Common use of INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

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 21, 2022, status conference.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1.1 On October 2January 15, 20172016, 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 Company filed its 2016 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, was approved by 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 26,039 (Mar. 13July 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 directed Liberty to “submit a supplemental filing to address each that utilities request waivers of the specific elements required under RSA 378:38 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 RSA 378:39 partially granted the waiver requested by Liberty. In granting the waiver the Commission ordered that are not already addressed 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 LCIRP with adequate sufficiency to permit the Commission’s assessment of potential environmental, economic, and health-related impacts of each option proposed in the prior approved LCIRP.” Id. at 16. Specifically, the Commission ordered: 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 and managers integrating day-to-day and long-term planning consistent with the Company’s objectives of Least Cost Planning On July 15, 2019, 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 specified by Order No. 26,286 (Aug. 12, 2019). 1.8 DOE, CLF, 26,261. Following a prehearing conference and Xxxxx filed testimony technical session on September 9, 2019. Xxxxxxx filed rebuttal testimony on October 25, 2019. After being notified , the Settling Parties engaged in several rounds of developments in discovery and on January 23, 2020, 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 Staff filed the required status reports through May 2020testimony of Xxxx Xxxxxx. A technical session was held on June 3Thereafter, 2020the Settling Parties engaged in settlement discussions that have culminated with this Agreement. 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 21, 2022, status conference.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1.1 On October 2, 2017, Section 14.6 of the settlement agreement in Eversource’s most recent distribution rate case in Docket No. DE 19-057 directed the Company filed to propose modifications to the R-OTOD portion of its LCIRP for tariff within six months of approval by the planning period New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) of 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 interventionsettlement agreement. The rate proposal was to include, but not be limited to “a two-period rate structure consisting of on-peak and off-peak periods, with a on-peak period lasting no more than eight hours.” Xxxxxx Xx. XX 00-000 Xxxxxxxxxx Agreement on Permanent Distribution Rates at 29. The settlement agreement was approved by the Commission in Order No. 26,433 (Dec. 15, 2020). Eversource filed the proposal for R-OTOD-2 on June 15, 2021. On July 7, 2021 the DOE filed a notice of appearance pursuant to RSA 12-P:9 and on July 12 the OCA filed its a letter of participationparticipation consistent with RSA 363:28. CLFXXXX filed a petition to intervene in this docket on September 1, PLAN2021, and Xxxxx sought intervention. Commission Staff (now DOE) also participated. 1.3 Following the prehearing conference, the Commission granted that petition on September 14, as well as approving the intervention requests and approved an initial procedural schedule for this docket, which entailed three rounds of discovery to be served on the Company as well as three technical sessions. On March 4, 2021, the DOE filed testimony. At that called time it was noted that there was no opportunity under the procedural schedule for hearings the Company to file rebuttal testimony. To address that omission, and to better facilitate the possibility for the parties to reach settlement in January 2019. 1.4 In May 2018 Xxxxx this docket, Eversource, with the support of all parties, filed a motion to dismissamend the procedural schedule on March 18, arguing2022, among other things, that which 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 granted on April March 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 discussed2022. 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 Eversource 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 1April 18, 2022, and scheduling settlement discussions commenced in early May 2022. It was the June 21intent of the parties to the settlement agreement in Docket No. DE 19-057 that R-OTOD be revised to include a two-period rate structure consisting of on-peak and off-peak periods, 2022with an on-peak period lasting no more than eight hours. In addition, status conferencethe Company’s intent has been for the rate design to better reflect current cost of service and customer load curves and duration, as well as to implement the R-OTOD update without incurring any significant incremental costs due to the already-existing rate structure. For this reason, an updated revision to R-OTOD could also be implemented relatively quickly. The update to R-OTOD would most notably have a substantially shorter on-peak period. Currently, R-OTOD has a 13-hour on-peak window. The settlement agreement in Docket No. DE 19-057 required that the new on-peak window be “no more than eight hours.” The Company’s original proposed R-OTOD-2 was designed to have time-varying transmission and distribution components—consistent with the existing rate structure—while shortening the on-peak window to seven hours, from noon to 7 p.m. during non-holiday weekdays. The Settling Parties acknowledge the Company’s representation that, based on its extensive analysis conducted for peak periods of differing lengths and at a variety of times, this new on-peak period at the designated time was determined to be reflective of cost of service and responsive to current demand curves, while providing customers the