|
|||||||||||
| Central Hudson Electric & Gas Corporation - Electric Operations | |
| • | CPB Petition for Rehearing - On August 30, 2006, the CPB filed a Petition for Rehearing regarding the PSC's July 24, 2006 Order approving a three-year rate plan for Central Hudson. The CPB explains that the PSC's Order, which approved the largest rate increase for any New York State utility in more than a decade, should be modified to provide residential and small business customers the opportunity to purchase electricity and natural gas from the utility at a fixed price, since such options are not available from unregulated companies at a just and reasonable price. We also recommend that ratepayer funds being held by the utility, which total approximately $20 million, be used to mitigate the rate increase. This proposal would reduce the amount of the electric rate increase by one-third. |
| • | Brief Regarding Joint Proposal - The CPB explains in this Post-Hearing Brief dated May 12, 2006, that the Joint Proposal to resolve all rate and regulatory issues for three years should be modified in several important respects to provide additional consumer benefits. We also address the response of other parties to our recommendations. |
| • | Testimony Opposing Joint Proposal - On May 1, 2006, the CPB filed this testimony demonstrating that the Joint Proposal involving the Company, Staff of the Department of Public Service and other parties, should be modified to provide additional consumer benefits. That Joint Proposal would increase electric delivery rates by 10% for each of three consecutive years, and increase natural gas delivery bills by 19% and 12% in the first two years. CPB witnesses explained that the Company should be required to offer electricity at fixed prices to help consumers manage their energy bills. CPB also demonstrated that the Joint Proposal should be revised to require the Company to return more than $20 million of its customers' money that it is currently holding, to remove funding for unnecessary utility programs, and to reduce the unusually large projected increases in construction and tree-trimming expenses. |
| Consolidated Edison Company - Electric Operations | |
| • | Con Edison - Steam Rupture - On August 8, 2008, the CPB filed this statement in support of the settlement reached in this case. The CPB expressed support for the settlement as it achieved our key goal -- that ratepayers would not pay for any costs associated with the steam rupture. The settlement also committed the Company to embark upon significant improvements to the steam system. |
| • | 2008 Electric Rate Case - Testimony on Accounting and Ratemaking Issues - On September 8, 2008, the CPB identified approximately 25 adjustments totaling more than $150 million, that should be made to Con Edison's submission projecting operations and maintenance expenses. These recommendations include reducing the Company’s forecast of payroll expense to remove ratepayer funding for new positions that have not been adequately supported; eliminating the need of ratepayer funding bonuses for Company managers; reducing ratepayers' funding of employee health care costs; reducing projected property and liability insurance expense; eliminating the need for ratepayers to lower the cost of directors and officers insurance; eliminating many proposed new operations programs that were not adequately supported; and reducing the projection of the costs of moving and replacing Company facilities due to construction primarily by New York City. We explain why these proposals are reasonable and should be adopted by the PSC. |
| • | 2008 Electric Rate Case - Testimony on Profit Rate - The CPB submitted testimony on September 8, 2008, regarding the fair return on equity for Con Edison. We recommend a return of 9.90%, which includes 0.15% that would be applicable if Con Edison issues new equity. We also demonstrate that the Company's request for a 11.0% return is overstated. Our proposal would save customers approximately $131 million over Con Edison's recommendation. |
| • | 2008 Electric Rate Case - Testimony on Low Income Program - In testimony filed September 8, 2008, the CPB recommends that Con Edison’s initiative to assist low-income customers be enhanced by creating an “arrears forgiveness” program aimed at assisting customers who have chronic difficulty in paying their bills in full. If implemented as intended, the program is expected to provide substantial benefits to participating customers, and is also expected to reduce Con Edison’s cost of collecting receivables and its uncollectible expense, which ultimately will benefit the general body of customers. The new program is estimated to cost approximately $5 million to implement. The CPB also explains why Con Edison's informational and institutional advertising expense should be reduced by approximately $12 million. |
| • | Statement in Support of Proposal Regarding Steam Incident - On August 15, 2008, the CPB filed this statement in support of a proposal to resolve issues raised in the investigation of Con Edison's prudence concerning the July 2007 steam pipe rupture in Manhattan. If approved by the PSC, the Joint Proposal would benefit Con Edison's steam, electric and natural gas customers by assuring that they would not bear any costs attributable to the event, including capital spending, operating expenditures such as labor and materials, environmental clean-up costs, customer claims and the increase in the Company's liability insurance premiums. Customers would also benefit since Con Edison would provide approximately $3 million to fund enhancements to the steam system. The CPB explains in this document that some of these provisions could only have been attained through a negotiated settlement. |
