Fortunately for PSNH ratepayers you can’t circumvent State Law.
Article 83 of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire states that “Free and fair competition in the trades and industries is an inherent and essential right of the people and should be protected against all monopolies and conspiracies which tend to hinder or destroy it”. It goes on to grant the legislature the power to enact laws that will prevent those who would “endeavor to raise the price of any article of commerce or to destroy free and fair competition in the trades and industries through combination conspiracy, monopoly or any other unfair means”
That article of the constitution was, in fact, cited in RSA 374-F:1, when the legislature stated as policy that; “Competitive markets should provide electricity suppliers with incentives to operate efficiently and cleanly, open markets for new and improved technologies, provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals, and improve public confidence in the electric utility industry.” In that same statute, the legislature clearly stated that “the development of competitive markets for wholesale and retail electricity services are key elements in a restructured industry”.
The staff of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) have, in fact, previously acknowledged their obligation to provide a fair and open market as a part of deregulation and encouraging a competitive market. When testifying before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on February 5, 2008 and again on December 6, 2008, PSNH staff stated that each power project will be evaluated on its own merits and that all power providers would be treated fairly and evenly without any pre-conditions.
In enacting RSA 362-F:1, the legislature further stated that; “It is therefore in the public interest to stimulate investment in low emission renewable energy generation technologies”. The legislation went on to place the onus for this effort on the electric utilities and provided the PUC with the power to authorize long term purchase power agreements between utilities and renewable energy providers.
All of this must also be considered in the light of RSA 378:37, which clearly states that; “The general court declares that it shall be the energy policy of this state to meet the energy needs of the citizens and businesses of the state at the lowest reasonable cost while providing for the reliability and diversity of energy sources”. RSA 378:38 goes on to lay out the guidelines for each utility’s biennial least cost integrated resource plan and its review by the PUC. During that review, the commission is enjoined to consider potential environmental, economic and health-related impacts of each proposed option, and if other factors are equal, the order of priorities is prescribed as; conservation, renewable energy sources and finally all other energy sources.
When all of the factors are considered . . . it is clear that PSNH has a constitutional, statutory, regulatory, and ethical requirement to sit at the table and consider all power supply offers. By repeatedly failing to even consider a purchase power agreement from an indigenous renewable energy provider, they have demonstrated a disregard for free and fair competition. As a regulated utility with an exclusive distribution franchise (i.e., poles and wires), their failure to encourage competitive energy markets and provide electricity buyers and sellers with appropriate price signals is clearly contrary to the requirements of state law and policy. Finally, without openly considering all of the options and offers for power, it is obviously impossible for a utility to state that they are providing the lowest reasonable cost power to their customers.
Thus, by failing to even consider offers of power from renewable power projects in New Hampshire, PSNH has fallen short of their obligation to the citizens of the State of New Hampshire and their duty to their own customers.
