DR 98-012
GRANITE STATE ELECTRIC COMPANY
Offer of Settlement
Procedural Order
O R D E R N O. 22,886
March 30, 1998
APPEARANCES: Carlos A. Gavilondo, Esq., for Granite
State Electric; F. Anne Ross, Esq., for Retail Merchants
Association of New Hampshire; Wynn E. Arnold, Esq., for the
Governor's Office of Energy and Community Services; Rep. Jeb E.
Bradley and Rep. Clifton Below; Henry Veilleux for the Business
and Industry Association; Patricia Gregg for Network
Publications; Susan L. Geiser, Esq., for UNITIL; Robert A.
Backus, Esq., for Campaign for Ratepayer Rights; Steven V.
Camerino, Esq., for Great Bay Power; David W. Marshall, Esq., for
the Conservation Law Foundation; Elizabeth I. Goodpastor, Esq.,
for City of Manchester, New Hampshire; James Monahan, for the
Dupont Group and Cabletron; Donna C. Sharkey, Esq., for Enron
Energy Services; Gerald M. Eaton, Esq., for Public Service
Company of New Hampshire; Paul Gromer, for Northeast Energy
Efficiency Council; D. Dickinson Henry, for the Electric Utility
Restructuring Collaborative; James T. Rodier, Esq., for himself;
Sylvester Swierzy for EnerDev, Inc. and the Granite State
Taxpayers Association; P. Aalto for PJA Energy Systems; Michael
W. Holmes, Esq., for the Office of the Consumer Advocate; and
Eugene F. Sullivan, III, Esq. and Robert J. Frank, Esq., for the
Staff of the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 3, 1998, Granite State Electric (GSE) filed
an Offer of Settlement relative to restructuring of the electric
utility industry as it affects GSE and its customers. The New
Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (Commission) issued an
Order of Notice on February 11, 1998 requiring that a prehearing
conference to consider the issues be held on February 27, 1998;
that parties wishing to intervene must do so by February 24,
1998; and that parties wishing to object to petitions to
intervene file objections by February 26, 1998.
Motions to Intervene were made by the Retail Merchants
Association of New Hampshire (RMA), the Governor's Office of
Energy and Community Services (ECS), Rep. Jeb Bradley, Rep.
Clifton Below, the Business and Industry Association (BIA),
Network Publications, UNITIL, the Campaign for Ratepayer
Rights(CRR), Great Bay Power (Great Bay), the Conservation Law
Foundation (CLF), the City of Manchester, New Hampshire
(Manchester), The Dupont Group/Cabletron (Cabletron), Enron
Energy Services (Enron), Public Service Company of New Hampshire
(PSNH), the Northeast Energy Efficiency Council (NEEC), James T.
Rodier, Esq., EnerDev, Inc. (Enerdev), the Granite State
Taxpayers Association (Taxpayers), and PJA Energy Systems (PJA).
All motions to intervene were granted at the prehearing
conference. (Tr. February 27, 1998, p. 12)
On March 9, 1998, GSE filed a proposed scoping
stipulation for the subject dockets which was supported by
Granite State Taxpayers, EnerDev, the Restructuring
Collaborative, BIA, Rep. Bradley and Rep. Below. On March 10,
1998, Staff filed a Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Consolidate, which was supported by RMA and Enron. GSE submitted
a response on March 11, 1998, which it characterized as a
clarification of the record, reiterating their position that
consolidation was unnecessary and would not promote the orderly
and efficient conduct of either proceeding.
II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Issues
The Order of Notice stated that the Offer of Settlement
raised, inter alia, three issues:
1) whether the settlement complies with the requirements of
RSA 374-F and the Commission's policies related thereto; (2)
how the settlement relates to Granite State's filing in DR
97-251 relative to the transfer of New England Power's
generating facilities in New Hampshire; and, (3) whether
implementation of the settlement is in the public interest.
GSE contends that its Offer of Settlement complies with
RSA 374-F inasmuch as, among other things, it will provide retail
choice and deliver near term rate relief. Moreover, GSE contends
the settlement is in the public interest because, e.g., it
supports low income customers as well as environmental and
conservation programs. Finally, GSE suggests that the settlement
is separable from the transfer which is the subject of DE 97-251.
The following parties expressed support for the settlement and
the separation of the transfer and settlement dockets, namely,
Enerdev and the Granite State Taxpayers Association, the BIA, the
Restructuring Collaborative, CRR, Representatives Below and
Bradley, CLF, and the Governor.
Other parties, PSNH, Unitil and PJA, for instance,
indicated their intent to monitor the progress of the proceedings
or their concern for precedential effects. The City of
Manchester, Enron, Great Bay, the RMA, and the OCA, however,
pointed out specific concerns created by the settlement. A
number of those parties, and Staff as well, expressed the opinion
that the settlement and transfer proceedings were inextricable.