| • | Statement in Support of Joint Proposal - On May 9, 2008, the CPB filed this document resolving issues raised in the investigation of the prudence of Con Edison’s actions concerning the July 2006 electric outages in Queens, New York. If approved by the Public Service Commission (“PSC” or “Commission”), the Joint Proposal would provide consumer benefits including bill credits or payments to adversely affected individuals and businesses, and other benefits to the affected communities including a formal apology from the Company and funding for tree-planting and other environmental initiatives. It also provides an assurance that the general body of ratepayers will not bear the costs of capital spending required as a result of the outages. Many of these provisions could only have been attained through a negotiated settlement. |
| • | Reply Brief on Exceptions: Rate Case - In this brief submitted February 12, 2008, the CPB responds to proposals by Con Edison and others disagreeing with the Judges' recommendations concerning the Company's electric rates. We address 11 issues, including the most significant issues of whether further review of the Company's capital spending is required and what profit rate Con Edison should be authorized to receive. We also underscore several matters relating to the Company's operations and maintenance programs, as well as policy issues including revenue decoupling, the appropriate level of the customer charge for residential customers, and whether a three-year rate plan should be approved. |
| • | Brief on Exceptions: Rate Case - In this brief dated January 28, 2008, the CPB identifies our concerns with the January 8, 2008 Recommended Decision by the Administrative Law Judges regarding Con Edison's proposed electric rate increase. The Judges recommended approval of most of the CPB?s proposals, including that the Company's rate increase request of $1.2 billion be rejected in favor of a $601 million increase and that Con Edison's historic and proposed construction program activities be examined further. In this brief, the CPB highlights several issues on which the RD does not consider the CPB's recommendations, is mistaken or unclear. Specifically, we ask the PSC to reject the Judge's findings that customers should fund the costs of restoring facilities damaged as a result of the attack on the World Trade Center before reimbursement from other entities is finalized ($25 million), a particular incentive compensation program for managers should be paid for by customers ($11 million), insurance expense should be inflated ($2 million), customers should fund interference expense exceeding a reasonable projection ($15 million) and operations and maintenance expense should include estimates that are overstated (approximately $10 million). |
| • | Reply Brief on Rate Case - The CPB filed this reply brief in the Consolidated Edison rate case on December 14, 2007. We address several new recommendations and arguments made by other parties in their initial briefs, including how the rate increase should be recovered from business, government and residential customers; the responsibility of electric customers for costs associated with environmental clean-up costs of old gas facilities; the appropriateness of the company's proposal to have customers fund advanced meters throughout its service territory; and, the scope of a new energy efficiency program. |
| • | Initial Brief on Rate Case - In this detailed brief filed November 30, 2007, the CPB demonstrates that the Company's proposal to increase electric delivery rates by $1.2 billion, should be substantially modified. We explain why the Company's request should be reduced by at least $600 million, to reduce the company's profit rate, its projected infrastructure spending, and its forecast expenses for labor, employee benefits, executive compensation, and certain operations and maintenance expenses. The CPB also shows that the PSC should mitigate the rate increase by rejecting the Company's proposals to recover certain costs in a short period of time, including certain costs related to system restoration after the World Trade Center disaster and environmental clean-up costs, as well as the company's proposal to accelerate depreciation of its equipment. We continue to recommend that the PSC conduct an audit of Con Edison, including the reasonableness of $1.6 billion in recent capital expenditures that the Company is seeking to have customers fund, and the Company's on-going infrastructure planning process. Additionally, the CPB recommends several changes to Con Edison's proposal regarding policy issues, including energy efficiency, revenue decoupling and service quality incentive programs. |
| • | Testimony on Infrastructure and Policy Issues - On September 7, 2007, the CPB submitted testimony in which we demonstrate that Con Edison's proposal to invest $1.9 billion of capital expenditures in delivery rates, should be reduced by approximately 20%, and the $1.6 billion of capital spending in excess of the amounts reflected in rates, should be carefully scrutinized as part of an audit of Con Edison's operations. This proposal would reasonably balance the interests of consumers in obtaining reliable service, while not requiring customers to fund poorly supported or unwarranted spending. We also recommend several modifications to Company proposals regarding depreciation expense and recovery of certain costs to protect consumer interests. In addition, we present several proposals on policy issues including energy efficiency, revenue decoupling and service quality incentives. |
