|
|
|
|
|
New York ESCO Seeks Rehearing Of PSC's April Broker Registration, Rules Order
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Family Energy, Inc. filed at the New York PSC a petition for rehearing, reconsideration and/or clarification of the PSC's recent order on rehearing concerning new rules and registration requirements for retail energy brokers and consultants
See details on the new broker rules here
Among other arguments, Family Energy cited the PSC's directive in the rehearing order that DPS Staff shall identify further changes to the Uniform Business Practices (UBP) that shall be, "intended to improve the overall consistency and clarity of the documents[.]"
However, despite this directive for further UBP changes, Family Energy noted that the PSC is still requiring compliance with the changes to the UBP that were adopted in the April rehearing order, with the deadline for the required compliance occurring before the deadline for DPS Staff's identification of further UBP changes
Family Energy alleged, "The 2024 Order’s direction to Staff in Ordering Paragraph 10 to identify modifications to the Uniform Business Practices (UBP) by August 16, 2024, is explicit recognition that new Section 11 should not and cannot be applied to energy brokers and energy consultants as currently written."
Family Energy alleged, "The requirement of the 2024 Order for energy brokers, energy consultants and ESCOs to come into compliance with the new UBP provisions as of June 17, 2024, when the Commission expressly stated the intention for Staff to review those same provisions sixty days later for the purpose of future modification is untenable, unworkable and unfair. Requiring entities to expend the resources, time and money to come into compliance with short-lived rules is wasteful, irrational and unreasonable."
Family Energy also argued that independent contractors and agents of energy brokers and energy consultants should not be required to register with the PSC.
Family Energy also alleged that the rehearing order was silent on the use of surety bonds, rather than a letter of credit as required by the PSC's order, for broker registration, as Family further argued that PSL § 66-t "expressly" states that a bond may be used. Family Energy said that a number of entities filed comments with the PSC concerning the use of surety bonds
Family Energy alleged, "Despite the numerous submissions made regarding the Commission’s interpretation that the financial accountability requirement could only be satisfied with a letter of credit, the 2024 Order is completely silent on the topic. Given the legitimate arguments raised by commenters, it was incumbent upon the Commission to consider those concerns. The failure to do so is an error justifying rehearing. Indeed, when entities (many of which are small businesses) that have not previously been subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, and do not possess the same familiarity with Commission processes and procedures for gathering input, seek to participate and contribute to the record through the submission of public comments, those comments should be afforded due consideration and weight."
Case 23-M-0106 et al.
ADVERTISEMENT ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
May 17, 2024
Email This Story
Copyright 2024 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW! -- Energy Regulatory Specialist
• Sr. Market Risk Analyst -- Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|