News Stories

Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH or Eversource) has proposed changes to its under proposed changes to PSNH’s s Electric Supplier Services Master Agreement (supplier agreement) that among other things includes proposed changes to its purchase of receivable (POR) discount rates and creditworthiness standard for retail suppliers.

In comments, the NRG Energy retail suppliers opposed PSNH’s proposed creditworthiness provision, arguing that the revision to the supplier agreement is not related to POR. NRG Energy said that PSNH did not explain the rationale for this sought change.  NRG also Energy argued that retail suppliers already demonstrate creditworthiness to the PUC in receiving a license.

 As background, New Hampshire’s municipal aggregation law1 authorizes municipalities to aggregate electric power supply and operate approved community aggregation programs.2 In 2021, the New Hampshire legislature amended that law to authorize the purchase of receivables of competitive electric power suppliers (“CEPS”) by the electric distribution utilities (“EDUs”).3 1 Revised Statutes Annotated (“RSA”) Chapter 53-E. 2 RSA 53-E:3-a. 3 RSA 53-E:9,II.  

On October 7, 2022, the Public Utilities Commission (“Commission” or “NHPUC”) filed final rules with the Division of Administrative Rules implementing the provisions of RSA 53-E (“PUC 2200 Rules”). Among other things, the PUC 2200 Rules required each EDU to propose a purchase of receivables (“POR”) program.5 In compliance with this requirement, on January 10, 2023, Eversource filed testimony and supporting materials outlining a proposal for a POR program. 

On August 22, 2024, the Commission issued an Order Approving Settlement Agreement authorizing Eversource to implement a POR program.7 The Order also continued this proceeding to a second phase for the Commission to review the Company’s proposed revisions to its Master Agreement and Terms and Conditions. 

On August 29, 2024, the Commission issued a Supplemental Order of Notice that, among other things, directed the Company to file proposed changes to the Terms and Conditions and Master Agreement and offered parties an opportunity to submit comments on those proposed changes.9 In accordance with the Notice, on September 23, 2024, Eversource filed proposed revisions to the Terms and Conditions and Master Agreement.10 The NRG Retail Companies hereby submit their comments regarding the revised Terms and Conditions and Master Agreement.

Excerpts from NRG Comments:

{***}  “ I. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REQUIRE EACH OF THE EDUS TO ADOPT CONSISTENT SUPPLIER TERMS AND AGREEMENTS 

There are significant differences between the supplier terms and conditions and agreements of the three EDUs. However, as a general matter, there is no reason for these differences.” {***}

 {***} “II. EVERSOURCE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CEPS WITH PAYMENT/ADJUSTMENT DETAILS ABOUT THEIR ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

Pursuant to the Terms and Conditions and Master Agreement, Eversource would only be required to provide CEPS with the details supporting the amounts paid for the Accounts Receivable “upon request.”23 Because Eversource will have all of the information necessary to determine the amount that CEPS will be paid for their Accounts Receivable and CEPS will only be able to determine if they have been paid the correct amount with this “payment/adjustment” detail, Eversource should be required to provide this information to CEPS each month without the need for CEPS to request it.” {***}

{***}  “III. THE MASTER AGREEMENT SHOULD PROPERLY REFLECT THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Currently, the Eversource Master Agreement defines “EDI 

Standards” as the “recommendations made by the Electronic Data Interchange Working Group Report . . . made effective by NHPUC Order No. 22,919 and other applicable regulations of the NHPUC.”24 Eversource does not currently use those recommendations to process electronic data interchange (“EDI”) transactions.25 Instead, “Eversource has followed the Massachusetts EBT [electronic business transactions] standards maintained by the Massachusetts EBT working group.”26 The Massachusetts EBT Standards are different than the “recommendations made by the Electronic Data Interchange Working Group Report . . . made effective by NHPUC Order No. 22,919 and other applicable regulations of the NHPUC.”27 Despite this, Eversource proposes maintaining the current definition.28” {***}

{***}  “IV. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND MASTER AGREEMENT GO BEYOND THOSE NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT POR The NRG Retail Companies support changes to the Terms and Conditions and Master Agreement that are necessary to implement POR, to incorporate community power aggregations (“CPAs”), and those of a housekeeping nature.31 However, some of the changes proposed by Eversource go beyond those areas. In particular, Eversource has proposed the following changes to the Terms and Conditions and Master Agreement that are unrelated to POR and incorporating CPAs and that are not of a housekeeping nature:

First, Eversource proposed removing existing provisions from the Terms and Conditions and Master Agreement that would allow a CEPS to either be a Market Participant32 or have an agreement in place with a Market Participant who agrees to take responsibility for the CEPS’ ISO-NE load obligations.33 Eversource asserts that this “clarifies that suppliers must be an ISO New England Market Participant with an ISO-NE settlement account.”34 However, this is inaccurate. In fact, both the Commission and the New Hampshire Department of Energy (“NHDOE”) have recognized that suppliers themselves do not need to be Market Participants in order to be registered as CEPS.35 Thus, these proposed revisions are not clarifications but rather substantive changes that would place obligations on CEPS that are not currently required and are not necessary to implement POR. Accordingly, these proposed revisions should be rejected. 

Second, Eversource proposes to add a creditworthiness requirement to the Master Agreement and to require CEPS to provide credit support in the event Eversource determines that a CEP is not Creditworthy. Eversource does not explain why this change is necessary or how it relates to implementation of POR. Moreover, as the Commission is aware, CEPS are already required to post and maintain financial security as a condition of registration.36 Thus, there is no reason that CEPS should also be subject to a requirement to provide credit support to Eversource.37 Accordingly, these proposed changes should be rejected. In fact, the Commission should direct Eversource to limit its proposed revisions to those necessary to implement POR, to incorporate community power aggregations, and those of housekeeping nature (e.g., revisions to outdated provisions, correction of typographical errors).” {***}

NRG Comments (10/08/2024)

New Hampshire Department of Energy Position Statement  (10/08/2024)

Community Power Coalition of New Hampshire Comments  (10/08/2024)

DE 23-004  (Opened 01/10/2023)

Eversource Energy – Proposed Purchase of Receivables Program