| • | Testimony on Con Edison's Profit Rate - In testimony dated September 7, 2007, the CPB demonstrates that Con Edison's proposal calling for the electric delivery rates to be established at a level that would provide the Company with a return on its common equity of 11.2%, is overstated. We recommend that it be reduced to 9.0%, which would be fair to the Company, and save customers approximately $246 million. |
| • | Testimony on Accounting and Ratemaking Issues - In testimony filed September 7, 2007, the CPB identifies approximately 25 adjustments, totaling more than $200 million, that should be made to Con Edison's projected expenses. These revisions include changes to the Company's projections of the following expenses: labor, employee benefits, insurance, substation operations and maintenance, transmission operations and maintenance, electric inspections and testing, call center operations, storm costs, and costs required due to construction activities by the City of New York. We explain why these proposals are reasonable and should be adopted by the PSC. |
| • | Petition for Rehearing Regarding Long Island City Outage - In this petition filed August 20, 2007, the CPB asks the PSC to reconsider its July 2007 Order in which it directed that Con Edison implement several directives to help reduce the likelihood of another prolonged outage such as occurred in Queens, New York in August 2007. We demonstrate that in several important respects, the Commission erroneously concluded that it need not take further action to protect consumers. Specifically, the PSC erred in permitting Con Edison to adopt only the recommendations that it chooses, and in not providing any explanation for recommendations that the Commission declined to adopt. |
| • | Proposal on Reimbursement for Losses During an Outage - In March 2007, the CPB recommended several changes to Con Edison's practices for reimbursing customers for losses resulting from certain prolonged power failures. We ask for an increase in the upper limit on customer reimbursement for food spoilage to reflect inflation since the last update, and Con Edison agreed. In these comments, filed August 8, 2007, the CPB identifies several additional required changes, including establishing a definition of "power outage" that captures low-voltage situations in which common electrical appliances and equipment are inoperable, and providing compensation to customers for verifiable damage to electrical equipment including electronics such as computers, and electric motors in appliances such as air conditioners and refrigerators. |
| • | Long Island City Outage - In this filing dated July 10, 2007, the CPB presents is prima facie case showing that Con Edison was imprudent in several critical respects relating to the cause, scope and duration of the July 2006 outage in Queens, New York. The CPB demonstrates, among other things, that Con Edison did not have a system in place to identify the number of people affected by the outage, the tools to accurately ascertain the damage that was occurring to its secondary system, and a system to communicate accurate and timely information to customers. |
| • | Long Island City Outage - In this filing dated March 2, 2007, the CPB identifies and explains its comments and concerns with the DPS Staff Report summarizing the investigation of the July 2006 outage in Queens, NY. The CPB agrees with the vast majority of that Report's findings and recommendations. However, we explain that it should be strengthened to require Con Edison to make several other specific improvements to reduce the likelihood of similar outages in the future. We also identify several required changes in the PSC's regulation and oversight of Con Edison, particularly the need to enforce compliance with its orders. |
| New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NYSEG) - Electric Operations | |
|
• |
2009 Request for Expedited Rate Increase – Support for Motion to Dismiss – The CPB filed a response supporting the motion of the Department of Public Service to dismiss the rate filings. We agreed that the companies failed to provide adequate information to justify a need for increased rates. We pointed out that it appeared that the sole reason for the rate increase request was to pay $400 million in dividends to its corporate parent. |
|
|
|
|
• |
2009 Request for Expedited Rate Increase – Post-Hearing Brief – The CPB explained that the evidence in the record shows that the companies have adequate financial reserves and access to the capital markets to ensure that service remains safe and reliable. We also objected to the budgeted cost of the companies’ filing, $8 million, explaining that ratepayers should not have to pay for such a flawed filing. In addition, the CPB urged the Public Service Commission to direct the companies not to pay dividends to their parent just to be certain that the companies do not cause a liquidity problem by their own behavior. |
|
|
|
|
• |
2008 Gas Rate Case – Testimony Regarding Profit Rate – In testimony submitted on March 27, 2009, the CPB demonstrates that Orange & Rockland’s proposed return on equity of 11.60% is excessive. We show that a fair return on equity for the utility is 10.00%. |
|
|
|
|
• |
2008 Gas Rate Case – Testimony on Consumer Issues – The CPB submitted testimony on March 27, 2009, addressing service quality incentives and low-income program issues. We oppose the utility’s request for financial rewards if it exceeds specified levels of service quality, explaining that the main purpose of a utility is to provide quality service and ratepayers are already paying for service. We also propose an increase in the low-income credit and a waiver of the reconnection fee for low-income customers. |
