The Commonwealth of Massachusetts ——

Document Sample
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts —— Powered By Docstoc
					                        The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
                                    ——
                                DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES


D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                        March 31, 2010

Petition of Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company, d/b/a National
Grid, pursuant to G.L. c. 25, § 19 and G.L. c. 25A, § 11G, for approval by the Department of
Public Utilities of its 2008 Energy Efficiency Plan.



D.P.U. 08-10-B

Petition of NSTAR Electric Company pursuant to G.L. c. 25, § 19 and G.L. c. 25A, § 11G,
for approval by the Department of Public Utilities of its 2008 Energy Efficiency Plan.



       APPEARANCES:         Patricia Crowe, Esq.
                            National Grid
                            40 Sylvan Road
                            Waltham, Massachusetts 02451-1120

                                   FOR: MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY
                                        AND NANTUCKET ELECTRIC COMPANY
                                        D/B/A NATIONAL GRID
                                        Petitioners, D.P.U. 08-8

                            David S. Rosenzweig, Esq.
                            Kevin F. Penders, Esq.
                            Keegan Werlin LLP
                            265 Franklin Street

                                   FOR: NSTAR ELECTRIC COMPANY
                                        Petitioner, D.P.U. 08-10
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                          Page ii
D.P.U. 08-10-B

                 Martha Coakley, Attorney General
                 Commonwealth of Massachusetts
                 By:    Tackey Chan
                        Assistant Attorney General
                 Office of Ratepayer Advocacy
                 One Ashburton Place
                 Boston, MA 02108
                        Intervenor, D.P.U. 08-8 and D.P.U. 08-10

                 Steven I. Venezia, Esq.
                 Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources
                 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1020
                 Boston, Massachusetts 02114

                       FOR: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF
                            ENERGY RESOURCES
                            Intervenor, D.P.U. 08-8 and D.P.U. 08-10

                 Gregory K. Lawrence, Esq.
                 Daniel P. Haley, Esq.
                 McDermott, Will & Emery LLP
                 28 State Street
                 Boston, Massachusetts 02109

                       FOR: WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P. AND SAM’S
                            EAST, INC.
                            Intervenors, D.P.U. 08-8 and D.P.U. 08-10
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                 Page iii
D.P.U. 08-10-B

                 Robert A. Rio, Esq.
                 Associated Industries of Massachusetts
                 222 Berkeley Street, 13th Floor
                 P.O. Box 763
                 Boston, Massachusetts 02117

                        FOR: ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF
                             MASSACHUSETTS, THE ENERGY
                             CONSORTIUM, THE GREATER BOSTON
                             REAL ESTATE BOARD,
                             RETAILERSASSOCIATION OF
                             MASSACHUSETTS, MASSACHUSETTS
                             CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
                             OF INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE PROPERTIES,
                             AND THE MASSACHUSETTS FOOD
                             ASSOCIATION
                             Limited Participants, D.P.U. 08-8 and
                             D.P.U. 08-10

                 Jerrold Oppenheim, Esq.
                 57 Middle Street
                 Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930

                        FOR: LOW-INCOME ENERGY AFFORDABILITY
                             NETWORK
                             Limited Participant, D.P.U. 08-8 and
                             D.P.U. 08-10
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                                          Page i
D.P.U. 08-10-B

                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.     INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1

II.    FORWARD CAPACITY MARKET ............................................................. 3
       A.  Current Approach ........................................................................... 3
       B.  Contribution-Based Approach ............................................................ 4

III.   POSITION OF THE PARTIES ................................................................... 4
       A.    Program Administrators ................................................................... 4
       B.    Attorney General ............................................................................ 7
       C.    Wal-Mart ..................................................................................... 8

IV.    ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.................................................................... 10

V.     ORDER ............................................................................................... 13
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                              Page 1
D.P.U. 08-10-B

