News Stories

Excerpts from the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) Discussion and Conclusion:

{***} “The Commission finds NRG’s arguments and petition details very concerning as both NRG, and the Administrators they are contracted with, are not new to the CCA market and should be aware of the CCA Program Rules that have been in effect for almost a decade, as well as the ESCO UBP requirements related to customer data sharing. NRG has not pointed to a Commission rule that would allow the ESCO to share unconsented customer specific account information, including account number, with any party, including the CCA Administrator or municipality. Accordingly, the Commission does not find that the Petitioner presents an error of law or fact or that new circumstances warrant a different determination that triggers a rehearing on the O&E Modification Order.”  {***}

{***} “With respect to NRG’s alternative request for clarification, the Commission reminds NRG that it is required to abide by all applicable terms of the UBPs as an ESCO, even when it operates within a CCA program. In the O&E Modification Order, the Commission confirmed the applicability of the previously established UBP, UBP-DERS, and CCA Program Rules. While the Commission did provide further discussion in its O&E Modification Order, specifically to address similar comments made by NRG in response to the proposal, there were no new rules adopted related to the ability to share customer specific information without consent. If NRG wished to seek rehearing on these data sharing rules from the 2016 CCA Framework Order or the 2017 MEGA Order, it would have needed to do so within the 30-day timeframe allotted under PSL §22, which would have expired several years prior to the issuance of the O&E Modification Order.

As stated above, the Petition is untimely, fails to identify an error in fact or law committed by the Commission in the O&E Modification Order, nor does it point to any new circumstance that warrants a different determination. For these reasons, the Commission denies NRG’s request for rehearing.” {***}

Excerpts from NRG Petition For Rehearing:
{***} “The Petitioners seek rehearing and a stay of the Commission’s O&E Modification Order, arguing that the Commission erred in prohibiting ESCOs from sharing customer account numbers with CCA Administrators after the opt-out period ends, without explicit customer consent. Further, the Petitioners assert that a prohibition on ESCOs transferring customer utility account numbers to CCA Administrators, without explicit customer consent, would cause NRG and its affiliates to violate the triparty contract (or ESA) executed between themselves, the Municipality, and the CCA Administrator. NRG asserts that the ESAs require the ESCO to provide a report weekly, or upon request, to the CCA Administrator that details customer specific information including the customer utility account numbers. NRG claims that the requirement for customer consent to share data makes it unable to comply with the existing terms of the ESA without obtaining customer consent on a weekly basis, thereby creating confusion and frustration with the process. 

NRG additionally argues that the O&E Modification Order ignored the existing Data Security Agreement (DSA) requirements that the ESCOs and CCA Administrator have each entered into with the applicable utility. NRG argues that in executing a DSA with the utilities, they are required to uphold certain cybersecurity standards, further arguing that it is arbitrary and contrary to existing practice to prohibit an ESCO from sharing customer information, including utility account numbers, with the CCA Administrator without affirmative customer consent.” {***}

Order Denying Rehearing  (02/14/2025)
14-M-0224 
(Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Enable Community Choice Aggregation Programs.)