The Public Utilities Commission on Jan. 7 denied a motion for rehearing on a contentious energy-efficiency decision it issued in November.
The action comes after the state’s utilities, along with environmental, clean energy and consumer advocates, asked the commission to reconsider the decision.
Instead, the commission doubled down on its initial decision, dismissing claims about due process issues and that it didn’t provide proper notice to parties in the case. It also determined that Commissioner Pradip Chattopadhyay would not have to recuse himself from the case, after the consumer advocate asked him not to participate because of previous involvement. The commission also took issue with the parties’ characterization that its decision would reduce funding for energy efficiency. “The rates established ... will result in an increase of $4 million to $8 million in energy-efficiency funding,” the order said. Consumer Advocate Don Kreis called that claim “funny math.”
Eric Chabot, an energy auditor for Turn Cycle Solutions in Nashua, inspects attic insulation during a recent audit. (Amanda Gokee/New Hampshire Bulletin)
The commission gave the utilities an extension to submit a new energy-efficiency program proposal, which is now due on March 31.
“The PUC continues to dig its feet in on its radical and arbitrary decision, and New Hampshire families will pay the price,” said Nick Krakoff, an attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation, in a statement.
Kreis said he was shocked and dismayed that the commission would stand by the “inadequate” order.
The challengers have a 30-day period to file an appeal with the state Supreme Court, according to Kreis. He said his office is likely to pursue that legal recourse, unless there is legislative intervention, like the passage of Senate Bill 270, which would put the Energy Efficiency Resource Standard into statute.
On Jan. 6, the House passed House Bill 549 in a unanimous 343-0 vote — another bill that takes up the issue of funding energy efficiency, using 2020 levels of funding as a base and allowing a modest yearly increase. The bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Michael Vose, R-Epping, said the bill could be sent to the governor’s desk as early as February or March.
