News Stories

On January 30, 2026 the New Hampshire Department of Energy (DOE) filed a notice of appeal (and appendix) with the New Hampshire Supreme regarding Eversource’s recently approved rate case issued by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission.  Among other things this July 25, 2025  Order No. 28,170 established permanent rates and an alternative regulation plan through July 31, 2025 that included a performance-based rate maker (PBR)  plan creating an alternative form of regulation under RSA 374:3-a. Prior to this case, Eversource distribution revenue requirements were established using the traditional ratemaking methodology.

During the proceeding Eversource stated that its proposed PBR Plan was, “designed to support the Company’s planned capital infrastructure improvements, as discussed in the Distribution Solutions Plan (‘DSP’).”

The Order established a revenue requirement and alternative regulation framework that was substantially similar to the utility’s proposal. Under the Commission’s alternative regulation adjustment framework (“ARAF”), the Commission established a $519 million revenue requirement effective August 1, 2025. This revenue requirement was subject to annual increases based on a formula. The Commission noted specifically that, “[u]sing alternative regulation, the Company receives an annual inflation increase for capital and overhead…”

On December 31, 2025, the Commission issued Rehearing Order No. 28,201 communicating affirmance of order no. 28,170, with certain limited modifications as requested by the parties. While the Rehearing Order addressed several concerns raised by parties that filed motions for rehearing the Commission ultimately affirmed its alternative regulation framework.

As described more fully below the New Hampshire DOE appeal presented three separate questions as to whether: (1) “the ‘Alternative Regulation Framework’ established by [NHPUC’s 12/31/25 order] is an unlawful alternative form of regulation because it allows the inclusion of ‘any return on any plant, equipment, or capital improvement which has not first been found by the commission to be prudent, used, and useful’ in distribution rates paid by electric customers”; (2) NHPUC “acted unlawfully by failing to make findings of fact necessary to understand how its approved revenue requirement of $519 million was derived”; and (3) NHPUC “acted unlawfully in establishing a form of alternative regulation without making specific findings as to each of the required factors.”

 Alternative form of regulation – Lack of Findings Under Puc 206 Rules – “prior to approving an alternative form of regulation, the Commission is required by Puc 206.07(c) and Puc 206.06(b) to determine that the alternative regulation “[s]erves the public interest in light of” a set of nine enumerated considerations. In its Order, the Commission cited part of the rule but did not explicitly make a public interest determination and only explicitly addressed one of the nine considerations.”

The appeal argues that the alternative regulation plan is “an issue of first impression that presents the opportunity for the Court to interpret RSA 374:3-a in the context of setting utility rates and whether the rate plan approved in this case qualifies as a form of alternative regulation under RSA 374:3-a.”

“The issue itself is important as it sets a precedent for whether the Commission can set rates that are specifically designed to include funding for future capital projects that have not yet been found prudent, used, and useful. The rate plan at issue in this case has the potential to significantly impact the utility and its ratepayers, as the plan provides for formula-based rate increases until at least August 1, 2029.”

Findings Supporting $519 Million Revenue Requirement – “it is unclear how the Commission arrived at the $519 million cast-off revenue requirement. The Commission did not provide calculations to support its findings or demonstrate that the resulting rates are just and reasonable. Rather, it relied on the Company to submit calculations. However, the Company’s calculations do not explain what is included in the $30,275,083 “alternative regulation adjustment” or how it was derived and are not a substitute for Commission’s findings on how that number was developed. A substantial basis for a difference of opinion therefore exists on the question of whether the Commission’s findings were sufficient to develop the $519 million revenue requirement, and how specific the Commission’s findings must be in supporting its rate decisions.”

Findings Under Puc 206 – “A substantial basis exists for a difference of opinion on whether the Commission’s findings were sufficient to comply with Puc 206 or whether Puc 206 requires the Commission to make more explicit findings on the factors listed in Puc 206 before establishing an alternative form of regulation. The Commission did not make findings as to whether the alternative regulation framework “[s]erves the public interest in light of” the nine factors enumerated in its rules either in its Original Order or its Rehearing Order, despite the Department having raised this issue in its Motion for Rehearing.