News Stories

In this order, the Commission makes certain modifications to the 2024-2025 statewide low-income electric assistance program and lays out areas for further evaluation including banning low-income assistance recipients from shopping.

Excerpts from the Order:

“Having reviewed the filings made by the Utilities and the DOE, and the positions presented by the parties during this phase of the proceeding, we observe a number of areas that require further evaluation. While we concur that no changes can be made to the default-service proxy-price structure for EAP benefits at this time, we observe that competitive supply and community aggregation supply prices that are higher or lower than the utility default service price result in problematic outcomes. EAP beneficiaries on competitive supply or community aggregation with a rate lower than utility default service receive a larger than intended benefit, up to, potentially, receiving more money in bill credit than they pay in a month, which would of course be an extraordinarily perverse outcome since no ratepayer or EAP recipient should profit by receiving electric service. Second, we observe that the EAP recipient that chooses a competitive supplier or community aggregation supplier with a higher rate than utility default service could also inadvertently cause a perverse outcome, where the regular ratepayer continues to pay into the EAP program at the same rate, but the EAP recipient pays more than necessary. That outcome becomes more onerous if EAP recipients choose the highest community aggregation or competitive supply option DE 22-043 – 10 – where they could conceivably, and unreasonably, pay more than they would have without being in the EAP program at all, an absurd and highly concerning outcome for New Hampshire’s most vulnerable population. Examples aside, we make clear that that the EAP is intended to yield an affordable bill2, not more and not less than the EAP recipient on utility default service receives. Further, as presented in the Joint Utilities Record Request response brief of May 21, 2024, we agree with the argument that participating in the EAP and choosing competitive supply are both voluntary activities, and therefore there is no restriction on customer choice in violation of Chapter 374-F.3 In light of this, by March 15, 2025, we require the utilities to propose changes4 to the EAP program to address the problem of community aggregation/competitive supply being unreasonably higher or lower cost than what is borne by EAP utility default service recipients.5 Next, we observe that there are serious delinquency issues in the EAP program. For example, only 17 percent of UES’s EAP Accounts Receivable are current, and 68 percent of the EAP Accounts Receivable are past due 90+ days. In Liberty’s case, 39 percent of the EAP Accounts Receivable are delinquent, with nearly 50 percent of the Accounts Receivable balance delinquent in 4th arrears. In Eversource’s case, EAP delinquencies are at approximately twice the rate of non-EAP accounts.6 Additionally, per the Colton Report (Hearing Exhibit 3, Bates Page 40), “roughly 10% of EAP participants… consistently carry unpaid balances of more than $1,000. Half of those (5%) are accounts… consistently between $5,500 and $6,000.” These facts call into question EAP recipient ownership and accountability in the program design. In return for receiving benefits, it is reasonable to expect EAP recipients to pay bills on time to stay on the program.7 In light of these facts, we require the Utilities to propose program changes by March 15, 2025, to resolve the aforementioned delinquency issues. We further note that Tier 6 is the highest electric discount in the country8 and requires extra scrutiny since it is 40 percent of all EAP benefits. Tier 6 is most likely to experience the default service issues highlighted above and has significant delinquency issues without any financial incentives to move off the program. At hearing, we heard that applicants who have lost their job are placed in Tier 6 and then not reviewed for 12 months. 9 With low unemployment in New Hampshire, it is unlikely that recipients remain unemployed for such a length of time, which calls into question whether more frequent reviews should be required. Also, there is currently no time limit to the program, and at an 86 percent discount, there is a significant financial incentive to remain in the program. Further, with many recipients reported as zero income for an entire year due to the intake process, the calculation of the electric burden is overstated and thus the discount needs further evaluation. Ultimately, we question the wisdom of providing nearly free electricity on these grounds and require the utilities to address these Tier 6 concerns and report by March 15, 2025.

We will permit the CAAs to explore information-sharing arrangements with other social-service agencies in our State, to the extent that they are able to independently, and encourage them to report to the Commission regarding these efforts at upcoming EAP budget review proceedings. We also concur with DOE that Arrearage Management programming is beyond the scope of our authority within EAP itself. 

With respect to Tier 2, the Colton report shows that the average total energy burden for New Hampshire ratepayers is approximately 5 percent (page 5), the “commonly accepted definition of an affordable percentage of income (is) 6%” (Hearing Exhibit 3, Bates Page 6), and “statewide data shows that the bulk of the total home energy burdens in New Hampshire can be attributed to electric bills”, while the Tier 2 electric burden is 4.5 percent. In a similar vein, the Tier 2 burden is also lower than the burdens of the remaining EAP tiers. We also observe that program operational deficits have required periodic injections over the last few years to make EAP program payments. 

To achieve parity in energy burdens across tiers, better align with energy burdens across the state, and for future sustainability of the program, we find it necessary to pare back the eligibility for the small (5 percent) EAP Tier 2 discount to be limited to those households with income between 150 percent and 200 percent of Federal Poverty Level (that is, the “Tier 2A” as defined by Mr. Colton), with reallocations of the savings to be made among remaining EAP recipients, as recommended by the Colton Report in the event that “the State needs to reduce the overall cost of the EAP” (Hearing Exhibit 3, Bates Page 99). We note that the DOE is projecting to continue regular injections of HB 2023 appropriation monies into the EAP Fund Balance pursuant to the schedule shared in its Record Request response filed on May 23, 2024.”

Order No. 27,031 Establishing Modifications to Program  (07/09/2024)
DE 22-043.
Low Income Electric Assistance Program
2022-2023 Electric Assistance Program Budgets.