ORAL ARGUMENT BY BLOSSOM A. PERETZ, ESQ.
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF THE RATEPAYER ADVOCATE

INITIAL POLICY STATEMENT

 

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Hughes Justice Complex
25 West Market Street
Trenton, NJ 08625


I/M/O Public Service Electric and Gas Company's
Rate Unbundling, Stranded Costs and Restructuring
Filings, et. al., Docket No. 49,690

 

November 8, 2000


Thank you Chief Justice Poritz. May it please the Court.

I am Blossom Peretz, the State's Ratepayer Advocate. I am going to present a five-minute introductory statement on this case, after which my colleague Gregory Eisenstark will address my general points and all of the issues raised in our briefs in greater detail.

In this era of rapid change that is, the concurrent deregulation of electric and gas and telecommunications utilities, public utility commissions are experimenting with new models of regulation. What concerns me here today is that in our zeal and haste to implement competition - there has been abandonment of regulatory due process rules of procedure which deprives ratepayers of the benefits of deregulation and competition. At the present time as we all know, there is little or no competition or choice for most ratepayers in the New Jersey energy marketplace. As of November 1, 2000 only 1.8% of PSE&G residential electric ratepayers have chosen an alternate supplier, and notwithstanding the mandatory statutory discount - energy ratepayers have and will certainly be faced with high energy rates - some of which are directly related to Board of Public Utilities actions which are the subject matter of this appeal. What is at stake here today is both the public interest and the public pocketbook.

More specifically:


About RPA    |    Press Releases     |    Annual Report     |    E-mail Directory     |    Newsletters     |    Search
New    |    Electric    |    Natural Gas     |    Telecommunications     |   Water and Waste Water     |    Links    |     Archives 

Home