Energy Choice
                            

Matters

New York Utilities Seek Extension To File New UBPs, Say ESCO Budget Billing Directives Need Clarity

February 14, 2018

Email This Story
Copyright 2010-17 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

Stating that clarification is needed on several issues, including directives concerning ESCO budget billing, the New York Joint Utilities sought at the New York PSC an extension of the deadline to file new tariffs reflecting recent changes to the New York Uniform Business Practices and sought clarification of certain issues.

The Joint Utilities filing such request included Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation ("Central Hudson"), Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ("Con Edison"), New York State Electric & Gas Corporation ("NYSEG"), National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation ("National Fuel"), Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid ("NMPC"), KeySpan Gas East Corporation d/b/a National Grid ("KEDLI"), and The Brooklyn Union Gas Company d/b/a National Grid NY ("KEDNY" and collectively with KEDLI and NMPC, "National Grid"), Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. ("O&R"), and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation ("RG&E")

See our prior story for more on the UBP changes adopted by the PSC in a January 19 Order

Most notably, the Joint Utilities noted that the PSC's Order concludes that Home Energy Fair Practices Act ("HEFPA") requires ESCOs to offer a budget or levelized billing option.

"The revised UBP § 5.L.2 adopted in the Order, however, appears to go beyond the discussion in the Order by requiring the ESCO to determine the budget bill amount and evaluate each budget billed amount on a quarterly basis for conformity with actual billing (collectively, 'Budget Plan Obligations')," the Joint Utilities said.

"However, in a practical sense, only the billing party has the necessary information to meet the Budget Plan Obligations. By offering budget billing options for utility consolidated bills, the HEFPA budget billing obligations are already being met when utilities are the billing party. For this reason, the Joint Utilities do not read the Order as requiring utilities to provide ESCOs with such information when utility consolidated billing is utilized to bill customers," the Joint Utilities said.

"Based upon the discussion in the Order, the Joint Utilities believe the intent of the proposed UBP modification was to apply the Budget Plan Obligations only to situations where the ESCO is the billing party (i.e., dual billed accounts or in circumstances where ESCO consolidated billing is utilized). Additionally, existing UBP § 9.D.8, which currently identifies the special billing features that non-billing party may offer, points to budget billing or average payment plans but not Budget Plan Obligations. As such, the Joint Utilities request that the Commission clarify that the modification to UBP § 5.L.2 apply only to circumstances where the ESCO renders a bill directly to the customer (i.e., by adding the phrase 'that renders a bill directly to the customer' after 'Every ESCO' in § 5.L.2). Further, the term 'ESCO' in the second sentence of UBP § 5.L.2 should be replaced with 'billing party' and further conforming modifications to UBP § 9.D.8 should be made to remove the optionality provided by the word 'may,'" the Joint Utilities said.

The Joint Utilities also sought clarification regarding changes made to the UBPs to reflect that opt-out municipal aggregations (CCAs) may switch customers without the customer's express authorization.

The Joint Utilities said that the Order does not address the concerns raised by the Joint Utilities regarding situations where the CCA does not process a customer request to opt-out or following initiation of CCA service to opt-out and return to utility service (or service with another ESCO) any time before the end of the third billing cycle after enrollment.

"The Joint Utilities request that the Commission clarify that a customer complaint that an initial opt-out request or timely request to return to utility service was not properly honored would be classified as a slam," the Joint Utilities said

Electric and gas distribution utilities were directed to file tariff amendments or addenda to incorporate or reflect in their tariffs the revised UBPs to become effective on not less than one day’s notice 30 days from the effective date of the Order.

"The Joint Utilities believe that the clarifications requested herein could result in further revisions to the UBPs set forth in Appendix A of the Order. With this filing deadline approaching, the Joint Utilities believe that Staff would benefit from additional time to consider such revisions and that the prospect of a follow up UBP compliance filing would be administratively burdensome for both the Staff and utilities. As such, in order to promote the fair, orderly and efficient implementation of the revised UBPs, the Joint Utilities request that the deadline for filing tariff revisions set forth in Ordering Clause No. [1] be extended by an additional thirty (30) days, i.e., sixty (60) days from the effective date of the Order," the Joint Utilities said

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Sr. Energy Analyst -- Broker -- DFW
• NEW! -- Account Manager, Retail Energy -- DFW
• NEW! -- Commercial Energy Advisor
• NEW! -- Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Business Development Manager - Texas, Retail Provider
• NEW! -- Business Development Manager - Northeastern US, Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Senior or Principal Quantitative Research Analyst, Energy Commodity/Risk
• NEW! -- Operations Manager -- Retail Supplier
• NEW! -- Business Development Manager -- Retail Supplier -- Philadelphia
• Commercial Energy Advisor -- Dallas