New York PSC Issues Show Cause Order To ESCO
June 26, 2023 Email This Story Copyright 2010-23 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • email@example.com
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byVertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The New York PSC ordered FC Energy Services Company LLC (FC Energy) to show cause why its eligibility to act as an energy services company (ESCO) in New York State should not be revoked or, alternatively, why other consequences as set forth in the Commission’s Uniform Business Practices (UBP) should not be imposed, for FC Energy's alleged failure to file an annual compliance report and triennial compliance filing
Annually, an ESCO must submit, by January 31 of each year, either a statement adopting the prior information and attachments contained in the ESCO’s Retail Access Application Form (RAAF) or file corrections to those submissions consistent with the requirements of the UBP Section 2.D.1 (annual compliance filing).
In the order, the PSC recounted allegations from Department of Public Service Staff, stating, "On March 1, 2023, the Department issued a Notice of Apparent Violation (NOAV) letter to FC Energy, an ESCO, for apparently failing to file with the Secretary to the Commission its annual compliance filing. According to Staff records, FC Energy subsequently did not respond to the Department’s March 1, 2023 NOAV letter."
Further, every three years, starting from the date of the Department’s eligibility letter, an ESCO must submit updated application package information consistent with the requirements of the UBP Section 2.D.2 (triennial compliance filing).
In the order, the PSC recounted allegations from Department of Public Service Staff, stating, "On April 19, 2023, Department Staff issued an NOAV to FC Energy for apparently failing to file its triennial compliance filing with the Secretary to the Commission. According to Staff records, FC Energy did not respond to the Department’s April 19, 2023 NOAV."
DPS Staff alleged that FC Energy failed to substantively respond to various communications from Staff, including via email and certified U.S. mail, concerning the filings.
The PSC said, "The Commission notes that that [sic] the presentation of Staff’s allegations herein does not reflect a final determination of facts or legal conclusions. However, at this stage of the proceeding, the Commission finds that the Department’s investigation has identified sufficient credible information to support Staff’s contention that FC Energy apparently violated UBP §§2.D.1 [annual compliance] and 2.D.2 [triennial compliance]."