Events

Email Alerts

Retail Energy Jobs

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search

New York DPS Staff Recommend That PSC Terminate Authorization For Opt-Out Enrollment For Municipal Aggregations

Staff Reports CCA Average Rates Up To 40% Higher Than Default Service


August 26, 2026

Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com

The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com

Staff of the New York Dept. of Public Service have recommended that the PSC terminate the authorization which allows municipal aggregations to enroll retail electric and gas customers on an opt-out basis, with Staff citing higher rates paid by Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) customers and what Staff said was a lack of benefits

"Staff recommends that the Commission discontinue the CCA program in New York State," Staff said

Similar to many retail market designs, CCAs in New York were a creation of the PSC, not statute, and thus the PSC itself may modify or terminate the policy allowing CCAs

Staff said that any remaining current CCA customers should be returned to default service

Staff's proposal concerning CCA policy was issued for public comment and consideration by the PSC.

"Staff finds that CCA programs have not consistently delivered sufficient meaningful benefits to mass-market customers to justify continued operation under the opt-out enrollment model," Staff said

"Staff finds that the use of opt-out enrollment without demonstrable customer benefits raises significant consumer protection concerns. Specifically, where customers are enrolled by default into products that result in higher costs relative to utility supply, the opt-out model may lead to outcomes that are not in the public interest. Staff finds that the continued use of opt-out enrollment is not appropriate when the underlying program does not consistently deliver measurable benefits to customers or to State energy goals," Staff said

Staff stated that, upon Staff's review:

1) "CCA participants have not, on average, realized cost savings relative to utility default supply;

2) "there is limited evidence that implementation of a CCA program results in a meaningful increase in municipal engagement on energy-related issues beyond the activities already undertaken by participating municipalities;

3) "no opt-in products were developed through CCA programs with verifiable contributions toward the goals of the CLCPA, and;

4) "there are no measurable changes to costs for purchasing RECs for non-CCA participants"

"The CCA program has not achieved its objective of delivering cost savings to participating customers and has, in many cases, resulted in higher costs relative to utility default supply service. The program does not demonstrate measurable contributions to the State’s clean energy goals beyond those achieved through existing policies and programs. Municipal participation and market interest in the program have declined significantly, with minimal ongoing activity. Compliance and administrative challenges have continued despite Commission actions to strengthen program requirements. The opt-out enrollment model, when combined with the limited or no customer benefits, raises consumer protection concerns," Staff said

Staff reported that, by the end of 2025, all CCA programs across the state ended due to lack of competitive bidding from ESCOs to serve the CCAs, and due to bid responses that did not meet the criteria necessary to continue the program.

"The lack of participation by ESCOs raises concerns about the continued operation of this program," Staff said

Staff said that Staff evaluated alternatives to a full termination of CCA authorization in New York, but ultimately Staff recommended full termination of CCAs

These rejected alternatives included adjusting the opt-out enrollment structure, implementing pricing guarantees, adding enhanced consumer protections, limiting participation to opt-in renewable products, and increasing regulatory oversight.

In terms of Staff's findings which led to Staff's recommendations, Staff reported that most CCA administrators and municipalities offer default products consisting of 50-100% renewable energy, which often exceed the renewable energy mix included in standard utility supply service. To provide this greater percentage of renewable energy, such renewable default products are typically priced at a premium, Staff said

Originally, "[t]hese premiums were not disclosed to CCA customers who were being opt-out enrolled into a higher priced supply product until November 2024 when the Commission directed administrators to provide a comparison of the CCA product’s rate to the utility posted 12-month trailing average and a disclosure that the customer would be paying a premium for the renewable product offering," Staff said

Despite changes from the PSC related to CCA product pricing disclosures and transparency, Staff said that, "the product price has continued to remain above the default utility supply price, with municipal officials acknowledging and agreeing to premium prices for opt-out enrolled mass-market customers."

Staff said that an analysis prepared for Staff confirms that, on an aggregate basis as well as for individual customers, "CCA participants have rarely realized savings compared to utility default supply over their contract periods."

The analysis indicates that customers who enrolled in opt-out, default CCA products have paid a premium "well above" utility default supply for most years of the program’s operation, Staff said.

The analysis shows that from 2019 to Q3 2025, on a statewide basis, customers enrolled in an opt-out electric CCA program paid an average of 16.4% more than they would have if they remained as full-service utility customers.

Some years are "considerably higher" than this 7-year electricity CCA average, Staff said, with customers paying 32.5%, 33.9%, 38.4%, and 39.2% more than default electric utility rates in 2019, 2020, 2023, and 2024 respectively.

For natural gas CCAs, for the period of 2021 to Q3 2025, the report finds that, on a statewide basis, customers enrolled in an opt-out gas CCA program paid an average of 37.5% more than they would have if they remained as full-service utility customers.

For gas, some years are "considerably higher" than the 5-year gas CCA average, Staff said, with customers paying 75%, 43.7%, and 17.8% more than default gas utility rates in 2023, 2024, and 2025 respectively.

"Staff finds that the lack of customer savings, let alone routinely higher customer energy costs, to be inconsistent with a central objective of the CCA program -- to allow opt-out enrollment only for the purpose of achieving customer savings through aggregated supply contract procurement," Staff said

"Further, the continuation of pricing at levels higher than the utility, even after program modifications and enhancements, indicates to Staff that the CCA model does not allow for Administrators and Suppliers to offer competitively priced supply for an opt-out mass-market program," Staff said

Staff also evaluated whether CCA programs result in "identifiable, incremental clean energy development, or offerings that are specifically attributable to municipal CCA participation, rather than renewable energy activity that would likely have occurred through existing State or utility programs."

Staff said that no CCA offering met all of these criteria. As an example, Staff said that CCAs implementing opt-out community distributed generation (CDG) did not result in new CDG projects being built specifically for the CCA, but rather relied on projects which were not built specifically for the municipality's CCA program.

Staff also alleged ongoing non-compliance by CCAs and their administrators and/or ESCOs despite nearly a decade of CCA operation

"Staff’s ongoing review of the CCA program identifies multiple instances in which CCA Administrators, along with ESCOs and municipalities, failed to fully comply with Commission rules and regulations. These issues include, but are not limited to, missing or inaccurate customer disclosures regarding premium pricing and product terms, inconsistencies between the filed implementation plans and actual program operation, deficiencies in reporting, and the use of non-compliant outreach and education material that required Staff clarification and program modifications," Staff said

Staff said that, as recently as the end of 2025, Staff continued to issue municipality filing denials to 3 separate, well-established CCA administrators, due to, among other issues, the lack of required outreach and education events and materials, resulting in a lack of customer understanding of the CCA's opt-out product which charged a premium price

"Throughout 2025, Staff issued more than 30 filing rejections across multiple administrators and municipalities, for deficiencies, including failure to properly notice outreach events, failure to provide the minimum required material within outreach events, insufficient number of outreach events, program website deficiencies, opt-out letter issues, and general program misinformation," Staff said

Staff's report is here

Case 14-M-0224

ADVERTISEMENT
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
NEW -- Enrollment & Rate Management Director - Retail Supplier
NEW -- Strategic Sales Channels Manager - Retail Supplier
NEW -- Controller - Retail Provider
NEW -- Manager, Product I - VXRetail (Retail Energy)
Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier

Email This Story

HOME

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

 

Events

Email Alerts

Retail Energy Jobs

 

 

 

About/Contact

Search