Common use of INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

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 separately-metered residential and small commercial customer applications; (2) an EV TOU rate proposal for separately-metered high demand draw commercial customer applications that may incorporate direct current fast charging or clustered level two chargers... Based on our review of the record in this investigation, we find electric vehicle time of use rates are an appropriate rate design for residential and commercial customers, and we believe a separate proceeding to adjudicate the merits of various proposals from each utility is warranted… We also see value in the distinction Staff has drawn regarding residential and small commercial customers and high demand draw applications that may incorporate direct current fast charging or clustered level two chargers.) 4 Id. at 13-14. (Stating “We are persuaded that further investigation of issues related to advanced metering functionality associated with EVSE embedded meters is warranted. We note that Eversource appears to have experience with third party metering approaches in other jurisdictions. Eversource Supplemental Comments at 4-5. We also find Unitil’s Supplemental Comments to be a helpful initial assessment of some of the barriers associated with third party metering technology. We are further encouraged by actions in neighboring jurisdictions that appear to target EVSE as an opportunity to build an initial framework for integration of advanced metering IR 20-004 functionality. While we decline at this time to require the utilities to file feasibility assessments related to alternative metering, we direct Staff to further develop this concept, with the input of the parties, in the initial stage of any adjudicative proceeding that may follow this investigation, and determine an appropriate timeline for such an assessment with the input of the parties.”) proposals for consistency with the directives of Order No. 26,394, and scheduling a prehearing conference for November 9, 2020. On November 13, 2020, the Commission approved a preliminary procedural schedule for this proceeding allowing for comments, reply comments, and technical session discussions regarding to-be-filed EV TOU rates and alternative metering feasibility assessments. On February 3, 2021, the Commission approved an amended procedural schedule requiring that the EV TOU and alternative metering feasibility assessment filings on April 30, 2021. On April 29, 2021, the Commission approved an amended procedural schedule extending the EV TOU and alternative metering feasibility assessment filings deadline to June 15, 2021. On June 15, 0000, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, and Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy (“Eversource”) filed testimony in this proceeding. Eversource filed supplemental testimony on June 23, 2021. Also on June 15, 2021, the Commission directed the parties to this proceeding to develop and propose a procedural schedule designed to resolve the outstanding matters in this proceeding at least 30 days prior to February 16, 2022, the date hearings are scheduled to conclude in Docket No. DE 21-030.5 On August 4, 2021, the Commission approved an amended procedural schedule and issued a Supplemental Order of Notice. On August 11, 2021, Eversource Energy requested transfer of its make-ready and demand charge alternative proposals from DE 21-078 into the instant proceeding. On September 9, 2021, the Commission denied the Eversource request. On October 13, 2021, the Department of Energy, City of Lebanon, and ChargePoint, Inc. (“ChargePoint”) filed testimony; Clean Energy New Hampshire (“CENH”) and Conservation 5 This Commission directive was issued pursuant to Order No. 26,486 (June 9, 2021) in Docket No. DE 21-030, which denied a motion to remove Unitil’s Electric Vehicle Time of Use rate proposals from Docket No. DE 21-030. Law Foundation (“CLF”) filed Joint Testimony on that same day. On December 10, 2021, Unitil, Eversource, and Liberty filed rebuttal testimony. During the period between November 16, 2021, and January 12, 2022, the parties engaged in Settlement Discussions. Based upon these discussions, the Settling Parties agreed to the terms of this Settlement Agreement, subject to Commission approval. The Settling Parties recommend and request that the Commission approve this Settlement Agreement without modification.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 11, 2018, 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-FN, a xxxx establishing requirements for, and restrictions on, an act relative to electric vehicle charging stations, went into effectand SB 517, creating the Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Infrastructure Commission (“EV Commission”). Among other things, SB 575-FN 575 required the Commission to determine whether certain rate designs should demand charges would be implemented for appropriate to apply to electric vehicle charging stations, specifically requiring the Commission to determine whether to implement electric vehicle time . In August 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 in investigatory 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, 