| • | Statement in Support of Settlement Proposal - In this filing dated July 10, 2007, the CPB explains that it fully supports a proposal requiring NYSEG to offer electricity to its residential and small business customers at a fixed price for each of the next three years. The CPB was instrumental in crafting this proposal, which ensures that the service will be available for three years, at a reasonable price, and under reasonable terms and conditions. This settlement resolves a contested issue, reverses previous PSC policy, and guarantees that residential and small business customers have access to this highly-valued service. |
| • | Brief Opposing Exceptions - In this July 14, 2006 brief, the CPB explained why certain key provisions of the Recommended Decision in this case should not be modified. Proposals by NYSEG and other parties to change key portions of that Recommended Decision should not be adopted by the PSC. |
| • | Brief Opposing Exceptions - In this brief filed June 29, 2006, the CPB explains that the vast majority of the June 9, 2006, Recommended Decision in this case should be adopted by the PSC, particularly its recommendations that NYSEG’s electric delivery rates should be reduced substantially and that it should offer electricity at a reasonable fixed price to residential customers. The Recommended Decision adopted the vast majority of the CPB’s recommendations in this case. |
| • | Reply Brief Regarding Rate Plan - In this Reply Brief filed on May 10, 2006, the CPB addresses concerns raised by other parties regarding our recommendations in this proceeding. We explain why the opponents' concerns are overstated, are not supported by the extensive record in this proceedings, and should be rejected by the PSC. We explain why the opponents' concerns are overstated, are not supported by the extensive record in this proceedings, and should be rejected by the PSC. |
| • | Initial Brief Regarding Rate Plan - In this brief filed on April 26, 2006, the CPB identifies many reasons why NYSEG's proposal to increase delivery rates should be revised substantially, consistent with the CPB's detailed testimony in this proceeding. We also explain why the Company should be permitted to offer electricity to its customers at a fixed price, with a constraint on its profits. |
| National Grid - Electric Operations | |
| • | National Grid - Electric Operations - By letter dated May 30, 2008, the CPB explains its support for proposed changes to National Grid’s Low-Income AffordAbility Payment Agreement Program, which the CPB helped develop along with the Company and other parties. The proposed modifications would replace the annual arrears forgiveness credit with a monthly credit, eliminate the weatherization discount deferral to participants’ arrears balances and limit initial participation in the Program to 24 months. These changes are expected to increase benefits to participants and improve the Program’s overall success. |
| • | Affidavit Regarding Vertical Market Power - In this affidavit, dated July 18, 2007, CPB experts explain why the Joint Proposal to resolve contested issues concerning the merger between National Grid and KeySpan reasonably addresses concerns by some parties that it would provide the merged company with the opportunity and incentive to increase electricity prices in New York City. |
| • | Reply Statement in Support of Proposed Settlement - In this submission dated July 17, 2007, the CPB responds to concerns raised by certain parties regarding the Joint Proposal to resolve issues related to the merger between National Grid and KeySpan. We address each of these concerns and explain why they are not valid. |
| • | Statement in Support of Proposed Settlement - By filing dated July 11, 2007, the CPB explains that it fully supports the Joint Proposal to resolve all issues related to the merger between National Grid and KeySpan. We explain that the Proposal addresses each of the concerns we raised in our February 20, 2007, testimony in this proceeding, provides substantial consumer benefits including more than $650 in avoided rate increases, satisfies the PSC's Settlement Guidelines, and thus should be approved. |
| • | Testimony Regarding Proposed Merger - In testimony dated February 20, 2007, the CPB explains that the proposed merger between National Grid and KeySpan Corporation should not be approved by the PSC unless it is accompanied by several conditions to ensure that it benefits consumers. We explain the risks to consumers that would be created by the merger, and identify remedies to prevent ratepayers from paying additional costs and suffering from a degradation of service quality. We also explain why utility customers should obtain far more financial benefits from the merger than are proposed. |
| Orange & Rockland Utilities -- Electric Operations | |
| • | Statement Regarding Joint Proposal - On April 30, 2008, the CPB filed this letter regarding a Joint Proposal establishing a three-year rate plan for Orange and Rockland’s electric operations. Although the CPB is not a signatory of that Proposal, in this document we highlight some of its pro-consumer provisions, including a fair profit rate for the utility and enhanced oversight of the company’s spending on infrastructure enhancements and environmental remediation. |
| • | Testimony Regarding Temporary Rates - In testimony submitted February 6, 2007, the CPB demonstrates that the Company has earned excess profits in recent years, and is projected to continue to do so in the future. We explain why the PSC should protect ratepayers by establishing temporary rates at current levels, until it determines the appropriate level of permanent rates. |
