DR 98-135
Northern Utilities, Inc.
Integrated Resource Plan
Order Approving Procedural Schedule
O R D E R N O. 23,158
March 9, 1999
APPEARANCES: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P. by
Paul B. Dexter, Esq. for Northern Utilities, Inc. and Michelle A.
Caraway for the Staff of the New Hampshire Public Utilities
Commission.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 11, 1998, Northern Utilities, Inc. (Northern)
filed a request with the New Hampshire Public Utilities
Commission (Commission) to modify the filing dates, filing
guidelines and review process of the Integrated Resource Plans
(IRP) for each natural gas local distribution company (LDC) in
New Hampshire. Northern stated its belief that the IRP filing
guidelines for LDCs and the review process can be improved
through a more informal and streamlined approach which is more in
line with the state of the industry today. The IRP filings would
be filed by November 30, 1998.
After an informal technical session with Northern and
EnergyNorth Natural Gas, Inc. (ENGI), Commission Staff (Staff)
recommended in a memo dated June 26, 1998 that the Commission
adopt Northern's requested changes to the IRP process and apply
the changes to both Northern and ENGI. Staff believed that the
IRP process can be efficiently addressed through a coordination
of efforts between Northern's and ENGI's dockets and recommended
that all changes to the IRP process apply to both LDCs.
In its June 26, 1998 memo, Staff stated that some other
party might be interested in the IRP filings as well as the
format in which they would be filed with the Commission. To
address this concern, Staff recommended that other interested
parties should be identified early in the process so that any
suggested modifications could be reviewed and incorporated into
the IRP filings, as appropriate.
By Orders of Notice issued on July 22, 1998 in this
proceeding and in ENGI's IRP docket (DR 98-134), the Commission
scheduled Prehearing Conferences for August 20, 1998, set
deadlines for intervention requests and objections thereto, and
scheduled a joint technical session to immediately follow the
Prehearing Conferences. No party filed for intervention. The
Office of the Consumer Advocate (OCA) is a statutorily recognized
intervenor. Due to Northern's failure to properly notice the
Prehearing Conference, on August 20, 1998, the Commission
reissued the Order of Notice for Northern and rescheduled the
Prehearing Conference to September 10, 1998. Also on August 20,
1998, the Commission issued a secretarial letter to ENGI
rescheduling its Prehearing Conference to September 10, 1998.
Subsequently, the Prehearing Conferences were held on
September 10, 1998 and were followed by a brief joint technical
session. At the technical session, Northern, ENGI and Staff
discussed whether the LDCs needed to file avoided cost studies as
part of their IRP filings. The LDCs and Staff agreed that if the
LDCs were to continue their demand-side management (DSM) programs
into the 1999/2000 program year, then avoided cost studies must
be filed within their respective IRPs so that the DSM programs
could be properly screened for cost-effectiveness.
On September 23, 1998, Staff filed a memo stating that
there were no intervenors in either LDC's proceeding and
recommending that the Commission approve the review process
agreed to by Northern, ENGI and Staff. On October 12, 1998, the
Commission determined that Northern's underlying request for
revising the IRP filing process was reasonable and that it should
be applied to both LDCs. The LDCs were required to make their
filings by November 30, 1998 but the filings need not include
avoided cost studies. Through Order No. 23,047 (October 27,
1998) and Order No. 23,068 (November 23, 1998) addressing ENGI's
and Northern's 1998/1999 DSM Program filings, respectively, the
Commission stated that should the LDCs decide to continue the DSM
programs into the 1999/2000 program year, then avoided cost
studies must be filed in their respective IRP dockets by May 15,
1999.
On November 25, 1998, Northern requested a four day
extension to file its IRP. On December 3, 1998, the Commission
granted Northern's extension. On December 4, 1998, Northern
requested a further extension to file its IRP, now requesting
that the IRP be filed on or before January 29, 1999. On December
11, 1998, Staff filed its objection to Northern's request for a
two-month extension. On December 16, 1998, Northern requested
that it be allowed to submit its IRP in two phases: the first
half would be filed on December 22, 1998 and the second half
would be filed on either January 8, 1999 or January 29, 1999,
each based on the then most current information. Also, on
December 16, 1998, Northern filed a Motion for Confidential
Treatment of a letter explaining the reasons for Northern's
request for an extension of filing its IRP. On December 22,
1998, Northern submitted the first half of its IRP. On December
31, 1998, the Commission approved Northern's request for a
phase-in of its IRP, with the complete filing due no later than
January 8, 1999. On January 8, 1999, Northern filed the final
portion of its IRP. On February 1, 1999, the Commission issued
Order No. 23,136 granting Northern's request for confidential
treatment.
On March 5, 1999, Staff filed a recommendation with the
Commission proposing a procedural schedule to govern the
proceeding. Staff recommended that consistent with the IRP
review process proposed by Northern and approved by the
Commission, the procedural schedule will consist of discovery and
technical sessions, with a hearing before the Commission. The
proposed procedural schedule is as follows:
Data Requests March 17, 1999
Technical Session March 25, 1999
Data Requests April 28, 1999
Technical Session May 12, 1999
Filing of Avoided Cost Study, if any May 15, 1999
Data Requests June 2, 1999
Technical Session June 16, 1999
Hearing date to be determined
Staff stated that the need for additional discovery or Staff
testimony is unknown at this time. Staff will evaluate the need
to extend the procedural schedule dependent upon the extent of
the review process required of the avoided cost study which may
be filed by Northern on or before May 15, 1999. Therefore, Staff
recommended that the remainder of the procedural schedule be held
in abeyance. Should Northern submit its study, Staff will review
the filing and submit a proposed procedural schedule to govern
the remainder of the proceeding to ensure that a complete record
is developed for the Commission.
Staff stated in its memo that it sought and obtained
the concurrence of both Northern and the OCA.
II. COMMISSION ANALYSIS
We find the proposed procedural schedule to be
reasonable and will, therefore, approve it for the duration of
the proceeding. Both the Energy Efficiency Working Group and the
Gas Unbundling Collaborative are expected to file reports with
the Commission this spring or early summer. The Commission plans
to move ahead to resolve outstanding DSM issues relative to the
natural gas industry expeditiously thereafter.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the procedural schedule delineated above
is APPROVED.
By order of the Public Utilities Commission of New
Hampshire this 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