possibility of increased savings compared with the existing R-OTOD, and also providing the possibility of bill savings as compared with residential Rate-R, depending on customer usage behavior. The Settling Parties agree that the proposed rate design seeks to reflect updated marginal costs and load curves while encouraging customers to reduce on-peak period electricity usage by switching loads to off-peak periods of lower utility and system costs. Additionally, the Settling Parties agree that the Company’s proposal as modified by this settlement agreement may make the R-OTOD-2 rate more attractive to residential customers currently on Rate R, and so may result in greater enrollment than the approximately 43 customers currently enrolled in R-OTOD, while providing greater incentive for customers to shift usage from on-peak to the off-peak periods, thereby increasing the probability of relieving some of the burden on the electric distribution grid during on-peak periods. For these reasons, as described in greater detail below, the Settling Parties assert that the proposed R-OTOD-2 as modified by this settlement agreement is just and reasonable and recommend that the Commission approve this settlement agreement without modification.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 1.1 On October 2June 19, 20172015, 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 Eversource submitted it’s a Least Cost Integrated Resource Plan (“LCIRP”) as required by RSA 378:38 and Order of Notice on February 8No. 24,659 (May 1, 20182014), 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, as clarified by 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 25,676 (Mar. 13June 12, 2015) (the “2015 Plan”). Ultimately, a settlement agreement on the 2015 Plan was reached between Eversource and the Commission Staff and approved by the Commission in Order No. 26,050 (August 25, 2017). The settlement agreement relating to the 2015 Plan provided, in relevant part, that at the time it filed its next LCIRP, Eversource would provide the information required by RSA 378:38, as well as additional information as outlined in the agreement on the 2015 Plan. 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.” In that the 2015 Plan filing was made on June 19, 2015, Order No. 26,050 provided that Eversource’s next LCIRP would be due within 2 years of that date, or August 25, 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 directed Liberty to “submit a supplemental filing to address each that utilities request waivers of the specific elements required under RSA 378:38 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 9, 2019, Eversource filed a motion seeking a waiver of the requirement to make an LCIRP filing by August 25, 2019. On June 14, 2019, the Commission issued Order No. 26,262 in Docket No. DE 15-248 and RSA 378:39 partially granted the waiver requested by Eversource. In granting the waiver the Commission ordered that are not already addressed Eversource make what it described as “a more limited filing” by August 25, 2019, and that the “purpose of that filing will be to ensure that Eversource is adhering to the commitments made 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 prior approved LCIRP.” Id. at 16. Liberty made Specifically, the supplemental filing on April 30Commission ordered: Our prior approval of Eversource’s 2015 LCIRP contained a number of specific deliverables and we will require updates of those no later than August 25, 2019. 1.6 CLF and Xxxxx filed motions arguing as listed below: • Confirmation that Liberty’s supplemental filing was insufficientthe utility is currently following the process of system planning utilizing those established procedures, Liberty objectedcriteria, and policies outlined in its 2015 LCIRP, and achieving the parties held objectives included in its 2015 LCIRP; • A copy of the Eversource-UES and Eversource-NHEC Joint Recommendations Report from each of the most recent joint planning meetings with UES and with NHEC; • 2019 Organization charts for field distribution operations, planning, and engineering; • An updated crew complement report (include bucket crews, digger crews, and troubleshooters assigned to each area work center in all five regions) for 2017, 2018, and 2019; • The Company’s evaluation of targeted energy efficiency solutions for potential projects for 4 & 12 kV substations due to loading; • An update on the HeatSmart customer recertification results; • A copy of the most recent list of proposed capital projects which were presented to senior management for consideration of approval; and • Details regarding the steps taken through each state of the Planning Process Flow for each of the highest-cost distribution capital projects with a May 23 technical conference at which status of In Service, Under Construction, or Planned, within the adequacy prior two years, and a demonstration 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 how the LCIRP and CLF filed a motion plan was followed through the planning process. We will not require Eversource to find update its distribution automation plan or its customer engagement platform in 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 August 25, 2019, filing. After being notified of developments Although those items were included in the Granite Bridge docket,1 order approving the Commission granted Liberty’s motion to suspend 2015LCIRP. They will be covered in more detail in the procedural schedule IDP. Settling Parties engaged in this docket by a December 2several rounds of discovery and on January 22, 20192020, secretarial letter with the requirement that Liberty make periodic status reports. Liberty Staff filed the required status reports through May 2020testimony of Xxxx Xxxxxx. A technical session was held on June 3Thereafter, 2020the Settling Parties engaged in settlement discussions that have culminated with this Agreement. 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 21, 2022, status conference.