|
|
|
|
|
New York PSC Show Cause Order To ESCO Notably Omits Prior DPS Staff Allegation That Rewards Program For Customer Loyalty Violates UBP
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The New York PSC has issued an order to show cause to Median Energy Corp., directing Median to show why its ESCO eligibility should not be revoked or why other consequences should not be imposed, as Department of Public Service Staff has alleged, among other violations, that Median allegedly offered a home warranty retail energy product (HWP) without DPS Staff approval of the HWP sales agreement, and allegedly failed to include the required broker compensation disclosure on contracts
The order to show cause does not constitute final findings of facts or conclusions of law.
The order to show cause is most notable because, as further discussed below, an original Department of Public Service Staff Notice Of Apparent Violation (NOAV) issued to Median had alleged that a customer loyalty rewards program (with no payment at enrollment) violated the prohibition on the offering of "non-energy-related value-added products and services" from the PSC's retail market reset order
DPS Staff in prior Notices Of Apparent Violation (NOAV) had alleged as follows:
• DPS Staff alleged that Median offered a
Home Warranty Product (HWP) and posted that product offering on the Power to Choose website, "despite Staff’s explicit direction to not offer it without approval."
• DPS Staff alleged that Median, "failed to comply with the Commission’s Order (Reset Order) in Case 15-M-0127,
et al. by offering a promotional non-value-added energy-related reward to customers" [discussed further below]
• DPS Staff alleged that Median, "failed to comply with UBP Section 2.D.4.a, by not providing Department Staff (Staff) with an
updated contract that included the '$50 Golden Ticket' promotion prior to use"
• DPS Staff alleged that Median, "failed to comply with UBP Section 10.C.4.b, by promising savings to
customers over the default utility rate without having been approved for any such rate"
• DPS Staff alleged that Median, "failed to comply with Uniform Business Practices (UBP) Section 2.B.1.o, by not informing the
Department of its use of a [specific] third-party vendor"
• DPS Staff alleged that Median, "failed to comply with UBP
Section 2.D.4.d, by not entering residential rates on the NYS Power to Choose (PTC)
website"
• DPS Staff alleged that Median, "failed to
comply with UBP Sections 10.C.1.a and 10.C.4.a , [sic] by misrepresenting themselves as the
default utility"
• DPS Staff alleged that Median, "failed to comply with UBP Section 5, Attachment 1.A by conducting independent third
party verification(s) while a sales representative was in the home of the consumer."
Notably, while Staff had alleged in a prior NOAV that Median, "failed to comply with the Commission’s Order (Reset Order) in Case 15-M-0127,
et al. by offering a promotional non-value-added energy-related reward to customers," the PSC's order to show cause does not recite this allegation from Staff's original NOAV, nor does the show cause order specifically address this previously alleged violation
Specifically, Staff had alleged in a prior NOAV that, "Staff reviewed several complaints the Department received after the Reset
Order went into effect, only to find that Median was offering a '$50 Golden Ticket' to
customers after they remained on service with the ESCO for a certain amount of time. This
is an apparent violation of the Commission’s Reset Order, as the '$50 Golden Ticket' is not
an energy-related benefit to customers".
While the PSC show cause order refers to the "$50 Golden Ticket" promotion, the only allegation related to such is that Median failed to provide, prior to use, updated contracts to DPS Staff which included the Golden Ticket promotional item, as required under the UBP
It appears that the order to show cause is not pursuing Staff's prior allegation that the $50 Golden Ticket promo, which appears to have been provided to existing customers as a reward for customer loyalty, violated the UBP.
Staff, here and in other cases, has previously alleged that customer loyalty rewards violate the PSC's retail market reset order, but it appears that the PSC has not definitively ruled on this issue (some cases which have included allegations that customer loyalty programs violate the reset order have been settled with no findings related to specific allegations)
Notably, the PSC's 2019 reset order specifically provided that, "ESCOs are prohibited from offering them [non-energy-related value-added products and services] to prospective customers as inducements to sign a contract," [emphasis added], though, at times, Staff has appeared to allege that rewards to existing customers are prohibited (see discussion in ECM's prior story here
While the 2019 reset order did broadly find that non-energy-related value-added products and services provide no value, the PSC's language prohibiting the offering of such was explicitly stated as, and only as: "ESCOs are prohibited from offering them to prospective customers as inducements to sign a contract." [emphasis added]
EnergyChoiceMatters stresses that the omission of the prior Staff allegation related to the offering of non-energy-related value-added products and services in the PSC's show cause order should not be read as the PSC rendering a decision on this matter as it relates to customer loyalty programs, or indicating the PSC's interpretation of the reset order's non-energy rewards prohibition with respect to customer loyalty programs. Based on the PSC's summary of Median's responses to the NOAVs (noted below), with Median's responses generally filed under seal, Median has allegedly said that such program was not authorized to be offered in New York, which may also potentially explain why the allegation is not being pursued. In any case, ECM does find the omission noteworthy in light of the apparent ambiguity concerning this issue
In addition, Staff alleged that Median was allegedly using contracts which failed to include the broker compensation disclosure, which Staff alleged is an apparent violation of UBP Section 5.B.4.k, as well as the Commission’s June 23, 2023 broker order.
