(SERVICE LIST ATIACHED)

Transcription

1 Agenda Date: 3/18116 Agenda Item: SF STATE OF NEW JERSEY Trenton, New Jersey 08625~ CLEAN ENERGY MARK NAPIER, Petitioner v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, Respondent ORDER OF EXTENSION DOCKET NO. EC OAL DOCKET NO. PUC (SERVICE LIST ATIACHED The Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge was received by the Board of Public Utilities (Board} on February 3, 2016; therefore, the 45 day statutory period for review and the issuing of a Final Decision will expire on March 21, Prior to that date, the Board requests an additional 45 day extension of time for issuing the Final Decision in order to adequately review the record in this matter. Good cause having been shown, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B 10(c} and N.J.A.C. 1:1 18.8, IT IS ORDERED that the time limit for the Board to issue a Final Decision is extended until May 5, IC UTILITIES ATIEST: IRENE KIM ASBURY SECRETARY RICHARD S. MRDZ' PRESIDENT l Authorized by Board to execute this Order of Extension on its behalf. l HEREBY CER'TlPt that the wtth!n document ls a true copy of th& orlglnal ln 1Jw Illes of the c.q...~k'o

2 Date Board mailed Order to OAL Q~ cc: Service List Attached DATED: 3/22/16 laura SANDERS, ACTING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE law JUDGE Date OAL mailed executed Order to Board: 3/22/16 Date Board mailed executed Order to Parties: 2 BPU Docket No. EC OAL Docket No. PUC

3 IN THE MATTER OF MARK NAPIER V. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY SOLAR 4 ALL POLE-MOUNTED SEGMENT- DISPUTE OVER MEASUREMENT OF GENERATION -REQUEST FOR EXTENSION DOCKET NOS. BPU EC AND OAL PUC SERVICE LIST Mark Napier 4 Exeter Place Cinnaminson, NJ MarkNaps@yahoo.com Sheree L. Kelly, Esq. Associate General Regulatory Counsel Public Service Electric and Gas Company 80 Pari< Plaza- T5G Newark, NJ Sheree.Kelly@pseg.com David Wand, Esq. Division of Law 124 Halsey Street Post Office Box Newark, NJ David.wand@dol.lps.state.nj.us Carolyn Mcintosh, DAG Division of Law 124 Halsey Street Past Office Box Newark, NJ Carolyn.mcintosh@dol.lps.state.nj.us Rachel Boylan, Esq. Legal Specialist Counsel's Office Rachel.boylan@bou.state.nLus Irene Kim Asbury, Esq. Secretary of the Board lrene.asburv@bpu.state. nj. us Secil Onat, Executive Director Marisa Slaten, Assistant Director Division of Economic Development and Emerging Issues Trenlon, NJ Secil. onat@b pu. state.nj. us Benjamin S. Hunter, Renewable Energy Program Administrator Office of Clean Energy Trenlon, NJ Benjamin.hunter@bpu.state.nj.us Allison E. Mitchell, Administrative Analyst I Office of Clean Energy Allison.mitchelt@bpu.state.nj.us Maureen Wagner, Esq. Legal Specialist Maureen.wagner@bpu.state.nj.us 3 BPU Docket No. EC OAL Docket No. PUC

4 Chris Christie Govemor Klm Guadagno Lt. Governor STATE OF NEW JERSEY 44 South Clinton Avenue,~ Floor Poat Office Box 360 Trenton. New Joraey !"'ll%n!.govlbp!!l l<rlsu lzzo Secretary of the Board Tel.# 1-I!OO-e Tamara L. Linde, Eoq. PubUc Service Elecirlc and Gas Company Post Office Box T5G ao Pari< Plaza Newari<, New Jemey November 13, 2013 Re: Mark Napier ve. Public Service Electric and G88 Company Disputing Solar 4 An Pole Mount System Docket No, EC Dear Ms. Unde: Enclosed Is a copy of the petition In the above-captioned matter. You may contest the petttlon or make reprasentauons to the Board In connection!herewith. To do this, you must flle an original and three (3 copies of a wrltlen answer with the Board and serve a copy of the answer on lhe peutloner and all other parties named in the peujion within twenty (20 days after service of the petition upon you. Parties may reply to an ans""r by filing an original and three (3 copies of!he reply with the Board and serving a copy on all other partlee wllhln ten (1 0 days after service of the answer. Proof of service of the answer and replies, ~ any, must be ffied wjjh the Board at the time of filing or Immediately!hereafter. After an a newer has been flied,!he Board wnt determine: (1 If!he matter Ia a contested case'; (2 whether to iransfer It to the Office of Admln!s!ra!lve Law ('OAL " for hearing; or (3 whether to hear the case IIsaK. If approprle!e, before tmnstening a 'conles!ad case' to the OAL,!he Board may attempt Jo settle!he case In consuhatlon with the parties. Please Include!he above docket number on all filings and correspondence relating to!his metter. Enclosure cc; Petitioner ~v Secretary of!he Board

5 Board of Public Utl\lt!es Commission ond Office of Admlnlstrntlve t.my My name Is Mark Napier sod I own 2 Soler systems. The one system l,s a cw In Willingboro Bt24 glanolden lane Garfield Park Academy.lt 1s a school for handicapped and special needs chudran, I supply all of their electricity at a heavily discounted rate through my Solar Fann which Is located on the property. The other systam Is a lokw synem Iota ted at 4 Exeter place Cinnaminson. I want a hearfng to discuss and dispute tha amount of energy credit and SREC credft that PSEG was and still is mcemng for the Solar 4 All Pole Mount S}'stem, The system panels have not been metered end PSEG Is receiving far mere ~tnergy credit then the system Is actually producing. I have extensive documentntion to prove my accusations. I was just told yet again by Scott Hunter th.at PSEG Is lmplementlng a proposal they gave to the board In I understand that board members vlstted PSEG training siw In Edison on the week of 9/9/13 and confirmed that PSEG Is Implementing something. They have been telling the board slnte they proposed end received approvals for Pole Mount Systems that they would meter panel5.. They h!1ve not done mast of what they promised the board. I want a formal hearing In regards to the lack of compflance by PSEG for Pole Mount Systems. I was told by Tricfa Ca!lgulre at the Office of Administrative law that my request for a formal hearing was being rejected for a lack of stating the relief 1 was seeking from the board. The relief that l am seeking is l'or the board to deny PSEG of any SREC and Solar Energy credit going bade to the approval in 2009, PS G has no valid proof or any electric production from the pole mount systems. All other owners of Solar systems ln the state of New Jersey hav~ the ability to prove output of production from Solar. PSEG stated that all panels had built in smart boxes and even did a video with the owner of Petra explaining the smart box on every panel. The mtepaym had to pay more for these boxes: that are either not activated or don't worlc.ln conclusion t would like for the board to reject the Pole Mount System from the program and have the production credit taken awey.l want the board to order PSEG to compensate all Solar owner for fraudulently devaluating our SRECs. PSEG did not comply with the rules and regulations like the rest of the Solar ownars. PSEG took advantage of the trust the board gave them and then broke It ThankYou, ~ Marl<Nepler ~;I- t-i,:s 4 Exeter PI Cinnaminson, NJ MarkNaps@yahoo.com O n II IP:DWl1 ll ~t NUV SECRETARY'S OFFICE