DE 98-138
New Hampshire Electric Cooperative/Granite State Electric
Petition to Establish Parallel Service in Joint Service Territory
Order Adopting Procedural Schedule
O R D E R N O. 23,076
December 7, 1998
APPEARANCES: Dean, Rice and Kane by Mark X. Dean, Esq.
on behalf of the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Carlos
X. Gavilondo, Esq. on behalf of Granite State Electric Co., Inc.,
Gerald M. Eaton, Esq. on behalf of Public Service Company of New
Hampshire, Inc.; Dr. Robert Cimis on behalf of himself and other
residents; Eugene F. Sullivan III, Esq. for the Staff of the New
Hampshire Public Utilities Commission.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 28, 1998, Dr. Robert Cimis filed a complaint
with the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (Commission)
on behalf of himself and numerous neighbors concerning the
quality of service provided in the Methodist Hill area of the
Town of Enfield, New Hampshire by the New Hampshire Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (NHEC). Dr. Cimis complained that he and his
neighbors experienced numerous electric outages while nearby
customers of Granite State Electric (Granite State) did not
experience these outages. Dr. Cimis requested that he and his
neighbors be allowed to receive service from Granite State
thereby allowing them to receive the same quality of service
provided nearby commercial customers of Granite State.
Commission Staff attempted to bring the matter to a
consensual resolution through the adjustment of service territory
lines between Granite State and NHEC. See DE 95-290. These
attempts ultimately proved unsuccessful, culminating in a vote of
the NHEC Board of Directors to oppose any readjustment of the
service territory lines in the Methodist Hill area.
On October 27, 1998, the Commission issued an Order of
Notice initiating an investigation into the adequacy of service
provided in the Methodist Hill area of Enfield and whether a
transfer of the territory was in the public interest. The Order
of Notice made NHEC, Granite State, Public service Company of new
Hampshire (PSNH) mandatory parties and scheduled a prehearing
conference for November 19, 1998. NHEC, Granite State, PSNH, Dr.
Cimis and a number of residents of Methodist Hill and Staff
appeared at the prehearing conference.
NHEC, Granite State and PSNH stated that they had
entered into an agreement that would resolve the issue of the
adequacy of service provided to the residential customers and
presented an outline of the agreement. The agreement provided
that Granite State would continue to serve all existing and new
"three phase" customers in the Methodist Hill area while NHEC
would continue to serve all existing and new single phase
customers in the same service area. NHEC would no longer provide
service from the distribution line currently providing service,
however, which is the cause of the numerous service outages.
Rather, NHEC and Granite State would establish a new single phase
delivery point in the Methodist Hill area of the GSEC system.
Dr. Cimis and the residents expressed general
dissatisfaction with the quality of service they are receiving
which consisted of numerous outages while they could see the
lights of the commercial establishments served by Granite State.
The customers also objected to the rate discrimination that would
result from the proposed agreement. That is, the customers did
not believe it was appropriate that they should pay NHEC rates
while commercial customers received substantially lower charges
from Granite State.
Staff also objected to the proposed settlement because
it would create unnecessarily redundant distribution systems in
the Methodist Hill area and is inconsistent with the planning
practices for the distribution system reorganization set forth by
NHEC and Granite State in DE 95-290 that resulted in Granite
State providing three phase service in the Methodist Hill area.
See, Re New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc. 80 NH PUC 732
(1995).
The utility parties, at the request of the presiding
Commissioner, agreed that NHEC and Granite State would establish
the new delivery point in the Methodist Hill area within two
weeks of the prehearing conference via which NHEC will draw power
from the GSEC system on a temporary basis, pending the outcome of
the hearing on the merits, so that service quality to the
affected residents can be substantially corrected, and not wait
until the final disposition of the case. The utility parties
agreed that they could implement this reinforcement of the
physical delivery system (and make interim arrangements for the
wholesale pricing and relative rights and obligations of the
utilities) for a de minimus cost, and would agree to reserve the
question of the merits of their proposed settlement until the
hearing on the merits.
Following the prehearing conference the parties and
Staff concurred in the following procedural schedule to govern
the Commission's investigation into this matter:
Joint testimony NHEC/GSEC December 9, 1998
Data requests for NHEC/GSEC
(via facsimile) December 14, 1998
Data responses from NHEC/GSEC December 21, 1998
Staff testimony January 4, 1999
NHEC and GSEC separate
rebuttal testimony January 11, 1999
Hearing on the merits January 14, 1999
II. COMMISSION ANALYSIS
We find the proposed procedural schedule to be
reasonable and will approve it as filed. With regard to the
issue of service, we believe the parties need to address the
Commission's decision in Re New Hampshire Electric Cooperative,
Inc. 80 NH PUC 732 (1995) in their testimony.
We also find that the interim arrangement under which
NHEC will draw power from the GSEC system on a temporary basis
pending the outcome of the hearing on the merits is appropriate
and reasonable.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, the procedural schedule set forth above is
APPROVED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the interim arrangement described
above is approved.
By order of the Public Utilities Commission of New
Hampshire this seventh day of December, 1998.
Douglas L. Patch Nancy Brockway
Chairman Commissioner
Attested by:
Thomas B. Getz
Executive Director and Secretary