|
|
|
|
|
Retail Suppliers Allege Utilities' Proposed Comparison Of Supplier, Utility Costs Presumes Interpretation Of Statute, PSC Guidance Needed First
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The New York Retail Choice Coalition (NYRCC) alleged that the joint New York utilities' proposal to implement a newly required side-by-side bill comparison of ESCO and utility costs on utility consolidated bills presumes one interpretation of the statute which must first be resolved through a PSC rulemaking
As previously reported, the new law requires that: (1) the "billing party" provide residential and small commercial customers with billing statements which include a side-by-side comparison of prices charged by ESCOs versus the "price" the customer would have paid had the customer been on default service, and (2) ESCOs provide an annual statement to the customer comparing the ESCO’s prices with the utility’s over the prior 12-month period.
See background here
In a proposal to implement the new law for UCB, the utilities would not include, in the information provided to customers on the bill, an itemized list of ESCOs' energy-related value-added products (ERVAs) and associated ERVA charges, since ERVAs are not billed under UCB
NYRCC says that the statute
requires the first page of an ESCO billing statement, whether delivered by the ESCO directly, “by
a utility corporation”, or through another method, to include the side-by-side comparison and,
separately, “an itemized list of prices charged by the ESCO for any energy-related value-added
products” provided during the billing period.
NYRCC said that the fact that a utility does not itself
charge for an ERVA does not answer what information must appear on an ESCO billing statement
that is delivered through the utility.
"Indeed, the statutory text expressly contemplates ESCO billing
statements delivered 'by a utility corporation' and requires '[s]uch statement' to include the
ERVAs itemization," NYRCC said
The utilities' interpretation of their obligation with respect to ERVAs, compared to statutory language, demonstrates why a rulemaking is needed to implement the new law, NYRCC said. A rulemaking has also been proposed by Family Energy, as previously reported
NYRCC said, "The Commission must determine, at minimum, what
products fall within the statutory category of ERVAs, how the ERVAs disclosure is to be provided
for utility-consolidated-billing customers if existing utility billing arrangements prohibit ERVAs
charges from appearing on the utility bill; whether additional information must be transmitted by
the ESCO to the utility for presentation; whether a separate ESCO communication can satisfy the
statutory first-page requirement; and what changes, if any, are necessary to the UBP, billing
agreements, or electronic-data processes."
As previously reported by ECM (details here), the utilities are permitted by law to recover implementation costs from ESCOs, and the utilities propose to do so through a per-customer charge to ESCOs based on the number of mass market customers served by an ESCO (the required comparisons apply to only residential and small non-residential customers)
NYRCC said that properly identifying and numbering an ESCO's small non-residential customers, which would be used to set the ESCO's payment to the utility, requires PSC adjudication, with NYRCC raising questions on how to define a "customer", with issues including: a single customer with multiple meters, customers with separately metered locations, master commercial agreements, incidental properties, gas accounts governed by annual usage thresholds rather than service classification alone, etc
Among other things, NYRCC said that a process must be created to allow ESCOs to challenge a utility's classification of a customer which would be used for cost assignment
NYRCC also expressed concerns with the cost comparison generally, citing the difficult history in establishing merchant function charges and a utility supply rate
The history of setting MFCs, "support a narrow but important point: there is no single market-observed 'utility supply rate' divorced from ratemaking methodology. The utility-side commodity
amount depends on regulatory judgments about which costs belong in the merchant function, how
those costs are allocated, and how actual and forecast costs are reconciled," NYRCC said
Even after the retail market reset order, NYRCC observed that, "utility rate cases did not
involve a reexamination of utility supply-rate methodology that the new statutory comparison now
warrants."
NYRCC said, "The Commission and DPS Staff have recognized
that utility supply rates can include prior-period adjustments, reconciliations, and other timing-related components that may materially affect the price shown in a particular month. Those
concerns were addressed, if at all, in the context of annual or trailing-period comparisons, where
distortions may net out over time. GBL § 349-d now requires a billing-period comparison
presented directly to customers, making it necessary for the Commission to address how these
known timing and adjustment issues will be handled before monthly utility-generated values are
used for the side-by-side comparison".
In separate comments, the Retail Energy Supply Association expressed concern with, among other things, the specific implementation costs utilities intend to assign to ESCOs.
RESA said, "RESA members are concerned that some of the Joint Utilities require system upgrades to
make determinations as to which ESCO customers are mass market, and which are not. ESCOs
have had this responsibility for at least a decade. In addition, recent legislation predating these
amendments to GBL § 349-d required the utilities to identify small non-residential customers using
virtually identical definitions to those used by ESCOs, and to have historical customer information
readily available. Respectfully, costs that do not originate from the implementation of GBL §§
349-d(9) and (10) should not be passed through to ESCOs."
RESA requested that the PSC stay the Joint Utilities from undertaking efforts to
implement GBL §§ 349-d(9)-(10) until the utilities' request for cost recovery can be reviewed
While it appeared to ECM, from the utilities' proposal, that cost assignment to ESCOs would rely only on the number of mass market customers served by an ESCO, RESA stressed that RESA opposes an allocation of costs based on the number of an ESCO's total customers, and said that the allocation should be based on the ESCO's number of mass market customers as of the effective date of GBL §§ 349-d(9)-(10)
Cases 98-M-1343, 15-M-0127, et al.
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
September 10, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
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
|
|
|
|
|