INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Sample Clauses

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. The Commission established an inclusive process for implementing New Hampshire’s Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (“EERS”) in Order No. 25,932 (August 2, 2016) (the “Planning Order”), requiring the state’s electric and natural gas utilities, as administrators of the programs offered to the public to meet the EERS, to “prepare the triennial EERS plans in 1 All references to the NH Utilities for purposes of the Plan and this Agreement shall include NHEC unless explicitly stated otherwise. collaboration with stakeholders and the EESE Board as Advisory Council.” Planning Order at 10-11. In Docket No. DE 17-136, the Commission approved the first triennial plan with an implementation period of the EERS for years 2018-2020. See Order No. 26,095 (January 2, 2018). The 2018-2020 Plan was updated for each of the years 2019 and 2020. On December 31, 2018, the Commission adopted the 2019 update plan with Order No. 26,207, which included a number of recommendations for the 2021-2023 Plan including a planning process with robust stakeholder input and a filing deadline for a proposed plan of July 1, 2020. On June 5, 2020 the NH Utilities and the OCA filed an uncontested motion, supported by Commission Staff (“Staff”), to amend Order 26,207 and extend the filing deadline so that the NH Utilities, OCA and stakeholders participating in the planning process could account for the rapidly developing and widespread effects of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as incorporate the findings of the energy efficiency studies that was still ongoing, into the draft of the 2021- 2023 Plan. The Commission granted the extension, issued an Order nisi opening the instant docket for consideration of the 2021-2023 Plan, and extended the filing deadline to September 1, 2020. Order No. 26,375 (June 30, 2020). After ten months and considerable efforts made by numerous stakeholders including the Settling Parties and Staff, the NH Utilities filed the 2021-2023 Plan on September 1, 2020 with a unanimous vote of support from the EERS Committee and a strong majority vote of support from the EESE Board. Discovery took place from September 8 to October 6. Staff, OCA, and several intervenors filed testimony on October 29. Further discovery was conducted in response to that testimony, and the Settling Parties met with Staff to discuss possible settlement on November 19 and 20. This extended and robust stakeholder planning process and subsequent adjudicative process have produced this Agreement among t...

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1.1 On October 2, 2017, the Company filed its LCIRP for the planning period that spanned the 2017/2018 winter through the 2021-2022 season. 1.2 The Commission issued an Order of Notice on February 8, 2018, scheduling a March 9, 2018, prehearing conference and establishing deadlines for intervention. The OCA filed its letter of participation. CLF, PLAN, and Xxxxx sought intervention. Commission Staff (now DOE) also participated. 1.3 Following the prehearing conference, the Commission granted the intervention requests and approved an initial procedural schedule that called for hearings in January 2019. 1.4 In May 2018 Xxxxx filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the LCIRP failed to satisfy the requirements of RSA 378:37. Liberty objected. 1.5 The Commission denied Xxxxx’x motion in Order No. 26,225 (Mar. 13, 2019), and directed Liberty to “submit a supplemental filing to address each of the specific elements required under RSA 378:38 and RSA 378:39 that are not already addressed in its LCIRP with adequate sufficiency to permit the Commission’s assessment of potential environmental, economic, and health-related impacts of each option proposed in the LCIRP.” Id. at 1. Liberty made the supplemental filing on April 30, 2019. 1.6 CLF and Xxxxx filed motions arguing that Liberty’s supplemental filing was insufficient, Liberty objected, and the parties held a May 23 technical conference at which the adequacy of Liberty’s supplemental filing was discussed. Xxxxxxx agreed to make a second supplemental filing on June 28, 2019. 1.7 After the second supplemental filing, Xxxxx filed a motion to strike the LCIRP and CLF filed a motion to find the LCIRP non-compliant. The Commission denied those motions in Order No. 26,286 (Aug. 12, 2019). 1.8 DOE, CLF, and Xxxxx filed testimony on September 9, 2019. Xxxxxxx filed rebuttal testimony on October 25, 2019. After being notified of developments in the Granite Bridge docket,1 the Commission granted Liberty’s motion to suspend the procedural schedule in this docket by a December 2, 2019, secretarial letter with the requirement that Liberty make periodic status reports. Liberty filed the required status reports through May 2020. A technical session was held on June 3, 2020. 1.9 No further substantive action has occurred in the docket until the Commission’s March 16, 2022, procedural order inviting parties to file summaries of their positions and any additional filings by June 1, 2022, and scheduling the June ...