| • | Motion for Emergency Action - In this motion dated January 19, 2007, the CPB explains why the procedural schedule established by the Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding would not adequately protect the company's ratepayers. We urge the PSC to revise the Judge's schedule and resolve this matter expeditiously. |
| • | Orange & Rockland Utilities - Electric Operations - The CPB filed a formal complaint with the PSC on November 8, 2006, regarding excessive rates charged by Orange & Rockland for electric delivery service. The CPB demonstrates that the Company is earning excessive profits and that its profits are expected to increase even further in the future. We recommend that the PSC promptly revise portions of the Company's current rate plan to help ensure that rates paid by Orange & Rockland's electric delivery customers are just and reasonable. |
| Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation (RG&E) - Electric Operations | |
|
• |
2009 Request for Expedited Rate Increase – Support for Motion to Dismiss – The CPB filed a response supporting the motion of the Department of Public Service to dismiss the rate filings. We agreed that the companies failed to provide adequate information to justify a need for increased rates. We pointed out that it appeared that the sole reason for the rate increase request was to pay $400 million in dividends to its corporate parent. |
|
|
|
|
• |
2009 Request for Expedited Rate Increase – Post-Hearing Brief – The CPB explained that the evidence in the record shows that the companies have adequate financial reserves and access to the capital markets to ensure that service remains safe and reliable. We also objected to the budgeted cost of the companies’ filing, $8 million, explaining that ratepayers should not have to pay for such a flawed filing. In addition, the CPB urged the Public Service Commission to direct the companies not to pay dividends to their parent just to be certain that the companies do not cause a liquidity problem by their own behavior. |
|
|
|
|
• |
2008 Gas Rate Case – Testimony Regarding Profit Rate – In testimony submitted on March 27, 2009, the CPB demonstrates that Orange & Rockland’s proposed return on equity of 11.60% is excessive. We show that a fair return on equity for the utility is 10.00%. |
|
|
|
|
• |
2008 Gas Rate Case – Testimony on Consumer Issues – The CPB submitted testimony on March 27, 2009, addressing service quality incentives and low-income program issues. We oppose the utility’s request for financial rewards if it exceeds specified levels of service quality, explaining that the main purpose of a utility is to provide quality service and ratepayers are already paying for service. We also propose an increase in the low-income credit and a waiver of the reconnection fee for low-income customers. |
| • | Comments Regarding Retail Access Plan - RG&E submitted a plan to facilitate competition in its service territory. In comments dated June 27, 2005, the CPB explains our general support for that plan, particularly provisions providing customers with the opportunity to purchase electricity at a fixed price and ensure that consumers are provided information necessary to make an informed decision regarding their energy purchases. |
| Independent System Operator | |
| • | New York Independent System Operator (NYIS0) - In this letter to the NYISO's Board of Directors dated October 20, 2006, the CPB explains that the Board should not overturn recent decisions by NYISO committees to implement new measures to help prevent the exercise of market power in electric capacity markets in New York State. Deficiencies in the oversight of that market caused consumers to pay tens of millions of dollars more than necessary for electricity. The CPB worked with utilities and other parties to develop a new measure to ensure that prices in electricity capacity markets are reasonable. |
| • | Request for Investigation of Capacity Market - In this July 14, 2006, letter, the CPB requests that the NYISO conduct an immediate and formal investigation of the electric capacity market in New York State, particularly New York City, to determine if there has been an exercise of market power. Electric capacity prices have been at relatively high levels, despite the addition of capacity in recent years. |
| Federal Energy Regulatory Commission | |
| • | CPB Protest Filing Regarding Payment of Penalties - On April 22, 2009, the CPB filed a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") regarding a filing made by the New York Independent System Operator ("NYISO") that proposes to make customers pay any penalties incurred by the NYISO for the NYISO's violation of electric reliability standards. The NYISO is the operator of New York State's electric grid and markets. We stated in our protest that penalizing customers for the mistakes of the NYISO is not only unfair but it also provides no incentive for the NYISO to comply with the reliability rules. The CPB asserted, instead, that penalties should be paid out of the incentive compensation packages provided to the NYISO's senior management. |
| • | Comments Requesting Investigation of Alleged Market Manipulation - On August 1, 2008, the CPB formally requested that FERC conduct an immediate investigation of a large volume of transactions over a circuitous path around Lake Erie, that were apparently conducted to take advantage of differences in the methodology used in other states to price imports and exports of electricity. Those transactions increased congestion in New York and led to higher charges paid by consumers, in amounts estimated to far exceed $100 million. In the event that FERC finds that these transactions violated applicable rules or law, the CPB recommends that consumers be provided retroactive refunds. |
