January 18, 2000

BY HAND DELIVERY
Mark W. Musser, Esq.
Secretary
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
Two Gateway Center - 8th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102

Re:	In the Matter of the Emergent Petition of Monroe Township, A Municipal Corporation of The County of Middlesex and State of New Jersey Seeking An Order to Compel GPU Energy to Comply With the Requirements of Section 45 of the Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act. BPU Docket No. EC00010009

Dear Secretary Musser:

This letter (original and ten copies enclosed) is submitted on behalf of the New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate (the "Ratepayer Advocate"), in connection with the petition filed by Monroe Township filed January 12, 2000 to compel GPU Energy ("GPU") to comply with the Requirements of Section 45 of the Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act (the "Act"). More specifically this letter is intended to support Monroe Township’s efforts to obtain the names and addresses of all of GPU’s residential customers residing within the town limits of Monroe Township.

Since the beginning of restructuring proceedings for both gas and electric industries, the Ratepayer Advocate has consistently advocated for the establishment of government aggregation programs in this State. In the new competitive environment, new suppliers will more likely target larger use customers first, because obtaining a large customer is more cost efficient for the new marketers. To insure that all energy consumers in New Jersey, especially the residential and small commercial customers, realize benefits from the new market structure, the Ratepayer Advocate continues to believe that aggregation, especially government aggregation, is key to reaching that goal.

As stated in some detail in the Ratepayer Advocate’s Comments to the Government Energy Aggregation Standards: Draft Interim Standards dated April 22, 1999 (attached herewith), the government aggregation sections 40-46 of the Act set forth various hurdles and procedures government aggregators must fulfill to aggregate ratepayers. One such hurdle that the Ratepayer Advocate identified in its comments, that may work as a deterrent to aggregation is the requirement that the government aggregator identify residential energy customers in its territory. This very same issue is now the subject of the Monroe Township Petition.

Specifically, the Act requires government aggregators organizing an Opt-out program to determine the number and identity of its residential customers who did not affirmatively decline participation, before it may commence public bidding. The government aggregator cannot notify all energy consumers within its jurisdiction or identify the customers who did not opt-out without the utility’s customer list used for billing purposes. Therefore, implicit in Section 45 a. of the Act is the utilities’ obligation to assist the government aggregator obtain critical information they need to fulfill the intent of the law to allow municipal aggregation in New Jersey.

GPU’s assertions that the provision protecting consumer privacy in Section 36 of the Act applies to government aggregators and therefore prohibits release of customer information to them cannot stand. As Monroe Townships’ petition correctly states, such an interpretation of the Act will nullify Section 45, government aggregation provisions. This very concern prompted Commissioner Armenti to express his concern that aggregation would be impeded if the privacy section of the Act is interpreted to prohibit the release of the names and addresses of customers to aggregators during the Board Agenda meeting held just a few days ago. Board Agenda Meeting, (January 11, 2000), I/M/O the Rates Unbundling Filing by Gas Public Utilities Pursuant to Section 10, Subsection A of the Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act of 1999, Docket No. GX99030121 (relevant sections attached hereto). During that meeting, the Board Ordered the Attorney General’s Office and Board Staff to study the issue regarding the release of customer information in response to Commissioner Armenti’s observation on the matter:

It’s just hard for me to believe that the intent of the legislature was to impede that which is a key component of the Act, you know, and we have talked a lot about aggregation with the League of Municipalities and Conference of Mayors, and here is a key component and the law really is an impediment to achieving the results we are seeking, which is lower costs by the consumers. I just would like to see us pursue that aspect of it. Id. at 28.

The customer list that Monroe Township needs to effectuate a successful aggregation program is not being sold to private commercial entities that may sell the names and addresses for sale of insurance, mortgage, loans or any other products. It is being released to a government entity seeking to bring the benefits of deregulation to its constituents pursuant to the Act. Clearly, the utility maintains a computerized billing system which can identify ratepayers in a specific municipality. Moreover, GPU’s excuse that the initial mailing list used for its pilot program in Monroe Township was "not retained" should not hold sway in this matter. What was once compiled can be re-created by GPU. Further, destroying valuable property when GPU knew of Monroe Townships’ intention to continue some form of aggregation program illustrates the Company’s attempt to circumvent the intent of the Act.

Therefore for the foregoing reasons, the Ratepayer Advocate respectfully requests that Monroe Townships’ petition be granted on an expedited bases and require GPU to release all information that is requested therein.

 * Attachment not included