in 2012, the Board tasked Staff will conducting a study on the possibility of removing the RPS requirement from the Basic Generation Service procurement process. In furtherance of this project, Staff has issued a series of questions for comment on the renewable energy market in New Jersey and its relation to the procurement of BGS.

The questions are as follows:
"1. Describe the potential benefits and/or risks of removing the RPS obligation from the BGS full requirement product.

2. Is the price transparency created by the separation of the RPS from the BGS procurement process still needed now that (a) the SACP has been reduced drastically, and (b) the market prices for SRECs are much lower than the SACP?

3. To what extent have BGS suppliers contracted for RECs on a long-term basis?

4. Are there legal, regulatory or other impediments to transferring RPS responsibility for BGS load to New Jersey’s Electric Distribution Companies (EDCs)? Please address any issues relating to mandatory terms for contacts, cost recovery, the prudency of an EDC’s actions in meeting the RPS obligations in a process separate from the BGS procurement, including the possibility for over- or under-procurement and the costs?

5. How would the current EDCs’ programs,which generate or finance the generation of SRECsand then sell those SRECs, be impacted if the RPS obligations were to be moved back from BGS suppliers to the EDCs? Without BGS bidders needing these SRECs what is the risk that the EDCs fail to sell off their SRECs at competitive prices?

6. What is the risk of the EDCs not being able to meet 100% of their RPS requirements through an auction due to low turnout? Please explain your answer.

7. In the event that an EDC RPS procurement process is created to satisfy the RPS obligation for BGS load, what, if any, caps should be placed on participation in such an RPS procurement to maintain a competitive balance? Would caps or other limits on participation be feasible, given potential concerns about total levels of competition? Please explain.

8. Would transferring the RPS responsibility from BGS suppliers back to the EDCs affect the competitive electric energy retail choice market in New Jersey?

9. Are there legal, regulatory or other impediments to transferring RPS responsibility for Third Party Suppliers’ load to the EDCs? Please explain.

10. If otherwise permissible, should transferring the RPS responsibility from BGS suppliers to the EDCs move New Jersey away from a competitive market with many buyers and sellers for pricing RECs and SRECs? What impact would this have on REC and SREC pricing?

11. Would the EDCs incur additional administrative costs to procure and manage the SREC/REC portfolio?Please explain."

Comments are due November 4, 2013, and reply comments are due December 2, 2013. The full text of the Request for Comments is available on the NEM Website.

At yesterday's Retail Energy Stakeholder Forum, Staff commented that it continues to work on the open generic retail access review case, and they hope to have something to the Commission by the end of the year.

Staff shared a general warning about the practices of certain unnamed third party vendors and cautioned the marketers to look into and review the practices that these entities may be taking on their behalf in the marketplace.

Finally, Staff reviewed its practice with regard to utility slamming reports. Utilities are required to provide monthly reports of allegations of slamming to Staff. When the allegations pertaining to a particular ESCO exceed forty in a month, Staff will send that ESCO the list of allegations as a Notice of Investigation.