ESCO Issues

Advancing
Universal Service, Affordability, and Customer Protection for Residential Utility Consumers.

ESCO Issues

Electric Bills Gave Them Shock: Biz Owners Hoped to Cut Costs but New Supplier Was No Deal - Daily News- 02-12-2007

PSC Order Denying Constellation Petition to Modify ESCO Referral Program -
01-12-2007
In a dissenting opinion, Commissioner Buley would have allowed Constellation to limit its program to non residential customers, stating “despite our best efforts to promote retail competition, there has been little change in residential/small customer behavior. Large and small customers have different needs. It stands to reason that they may need different solutions.”

Shopping Questions & Answers

PULP’s Questions & Answers for Energy Shoppers - 09-27-2006

Price Reporting

PULP’s Reply Comments - 08-21-2006

Reply Comments of National Energy Marketers Association - 08-17-2006

PSC Notice Requesting Comments on Price Reporting Requirements -
05-31-2006

PULP Comments on Price Reporting Requirements - 07-07-2006

Initial Comments of New York Gas & Electric and Rochester Gas & Electric
-07-28-2006

Comments of IDT Energy - 07-26-2006

Direct Energy's Initial Comments - 07-26-2006

National Energy Marketers Association Comments - 07-26-2006

ESPA Comments on Price Reporting - 07-26-2006

National Fuel Resources ESCO Price Reporting Comments - 07-26-2006

ESCO Price Reporting Comments of SCMC-RESA - 07-26-2006

Initial Comments of the New York State Consumer Protection Board -
07-26-2006

Intelligent Energy Initial Comments - 07-26-2006

2006

MX Energy, Inc. v. Rochester Gas & Electric, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13958 (March 10, 2006).
   MX ENergy agrees to stop door to door selling, and injunction
   granted allowing MX to market electricity by other means pending
   MXenergy as an ESCO in RG&E territory.

National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp. v. PSC, Alb. Co. Sup. Ct. Index No. 6712-04 (Memorandum and Judgment, Nov. 12, 2004), motion for reargument denied (Decison/Order May 9, 2005).
First Amendment Bars PSC From Compelling Utility to Say safety, reliability, and customer service are not affected by switching providers.

Decision/Order Denying PSC Motion for Reargument on First Amendment Issues.- 01-11-2006

2005

Gas Supply Charge Comparison Chart - PULP - 12-1-2005

NYSEG/RG&E Motion for Recusal of PSC Chairman - 10/28/2005
   Multiple Intervenors Response to NYSEG/RG&E Motion for
    Recusal of PSC Chairman - 11-7-2005
   CPB Response to NYSEG Motion for Recusal - 11/8/05
   NEM Response to Recusal Motion - 11-9-05
   NYSEG’s Reply to Responses in Opposition to the
      Motion for Recusal- 11-16-2005
   Decision of Chairman Flynn on Motion to Recuse - 11-18-2005

ESCO Marketing Guidelines

PULP Motion for Rehearing and Clarification of Order Adopting Revised Guidelines for Statewide Energy Services Company Referral Program -
01-23-2006

PSC Order Adopting ESCO Referral Program Guidelines and Approving an ESCO Referral Program Subject to Modification - 12-22-2005

Notice Soliciting Comments on Guidelines for Energy Services Company (ESCO) Referral Programs, 7/26/05

"Staff has identified a need for statewide simplicity, consistency and uniformity, to the extent practicable, in ESCO Referral Programs. Establishing a standardized ESCO Referral Program will promote customer awareness of competitive energy alternatives, encourage greater customer participation in energy competition, help customers make informed decisions when choosing an energy supplier, protect consumer interests, ensure compliance with the Commission's Uniform Business Practices (UBP),2 encourage ESCOs to both actively market their services and offer value-added services (such as "green" power and energy conservation measures), promote administrative efficiency, and minimize implementation costs."

PULP Comments on ESCO Referral Program Guidelines - 9-09-2005
“The overwhelming majority of New York’s utility customers when given the opportunity has chosen fully bundled service from traditional utilities and has opted not to take service from ESCOs, despite years of promotion and exhortation from the ESCOs, the utilities and the Commission. ****[T]he proposed guidelines and the standard form contract, as proposed, are inconsistent with the identified attributes of an optimal system for utility provider switching. They do not advance price visibility, price comparability, or price competition. They exploit, to the customer’s disadvantage, the customer’s confidence in the incumbent utility’s messages merely to advance ESCO customer recruitment. They provide new opportunities for ESCO slamming, cramming and redlining. The procedures facilitate the repackaging of old ESCO offers that have already been overwhelmingly rejected by residential consumers. Finally, they do little or nothing to provide support for a customer’s choice to return to incumbent utility service, and fail to fully protect available consumer complaint remedies.”

Consumer Protection Board Comments 0n Referral Program - 9-9-2005

Direct Energy Comments on Referral Program - 9-9-2005

Comments of Energetix & NYSEG on Referral Program - 9-9-2005

Comments of KeySpan on Referral Program - 9-8-2005

Comments of NEM on Referral Program - 09-09-2005

Comments of Con Ed and Orange & Rockland on Referral Program- 9-9-05

Comments of Constellation Energy on Referral Program - 9-9-2005

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. Comments on Referral Program Guidelines
9-9-2005

National Fuel Gas Comments on Referral Program Guidelines - 9-9-2005

Rochester Gas & Electric and New York State Electric & Gas Joint Comments on Referral Program Guidelines - 9-9-2005

Retail Choice -Upstate Uproar, Fortnightly, July 2005

PULP Comments on O&R Retail Access Plan