News Stories

Rate Counsel – Rate Counsel’s continued position is that the most important consumer protection in the process of shopping for, renewing, or switching a contract with a TPS is increased consumer disclosures, in clear and plain language. These disclosures must address all material contract terms, most importantly pricing in a manner that is clear and leaves no room for misinterpretation. The Board currently proposes several rule amendments and new rules that address this issue among others. We detail our comments on each of them below.

Retail Energy Supply Association – RESA supports the Board’s decision to include the following rule changes proposed by RESA in comments filed on March 13, 2025, regarding the Board’s draft rule proposal:

Allowing a person “authorized to make changes” to a customer account to implement a preferred supplier freeze in accordance with the switching provisions in N.J.AC. 14:4- 2.3;

Amending section 14:4-2.6A(d) to say that a customer’s authorization to implement or lift a preferred supplier freeze must be made without the influence of the LDC in addition to the TPS and its agent;

Adding language requiring the LDC to notify the TPS through an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) transaction that an enrollment was rejected because the customer has a preferred supplier freeze in place;

Changing the language requiring TPSs to provide historical variable rate data in sections 14:4-7.6(k) and 14:4-7.6A(a)(7) to clarify that this requirement is only applicable to residential customers and allow TPSs to state that no historical data is available.

Amending the language in section 14:4-7.14 to extend the time period for TPS reporting of billing errors to the BPU from 5 to 10 business days;

Adding definitions of Option 1 and Option 2 government energy aggregation programs;

Removing the following language from section 14:4-6.5(f)(3): “If the notice is to a residential customer, a statement that, should the residential customer submit an optout response, that opt-out response shall be considered permanent if, and until, the residential customer submits a written opt-in request to the LDC”; and

Removing the following language from sections 14:4-6.3 and 6.4: “All elections to optout shall be considered permanent with respect to the program(s) of which the customer has opted out unless, and until, the customer later affirmatively elects to opt-in to the respective program in the manner(s) set forth by the aggregator”.

However, as discussed below, RESA believes that the Board’s Energy Competition rule proposal needs further changes to clarify the requirements and address important issues that are not currently addressed in the rules.

(1) requested BPU amend its regulations to allow third-party suppliers (TPSs) “to pass through capacity cost increases and other unforeseeable non-state-imposed cost increases at their discretion, to their customers on fixed price contracts,” not just “price increases mandated by operation of state law,” arguing that: (i) TPSs are currently “at a serious competitive pricing disadvantage compared to [basic generation service (BGS)] suppliers” as “the capacity prices in the recent PJM BRA… continue to be significantly higher than anyone could have anticipated,” and “TPSs were unable to hedge such costs in existing fixed price contracts” as BGS suppliers were; (ii) the utilities’ price-to-compare (PTC) “does not provide an accurate comparison between BGS and TPS pricing unless both TPSs and BGS suppliers are permitted to pass through cost increases” as BPU intends”;

(2) regarding preferred supplier freezes (PSFs) and eligible customer lists (ECLs): (i) said it believes PSFs “should only be an option for residential customers since commercial and industrial customers are sophisticated parties who are often held to a different set of rules grounded in freedom of contract”; (ii) said that it “is still unclear how customers would implement and lift” a PFS, recommending that “the process should have clear safeguards to prevent unintentional election”; (iii) recommended BPU require utilities provide TPSs with ECLs, updated monthly, that “include all customers that are eligible to sign up with a TPS and exclude those customers with a preferred supplier freeze” or are otherwise ineligible for switching;

(3) argued that the new requirement “that a TPS provide the historical variable rate billed by the TPS for the three preceding months is not relevant for TPS customers on fixed price contracts and would be impossible to provide for a new customer” and “similarly, objects to the BPU’s proposal to require the TPS contract summary to include a brief explanation of the historical variable rates billed by the TPS for the three preceding months,” recommending that BPU ‘instead require disclosure of historical variable rates for “similarly situated customer classes’ if such data is available,” given “the frequency of bespoke pricing situations” and lack of historical rate data for previously unbilled variable rate products;

