Cost-effective energy efficiency bears a pure rightness. For simple economy, it pinches maximum work from every kilowatt and BTU into serious savings. In combating existential climate threats, it proves the adage “first things first.”
So why, for years, has the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy ranked New Hampshire lowest among New England states on its efficiency efforts?
Two recent Public Utility Commission cases serve to exemplify. The first regards the Eversource settlement on electric meters (DE 19-097). The second, the PUC’s postponed order on the N.H. Energy Efficiency Plan settlement to expand the NHSaves programs (DE 20-092).
First, in 2014, PSNH, now Eversource, spread news it started replacing analog electricity meters for 550,000 customers with a new digital, wireless type. Delighted, I assumed these were smart meters. By then the N.H. Electric Cooperative had adopted them to give market incentives to decrease peak demand by crediting prudent electricity users with lower, time-varying rates, and, into the bargain, ratepayer savings for all.
Alas, the PSNH reports made clear their meters were not “smart.” They were automatic meter readers (AMRs) designed to transmit data for drive-by capture so the company could cut payroll $6.5 million per year by eliminating 49 meter readers. Absent any benefit to ratepayers, then company spokesperson Michael Skelton told reporters that costs for the meters would not be added into people’s bills.
But in last year’s PUC electric rate case, Eversource requested $42 million for its investment in them. Over Consumer Advocate Donald Kreis’s objection, the commission granted it, saying, “Eversource has agreed to depreciate its existing AMR infrastructure using whole life depreciation over nine years.” Given the company’s original broadcast stating it wouldn’t bill for the meters, this PUC settlement begs the question: What about the public trust?
The second example of inefficiency regards process. This year’s 2021-2023 Triennium Energy Efficiency Plan calls for spending $350 million over three years financed through a surcharge on the utilities Systems Benefits Charge. It estimates $1.3 billion in energy savings.
But on Dec. 22 the PUC postponed its comprehensive order on the matter for eight weeks. The delay seemed odd because it took seven parties over six months to settle and agree. Furthermore, commission staff read the data, heard the arguments, and gave testimony in the case.
So why did the PUC keep the record on this settled case open?
In November, the Business and Industry Association wrote the PUC suggesting it cost-cut the plan. Its large commercial and industrial associates had voiced concerns over their up-front responsibility for the settlement in spite of its quick return on superb benefits. After the November election, eight Republican members of the N.H. House Science, Technology and Energy Committee, and the now-deceased speaker, Dick Hinch, also wrote the commissioners citing similar concerns and asked them to suspend the efficiency plan until the pandemic ends.
In October, Kreis wrote a piece in InDepthNH.org titled “Utility Regulation Gone Awry: A Crash Course.” He is a former professor of law at the Vermont Law School and took issue with the PUC’s referring to this energy efficiency case as a “legislative” docket. He thinks it’s an administrative one.
Kreis wrote the principles undergirding regulatory agencies are well-established as a matter of federal and state law under their respective constitutions.
Independent regulatory agencies like the PUC are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The statue spells out how administrative agencies adopt rules that apply to everyone and conduct adjudications – decided case-by-case – usually about specific utilities or specific rates. Moreover, insofar as the Legislature delegates all PUC authority by statute, thereafter, commission rules bind everyone alike, even legislators.
Kreis maintains that if there is such a thing as a “legislative” docket, the PUC can make up the rules as it goes, and the APA, due process, and fundamental fairness no longer apply. Under APA rules, agencies should not make arbitrary and capricious decisions and must base their rulings on facts in evidence.
In my view, the House members’ belated attempt to suspend this settled PUC energy efficiency case looks corrupt and poses further harm to the public trust.
With all due respect, the PUC needs to issue a comprehensive order in this proceeding, now.
(Terry Cronin lives in Hopkinton.)