News Stories

The New York Public Service Commission (PSC) issued an order denying rehearing and reconsideration and confirming denial of eligibility of Polaris Power Services LLC.

This order denying rehearing and confirming denial of eligibility is in response to Polaris Power’s August 21, 2025  petition for rehearing contending that the NY PSC committed several errors of law and fact when it issued its July 22, 2025  revocation order of Polaris Power Services eligibility to serve customers in the State of New York. 

In its petition on rehearing, Polaris Power specifically contended that the New York PSC: 

“(1) the Company’s failure to pay its 2022 Voluntary Compliance Payment (VCP) obligation does not warrant revocation of its eligibility because Staff allegedly failed to follow established procedures to permit Polaris Power to cure, and Polaris Power offered to cure; 

(2) the Revocation Order allegedly made no findings as to specific aggregated customers, and those customers’ enrollment with Polaris Power complies with the Commission’s aggregation policy; 

(3) the Revocation Order purportedly misstates facts to bolster its narrative; and 

(4) the Revocation Order deprived Polaris Power of its rights under the Public Service Law (PSL), the New York State Constitution, and the United States Constitution.  Polaris Power further states that new circumstances – including alleged revisions to compliance procedures, recent compliance with Commission requirements, and the Company’s offer to refund impacted customers – warrant rehearing.”

Excerpts from NY PSC Response to Polaris’ Request For Rehearing & ESCO Eligibility Status:

Polaris Power Admittedly Failed to Timely Pay Its 2022 VCPs –  “As Polaris Power admits in its Petition for Rehearing, the Company did not respond to Staff’s emails regarding the 2022 renewable energy review, which inquired about any renewable load Polaris Power may have sold to its customers during that calendar year. This is undisputed. Polaris Power also acknowledges that it did not notify Staff that the Company had served any renewable load in 2022 until February 2024. Instead, the Company claims that it “did not understand that it was subject to the [2022 renewable energy review] because of its focus on non-mass-market business and because of the 2022 renewable energy review’s] focus on [the December 2019 Order’s] mass-market policies.”

“The Commission finds this argument unpersuasive. Regardless of what Polaris Power characterizes as its “focus on non-mass-market business,” the Company admittedly – and therefore undisputedly – served a renewable product to mass market customers in 2022.” . . . “As Staff observed, an active Polaris Power customer sales agreement from 2022 contained language stating that “50% of customer’s usage during the term of this contract will be offset by the purchase and retirement of renewable energy credits.”16 Since Polaris Power failed to timely purchase and retire RECs, the only way for the Company to ensure that it met its contractual obligations to customers was by purchasing VCPs.”  

“Like all other ESCOs offering renewable products to mass market customers, Polaris Power was required to promptly report to Staff whether it served any renewable load in 2022 and purchase VCPs to cover that load, pursuant to the language in its contracts. By offering a renewable energy product to mass market customers, belatedly informing Staff of its renewable load, and failing to timely purchase the corresponding number of VCPs, Polaris Power breached its obligation to these customers. Accordingly, the Commission finds Polaris Power’s arguments on this subject unpersuasive.”

2) Polaris Power Misinterprets the Aggregation Rule – “Polaris Power misconstrues the Aggregation Rule. As Polaris Power itself observes, the 2020 Order provides that “an electric customer” that is mass market would not have one or more demand-metered accounts (emphasis added). A reasonable reading of this rule is that each aggregated account must contain the same customer name. An electric mass market customer can only be aggregated with a demand metered account if both are listed under the same account name.”

“Here, the Company failed to associate customers and accounts on a basic level and, in many instances, did not connect mass market customers with demand accounts under the same owner or name.”

“The record further demonstrates that Staff was not “confused” about how to apply the Aggregation Rule. As the Commission previously explained in the Revocation Order, Polaris Power reads far too much into one email exchange in which Staff simply sought to confirm that the Company had, in fact, inaccurately characterized its demand-metered and mass market accounts.  Given the extent of the Company’s then-apparent noncompliance, it was appropriate for Staff to take initiative and confirm these enrollment discrepancies with the utility.”

“Finally, on rehearing, Polaris Power does not dispute the Revocation Order’s findings that “[i]t appears that the Company accepted the advice of third parties and/or contract enrollments facilitated by third parties without subsequently reviewing contracts to ensure compliance with Commission orders and regulations.” The Company conveniently does not address the problematic business practice that informed the Commission’s decision to revoke the Company’s eligibility. As Polaris Power admittedly enrolled hundreds of customers in improperly aggregated products and does not dispute the Commission’s conclusion that the Company failed to police third parties conducting enrollments on its behalf, the Commission need not disturb the Revocation Order’s findings.”

3) The Revocation Order Does Not Engage in Rulemaking – “SAPA defines a “rule” as “the whole or part of each agency statement, regulation or code of general applicability that implements or applies law, or prescribes a fee charged by or paid to any agency or the procedure or practice requirements of any agency, including the amendment, suspension or repeal thereof ….” As the Court of Appeals has explained, a rule for the purposes of SAPA is “a fixed, general principle to be applied by an administrative agency without regard to other facts and circumstances relevant to the regulatory scheme of the statute it administers.”

“Here, the Revocation Order did not promulgate a “rule.” As stated above, LSEs such as ESCOs can only aggregate electric customers when they are associated with a demand metered account in the same name. Polaris Power admittedly linked mass market customers to unrelated demand-metered accounts. Accordingly, the Commission is not adopting a new interpretation of the Aggregation Rule. Rather, the record reflects that Polaris Power did not follow the requirements of the Aggregation Rule because it failed to enroll mass market customers on compliant products (i.e., mass market products that are not linked to an unrelated demand-metered account).  Therefore, the Commission finds the Company’s arguments that the Commission failed to comply with rulemaking procedures under SAPA as well as the New York State Constitution’s rule publication requirement to be unpersuasive.”

4) Polaris Power’s Offers to Come into Compliance Do Not Alter the Revocation Order’s Determination – “As an initial matter, Polaris Power glosses over inconsistencies with prior refund offers that were of concern to Staff. For instance, in correspondence to Staff, dated March 19, 2024, Polaris Power addressed 99 mass market accounts that it admitted “were unintentionally enrolled into large commercial, or demand-metered products,” and represented to Staff that the Company “intend[ed] to drop those accounts and, if necessary, re-rate them to the utility rate for the period of time they were enrolled with Polaris.”  However, in correspondence to Staff from April 9, 2024, Polaris Power claimed that it would “not be able to provide the rerate calculation within the initially expected timeframe,” and that it had “not dropped these customers because doing so would violate the customer agreement.”  Staff and the Commission properly considered this shift in the Company’s position when rejecting Polaris Power’s offer to refund the 888 mass market accounts that were linked to a demand-metered customer account to resolve this matter. In addition, if Polaris Power knew and admitted that certain customers were enrolled in improper contracts, the Company did not need Staff’s approval to refund impacted customers.”

“Polaris Power further argues that the Revocation Order incorrectly states that “Polaris Power did not offer to come into compliance” because the Response to the OTSC states that the Company “acknowledged the mistakes, corrected the issue, and will re-rate customers.”  However, Polaris Power selectively quotes from the Revocation Order to avoid meaningfully engaging with the remedy the Commission discussed. The full quote reads: “Polaris Power did not offer to come into compliance with the December 2019 Order by switching customers who were improperly enrolled on commercial contracts to compliant mass-market contracts.” In sum, Polaris Power has not presented any new information that would warrant rehearing on this subject.”

24-M-0482
(Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Seek Consequences against Polaris Power Services LLC for Violations of the Uniform Business Practices.)