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1.1 On April 2, 2021, pursuant to RSA 378:3, RSA 378:28 and N.H. Code Admin. Rules Puc §§1600 et seq., Unitil filed testimony, supporting data, and revisions to its Tariff NHPUC No. 3 – Electricity Delivery. The filing requested approval of: (1) a permanent annual increase to its distribution revenues of $11,992,392; (2) a three-year Rate Plan with an initial step adjustment to be implemented on the effective date of permanent rates, and step adjustments thereafter on or about April 1, 2023 and 2024; (3) certain changes to its rate design and select tariff components, including a Revenue Decoupling Mechanism (“RDM”), four new Time of Use (“TOU”) rates, and new rates for Light Emitting Diode (“LED”) fixtures; (4) several new programs including an arrearage management program and a residential behind the meter electric vehicle supply equipment incentive program; and (5) a temporary revenue increase of $5,812,761 million effective as of June 1, 2021, to be recovered on a uniform per kilowatt hour (“kWh”) basis from all rate classes until completion of the proceeding. 1.2 On May 7, 2021, Unitil filed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with the Commission, including agreement on a total annual temporary distribution revenue increase of $4,451,667 collected through a uniform per kWh surcharge of $0.00384 applied to all of Unitil’s current rate schedules, including those not normally billed for distribution service on a kWh basis. On May 27, 2021, the Commission issued Order No. 26,484, approving the Settlement on Temporary Rates, effective June 1, 2021, subject to reconciliation based on the outcome of the permanent rate case. 1.3 Following multiple sets of discovery and technical sessions, the DOE, OCA, Clean Energy New Hampshire, Conservation Law Foundation and ChargePoint Inc. filed written testimony on November 23, 2021. Productive settlement discussions on Permanent Rates took place during January and February 2022, which ultimately led to this Settlement Agreement.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. A number of executive and legislative efforts were launched starting in 2018 to advance EV adoption and development of EV infrastructure statewide. The Legislature enacted and the Governor signed into law SB 575, an act relative to electric vehicle charging stations, and SB 517, creating the Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Infrastructure Commission (“EV Commission”). Among other things, SB 575 required the Commission to determine whether demand charges would be appropriate to apply to electric vehicle charging stations. In August of 2020, in investigatory Docket No. IR 20-004, the Commission issued Order No. 26,394, in which the Commission stated: “[W]e understand that demand charges may limit the economic viability of low utilization rate, high demand draw [Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (“EVSE”)], but also acknowledge their role in limiting cost shifts between classes and customers . . . [and] we expect that utilities will consider demand charge alternatives in any high demand draw rate design proposals they may develop.” (Order 26,394 at 9). As part of the mandate of SB 517, the EV Commission was to make recommendations on: development of zero emission vehicle technology and infrastructure, including installation of electric vehicle charging stations; the development of electric vehicle charging stations, including high-speed charging stations, in state and federal highway corridors and at public transportation hubs and parking garages, and; changes needed to state laws, rules, and practices, including building codes and public utilities commission rules, to further the development of zero emission vehicle technology and infrastructure.1 By October 2020, the EV Commission had issued its final report and among its recommendations was authorizing public utilities to deploy EVSE make- ready programs.2 The EV Commission specifically found that utility make-ready programs are particularly well-suited for enabling the advancement of EVSE deployment, and recommended the adoption of such programs.3 The Legislature expressed similar support for the important role utilities can play in EV infrastructure implementation when it passed SB 131 in July 2021, signed by the Governor on August 10, 2021. 2 Id. at 6. 3 Id. at 7-8. With SB 131, the General Court found: I. Availability of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) is critical to facilitating the development of the overall electric vehicle (EV) market in the region and will support our tourism-based econo...