| • | Comments Regarding Pricing of Electricity Capacity - The CPB submitted these written comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on December 31, 2007, regarding the New York Independent System Operator's (NYISO) proposed updated parameters for the "demand curve," which is intended to provide fair compensation to owners of electricity generation capacity in New York State. The Agency explained that the NYISO's proposal was generally based on sound principles, methodologies and data. However, we recommended several changes to reflect more reasonable estimates of excess capacity needs, revenue offsets and future costs of power plant construction. |
| • | Reply Comments Regarding NYC Capacity Market - In Reply Comments dated December 10, 2007, the CPB responds to several issues identified by other parties in their initial comments. We respond to assertions that consumers should not be provided refunds for past overcharges by demonstrating that such refunds are warranted under the Federal Power Act. We also oppose proposals that a forward capacity market be established by FERC, instead of the New York Independent System Operator. |
| • | Comments Regarding NYC Capacity Market - In Comments filed November 19, 2007, the CPB explains why we support a proposal by the New York Independent System Operator for new measures to protect consumers from market power abuse in the New York City wholesale electricity capacity market. We also discuss why the Agency oppose NYISO proposals to eliminate certain other consumer protections, including removing the revenue cap from existing mitigation measures and implementing new measures to protect against hypothetical market power by energy buyers. Finally, the CPB explains why we strongly oppose the NYISO's proposal to deny refunds to consumers who paid more than $100 million in excess charges in the summer of 2007. |
| Consumer Protections in the Restructured Energy Industry | |
| • | Reply Comments – On May 23, 2008, the CPB filed reply comments regarding proposed changes to the PSC’s Uniform Business Practices for retail access that are intended to address problems revealed by consumer complaints about certain marketing practices. We responded to issues raised in other parties’ initial comments. The CPB explains that standards of conduct should apply to marketing activities directed at small commercial as well as residential customers, ESCO representatives conducting unsolicited door-to-door or telephonic marketing should be required to make a short, explicit statement that they do not represent the utility, and contract documents should contain a chart containing key terms including duration, price, price variability, early termination fees and late payment fees similar to the disclosure box currently required by federal law for credit card solicitations. |
| • | Initial Comments – In comments filed April 18, 2008, the CPB continues to advocate that the PSC establish enforceable rules governing the marketing practices of energy service companies. We identify those standards and explained why they should apply to marketing conducted to residential and small commercial customers. In addition, we demonstrate that ESCO contracts should be revised to clearly identify, in a single chart on the front page, key items including the price, duration of contract, and early termination fee (if any). |
| • | Consumer Protections Regarding ESCO Marketing - The CPB is taking action to stop overly aggressive and questionable marketing practices preformed by certain energy services companies (ESCOs) throughout New York State, particularly in New York City and Western New York. These companies provide electricity and natural gas services at prices and under terms and conditions that are generally not regulated, as alternatives to what is available from regulated utilities such as Consolidated Edison and National Grid. |
| • | Petition Requesting Marketing Standards - In this formal petition dated December 19, 2007, the CPB and the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, ask the PSC to strengthen its oversight of the marketing practices of energy service companies (ESCOs). State agencies continue to receive approximately 100 complaints each month regarding ESCOs, mostly concerning misleading and aggressive marketing practices, particularly resulting from door-to-door sales. We recommend in our petition, that current voluntary standards regarding marketing practices by ESCOs, be replaced by mandatory and enforceable requirements to help protect consumers. We propose, among other things, that ESCOs and their representatives provide a photo identification and corporate contact information to customers upon contact, and that they clearly explain that they are not associated with the regulated utility. |
| • | Requirements for ESCO Pricing - Reply Comments - In these Reply Comments dated August 21, 2006, the CPB address each of the concerns raised by unregulated energy services companies as to why they should not provide comparable pricing information to consumers. We demonstrate that these concerns can be addressed by our proposal, under which unregulated energy services companies (ESCOs) would provide simple, current, weekly pricing information in a prescribed format. We explain that this information has been provided in other states, and it should be provided to consumers in New York as soon as possible. |
| • | Requirements for ESCO Pricing - Initial Comments - The CPB explains in these July 25, 2006, initial comments that the absence of useful, easily accessible information on the prices of electricity and natural gas service offered by ESCOs is a severe impediment to the development of a competitive retail energy market. We identify price reporting requirements that are fair and balanced, and explain that ESCOs refusing to provide consumers this basic information should not continue to be provided subsidies through PSC decisions. We recommend that the PSC require ESCOs to provide that pricing information as soon as possible. |
