New York PSC Denies ESCOs' Request For Further Extension Of Deadlines For Reset Order, Price Caps, Product Limits
April 14, 2021 Email This Story Copyright 2010-21 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • email@example.com
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byEC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
The Secretary of the New York PSC has denied a request from the New York Retail Choice Coalition (NYCRR) for a 90 day extension of the deadlines, including the deadline for new price caps and other product limits for the mass market, contained in the New York PSC's retail market reset order
As more fully described in our prior story, under the reset order ESCOs are generally limited to offering mass market customers: (1) a guaranteed savings (versus the utility) plan, (2) a fixed rate product that is limited in price to a 12-month trailing average utility supply rate plus a 5% premium, or (3) for electricity only, a 50% (above the minimum RPS) renewable plan that meets deliverability and other requirements in the order. The PSC has also approved the offering of a bundled home warranty and energy supply plan which meets certain requirements, subject to the review of an ESCO's specific terms by DPS Staff, and also granted a time-limited waiver for ESCOs to continue providing certain green gas products, to existing customers only (see details here)
The current compliance date is April 16, 2021.
The reasons cited by New York Retail Choice Coalition for such an extension were covered in our story last week (click here). Among other things, the Coalition had said that there are still questions regarding which customers may qualify as large commercial customers (and therefore are not subject to the product limits)
The PSC's Secretary, in a letter issued today, stated, "The compliance dates in these proceedings previously have been extended, by a significant amount of time, and through various means, including by virtue of the 2020 Order. Moreover, the filing of documentation to offer certain products pursuant to the 2021 Order is (1) a voluntary requirement, which can be satisfied at any time, and (2) unrelated to the deadline for which this extension is sought. Finally, this additional extension request on behalf of NYRCC comes after the Commission has already provided additional guidance and clarification in its 2020 Order. Considering the foregoing, I am not persuaded that the reasons given by NYRCC provide sufficient support for me to grant a further extension. Accordingly, the request is denied."