As summarized by the PSC, DPS Staff, "contends that Median’s apparent violations were not isolated events but rather encompass numerous instances of non-compliance that extend across the Company’s business practices that may reflect a pervasive disregard of the UBP and the Commission’s January 2021 and June 2023 Orders".
In various responses to Staff, Median has disagreed with the allegations put forth by Staff as being violations of the UBP, and Median has argued that it does not believe that the record supports findings of systemic non-compliance
The PSC summarized Median's response as providing that, "Median committed to using the NOAV process to 'evaluate our operations, strengthen our compliance framework, and ensure our practices meet Commission requirements ....'"
The PSC summarized that, "As part of this effort, Median paused door-to-door marketing activity in New York and hired a Director of Operations who would examine the Company’s policies and procedures, as well as assist in developing 'enhanced compliance measures.'"
The PSC summarized that, "Median disputed the allegation that the company failed to provide an updated contract which included the 'Golden Ticket' promotion as required in UBP Section 2.D.4.a. Median argued that the promotion was never authorized for use in New York but acknowledged that 'the references to Golden Ticket rebates in some customer complaints underscores the need for greater clarity and vendor instructions.' Furthermore, Median tacitly admitted that '[Golden Ticket] references may have appeared in past triennial filings or marketing content, [as a] result of an administrative oversight.'"
The PSC summarized that, "Median disputed the allegation that its sales representatives engaged in deceptive marketing by misrepresenting themselves as the default utility in violation of UBP Sections 10.C.1.a and 10.C.4.a. Median also disputed that its representatives promised savings to customers in violation of UBP Section 10.C.4.b. Median argued that Staff did not cite specific statements or materials to support the allegation and that Staff only provided customer complaint case numbers. Notably, Median paused door-to-door sales marketing in New York to address this concern."
The PSC summarized that, "Median disputed the allegation that its sales representatives were present during TPV phone calls in violation of UBP Section 5, Attachment 1.A. In response, 'Median ... suspended all door-to-door marketing in New York while it reviews and strengthens protocols to guarantee that TPVs are conducted independently and without representative influence.'"
The PSC summarized that, according to Median's response, Median enrolled 463 mass market customers on a HWP between January 21, 2026, and May 8, 2026.
Concerning the HWP, the PSC in its order to show cause said that, "Median disputed Staff’s allegation that the Company was offering an unapproved HWP. Median reasoned that it was eligible to offer a HWP based upon a May 8, 2023 letter from Staff advising the company that it was eligible to offer the HWP. Median, however, acknowledged that Staff notified the Company that it should not offer the HWP until receiving confirmation that the sales agreement was approved for use."
The PSC in its order to show cause said that, "Median further argued that it believed Staff’s approval of the HWP submitted with its 2025 Triennial compliance filing was contingent upon the inclusion of affirmative-consent language that was required under the Commission’s November 13, 2025 Order modifying the UBP,33 but that the requirement deadline had been extended by the Secretary of the Commission. Therefore, Median believed that it was not offering an unapproved product."
As stated and summarized in the PSC's show cause order, "Median admitted to failing to advise Staff that it was using [a specific] third-party vendor for marketing as required in UBP Section 2.B.1.o. Median admitted to failing to post its offers to the Power to Choose website while marketing to residential customers in New York as required in UBP Section 2.D.4.d."
Case 26-M-0431
API Energy LLC
Separately, the New York PSC issued an order to show cause to API Energy, LLC, as DPS Staff alleged that API Energy failed to file, for 2026, an annual compliance filing required from ESCOs
The order to show cause does not constitute final findings of facts or conclusions of law.
The PSC's order states, "Staff contacted API via email on several occasions to notify API of the Annual Compliance Filing and of its apparent failure to submit the required information."
The PSC's order alleges that API Energy, LLC also failed to reply to a prior Notice of Apparent Violation concerning the compliance filing deadline
API was ordered to show cause why its eligibility to provide services as an ESCO in New York should not be revoked or why other consequences should not be imposed.
Case 26-M-0426
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
New York PSC Issues Show Cause Orders To Two ESCOs
July 30, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Manager, Product I - VXRetail (Retail Energy)
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|