New York ALJs Deny NEM Motion To Subpoena Office of General Services

The presiding ALJs in the New York PSC's evidentiary proceeding reviewing the retail energy mass markets have denied a request from the National Energy Marketers Association to subpoena the Office of General Services (OGS)

As previously reported, NEM had sought the subpoena in connection with OGS's withdrawal of testimony in the retail market proceeding (OGS also withdrew as a party to the proceeding). NEM sought responses from OGS to several requests for admissions previously propounded on OGS by NEM. The requests for admissions generally ask that OGS confirm the contents and conclusions of its withdrawn testimony, and seeks information concerning the reasons for the withdrawal of the testimony

"We have reviewed NEMA’s request for the ALJs to issue a subpoena to the Office of General Services (OGS), seeking, apparently, to compel that agency to respond to information requests that you provided to OGS on or about November 29, 2017. We have also reviewed OGS’s response dated December 15, 2017, that opposes NEMA’s request. NEMA’s request is denied," the presiding ALJs said in a ruling

"Initially, the subpoena is styled as a subpoena duces tecum, which may be used to compel the production of documents only. As OGS identifies, the information requests that you propounded upon OGS, for the most part, would require OGS to provide a narrative response, rather than simply produce documents. And, to the extent that you [NEM] seek documentation related to OGS’s internal agency deliberations regarding its decision to withdraw the pre‐filed testimony of John Haff, that information is not the proper subject of an information request in these proceedings. As we indicated in our ruling denying your motion to compel Mr. Haff to appear for cross examination at the hearing, an intervenor party has no obligation to participate in the hearing. Such party has no obligation to explain its decision to cease its participation, if and when it withdraws as a party. We find that documentation regarding OGS’s decision to withdraw Mr. Haff’s testimony and/or withdraw as a party to these proceedings is irrelevant and not likely to lead to information relevant to the Commission’s ultimate determination of the issues before it in these cases," the ALJs said in a ruling