INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 11, 2018, SB 575-FN, a xxxx establishing requirements for, and restrictions on, electric vehicle charging stations, went into effect. SB 575-FN required the Commission to determine whether certain rate designs should be implemented for electric vehicle charging stations, specifically requiring the Commission to determine whether to implement electric vehicle time of day rates for residential and commercial customers.1 The Commission issued an 1 See, RSA 236:133, V. (Stating “The public utilities commission shall… [c]onsider and determine whether it is appropriate to implement electric vehicle time of day rates for residential and commercial customers. The standards for determination of such implementation shall include consideration whether such implementation would encourage energy conservation, optimal and efficient use of facilities and resources by an electric company, and equitable rates for electric consumers.”) Order of Notice on January 16, 2020, opening Docket No. IR 20-004 to investigate issues related to the legislature’s directive. After several comment opportunities and a Commission Staff Recommendation (“Staff Recommendation”),2 the Commission held a hearing on matters identified by SB 575-FN on July 14, 2020. On August 18, 2020, the Commission issued Order No. 26,394 in Docket No. IR 20-004. In that Order, the Commission determined that time of use rates would be appropriate for separately-metered electric vehicle charging and required that a new proceeding be opened to consider utility-specific rate proposals for separately metered electric vehicle time of use (EV TOU) rates.3 The Commission also directed Staff and the parties to that new proceeding to further develop the alternative metering feasibility assessment concept discussed within the Staff Recommendation and determine a timeline for such an assessment with the input of the parties.4 On October 16, 2020, the Commission issued an Order of Notice opening Docket No. DE 20-170 to facilitate development and subsequent review of utility-specific EV TOU rate 2 Docket No. DE 20-004. April 3, 2020 Staff Recommendation. Available at: xxxxx://xxx.xxx.xx.xxx/Regulatory/Docketbk/2020/20-004/LETTERS-MEMOS-TARIFFS/20-004_2020-04- 03_STAFF_RECOMMENDATION.PDF 3 Order No. 26,394 at 18. (August 18, 2020)(Stating “Staff recommended the Commission open a new proceeding and direct each electric utility to file within 120 days, consistent with the guidance above: (1) an EV TOU rate proposal for...
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. On January 15, 2016, Liberty submitted it’s 2016 Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan (“LCIRP”) as required by RSA 378:38 and Order No. 25,625 (January 27, 2014) (the “2016 Plan”). Ultimately, the 2016 LCIRP was approved by the Commission in Order No. 26,039 (July 10, 2017). That Order provided, in relevant part, that at the time it filed its next LCIRP, Liberty would provide the information required by RSA 378:38, as well as additional information relating to standard operating procedures. Pursuant to RSA 378:38, “each electric and natural gas utility, under RSA 362:2, shall file a least cost integrated resource plan with the commission within 2 years of the commission’s final order regarding the utility’s prior plan, and in all cases within 5 years of the filing date of the prior plan.” The 2016 Plan filing was approved by the Commission on July 10, 2017, and Order No. 26,039 provided that Liberty’s next LCIRP would be due within approximately 2 years of that date, or July 1, 2019. On February 12, 2019, the Commission Staff submitted its recommendation on grid modernization in Docket No. IR 15-296. Among other things, the Staff’s recommendation proposed that the LCIRP be replaced by a new submission, an Integrated Distribution Plan or IDP, and that utilities request waivers of the LCIRP filing requirements in light of the new IDP. See February 12, 2019 Staff Recommendation in Docket No. IR 15-296 at 67. In view of the above recommendation, on April 15, 2019, Liberty filed a motion seeking a waiver of the requirement to make an LCIRP filing by July 1, 2019. On June 14, 2019, the Commission issued Order No. 26,261 in Docket No. DE 16-097 and partially granted the waiver requested by Liberty. In granting the waiver the Commission ordered that Liberty make what it described as “a more limited filing” on or before July 15, 2019, and that the “purpose of that filing will be to ensure that Liberty is adhering to the commitments made in its prior approved LCIRP.” Id. at 6. Specifically, the Commission ordered: Id. Our prior approval of Liberty’s 2016 LCIRP contained a number of specific deliverables and we will require updates of those no later than August 25, as listed below: • Confirmation that the utility is currently following the process of system planning using established procedures, criteria, and policies outlined in its 2016 LCIRP, and achieving the objectives included its 0000 XXXXX; and • Copies of adopted standard operating procedures for employees an...
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.
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.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. By Order of Notice entered on December 13, 2019, the Commission opened this administrative proceeding at the express directive of the General Court pursuant to Chapter 286 of the 2019 New Hampshire Laws, which was effective on September 17, 2019 and enacted sections 50 through 54 of RSA 378. See RSA 378:51, II (requiring the Commission to “open an adjudicative proceeding within 90 days of the effective date of this subdivision, to which all electric and natural gas utilities shall be mandatory parties”). Chapter 286 directs the Commission to “require electric and natural gas utilities to establish and jointly operate a statewide, multi-use, online energy data platform” subject to certain limitations and requirements. RSA 378:51, I. RSA 378:51, II sets forth a list of platform-related issues the Commission must resolve in this proceeding. Additionally, RSA 378:51, III requires the Commission to “defer the implementation” of the platform upon a determination that “the cost of such platform to be recovered from customers is unreasonable and not in the public interest.” The Commission conducted a prehearing conference on February 3, 2020 and by secretarial letter issued on February 14, 2020 approved an agreed-upon procedural schedule. In due course and without objection, the Commission granted all intervention requests. The parties submitted comments on the scope of the docket on March 11, 2020 and thereafter conducted a series of technical sessions. In April 2020, various parties submitted a series of “use case” proposals in an effort to clarify the desired capabilities of the statewide, multi-use, online energy data platform. The NH Utilities thereafter filed written comments on the use case proposals, and a total of three technical sessions were devoted to discussing the use cases, the NH Utilities’ comments, and reply comments of the non-utility parties. On August 12, 2020 (the deadline originally established by the Commission) Packetized Energy Technologies submitted written direct testimony. On August 17, 2020, pursuant to an extension granted by the Commission, the Commission received written direct testimony from Eversource and Unitil (filing jointly); Liberty; Clean Energy New Hampshire; the OCA; Mission:data; UtilityAPI, Inc.; the City of Lebanon, the Town of Hanover, Community Choice Partners, Inc., and Xx. XxXxx (filed jointly under the banner of the “Local Government Coalition”); Greentel Group; and Staff. The Local Government Coalition submitted ...
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 000002 DE 21-030 Unitil Distribution Rate Case Settlement Agreement 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.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1. 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.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1.1 On October 1, 2020, Eversource filed its 2020 LCIRP with the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (the “Commission”) pursuant to the requirements of RSA 378:38 and Order Nos. 26,362 (June 3, 2020) and 26,371 (June 22, 2020) in Docket No. DE 19-139. The Company supplemented its 2020 LCIRP filing on March 31, 2021 consistent with the procedural schedule established by the Commission. Eversource filed a second supplement on October 18, 2022 in response to DOE’s testimony and pursuant to the Commission’s October 7, 2022 procedural order.