2020004, 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 in Docket Noat 9). IR 20-004. In that OrderAs part of the mandate of SB 517, the EV Commission determined that time was to make recommendations on: development of use rates would be appropriate for separately-metered zero emission vehicle technology and infrastructure, including installation of electric vehicle charging and required that a new proceeding be opened to consider utility-specific rate proposals for separately metered stations; the development of electric vehicle time of use (EV TOU) rates.3 The Commission also directed Staff charging stations, including high-speed charging stations, in state and the parties federal highway corridors and at public transportation hubs and parking garages, and; changes needed to that new proceeding state laws, rules, and practices, including building codes and public utilities commission rules, to further develop the alternative metering feasibility assessment concept discussed within the Staff Recommendation development of zero emission vehicle technology and determine a timeline for such an assessment with the input of the parties.4 On infrastructure.1 By October 16, 2020, the EV Commission had issued an Order 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 Notice opening Docket No. DE 20-170 to facilitate development EVSE deployment, 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 adoption of such programs.3 The Legislature expressed similar support for the guidance above: (1) an important role utilities can play in EV TOU rate proposal for separately-metered residential and small commercial customer applications; (2) an EV TOU rate proposal for separately-metered high demand draw commercial customer applications that may incorporate direct current fast charging or clustered level two chargers... Based on our review of the record infrastructure implementation when it passed SB 131 in this investigation, we find electric vehicle time of use rates are an appropriate rate design for residential and commercial customers, and we believe a separate proceeding to adjudicate the merits of various proposals from each utility is warranted… We also see value in the distinction Staff has drawn regarding residential and small commercial customers and high demand draw applications that may incorporate direct current fast charging or clustered level two chargers.) 4 Id. at 13-14. (Stating “We are persuaded that further investigation of issues related to advanced metering functionality associated with EVSE embedded meters is warranted. We note that Eversource appears to have experience with third party metering approaches in other jurisdictions. Eversource Supplemental Comments at 4-5. We also find Unitil’s Supplemental Comments to be a helpful initial assessment of some of the barriers associated with third party metering technology. We are further encouraged by actions in neighboring jurisdictions that appear to target EVSE as an opportunity to build an initial framework for integration of advanced metering IR 20-004 functionality. While we decline at this time to require the utilities to file feasibility assessments related to alternative metering, we direct Staff to further develop this concept, with the input of the parties, in the initial stage of any adjudicative proceeding that may follow this investigation, and determine an appropriate timeline for such an assessment with the input of the parties.”) proposals for consistency with the directives of Order No. 26,394, and scheduling a prehearing conference for November 9, 2020. On November 13, 2020, the Commission approved a preliminary procedural schedule for this proceeding allowing for comments, reply comments, and technical session discussions regarding to-be-filed EV TOU rates and alternative metering feasibility assessments. On February 3, July 2021, signed by the Commission approved an amended procedural schedule requiring that the EV TOU and alternative metering feasibility assessment filings Governor on April 30August 10, 2021. On April 29, 20212 Id. at 6. 3 Id. at 7-8. With SB 131, the Commission approved an amended procedural schedule extending the EV TOU and alternative metering feasibility assessment filings deadline to June 15, 2021. On June 15, 0000, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, and Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy (“Eversource”) filed testimony in this proceeding. Eversource filed supplemental testimony on June 23, 2021. Also on June 15, 2021, the Commission directed the parties to this proceeding to develop and propose a procedural schedule designed to resolve the outstanding matters in this proceeding at least 30 days prior to February 16, 2022, the date hearings are scheduled to conclude in Docket No. DE 21-030.5 On August 4, 2021, the Commission approved an amended procedural schedule and issued a Supplemental Order of Notice. On August 11, 2021, Eversource Energy requested transfer of its make-ready and demand charge alternative proposals from DE 21-078 into the instant proceeding. On September 9, 2021, the Commission denied the Eversource request. On October 13, 2021, the Department of Energy, City of Lebanon, and ChargePoint, Inc. (“ChargePoint”) filed testimony; Clean