PUC "Encourag[ing]" Municipal Aggregation As State's First Opt-Out Aggregations Take Shape

The New Hampshire PUC has denied, without prejudice, the separate applications of Lebanon Community Power (City of Lebanon) and the Town of Harrisville for approval of their opt-out electricity aggregation plans

Notably, however, the PUC said that, "The Commission wishes to encourage such community power aggregation because it will result in a more competitive market and greater customer choice."

The PUC noted that the applications preceded initiation of a formal rulemaking for opt-out aggregation rules.

"[T]he Commission believes that the establishment of statewide rules applicable to community power aggregations are needed, and that RSA chapter 53-E requires such rules to ensure that the statutory provisions for such plans are satisfied with consistency and uniformity throughout electric service territories within the State of New Hampshire," the PUC said

As previously reported (story here), the PUC recently initiated an opt-out aggregation rulemaking

The PUC also said that each plan lacks sufficient detail on the CCA's interactions with utilities and their customers

"As the rulemaking proceeding to develop these rules has just commenced, the City is not at fault for this deficiency. However, we cannot find the Plan sufficient at this time. The Commission intends to work expeditiously with stakeholders to develop and implement rules to enable community power aggregations under RSA chapter 53-E," the PUC said

Generally, the PUC also found that both entities failed to adequately explain how the plans comply with RSA 368:38, IV, which requires that service providers, including Community Power Aggregators, use reasonable security procedures and practices to protect individual customer data from unauthorized access, use, destruction, modification, or disclosure.

"The Plan, as filed, substantially fails to meet the applicable statutory standards in this regard. The Commission requires additional detail on the scope and nature of the customer data that will be in the possession, custody, and control of [CCA] or its suppliers and vendors, and the protective measures that will be utilized to protect that data from unauthorized access, use, destruction, modification, or disclosure," the PUC said generally of each plan

The PUC encouraged the localities to participate in the Docket No. DRM 21-142 CCA rulemaking process and to re-submit a more refined plan when the rulemaking process is closer to completion or has concluded.

The PUC said that both applications reflected a thoughtful and rigorous process at the applicable local government level, and commended the entities for their plans