The idea of a rate increase on a utility bill, we just cannot sustain that for our families and our small businesses here in Scranton,” Mayor (name not specified) said, adding she had shared the letter with other mayors across the Commonwealth to encourage similar requests for hearings.

Council President Jerry Sprung said the company has already applied multiple increases in recent months and described UGI’s current override request as $110,400,000. “That would cost the average rate payer about 10.8%,” Sprung said, and called the total request “extremely high and pretty unacceptable.” He said UGI’s recent net income figure — stated in the meeting as $269,000,000 last year — made the size of the request particularly troubling to local officials.

Council Member Bill King said he had “no prepared remarks” but expressed “passion and concern for the residents of the city of Scranton” and promised the city would press for a hearing, as it did during last year’s Pennsylvania American Water Company case. King said the PUC granted a hearing after residents gave hours of personal testimony in that earlier proceeding.

Lackawanna County Commissioner Bill Gaughan said leaders learned from the earlier fight over the water company that sustained pressure and public testimony can influence utilities and regulators. “We just need to make sure that they understand that these are real people in the city of Scranton and throughout Lackawanna County that this is affecting,” Gaughan said, citing concerns about seniors on fixed incomes and young families.

Officials said the main concern in the current proceeding is the economic impact of the proposed increase rather than documented service problems. “But really it’s the economics of this and the impact on households and businesses that I’m primarily concerned about,” Mayor (name not specified) said, while adding that hearings are opportunities to raise any service issues if they exist.

The meeting record does not show a formal vote by the council or county; officials described a letter that already was filed with the PUC and said they will continue outreach and encourage residents to contact the PUC directly to request a hearing and share personal statements. The PUC’s formal scheduling decision and any resulting hearing date were not reported in the transcript.

The officials also referenced last year’s water‑company case, in which public testimony led to a PUC‑mandated water quality study; they said that outcome showed the value of hearings in surfacing both service and economic impacts for regulators to consider.

Next steps described by officials: continued coordination with other municipal leaders, encouraging residents to submit comments to the PUC, and monitoring the PUC’s response to the letter. No legislative action or formal municipal vote on the matter was recorded in the transcript.