DE 99-007 Granite State Electric Company Investigation into Retail Transmission Services Prehearing Conference Order O R D E R N O. 23,175 March 29, 1999 APPEARANCES: Carlos A. Gavilondo, Esq., for Granite State Electric Company; James T. Rodier, Esq., pro se; Mark W. Dean, Esq., for New Hampshire Electric Cooperative; Susan L. Geiser, Esq., for Concord Electric Company and Exeter & Hampton Electric Company; Michael W. Holmes, Esq., and Kenneth E. Traum, Finance Director for the Office of Consumer Advocate; Robert J. Frank, Esq., for the Commission Staff. I. BACKGROUND The Commission opened this investigation in response to a filing by James T. Rodier in the retail restructuring docket for Granite State Electric Company (GSEC), Docket DE 98-012. The filing raised issues pertaining to unbundled retail transmission services for customers located in GSEC's service territory. In an order of notice issued on January 21, 1999, the Commission noted that Mr. Rodier had made a similar filing in DR 96-150, and one issue in this case was whether to proceed with a generic investigation. Timely, unopposed intervention requests were filed by the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NHEC), Concord Electric Company (CEC), and Exeter & Hampton Electric Company (E&H). The Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) is a statutorily recognized intervenor. On February 4, 1999, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) filed a letter urging the Commission to delay this proceeding until after the federal district court issues a decision concerning PSNH's legal claims. PSNH's letter provided two reasons for this request: first, the Commission's jurisdiction over retail transmission has been challenged in federal court; and second, the proceeding would violate the preliminary injunction entered by the court last year. On February 9, 1999, a duly noticed prehearing conference was held during which the parties expressed various positions and views concerning the appropriate scope of this proceeding. These positions are briefly described below. During the prehearing conference, all of the parties agreed that the scope of this proceeding should be limited to issues relating to transmission services for GSEC's customers. Mr. Rodier stated that limiting the proceeding in such a manner is appropriate because GSEC is willing to work cooperatively with the parties. NHEC noted that the order of notice did not make all of the five jurisdictional electric utilities mandatory parties. CEC/E&H stated that it had no objection to this proceeding as long as it was limited to GSEC. The OCA observed that all of the parties in this case had appeared voluntarily and therefore it was apparent that the Commission was not violating the preliminary injunction. Staff explained that the subject of this investigation is different than the issues raised by PSNH in the federal court proceeding. PSNH did not appear at the prehearing conference. II. DISCUSSION As an initial matter, we grant both intervention requests without limitation. Also, we accept the recommendation of the parties and will limit the scope of this proceeding to issues pertaining only to GSEC's customers. Although we disagree with PSNH's view regarding the federal court's preliminary injunction, it is unnecessary to expand the proceeding beyond the case of GESC at this time. Finally, we request that Staff and the parties submit a proposed procedural schedule by April 15, 1999. Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED, that this investigation shall proceed as set forth herein. By order of the Public Utilities Commission of New Hampshire this twenty-ninth day of March, 1999. Douglas L. Patch Susan S. Geiger Nancy Brockway Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Attested by: Thomas B. Getz Executive Director and Secretary