Peak period for variable electric rates shrinks

The state Public Service Commission has shortened the higher-cost peak-usage period in a Central Hudson program that lets customers pay varying electricity rates.

The change, reducing the peak pricing period from 12 hours to five hours per day, was approved by the commission last week and “should provide customers with greater temporal flexibility to participate in demand-side management and energy-use reductions that more closely align with system peak loads,” the ruling states.

The more than 950 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. customers currently enrolled in the program, which has been in existence since 1982, have paid an additional $3 per month to participate and are charged 119.51 percent of the standard electric rate during peak-usage periods and 88.64 percent of the rate during off-peak periods. There also has been a choice of 12-hour periods for peak use, beginning at 8 a.m., 9 a.m. and 10 a.m.

Under the newly approved revision, there still will be the $3 monthly fee to participate but there will be only a single, shorter peak period, from 2 to 7 p.m.

Central Hudson spokesman John Maserjian said the rates under the new structure will be 50 to 100 percent higher during peak periods but 50 percent lower during off-peak periods.

“Under the [revision], the lower off-peak delivery charge is based on avoided costs for electric infrastructure investments by shifting usage to off-peak hours, while the higher on-peak delivery charge is based on higher infrastructure investments to accommodate usage during peak times,” he said.

The Public Service Commission ruling said Central Hudson could not fairly isolate the cost of peak periods when using 12-hour segments.

The local watchdog group Citizens for Local Power reacted to the ruling in the context of an overall rate increase being sought by Central Hudson.

“It’s better,” group cofounder Jennifer Metzger said of the revision, “in that the on-peak window has been shortened to five hours. But the pricing structure is still not as beneficial to customers as it should be.

“We also think that the proper place to examine this proposal is in the current rate case and not as a separate proceeding,” Metzger said. “A rate case is about rates, after all.”