| Energy Efficiency Programs | |
| • | Initial Comments Regarding the Report of Working Group V – Natural Gas Efficiency Goals – The CPB filed initial comments on the potential structure of gas efficiency programs on January 30, 2009. We explain our support for a funding level of $160 million to support a suite of statewide gas efficiency programs allocated 30% low-income, 30% market rate residential, and 40% commercial. We also indicate our preference for programs that target the entire building (insulation, windows, appliances) and not just appliance rebate programs. We note that older homes, and especially those in which low-income New Yorkers reside, can benefit significantly from the whole building approach. |
| • | Reply Comments Regarding the Report of Working Group V – Natural Gas Efficiency Goals – On February 24, 2009, the CPB replied to the comments of the other parties in the proceeding. We note that almost all of the parties generally support development of energy efficiency programs that comprehensively identify and address a building’s inefficient use of natural gas and electricity. We support the comment of the National Grid Companies that New York should participate in the national campaign to transform the market to ENERGY STAR water heaters. We clarify the statement in our initial comments regarding the $160 million funding level by urging that an appropriate portion of those funds be directly allocated to electric programs for weatherization and the like and that a lesser amount be allocated to gas appliance rebate programs. |
| • | Comments Regarding Financial Incentives for Utilities - On June 20, 2008, the CPB submitted these written comments regarding the financial incentives to be applicable to utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs. We explain that the Commission should establish broad parameters regarding financial incentives, but tailor them to specific programs and modify them over time, as warranted. In addition, the CPB shows that incentives should be awarded primarily based on verified energy efficiency savings and that utilities should not be provided any financial incentive unless they achieve a high percentage of the target energy savings. We also recommend that financial incentives not be provided for "free-riders," since those consumers would produce energy savings even without utility-sponsored programs. Overall, we call on the PSC to adopt financial incentives for utilities achieving 100% of their energy efficiency goals, in the range of 5 - 6% of program costs. |
| • | Reply Brief Regarding “Fast Track” Proposal - On April 18, 2008, the CPB submitted this reply brief in which we address other parties’ comments on proposed interim energy efficiency programs. We continue to explain that the PSC should move rapidly to expand the most successful of NYSERDA’s existing energy efficiency initiatives, and invite utilities to submit proposed energy efficiency programs that they would administer. |
| • | Initial Brief Regarding “Fast Track” Proposal - In this initial brief dated April 10, 2008, the CPB addresses proposed “fast track” or interim energy efficiency programs that could be implemented quickly to serve as a bridge to fully developed long-term energy efficiency programs. The CPB explains that the PSC should adopt a portfolio of interim energy efficiency programs, based on NYSERDA's existing initiatives, that could be implemented quickly. We also propose that the PSC provide utilities an opportunity to play a significant role in achieving the State's energy efficiency goals and encourage them to submit proposals that might be superior to current NYSERDA initiatives. In addition, we recommend that the PSC assess no less frequently than every three years, whether the energy efficiency portfolio is on track to meet the State's goals and whether the cost estimates are accurate or require revision. |
| • | Comments on Proposal for Utility-Administered Energy Efficiency Services - In this filing dated January 25, 2008, the CPB responds to a proposal by the major electricity and gas utilities in New York State, the City of New York and others, which requested that the utilities be provided authority to administer and deliver the vast majority of the energy efficiency programs needed to achieve the Governor's 15 by 15 objective. In these comments, the CPB recommends that the PSC reject that proposal, since it is premature, not accompanied by supporting documentation including cost data, and would forego the benefits of NYSERDA's proven expertise in delivering such programs. |
| • | Utility Disincentives for Energy Efficiency - In this filing dated August 26, 2006, the CPB demonstrates that utilities' disincentive to promote energy conservation, renewable technology and distributed generation should be addressed through a well-designed mechanism that compensates utilities for profit losses attributable to utility efforts regarding such initiatives. This mechanism should not, however, shift from utilities to consumers, the risk of profit losses from factors such as general economic downturns, a decline in the number of customers and conservation not attributable to utility activities. We identify several important issues that must be considered in the design and implementation of such a mechanism. |
| Return to top | |
| General Energy Policy Issues | |
| • | Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick Reorganization - In these comments filed on September 29, 2008, the CPB opposed the reorganization of the Company as it is our position that such reorganization would financially weaken the Company, thereby possibly leading to inadequate maintenance and safety issues |
| • | Comments Regarding Consideration Of Utilities’ Compliance Filings - Pursuant to a notice published in the March 11, 2009 New York State Register, the New York State Consumer Protection Board filed comments regarding the proposed plans by New York State electric and gas distribution utilities to provide customers with secure, real-time remote access to their own distribution account number for purposes of procuring service from an ESCO. The CPB, in the interest of information privacy and the new State Social Security Act, advises caution regarding the use of Social Security numbers as the sole or primary authentication to access account information by the customer |
| • | Proposed Acquisition of Energy East by Iberdrola: Reply Brief on Exceptions - In this brief submitted July 3, 2008, the CPB responds to positions taken by other parties disagreeing with the Judge's June 14, recommended decision. We explain that Iberdrola has overstated the alleged benefit of divestiture of Energy East's fossil-fueled plants, as well as the benefit of its commitment to invest $100 million in New York. We also show why the Commission should generally require for this acquisition, the same financial protections it required for the National Grid/KeySpan merger. |
| • | Proposed Acquisition of Energy East by Iberdrola: Brief on Exceptions - In this brief dated June 26, 2008, the CPB identifies our concerns with the June 14, 2008 Recommended Decision by the Administrative Law Judge regarding the proposed acquisition of Energy East by Iberdrola. We continue to explain that the proposed acquisition should be approved by the PSC subject to several conditions. However, we explain our strong opposition to the ALJ's recommendation that Iberdrola be prohibited from owning wind generation in NYSEG and RG&E's service territory, as well as the Judge's requirement that the combined company divest its existing hydroelectric generation assets. We also explain that the; |
| • | Proposed Acquisition of Energy East by Iberdrola: Reply Brief - The CPB submitted this brief on April 25, 2008, responding to claims made in the initial briefs of other parties regarding the nature and scope of the conditions that the PSC should place on its approval of the proposed merger. We explain that the assertion that Iberdrola’s active involvement in the development of wind generation would be a detriment to New York is unfounded and ratepayers should be provided additional monetary benefits to compensate them for the risks posed by the merger. |
| • | Proposed Acquisition of Energy East by Iberdrola: Initial Brief - In this brief filed April 11, 2008, the CPB demonstrates that the PSC should approve the merger only with the addition of substantial financial benefits to fairly compensate consumers for the substantial risks associated with the acquisition, and with strong financial protection measures similar to those adopted by the PSC in the recent National Grid/KeySpan merger. In addition, we show that no restrictions should be placed on the future development of wind generation that are different from those applicable to any other utility in the State. |
| • | Comments Regarding Retail Competition Policies - In a filing dated June 21, 2007, the CPB explains that changes are required to the PSC's policies regarding retail energy competition. In particular, several programs to promote or subsidize retail competition should be terminated immediately; while other programs should be modified immediately. We also explain that the PSC must enhance its monitoring and oversight of retail energy markets and tailor its policies to reflect the realities of those markets. |
| • | Comments Regarding Electric Planning and Long-Term Contracts - The CPB explains in these June 5, 2007, comments that the PSC should adopt a statewide integrated resouce planning process to help guide the overall development of electricity infrastructure, since current processes do not properly consider environmental and public policy objectives. We also explain why there should be increased reliance on long-term contracts between electricity generators and utilities to help support new electric generation in New York State. |
| • | Comments Regarding Utility Commodity Price Volatility - In these comments filed November 17, 2006, the CPB recommends that the PSC require utilities to reduce the risk of commodity price fluctuations for residential and small business customers. We explain why these customers need protection from extreme price volatility and we provide guidelines to be used to ensure that utilities purchase a balanced portfolio of energy commodities. |
| Safety Issues | |
| • | Detection of Stray Voltage - By letter dated August 22, 2008, the CPB submitted its comments regarding the appropriateness of the PSC's current regulations to ensure the safety of the electric network operated by utilities in the State. In particular, we recommend that the Commission build upon Con Edison’s recent success in identifying and repairing stray voltage conditions in its underground networks, which is attributable to the utility’s use of advanced mobile stray voltage detection technology. We urge the Commission to conduct a pilot program in which this technology is used by other New York State utilities for their underground networks, to determine the extent to which PSC regulations should be revised to require use of this technology statewide. |
| Consumer Information
Electricity
Natural Gas
Telecommunications |
|