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