Energy New Hampshire (“CENH”) and Conservation 5 This Commission directive was issued pursuant to Order No. 26,486 (June 9, 2021) in Docket No. DE 21-030, which denied a motion to remove Unitil’s Electric Vehicle Time of Use rate proposals from Docket No. DE 21-030. Law Foundation (“CLF”) filed Joint Testimony on that same day. On December 10, 2021, Unitil, Eversource, and Liberty filed rebuttal testimony. During the period between November 16, 2021, and January 12, 2022, the parties engaged in Settlement Discussions. Based upon these discussions, the Settling Parties agreed to the terms of this Settlement Agreement, subject to Commission approval. The Settling Parties recommend and request that the Commission approve this Settlement Agreement without modification.General Court found:

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 11, 2018, SB 575-FN, a xxxx bill 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 separately-metered residential and small commercial customer applications; (2) an EV TOU rate proposal for separately-metered high demand draw commercial customer applications that may incorporate direct current fast charging or clustered level two chargers... Based on our review of the record in this investigation, we find electric vehicle time of use rates are an appropriate rate design for residential and commercial customers, and we believe a separate proceeding to adjudicate the merits of various proposals from each utility is warranted… We also see value in the distinction Staff has drawn regarding residential and small commercial customers and high demand draw applications that may incorporate direct current fast charging or clustered level two chargers.) 4 Id. at 13-14. (Stating “We are persuaded that further investigation of issues related to advanced metering functionality associated with EVSE embedded meters is warranted. We note that Eversource appears to have experience with third party metering approaches in other jurisdictions. Eversource Supplemental Comments at 4-5. We also find Unitil’s Supplemental Comments to be a helpful initial assessment of some of the barriers associated with third party metering technology. We are further encouraged by actions in neighboring jurisdictions that appear to target EVSE as an opportunity to build an initial framework for integration of advanced metering IR 20-004 functionality. While we decline at this time to require the utilities to file feasibility assessments related to alternative metering, we direct Staff to further develop this concept, with the input of the parties, in the initial stage of any adjudicative proceeding that may follow this investigation, and determine an appropriate timeline for such an assessment with the input of the parties.”) proposals for consistency with the directives of Order No. 26,394, and scheduling a prehearing conference for November 9, 2020. On November 13, 2020, the Commission approved a preliminary procedural schedule for this proceeding allowing for comments, reply comments, and technical session discussions regarding to-be-filed EV TOU rates and alternative metering feasibility assessments. On February 3, 2021, the Commission approved an amended procedural schedule requiring that the EV TOU and alternative metering feasibility assessment filings on April 30, 2021. On April 29, 2021, the Commission approved an amended procedural schedule extending the EV TOU and alternative metering feasibility assessment filings deadline to June 15, 2021. On June 15, 0000, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, and Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy (“Eversource”) filed testimony in this proceeding. Eversource filed supplemental testimony on June 23, 2021. Also on June 15, 2021, the Commission directed the parties to this proceeding to develop and propose a procedural schedule designed to resolve the outstanding matters in this proceeding at least 30 days prior to February 16, 2022, the date hearings are scheduled to conclude in Docket No. DE 21-030.5 On August 4, 2021, the Commission approved an amended procedural schedule and issued a Supplemental Order of Notice. On August 11, 2021, Eversource Energy requested transfer of its make-ready and demand charge alternative proposals from DE 21-078 into the instant proceeding. On September 9, 2021, the Commission denied the Eversource request. On October 13, 2021, the Department of Energy, City of Lebanon, and ChargePoint, Inc. (“ChargePoint”) filed testimony; Clean Energy New Hampshire (“CENH”) and Conservation 5 This Commission directive was issued pursuant to Order No. 26,486 (June 9, 2021) in Docket No. DE 21-030, which denied a motion to remove Unitil’s Electric Vehicle Time of Use rate proposals from Docket No. DE 21-030. Law Foundation (“CLF”) filed Joint Testimony on that same day. On December 10, 2021, Unitil, Eversource, and Liberty filed rebuttal testimony. During the period between November 16, 2021, and January 12, 2022, the parties engaged in Settlement Discussions. Based upon these discussions, the Settling Parties agreed to the terms of this Settlement Agreement, subject to Commission approval. The Settling Parties recommend and request that the Commission approve this Settlement Agreement without modification.