Response to Central Hudson's Petition for Rehearing
In this filing dated September 13, 2006, the New York State Department of State Division of Consumer Protection responded to Central Hudson's request that the New York State Public Service Commission authorize a higher profit rate than the Company accepted in July 2006. The Divison demonstrates that there is no legal or factual basis for the Company's request to withdraw its previous commitment.
CPB Petition for Rehearing
On August 30, 2006, the New York State Department of State Division of Consumer Protection filed a Petition for Rehearing regarding the New York State Public Service Commission's (PSC) July 24, 2006, Order approving a three-year rate plan for Central Hudson. The Division explains that the PSC's Order, which approved the largest rate increase for any New York State utility in more than a decade, should be modified to provide residential and small business customers the opportunity to purchase electricity and natural gas from the utility at a fixed price, since such options are not available from unregulated companies at a just and reasonable price. We also recommend that ratepayer funds being held by the utility, which total approximately $20 million, be used to mitigate the rate increase.
Brief Regarding Joint Proposal
The New York State Department of State Division of Consumer Protection explained in this Post-Hearing Brief dated May 12, 2006, that the Joint Proposal to resolve all rate and regulatory issues for three years should be modified in several important respects to provide additional consumer benefits. We also address the response of other parties to our recommendations.
Testimony Opposing Joint Proposal
On May 1, 2006, the New York State Department of State Division of Consumer Protection filed this testimony demonstrating that the Joint Proposal involving the Company, Staff of the Department of Public Service and other parties, should be modified to provide additional consumer benefits. That Joint Proposal would increase natural gas delivery bills by 19% and 12% in the first two years. Division witnesses explain that the Company should be required to offer natural gas at fixed prices to help consumers manage their energy bills. The Division also demonstrates that the Joint Proposal should be revised to require the Company to return more than $20 million of its customers' money that it is currently holding, and in several other respects to reduce the rate increase to manageable levels.