(4) regarding billing errors: (i) argued that the definition of “a charge to a customer in excess of that set forth in the TPS contract” should be amended to specify that the excess charge is not caused by the utility; (ii) argued that “if interest must be paid on customer overpayments to TPSs,” the calculation should be from “The date the error was first reasonably identifiable” if that is later than the date the error appeared; and (iii) recommended “a look-back limit of 60 days”;

(5) said that it supports “the proposed application fee increases as the fees have not been changed for 20 years,” but: (i) “urges the Board to use these additional funds to update the BPU’s NJ Power Switch website,” which “has not been updated in eight years, particularly the list of licensed TPSs and pricing information”; and (ii) recommends “BPU provide an option for electronic filing of licensing applications and Annual Information Updates, including the ability to provide an ACH wire transfer and/or credit card payment instead of a paper check for payment of fees”; and

(6) regarding Government Energy Aggregation (GEA) programs: (i) “recommends that the BPU remove all Option 1 [GEA] program regulations because it does not make sense to send opt-out notices to customers prior to the municipality’s selection of a TPS”; (ii) “notes that the current GEA program process involves many forms that need to be signed and notarized,” suggesting inclusion of an electronic process; (iii) recommends BPU amend the rule stating “that the TPS rate for the GEA program shall not exceed the benchmark price at the time of the contract award unless it is a renewable energy product as described,” as “The timing of the GEA program will never fully line up with the benchmarking price, always making the comparison look uneven in either direction”; (iv) recommended simplifying the process for customers with PSFs to participate in GEAs; and (v) raised concerns “about the inconsistency of who will track opt outs from customers.

NJUA Energy Competition Joint Comments – Final – The New Jersey Utilities Association (“NJUA”) represents investor-owned utilities that provide electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water and wastewater services to residential and business customers throughout the State. We respectfully submit to the Board of Public Utilities (“BPU” or the “Board”) the following comments on behalf of our electric and natural gas utility member companies (the “Utilities”) regarding the proposed readoption with amendments to N.J.A.C. 14:4 – Energy Competition. To begin, we acknowledge the several changes that the Board integrated into this newest round of the proposed rules that respond to the comments that NJUA submitted on this Docket on August 13, 2025. In particular, the Utilities appreciate the inclusion of the following provisions into this newest draft of the proposed rules:

1. A clear timeline (six months) for when the rules will come into effect;
2. Authorization that customer notifications may be sent via protected electronic communication in addition to being sent in writing;
3. Authorization for a local distribution company (“LDC”) to notify a customer that a preferred supplier freeze has been implemented or lifted up to two days after a request has been received;
4. Clarification that a preferred supplier freeze (“PSF”) does not prohibit a Third Party Supplier (“TPS”) from switching a customer to basic generation service (“BGS”) or basic gas supply service (“BGSS”) if the TPS goes bankrupt or is otherwise unable to serve the customer; and
5. Clarification that billing error provisions become applicable if it is found that a TPS made errors with ten or more customer bills over a 30 day billing period.

SJIU Comments – SJIU strongly urges the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (“BPU” or “Board”) to abandon the proposed amendment to N.J.A.C. 14:4-1.1 (the “Proposed Amendment”) which provides, inter alia, that “an entity that receives Board approval to directly or indirectly acquire control of a gas or electric public utility or its holding company, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 48:2-51.1 and 48:3-10 and N.J.A.C. 14:1-5.14 and the acquiring entity’s related competitive business segments, will be subject to the same requirements and regulations as a public utility holding company and its related competitive business segments.”

As set forth in more detail below, SJIU submits that the Proposed Amendment raises significant concerns impacting New Jersey’s energy sector and suffers from significant legal infirmities. These concerns include the following:

• The Proposed Amendment will deter investors from investing in energy infrastructure in New Jersey (and could even force the divesture of certain assets), at a time when that investment is urgently needed to address affordability and other concerns;
• The Proposed Amendment is unnecessary, and the Board has not articulated its reasoning for this sweeping change;
• The Proposed Amendment creates regulatory uncertainty for companies considering investing in New Jersey, and specifically in New Jersey’s energy sector; and
• The Proposed Amendment is outside the scope of the Board’s statutory authority, is preempted by federal law and raises constitutional concerns.

For these reasons, SJIU strongly urges the Board to reject the Proposed Amendment and simply readopt N.J.A.C. 14:4-1.1 in its current form.