Retail Suppliers Say Consultant's Petition Seeking Prohibition On Pass-Through Of New York ZEC Costs "Misrepresent[s]" PSC's Order
June 15, 2020 Email This Story Copyright 2010-20 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • firstname.lastname@example.org
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byEC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
In comments on a petition from UtiliSave, L.L.C. ('UtiliSave'), which is seeking a New York PSC declaratory ruling that ESCOs may not pass-through ZEC costs to customers on fixed rate contracts unless certain conditions were met, the NRG retail suppliers alleged that, "UtiliSave has misrepresented the Commission’s directives with respect to the ZEC[.]"
As exclusively first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com, UtiliSave, L.L.C. submitted a petition for a declaratory ruling to the New York PSC seeking affirmation that ESCOs may not pass-through ZEC costs to customers on fixed rate contracts unless, among other things, the customer disclosure statement indicated the potential of an exercise of a change-in-law clause that would result in a revised rate
In comments on the UtiliSave petition, the NRG retail suppliers alleged, "UtiliSave has misrepresented the Commission’s directives with respect to the ZEC, and
ignores key provisions in the CES [Clean Energy Standard] Order in its Petition."
Quoting the CES order, the NRG suppliers said that the PSC specifically directed that, "LSEs will make ZEC purchases by contract with NYSERDA and will recover
costs from ratepayers through commodity charges on customer bills."
The NRG suppliers said, "The Commission’s language is not a polite suggestion. LSEs are obligated to purchase ZECs, and
then 'will' recover the ZEC costs through the commodity charge on customer bills. In other
words, ESCOs are required to purchase ZECs and are allowed to pass through the ZEC charges to
their customers. There is no limitation on the applicability of the ZEC to the type of customer
contract – fixed, variable, or otherwise. Since all ratepayers benefit from the CES mandates, all
customers contribute to the costs of the CES through the commodity charges on their electric bills."
The NRG suppliers said, "The premise underlying UtiliSave’s Petition -- that ESCOs are not obligated to pass through
ZEC costs to customers on fixed price contracts -- is a clear misstatement of the directives of the
CES Order. Of course ESCOs (and other LSEs) are expected to pass through the costs of
compliance with the ZEC mandate and the other renewables requirements outlined in the Order.
The alternative would drive many LSEs into financial ruin, which would be nonsensical."
In separately filed comments, Direct Energy said that the Commission does not have statutory authority to
resolve price and billing disputes between ESCOs and their
non-residential customers, citing prior PSC rulings.
The NRG suppliers also said that UtiliSave’s petition is procedurally improper, citing several reasons
Direct Energy said that the Commission must dismiss the UtiliSave petition on the grounds that the petition does not seek relief with respect to any specific, "person, property,
or state of facts," as required by Rule 8.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure