DR 98-177
Granite State Electric Company
1999 Conservation and Load Management Program
Order Addressing Interventions and Procedural Schedule
O R D E R N O. 23,067
November 13, 1998
APPEARANCES: Carlos A. Gavilondo, Esq., for Granite
State Electric Company; David W. Marshall, Esq., for the
Conservation Law Foundation; Heidi L. Kroll for the Governor's
Office of Energy and Community Services; Andrew Bodnarik for the
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Air Resources
Division; Kenneth E. Traum for the Office of the Consumer
Advocate for residential ratepayers; and Michelle A. Caraway and
James J. Cunningham, Jr. for the Staff of the New Hampshire
Public Utilities Commission.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 5, 1998, Granite State Electric Company
(GSEC) filed with the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
(Commission) a petition for approval of its 1999 Conservation and
Load Management (C&LM) Program Proposal effective for the period
January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999. GSEC seeks approval
of a C&LM budget of $2,283,900 with a projected incentive of
$298,589. GSEC proposes to continue its currently approved C&LM
programs, with some modifications. GSEC also proposes a new
Efficient Clothes Washer Program and to establish a $100,000
set-aside for initiatives recommended by the New Hampshire Energy
Efficiency Working Group (Working Group). The surcharges
associated with the 1999 C&LM Program are $0.00179 per
kilowatt-hour (kWh) for the residential class and $0.00394/kWh
for the commercial and industrial (C&I) class.
By an Order of Notice issued October 9, 1998, the
Commission scheduled a prehearing conference for October 29,
1998, set deadlines for intervention requests and objections
thereto, outlined a procedural schedule, and required the Parties
and Commission Staff (Staff) to summarize their positions with
regard to the filing for the record. On October 19, 1998, the
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) filed a Petition to Intervene.
On October 26, 1998, the Governor's Office of Energy and
Community Services (ECS) filed a Motion for Full Intervention.
On October 30, 1998, the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, Air Resources Division (DES) filed a late
Motion for Full Intervention. There were no objections to CLF's
and ECS' motions to intervene. DES appeared at the October 29,
1998 prehearing conference and announced that it would be filing
its motion to intervene within a couple of days. No party
objected to DES' motion at the prehearing conference or
subsequently through a filing with the Commission. The Office of
the Consumer Advocate (OCA) is a statutorily recognized
intervenor.
At the prehearing conference, GSEC, CLF, OCA, DES, ECS
and Staff modified certain dates of the procedural schedule as
outlined in the Order of Notice. The revised procedural schedule
agreed to is as follows:
Data Requests by Staff and November 4, 1998
Intervenors
Company Data Responses November 12, 1998
Technical Session @ 8:30 a.m. November 18, 1998
Testimony by Staff and December 1, 1998
Intervenors
Data Requests by the Company December 4, 1998
Data Responses by Staff and December 9, 1998
Intervenors
Settlement Conference at 10:00 a.m. December 14, 1998
Filing of Settlement Agreement, December 15, 1998
if any
Hearing at 10:00 a.m. December 16, 1998.
At the prehearing conference, in accordance with the
Order of Notice, GSEC, CLF, OCA, DES, ECS and Staff stated their
positions with regard to the filing for the record. GSEC stated
that it proposed to offer the same residential and C&I programs
as were approved for 1998 with some changes. GSEC used the same
methodology for screening its programs for cost-effectiveness and
for calculating the incentives as it has used in previous years.
Some specific changes noted by GSEC were: a reduction in the
budget for the EnergyWise Program reflecting GSEC's belief that
it has identified all the multifamily dwellings in its service
territory to which it can provide services; the elimination of
the direct rebates for compact fluorescent light bulbs due to a
recent study indicating significant market awareness and
substantial penetration in the market; the inclusion of the
TumbleWash program as part of a joint regional program; and minor
refinements to the C&I programs to reflect technological advances
and improvements in standards. GSEC also stated that it has
proposed a $100,000 set-aside fund to implement recommendations
proposed by the Working Group and approved by the Commission that
could be implemented in 1999 without any significant disruption
in GSEC's rates, although GSEC stated that all C&LM surcharges
are fully reconciling. Finally, GSEC stated that the proposed
1999 overall budget is slightly lower than the annualized 1998
budget.
CLF stated that it is in general support of GSEC's
proposed filing.
OCA stated that its comments are directed at the
residential side of GSEC's filing only. OCA stated that it was
premature to set-aside $50,000 to implement and fund energy
efficiency initiatives recommended by the Working Group and,
instead, preferred that those dollars stay in the pockets of the
residential customers. OCA noted that GSEC's customers have
choice and because of that, OCA questioned what, if any,
cost-effectiveness test should be used and whether energy and
capacity costs should be used in the calculation of
cost-effectiveness. OCA also detailed concerns with the large
projected overcollection for December 1998 in the C&LM funding,
whether it is necessary to offer a joint utility lighting
catalog, and whether the efficient clothes washer market has
already been transformed.
DES took the opportunity to compliment GSEC on its
historical C&LM programs. DES stated that C&LM programs are
needed to reduce damage to the environment, to protect the public
health and to prevent pollution. DES stated that externalities
should be included in the determination of the cost-effectiveness
of C&LM programs. DES stated that it is currently participating
in the Working Group and that it has general concerns about the
need to keep generating capacity at a level that will not
encourage pollution.
ECS stated that based on its preliminary review of the
GSEC filing, it was very supportive of the direction that GSEC
appears to be headed as well as a continued commitment to a
meaningful level of energy efficiency programs. ECS is pleased
with GSEC's proposed mix of traditional programs and market
transformation initiatives for all of its customer classes. ECS
is interested in gaining a better understanding of the details
behind the proposals and the assumptions that have gone into it.
ECS stated that it planned to participate in formal and informal
information exchanges as appropriate. ECS anticipates being able
to support the filing in general although it reserves the right
to propose modest changes as appropriate. ECS appreciates GSEC's
on-going commitment to the Working Group and values its
participation. However, ECS is concerned with the potential of
diverting limited energy efficiency dollars away from programs
that can benefit customers more directly with the proposed
set-aside of $100,000. ECS wants to explore how GSEC proposes to
use these funds and suggests that the parties consider
alternative uses.
Staff stated that it shared similar concerns to those
addressed by OCA in its opening statement. Staff stated that it
wanted to discuss program designs associated with both the
TumbleWash program and the lighting catalog that has been
proposed by GSEC. Staff also believes that it is premature to
set-aside $100,000 to fund recommendations of the Working Group
that are yet to be approved by the Commission. Given that the
Working Group has just hired a consultant and is making some
headway in their discussions, Staff believes there is a serious
question as to whether recommendations of the Working Group will
be implemented in time in 1999 to require any drastic changes to
GSEC's filing. Staff believes that GSEC has the right to
petition the Commission to request a change to the C&LM program
in 1999 should such action be necessary.
Also at the prehearing conference, GSEC counsel
requested a waiver of Rule Puc 203.01 which requires 14 days
advance notification of a hearing. Counsel stated that although
the Order of Notice was dated October 9, 1998, it was faxed to
GSEC on October 12, 1998, the Columbus Day holiday; thus, GSEC
did not receive the fax until October 13, 1998. Although GSEC
published the Order of Notice in both the Valley News and the
Union Leader, the Union Leader required additional lead-time and
was unable to publish the legal notice until October 16, 1998,
one day after the deadline required by the Order of Notice. GSEC
stated that it did serve complete copies of its filing upon the
CLF, ECS, OCA, and Staff so that they were aware of the filing.
GSEC believes that the one day lapse did not impact any party's
ability to intervene and that it did not disrupt the proceeding.
II. COMMISSION ANALYSIS
We find the proposed procedural schedule, as modified
by the parties, to be reasonable and will, therefore, approve it
for the duration of the case. Additionally, we will grant the
motions to intervene filed by CLF, ECS, and DES.
Insomuch as all motions to intervene have been granted
and no party was denied intervention, we will waive Rule Puc
203.01 which requires notice of a hearing at least 14 days in
advance of the date.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the procedural schedule delineated above
is APPROVED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the motions to intervene filed by
the Conservation Law Foundation, the Governor's Office of Energy
and Community Services, and the Department of Environmental
Services, Air Resources Division are GRANTED; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that GSEC's request at the hearing to
waive Rule Puc 203.01 is GRANTED.
By order of the Public Utilities Commission of New
Hampshire this thirteenth day of November, 1998.
Douglas L. Patch Susan S. Geiger Nancy Brockway
Chairman Commissioner Commissioner
Attested by:
Thomas B. Getz
Executive Director and Secretary