ALBANY - Influential players in the energy market are preparing for what is likely to be a major fight in the 2008 Legislative session over whether to re-regulate energy costs in New York.
Whatever the decision, the bottom line is New Yorkers' utility bills.
The state's current energy market was intended to drive down prices and give consumers more choices and transparency.
But some advocates, including Democratic Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, are pushing the state back toward regulation, arguing that it saved consumers more money in the long run.
According to a 2006 report from the state Public Service Commission on the state of competitive energy markets: “The total real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) electric price for a typical residential retail customer in New York, including supply and delivery charges, has dropped by an average of approximately 16 percent between 1996 and 2004.”
Lobbyists on both sides of the issue have been hard at work pressing their cases.
A study paid for by the Retail Energy Supply Association found that consumers have benefited from deregulation. RESA is a group of companies - including ConEdison Solutions, Hess, Direct Energy and Liberty Power - that support market competition.
“The study is from the people who have benefited, the owners of the plants who have benefited from this horrible deregulation,” Brodsky said.
The RESA study directly attacks a previous report that analyzed the same set of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and came up with opposite results.
That study funded by Power in the Public Interest - a group that supports regulation - found problems with competition-based pricing.
PPI was formed by utilities and utility organizations, including the Large Public Power Council, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Tacoma Public Utilities and the Southern California Public Power Authority.
Including New York, 13 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have decided to deregulate their energy systems and allow retail choice for consumers.
Among those are Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas.
Most made the switch in the mid 1990s, and as more states are reaching a decade out on the competitive market system, experts are evaluating whether it's done ratepayers any good.
Kajal Lahiri, a professor of economics at SUNY Albany, said it will probably take another decade to see the price benefits of a commercial market.
“As a general rule, deregulated markets in the long run always work out better for the consumer,” he said. “Time has not come yet to completely realize the benefits of deregulation.”
Another eight states have suspended deregulation efforts, including California, Virginia, New Mexico, Oregon and Nevada.
Gov. Eliot Spitzer's office did not immediately respond to questions about his position on regulation.
The state's current energy market was intended to drive down prices and give consumers more choices and transparency.
But some advocates, including Democratic Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, are pushing the state back toward regulation, arguing that it saved consumers more money in the long run.
According to a 2006 report from the state Public Service Commission on the state of competitive energy markets: “The total real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) electric price for a typical residential retail customer in New York, including supply and delivery charges, has dropped by an average of approximately 16 percent between 1996 and 2004.”
Lobbyists on both sides of the issue have been hard at work pressing their cases.
A study paid for by the Retail Energy Supply Association found that consumers have benefited from deregulation. RESA is a group of companies - including ConEdison Solutions, Hess, Direct Energy and Liberty Power - that support market competition.
“The study is from the people who have benefited, the owners of the plants who have benefited from this horrible deregulation,” Brodsky said.
The RESA study directly attacks a previous report that analyzed the same set of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and came up with opposite results.
That study funded by Power in the Public Interest - a group that supports regulation - found problems with competition-based pricing.
PPI was formed by utilities and utility organizations, including the Large Public Power Council, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Tacoma Public Utilities and the Southern California Public Power Authority.
Including New York, 13 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have decided to deregulate their energy systems and allow retail choice for consumers.
Among those are Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas.
Most made the switch in the mid 1990s, and as more states are reaching a decade out on the competitive market system, experts are evaluating whether it's done ratepayers any good.
Kajal Lahiri, a professor of economics at SUNY Albany, said it will probably take another decade to see the price benefits of a commercial market.
“As a general rule, deregulated markets in the long run always work out better for the consumer,” he said. “Time has not come yet to completely realize the benefits of deregulation.”
Another eight states have suspended deregulation efforts, including California, Virginia, New Mexico, Oregon and Nevada.
Gov. Eliot Spitzer's office did not immediately respond to questions about his position on regulation.
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are No comments posted.