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. New Hampshire House Bill 315 (2021) added Section 9 to RSA Chapter 53-E. Under RSA 53-E:9, each electric distribution utility is required to propose a POR program for approval by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”). Puc 2205.16(e) required each electric distribution utility to propose a POR program within 90 days of its effective date (i.e., by January 10, 2023). On January 10, 2023, pursuant to RSA 53-E:9 and Puc 2205.16(e), Eversource filed testimony and exhibits in support of a proposed POR program applicable to both CPAs and CEPS. Following two sets of discovery and a technical session, the DOE, CPCNH, and the NRG Retail Companies filed a written technical statement, testimony, and comments, respectively, on June 16, 2023. Productive settlement discussions thereafter were held involving the Settling Parties, certain of which discussions also included representatives of Liberty Utilities (Granite State Electric) Corp. d/b/a Liberty and Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., which had filed similar proposals for POR program implementation under RSA 53-E:9 and Puc 2205.16(e). A primary focus of those confidential settlement discussions was the potential to achieve material consistency among the POR programs to be implemented by the three regulated electric distribution utilities. This Settlement Agreement represents the result of those confidential settlement negotiations.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1.1 On August 2, 2021, pursuant to RSA 378:3, RSA 378:28 and N.H. Code Admin. Rules Puc §§1600 et seq., Unitil filed testimony, supporting data, and revisions to its Tariff NHPUC No. 12 – Gas. The filing requested approval of: (1) a permanent annual increase to its distribution revenues of $7,782,950; (2) a three-year Rate Plan with an initial step adjustment to be implemented on the effective date of permanent rates, and step adjustments thereafter on or about August 1, 2023 and 2024; (3) certain changes to its rate design and select tariff components, including a Revenue Decoupling Mechanism (“RDM”); (4) an arrearage management program; and (5) a temporary revenue increase of $3,220,742 effective as of October 1, 2021, to be recovered on a uniform per therm increase in distribution rates of $0.0846 to Unitil’s Residential rate schedules and an increase of $0.0279 to Unitil’s Commercial and Industrial rate schedules until completion of the proceeding. 1.2 On September 17, 2021, Unitil filed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with the Commission, including agreement on a total annual temporary distribution revenue increase of $2,599,083 collected through a uniform per therm surcharge of $0.0683 to Unitil’s Residential rate schedules and $0.0225 to Unitil’s Commercial and Industrial rate schedules. On September 30, 2021, the Commission issued Order No. 26,529, approving the Settlement on Temporary Rates, effective October 1, 2021, subject to reconciliation based on the outcome of the permanent rate case. 1.3 Following multiple sets of discovery and technical sessions, the DOE and XXX filed written testimony on April 1, 2022. Productive settlement discussions on Permanent Rates took place on May 5-6, 2022, which ultimately led to this Settlement Agreement.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. Plaintiffs are adults with developmental disabilities who qualify for Medicaid services through Idaho’s Medicaid Adult Developmental Disability Services program (“DDS program”). When Plaintiffs’ DDS program assistance was reduced, they brought this action against the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (“Department”), its Director and its Medicaid Administrator, in their official capacities, (“Defendants”) challenging, among other things, the notices informing them of their budget reductions sent to them by the Department. The United States District Court of Idaho (“Court”) enjoined the reductions, and the parties eventually agreed to the terms of a preliminary injunction that maintained the status quo and provided Plaintiffs with information about their budget reductions. That injunction restored the Plaintiffs’ budgets to the levels that they were prior to July 1, 2011. The Court later certified a class consisting of “All persons who are participants in or applicants to the Adult Developmental Disability Services program (‘DDS program’), administered by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare as part of the Idaho Medicaid program, and who undergo the annual eligibility determination or reevaluation process.” (Dkt. 224). The Court extended the injunction to every member of the class. Plaintiffs filed their Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on July 24, 2014 (Dkt. 148) (“Complaint”).1 Plaintiffs’ class action lawsuit alleges (among other things) that the Department’s existing budget setting methodology, fair hearing process, and Budget Notice violate the due process and/or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs’ class-wide claims are contained in counts 1 through 6 of their Complaint, entitled: (1) Due Process: Lack of Ascertainable, Non-Arbitrary Standards; (2) Due Process: Lack of Fair Hearing; (3) Due Process: Inadequate Notice; (4) Equal Protection: Arbitrary, Irrational, and Disparate Budget Decisions; (5) Violation of Medicaid Act Budget Methodology Requirements – 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (6) Violation of Medicaid Act Budget Methodology Requirements – Supremacy Clause (hereafter “class-wide claims”). The individually named Plaintiffs also filed individual claims of discrimination in counts 7 through 10 of the Complaint (“individual claims”). On March 28, 2016, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the class-wide and individual claims. Plaintiffs’ motion ...

