By William Opalka

A New York judge has vacated the Public Service Commission’s February “reset order” that sought to overhaul the business practices of retail energy suppliers.

The July 22 order by acting state Supreme Court Justice Henry Zwack said energy service companies (ESCOs) were denied due process by the commission, especially by the strict time frame for compliance (870-16, et al.).

The order bars the PSC from enforcing a requirement that ESCOs guarantee retail and small commercial customers will pay no more than they would for default service (excluding contracts offering at least 30% renewable power) (15-M-0127, et al.).

It also throws out a requirement that ESCOs receive “affirmative consent” from such customers before renewing them from a fixed rate or guaranteed savings contract into one that provides renewable energy but does not guarantee savings.

Zwack left standing language the commission added to its business practices imposing tougher enforcement measures against those who prey on vulnerable or uninformed customers.

While regulators insisted they acted to protect customers from deceptive business practices, ESCOs said the order effectively killed customer choice in New York.

The order “is arbitrary and irrational in that it imposes the unexplained and harsh 10-day implementation period for the order, which amounts to a major restructuring of the retail energy market — or even its collapse,” Zwack wrote in his 26-page opinion. “The court is perplexed that implementation would be so immediate, when by the PSC’s own admission so many questions remain.”

PSC officials said they will address the judge’s procedural concerns promptly.

The commission acted in response to what it said was unscrupulous business practices by some retailers. ESCOs immediately challenged the order in court and also sought a rehearing by the PSC. (See Retailers Ask for Rehearing of NY Guaranteed Savings Order.) A stay was granted in March as the court challenge was pending.

Retail Energy Supply Association spokesman Bryan Lee said the group was “gratified that the court vacated the … order, finding the PSC action to be ‘irrational, arbitrary and capricious’ and failed to offer ESCOs ‘an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner and at a meaningful time.’ The court found that ESCOs were ‘stripped of any meaningful opportunity to participate in the promulgation of the reset order.’”

Zwack reaffirmed that the PSC maintains jurisdiction over retail rates, turning aside a challenge from the ESCOs.

“The court’s affirmation that the PSC has legal jurisdiction over ESCOs is an important win for the PSC and millions of consumers in New York,” PSC spokesman James Denn said in a statement. “The procedural flaws highlighted by the court have been addressed, or will be, as we continue to move forward with Gov. [Andrew] Cuomo’s far-reaching plan to protect customers from unscrupulous ESCOs. Make no mistake, we are putting an end to deceptive ESCO practices that harm electric and gas customers.”

Zwack’s ruling does not affect a PSC order earlier this month imposing a moratorium on ESCOs signing up additional low-income customers. Regulators issued the order after a collaborative effort failed to develop a formula under which customers could be guaranteed savings. (See NYPSC Declares Moratorium on Low-Income Sign-ups.)

In a statement released Tuesday, PSC Chair Audrey Zibelman defended the commission’s actions.

“When ESCOs were charging multiple times the prices that utilities charge for energy, and consumer complaints of deceptive marketing practices poured in by the hundreds, the commission took bold action in February to protect consumers,” she said. “Unfortunately, as a result of the litigation, ESCO customers are still paying millions of dollars more every month than they should be paying for electric and gas services. But this injustice will be short-lived. … The commission will easily address the procedural concerns raised by the court and will continue our work to ensure that all electric and gas consumers in New York have the protections they need and deserve.”