On Wednesday, January 25, 2017, the New York Public Service Commission (“Commission”) issued a Notice delaying implementation of the Commission’s December 16 Order^[1] prohibiting energy service companies (“ESCOs”) from serving low-income customers by two months, until May 26, 2017.

In granting the extension, the Commission relied, in part, on the Petition for Rehearing and Clarification of the Impacted ESCO Coalition (“Petition”) which pointed out that low-income customers should be provided with the option to select an ESCO granted waiver over the default utility service.  The implementation plan proposed by the Commission does not include “a role for ESCOs that are granted waiver” or provide clarity to such ESCOs regarding: “(i) enrolling new customers; (ii) keeping current customers, or (iii) transitioning newly acquired customers.”[2]

The Commission also noted that this matter was currently pending before the Albany County Supreme Court and that “[i]n order to avoid the customer confusion that may arise in implementing the prohibition that may be subject to change pending the outcome of that litigation, it is appropriate to delay the implementation of the Prohibition Order until a judgment can be had.”[3]

In reaction to the Commission’s extension, Natara Feller was quoted in Energy Choice Matters as stating, “We are encouraged by the Commission’s decision as the extension provides additional time for ESCOs, industry groups, and the Commission to collaborate on the best solutions for challenges to the retail market. This is an important step towards ensuring the preservation of customer choice. All customers, including those that are low-income, deserve the option to choose an ESCO rather than being summarily returned to default utility service.”

ESCOs have until January 30, 2017 to petition for waiver. For more information, contact Natara Feller, Esq., Managing Partner of Feller Law Group, PLLC at (212) 590-0145 or at natarafeller@feller.law.

[1] Case 12-M-0476 et al., Order Adopting a Prohibition on Service to Low-Income Customers by Energy Service Companies (issued December 16, 2016) at 3-4.

[2] Case 12-M-0476 at al., Petition for Rehearing and Clarification of the Impacted ESCO Coalition (Jan. 17, 2017) at 4.

[3] NEM et. al. v. NYPSC (Albany County Index No. 868-16).