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1.1 On March 22, 2019, PSNH filed with the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) a Notice of Intent to File Rate Schedules pursuant to N.H. Code Admin. Rule Puc 1604.05 pertaining to a request for temporary rates. On April 26, 2019, the Company filed with the Commission proposed tariffs and rate schedules, testimony, attachments and other information supporting that request. In that submission, PSNH sought an increase in temporary rates of approximately $33 million effective July 1, 2019, pending the Commission’s determinations on the Company’s permanent rate request. On April 26, 2019, the Company also filed with the Commission a Notice of Intent to File Rate Schedules pertaining to its request for permanent rates. 1.2 On March 25, 2019, the OCA filed a letter of participation in this docket pursuant to RSA 363:28. The Commission granted motions for interventions in this docket on various dates by CENH, NHDES, TWH, Acadia Center, Walmart, Inc., AARP, and ChargePoint, Inc. 1.3 On May 8, 2019 the Commission issued Order No. 26,250, suspending PSNH’s proposed tariff for a temporary rate increase pending further investigation. 1.4 On May 28, 2019, the Company submitted its permanent rate filing seeking an increase in rates of approximately $70 million effective July 1, 2019, inclusive of the temporary rate increase. The request was supported by proposed tariffs and rate schedules, testimony and attachments from 14 witnesses, and other information supporting that request. On June 7, 2019 the Commission issued Order No. 26,256 suspending Eversource’s proposed tariff for a permanent rate increase pending further investigation. 1.5 Following discovery and a technical session, on June 13, 2019, PSNH filed a settlement agreement on temporary rates (“Temporary Rates Settlement Agreement”) signed by PSNH, Staff, OCA and TWH.1 On June 27, 2019, the Commission issued Order No. 26,265 approving the Temporary Rates Settlement Agreement for a temporary increase of $28.3 million in the Company’s annual distribution revenues effective for service rendered on and after August 1, 2019. The temporary rates were approved subject to reconciliation based on the outcome of the permanent rate case. 1.6 On June 28, 2019, the Commission approved an initial procedural schedule for adjudication of the Company’s permanent rate request that included multiple rounds of discovery, technical 1 CENH did not object to the Temporary Rates Settlement Agreement but elected not...

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. In 2015, the Commission commenced a proceeding, Docket No. DE 15-137, to review the potential for implementation of an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (“EERS”) in New Hampshire. Following an extensive proceeding, numerous parties, including essentially all parties to this Agreement, reached a settlement calling for the implementation of an EERS beginning in 2018. That settlement was filed with the Commission on April 27, 2016 and approved in Order No. 25,932 (August 2, 2016). Pursuant to that settlement and Order, interested groups of stakeholders were convened for a series of meetings during 2016 and 2017 for purposes of discussing the framework, requirements, and expectations for the EERS. Following those meetings, on September 1, 2017, the Utilities filed an initial plan describing their proposal for the implementation of the EERS for the 3-year period of 2018-2020. That plan was docketed as Docket No. DE 17-136. Following discovery and the submission of testimony, the parties reached a settlement agreement that was filed on December 8, 2017. To assure time for necessary rate changes and program continuity, the Commission issued a secretarial letter on December 29, 2017 permitting certain rate changes proposed in the plan and settlement to take effect on January 1, 2018. The Commission approved the settlement agreement in Order No. 26,095 (January 2, 2018). The three-year plan approved in Order No. 26,095 was to be updated for each of the years 2019 and 2020. Specifically, the settlement establishing the EERS describes the 2019 and 2020 updates as follows: During the first triennium, and for each 3-year period of the EERS thereafter, annual update filings shall be submitted for review by the Commission in an abbreviated process substantially similar to the mid-period submissions presently used in the Core dockets. Such annual update filings shall serve as an opportunity to adjust programs and targets and address any other issues that may arise from advancements, including but not limited to, evaluation results, state energy code changes, and/or federal standard improvements. April 27, 2016 Settlement Agreement in Docket No. DE 15-137 at 8. On September 14, 2018, the Utilities filed the plan update for calendar year 2019. Discovery was undertaken on the 2019 Update Plan and on November 2, 2018, testimony was filed by the Staff, the OCA, and TWH, and on November 5, 2018 by NHSEA and Acadia. The OCA, TWH and CLF also filed statements of legal position....

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 30, 2021, Liberty filed a Motion for Recovery of Rate Case Expenses, seeking authority to collect $856,865 of actual and estimated rate case expenses through its Local Distribution Adjustment Charge (LDAC) beginning November 1, 2021. This amount had been agreed to in the settlement agreement that the Commission approved, in part, in Order No. 26,505 (July 30, 2021), subject to audit and update for actual invoices.