Posted by Dennis Herrick on January 19, 2010 at 08:26:32:
Unitil sent their crews to Massachuserrs and now NH customers are going to pay, pay, pay. If you can't think of a reason to intervene then at least send Attorney Sumner Kalman up to the NH PUC hearings to keep an eye on the proceedings and report back to the various Boards of Selectmen he represents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil again under fire for ice storm failures
During 2008 ice storm more crews went to Mass.
Pickpocket Road in Exeter was closed and its residents, like Chris Davies at 20 Pickpocket Road, were still without power and resorted to heating his home with his fireplace, during the 2008 ice storm.
Scott Yates/syates@seacoastonlinJanuary 19, 2010 2:00 AMstaff reports
The fallout from Unitil's failures during the ice storm of 2008 continues.
The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission recently reported that information obtained from the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities showed that Unitil deployed more crews to that state during and immediately after the storm, despite more of its customers being without power in New Hampshire.
Following the storm, 57,728 Unitil customers were without power. Unitil services Exeter, Hampton, Hampton Falls, Kensington, Kingston, Seabrook, South Hampton and Stratham.
On Dec. 3, 2009, the commission issued its final report regarding its review of the December 2008 ice storm and will begin taking testimony in February as it examines certain aspects of Unitil Energy Systems Inc.'s (UES) response to the storm.
UES, a subsidiary of the Unitil Corporation, provides electric distribution service to more than 72,500 customers in New Hampshire. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg) is also a subsidiary of Unitil Corporation and provides electric distribution service to 27,812 customers in Massachusetts.
Data submitted in the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities investigation regarding Fitchburg's ice storm response in that state revealed that more crews were deployed in there at times when there were greater numbers of customers without power in New Hampshire. According to a data response submitted during the commission's review, Unitil said it was striving to restore all customers at the same time.
However, the commission's ice storm consultant, NEI Electric Power Engineering Inc., noted in its report that Unitil's restoration effort was "adversely impacted because the system area with the most damage rather than the most customers was assigned the greatest amount of resources." Data showed that the number of outside contractor line crews deployed in New Hampshire decreased during and immediately after the ice storm, indicating line crews were leaving UES' service territory during the initial phase of the restoration plan.
Data also indicated that at certain times during and immediately after the ice storm, UES had the lowest ratio of crews to number of customers without power, compared to other New Hampshire electric utilities.
Attempts to reach Unitil for a response to these findings were unsuccessful.
The commission will open a case that will consider issues related to the reasonableness of UES' response to the December 2008 ice storm, including the timing of its response, its restoration priorities and strategies, and the procurement and allocat1on of its resources in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. As UES is part of a holding company with electric utility operations in two states, the issues to be investigated involve actions and decision-making on a company-wide basis.
Exploration of the issues will involve inquiry into the emergency response resources available to UES and Fitchburg prior to the ice storm, the deployment of those resources on behalf of UES and Fitchburg, the responsibility for the deployment of those resources and the reasons therefor, the impacts of the deployment on UES' customers and what, if any, remedies are appropriate.
UES was ordered to file testimony with the commission addressing these issues, with a copy to the Office of Consumer Advocate, by no later than Jan. 29. A pre-hearing conference is to be held before the commission, located at 21 S. Fruit St., Suite 10, Concord, N.H., on Feb. 11, at 10 a.m., at which each party will provide a preliminary statement of its position with regard to the issues raised.
The commission also ordered that, immediately following the pre-hearing conference, UES, the PUC staff and any intervenors are to hold a technical session to formulate a recommended procedural schedule.
Any party wishing to intervene in the proceeding shall submit seven copies of a Petition to Intervene to the commission, with copies sent to UES and the Office of the Consumer Advocate, on or before Feb. 8. The petition should indicate how the intervenor may be affected by the proceeding.