News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Clarification Sought On UBP Renewal Notices And Price Comparisons
In New York the Retail Energy Supplier Association and M&R file petitions for rehearing and clarification regarding the New York Public Service Commission’s (PSC’s) recently amended Uniform Business Practice (UBP) rules.
See: RESA Petition for Rehearing, Req for Clarification & Motion for Stay
In its petition for rehearing RESA identified four supplier related issues to the updated UBP and made the following recommendations:
- Suppliers should not be required to use the sample renewal notice, since it does not comply with the goals or requirements of GBL §349-d(7) or the proposed amendments to UBP §5.B.5;
- Suppliers should not be required to use the default utility’s 12-month trailing average price in the contract renewal notice as a basis for comparison rather than the default utility’s then-current price to compare;
- Suppliers should not be required to send the contract renewal notices via regular mail, rather than permitting the electronic service of these notices; and
- The NYPSC should consider the underlying facts and circumstances that gave rise to the existing UBP requirements for contract renewal notices and eliminate other now-unnecessary notice requirements.
“In addition, RESA respectfully seeks clarification regarding certain aspects of the renewal notice requirement and new Department reporting requirement imposed by the UBP Order:
- How does UBP §5.B.5 impact CCA programs? Do ESCOs have to send contract renewal notices in addition to existing notices required under the CCA program rules?
- While the Department was ordered to report to the Commission the number of ESCO customers served on variable rate, month-to-month agreements by March 1 each year, ESCOs request the Commission provide additional clarification regarding the scope, timing, and specifics of how this information will be requested from ESCOs and compiled by the Department.”
In a separate filing, M&R (a supplier) also filed a petition for rehearing and clarification to the recently amended UBP.
M&R Petition for Rehearing, Reconsideration and Clarification – “M&R is an ESCO that offers a Guaranteed Savings Product (“GSP”) to its natural gas customers. M&R respectfully petitions for rehearing, reconsideration, and clarification of the November Order adopting modifications to the Uniform Business Practices to implement GBL § 349-d. While the statute establishes targeted consumer protections, the November Order unlawfully expands statutory requirements, collapses the Legislature’s renewal-by-notice framework into a blanket affirmative-consent mandate, and imposes compliance obligations that are legally unsupported and operationally impossible”
M&R said the Commission can preserve consumer protections and restore workability by:
- Narrowing the definitions of “material change” and “express customer consent” to statutory bounds
- Clarifying that variable-rate adjustments and guaranteed-savings products do not trigger renewal
- Preserving renewal by notice where no material change occurs
- Allowing electronic notice and consent consistent with utility practice
- Staying implementation to avoid immediate market exit and customer harm
“This is not a request to weaken consumer protections. It is a request to apply them as the Legislature intended—clearly, fairly, and in a workable manner that preserves customer savings and produces enforceable rules.”
NYPSC Docket No. 98-M-1343
(In the Matter of Retail Access Business Rules.)
