N.Y. Recommended Decision Finds On-Bill Comparison of ESCO Vs. Default Service Costs Premature

A joint proposal's requirement for Central Hudson Gas & Electric to include ESCO versus default service cost comparisons on bills is ill-defined and premature, a recommended decision from two New York ALJs found.

As first reported by Matters, several parties in the New York PSC proceeding reviewing the acquisition of Central Hudson by Fortis Inc. entered the joint proposal concerning merger approval, which among other things would require Central Hudson to provide ESCO versus default service cost comparisons on retail access residential bills.

Central Hudson already provides an online bill comparison; the joint proposal would extend this comparison to all retail access residential bills using consolidated billing, and would require Central Hudson to file a proposal to provide payment-troubled (i.e., subject to termination) customers with such bill comparison information.

The ALJs agreed with objections from retail suppliers which had called the proposal ill-defined and premature, as the ALJs noted that the information that "should be made available" to customers under the joint proposal is unspecified, "and perhaps cannot be fully defined prior to the completion of the generic Retail Energy Markets proceeding."

The ALJs noted that the joint proposal signatories recognize explicitly that whatever they agreed to in the joint proposal may have to be modified based on the outcome of the Retail Energy Markets case, which is examining ESCO versus default service cost comparisons on a generic basis.

"That case is now in its final stages. We do not believe it makes sense now to order the start of a process that may well have to be redesigned before its introduction," the ALJs said.

The ALJs recommended that given Central Hudson's existing online price comparison tool, to the extent the Commission approves the merger, it include a condition that Central Hudson shall file an implementation plan to provide the on-bill comparison with 60 days of a final order in the generic retail markets investigation.

Overall, the ALJs would find that the merger would not meet the public interest under the terms of the joint proposal, suggesting that additional benefits be required should the Commission approve the merger.

Case 12-M-0192