March 23, 2000

 Mr. Lawrence Gentieu
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
2 Gateway Center
Newark, New Jersey 07102

RE:	I/M/O the Establishment of a Universal Service Fund Pursuant to Section 12 of the Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act of 1999. BPU Dkt. No. EX000200091

Dear Mr. Gentieu:

This letter is to provide the Ratepayer Advocate’s response to the proposals of GPU Energy and New Jersey Natural Gas Company that the Board hold a series of working group meetings before establishing a hearing schedule. The Ratepayer Advocate continues to urge the Board to act now to establish a procedural schedule, to assure that this matter will be ready for action by the Board before the 2000-01 winter heating season.

The Ratepayer Advocate agrees that the Universal Service programs to be implemented by New Jersey’s energy utilities should be developed with input from interested State agencies. The Ratepayer Advocate believes that the best way to achieve this is to schedule continuing dialogue with the interested agencies within the context of a schedule that provides for specific dates for the filing of proposals and supporting testimony, evidentiary hearings, briefing, and decision by the Board. In addition, the Board should schedule public hearings, to provide an additional forum for input from the many social service agencies that serve low-income consumers in New Jersey, as well as interested members of the public.

The development of a Universal Service Program will be a complex undertaking, involving the determination of program objectives, funding levels, and the manner in which the program will be administered. As has become abundantly clear as a result of the Board’s electric restructuring working groups, a series of generalized discussions will not be an effective means of moving this process along. The process will not work unless (1) there are proposals and

supporting testimony "on the table" to provide a basis for discussion, and (2) the parties are faced with clear deadlines, in the form of specific dates for discovery, evidentiary hearings, briefing and decision by the Board.

This type of process need not exclude state agencies that do not wish to file testimony, cross-examine witnesses, or submit briefs. They can participate fully in settlement discussions, which could take place at any time. Indeed, the discussions are more likely to be productive once the utilities, the Ratepayer Advocate, and other parties who wish to do so, have developed and filed concrete proposals and supporting testimony, and when there is a specific schedule in place for hearings, briefing, and decision. This approach would be a much more constructive use of these agencies’ resources than requesting them to participate in a series of generalized working group meetings, which, based on the "working group" experience to date, are likely to lead nowhere. Public hearings would provide an additional forum for input from interested social service agencies, as well as members of the public.

Attached to this letter is a revised draft of the proposed Procedural Schedule distributed by the Ratepayer Advocate at the March 9, 2000 initial meeting in this matter. This draft reflects two modifications. First, there is no date specified for the initiation of settlement discussions, as these could take place at any time during the proceeding. Second, this schedule includes public hearings to provide the Board with input from social service agencies and members of the public who wish to provide comments to the Board without participating in an evidentiary proceeding.

Under Section 12 of the Electric Discount and Energy Restructuring Act, the Legislature recognized that effective Universal Service programs are an essential part of the energy restructuring process. For the reasons stated above and at the March 9 initial meeting in this matter, the Ratepayer Advocate urges the Board to adopt a procedural schedule to assure that these important programs are in place for the 2000-01 winter heating season. This schedule must include the filing of proposals and supporting testimony without any delay for protracted and continuing "working group" discussions.

HOME