April 12, 2000

Mr. Edward Beslow, Esq., Acting Secretary
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. Beslow:

This letter is to express the Ratepayer Advocate’s concerns regarding the delays in establishing a procedural schedule for the Universal Service proceedings mandated by Section 12 of the Electric Discount and Energy Restructuring Act ("Act"). The Ratepayer Advocate respectfully urges the Board to act at its April 19, 2000 meeting to establish a procedural schedule which includes the filing of Universal Service proposals and supporting testimony, evidentiary hearings with an opportunity for cross-examination, and public hearings.

It has now been over a year since the Legislature mandated the creation of a Universal Service fund, and the Board has not yet acted to establish a procedural schedule to accomplish this objective. The Board’s Staff has now held two meetings with representatives of the utilities, the Ratepayer Advocate, State agencies, and consumer advocacy organizations in an attempt to reach agreement on a procedural schedule, and has received written comments on this issue. It has become clear that there are two divergent views that must be resolved by the Board--the utilities have advocated a series of "working group" meetings, while the Ratepayer Advocate, AARP and other consumer advocacy organizations are united in their support for formal proceedings, including prefiled testimony, discovery, and evidentiary hearings.

If a Universal Service fund is to be in place of the 2000-01 winter heating season, it is imperative that the Board act now to establish a specific schedule to accomplish this. As is explained in the Ratepayer Advocate’s previously filed written comments to Staff (copy attached), this schedule must include the filing of testimony containing concrete Universal Service proposals, discovery, evidentiary hearings at which these proposals will be considered, and public hearings to provide the Board with the broadest possible input on the important issues of public policy involved in these proceedings. Otherwise, there can be no assurance that a proposal will be ready for the Board’s consideration before next winter.

In addition, prompt action is required under the Board-approved Stipulations in the four natural gas unbundling proceedings that were concluded in January, 2000. As the Board is aware, the Ratepayer Advocate reached Stipulations with three of the natural gas utilities, in which the utilities agreed submit Universal Service proposals no later than January 31, 2000 for south Jersey Gas Company ("South Jersey"), February 29, 2000 for Elizabethtown Gas Company ("Elizabethtown"), and 30 days from the Board’s approval of the Stipulation for New Jersey Natural Gas Company ("New Jersey Natural"). On January 10, 2000, the Board approved all three of these Stipulations, and further ordered Public Service Electric and Gas Company to submit its Universal Service proposal no later than March 15, 2000. These dates have come and gone, and no Universal Service proposals have been filed.

The timely filing of Universal Service proposals was a essential part of the Ratepayer Advocate’s Stipulations with South Jersey, Elizabethtown and New Jersey Natural, as well as the Board’s approval of the Public Service Stipulation. These proposals cannot be delayed indefinitely without substantially infringing upon the rights of the Ratepayer Advocate and other parties to the gas unbundling proceedings.

In this regard, the Board should reject Public Service’s March 20, 2000 letter requesting the Board to postpone the filing of its Universal Service proposal until "after the regulatory review period" following the issuance of a written order in the Public Service gas unbundling proceeding. Public Service asserts that such a delay is needed so that the company may "review the oral modifications to the stipulation that will be included in the written order." This is nonsense. Although the Ratepayer Advocate shares Public Service’s concern about the absence of a written order, no written order is required for the company to understand the Board’s directive to submit the company’s proposal for a Universal Service program.

HOME