New York PSC Staff: Delay of ESCO vs. Default Service On-Bill Cost Comparison Would Be Detrimental to Customers

Delaying an on-bill comparison of ESCO versus default service costs at Central Hudson Gas & Electric, "serves no purpose other than to the possible detriment of uninformed ratepayers."

As previously reported, a recommended decision in the proceeding reviewing the acquisition of Central Hudson by Fortis Inc. would defer the on-bill comparison matter to the generic retail market investigation in Case 12-M-0476.

"Staff does not agree that there is a need for this issue to be further explored and addressed in Case 12-M-0476, et al.," Staff said in exceptions to the RD.

"The main premise of the RD's recommendation to have this issue resolved in Case 12-M-0476 is the ALJs' belief that that case 'is now in its final stages.' Staff understands that Case 12-M-0476 is not as close to closure as the RD suggests, and that the case may not reach ultimate conclusion for many months," Staff said.

"In Staff's opinion, the delay of waiting for Case 12-M-0476 serves no purpose other than to the possible detriment of uninformed ratepayers," Staff said.

"While the parties opposing such a total bill comparison in this case may see a lack of clarity or vagueness on what is meant by a 'total bill comparison', the signatory parties fully understand that what is being proposed to be put on bills is the same total bill comparison information in the same format that Central Hudson removed several years ago," Staff said.

"Nothing could be simpler to achieve the goal of efficiently and quickly increasing ratepayer knowledge, than to insert what was previously on Central Hudson's bills. The objective of the parties opposing such a timely inclusion is delay, and the RD allows this unfortunate result to possible ratepayer detriment," Staff said.