B. Motion for Consolidation and Scoping Stipulation
GSE attempted to resolve the issue of the
interrelationship between the transfer docket, DE 97-251, and the
settlement docket, DR 98-012, by suggesting that the parties work
towards a stipulation on scoping to segregate issues between the
proceedings. Nonetheless, the RMA moved orally to consolidate
the dockets, assuming a stipulation were not achieved, and was
supported by Enron in that motion.
The Commission directed that a stipulation on scoping
be filed by March 6, 1998 and that in the event a stipulation
could not be achieved that recommendations for further action be
submitted by March 10, 1998. Agreement of all the parties was
not forthcoming and, on March 10, 1998, GSE filed a proposed
stipulation agreed to by the Governor, Representative Below,
Enerdev, Granite State Taxpayers Association, CRR, CLF, BIA,
NEEC, PSNH, Great Bay, Mr. Rodier, Unitil, Cabletron, and the
Restructuring Collaborative. PJA took no position while Enron,
Staff, the OCA and the RMA opposed the stipulation.
GSE explained that "[p]ursuant to the Scoping
Stipulation, any determination by the Commission in the context
of the transfer proceeding in Docket No. DE 97-251 would not
prejudice the Commission's ability to consider and decide, or the
ability of any party to raise, any issue with respect to the
Offer of settlement pending in Docket No. DR 98-012." GSE also
contends there is no evidentiary reason for consolidation and
that delay caused by consolidation will deprive customers of
substantial benefits.
On March 10, 1998, Staff and the RMA filed memoranda
supporting the motion to consolidate. Staff contends that the
transfer and settlement dockets are fundamentally intertwined and
that various findings required in the transfer docket presuppose
information or elements of the settlement docket. The RMA,
joined by the City of Manchester and the OCA, argues similarly
and notes as well the efficiency of consolidation.
C. Procedural Schedule
At the prehearing conference, there was considerable
discussion regarding the procedural schedule for the transfer
docket, DE 97-251, and the settlement docket, DR 98-012. The
parties agreed to the schedule for the transfer docket, which was
set out in the Order of Notice in that proceeding. As for the
schedule for the settlement docket, an agreement in principle was
reached dependent on the ability to fashion a stipulation on
scope.
The procedural schedule submitted to the Commission for
the settlement docket follows:
March 9, 1998 Testimony in Support
March 23, 1998 Data Requests to Parties Supporting
Settlement
March 30, 1998 Data Responses
April 15, 1998 Testimony in Opposition
April 22, 1998 Data Requests to Parties Opposing Settlement
April 30, 1998 Data Responses
May 11, 1998 Rebuttal Testimony
May 26 - 29, 1998 Hearings (beginning 10:00 a.m. daily)
III. COMMISSION ANALYSIS
Inasmuch as the scoping stipulation was not agreed to
by all the parties, we must address the motion for consolidation.
The RMA, Staff and others argue that certain issues can only be
adequately reviewed if the dockets are consolidated. For
instance, Staff is concerned that if the transfer were approved
without a ruling on the settlement, customers would be at risk to
pay higher rates through GSE's wholesale purchase agreement.
With respect to this specific concern, GSE notes that the New
England Power FERC filing contains a commitment to a rate freeze
for GSE.
We do not believe that the parties favoring
consolidation have shown that the transfer and settlement issues
are so inextricable that we should not proceed with the schedule
already established for the transfer proceeding by Order No.
22,489 in Docket No. DE 97-251 nor adopt the independent schedule
set forth above for the settlement proceeding, Docket No. DR 98-012. Moreover, the scoping stipulation appears to adequately
address concerns that a ruling in the transfer docket would
prejudice the interests of customers or the public interest
generally. Accordingly, we deny the motion for consolidation and
approve the scoping stipulation.
While we conclude that the better course at this time
is to move ahead on separate tracks for the two proceedings, we
nevertheless put the parties on notice that we have the authority
to modify the procedural schedule in either proceeding in the
event issues in one docket are implicated by issues in the other
docket. Ultimately, GSE as the petitioner in these two
proceedings carries the burden of proving the representations it
has made to date and if its representations that consolidation is
unnecessary prove to be wrong then we will exercise our authority
to, among other things, revise the procedural schedules or
require consolidation.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the various motions to intervene as
discussed above are GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that RMA's motion to consolidate
Docket No. DE 97-251 and Docket No. DR 98-012 is DENIED; and it
is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the Scoping Stipulation filed by
GSE on March 10, 1998 is APPROVED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the procedural schedule for
Docket No. DE 97-251 set forth in Order No. 22,849 (February 17,
1998) is RATIFIED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the procedural schedule set forth
above for Docket No. DR 98-012 is APPROVED.
By order of the Public Utilities Commission of New
Hampshire this thirtieth day of March, 1998.
Douglas L. Patch Bruce B. Ellsworth Susan S. Geiger
Chairman Commissioner Commissioner
Attested by:
Thomas B. Getz
Executive Director and Secretary