I.        INTRODUCTION

          In 2008, Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company, d/b/a

National Grid (together, “National Grid”) and NSTAR Electric Company (“NSTAR

Electric”)1 individually filed with the Department of Public Utilities (“Department”) electric

energy efficiency plans for calendar year 2008 (“2008 Plan”) pursuant to G.L. c. 25, § 19,

G.L. c. 25A, § 11G and Order Promulgating Final Guidelines to Evaluate and Approve

Energy Efficiency Programs, D.T.E. 98-100 (2000). On September 10, 2008, the Department

approved each Program Administrator’s 2008 Plan, in part, and deferred consideration of

certain issues related to the treatment of proceeds received through the Forward Capacity

Market (“FCM”), which is administered by Independent System Operator-New England

(“ISO-NE”). Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company, d/b/a

National Grid, D.P.U. 08-8, at 28 (2008); NSTAR Electric Company, D.P.U. 08-10, at 26

(2008).

          The Department deferred consideration of the treatment of FCM revenues in order to

allow interested parties an opportunity to investigate the propriety of the Program

Administrators’ FCM proposals. D.P.U. 08-8, at 28; D.P.U. 08-10, at 26.2 The Department


1
          As administrators of energy efficiency programs, National Grid and NSTAR Electric
          are referred to as “Program Administrators.”
2
          The Department approved the Program Administrators’ proposed treatment of FCM
          proceeds in the 2009 energy efficiency plans, subject to the Department’s finding in
          D.P.U. 08-8 and D.P.U. 08-10. NSTAR Electric Company, D.P.U. 08-117, at 40
          (2009); Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company, d/b/a
          National Grid, D.P.U. 08-129, at 41 (2009).
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                             Page 2
D.P.U. 08-10-B

subsequently established a procedural schedule for intervention, discovery, and evidentiary

hearings limited in scope to: (1) each Program Administrator’s proposal to apply all proceeds

from the participation of its energy efficiency programs in the FCM to its energy efficiency

budget, and (2) the method by which each Program Administrator proposes to allocate FCM

proceeds among customer sectors and sub-sectors. D.P.U. 08-8, at 27-28, Procedural Notice

(July 17, 2009); D.P.U. 08-10, at 26-27, Procedural Notice (July 17, 2009).

       On October 24, 2008, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

(“Attorney General”) filed a notice of intervention pursuant to G.L. c. 12, § 11E in each

proceeding. Pursuant to duly issued notice, the Department held public hearings on

November 3, 2008. Comments were received from Environment Northeast. On

November 3, 2008, the Department granted intervenor status to the Massachusetts Department

of Energy Resources (“DOER”) and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. and Sam’s East, Inc.

(together, “Wal-Mart”) in each proceeding. Also on November 3, 2008, the Department

granted limited participant status collectively to Associated Industries of Massachusetts, The

Energy Consortium, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, the Retailers Association of

Massachusetts, Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office

Properties, Massachusetts Food Association, and the Massachusetts Hospital Association in

each proceeding. On December 23, 2008, the Department granted limited participant status to

the Low-Income Energy Affordability Network in each proceeding.

       In D.P.U. 08-8, the Department held an evidentiary hearing on September 9, 2009.

The Attorney General, National Grid, and Wal-Mart filed initial briefs. National Grid and
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                              Page 3
D.P.U. 08-10-B

Wal-Mart filed reply briefs. The evidentiary record includes 52 exhibits and one response to a

record request.

       In D.P.U. 08-10, the Department held an evidentiary hearing on September 10, 2009.

The Attorney General, NSTAR Electric, and Wal-Mart filed initial briefs. NSTAR Electric

and Wal-Mart filed reply briefs. The evidentiary record includes 110 exhibits and one

response to a record request.

II.    FORWARD CAPACITY MARKET

       A.      Current Approach

       In 2006, ISO-NE began implementation of the FCM, in which demand resources such

as energy efficiency are eligible to participate (and receive payments) as a capacity resource.3

In their respective 2007 energy efficiency plans, the Program Administrators identified the

proceeds they expected to receive through the FCM during 2007, based on projected savings

achieved through their energy efficiency programs. The Department approved the Program

Administrators’ proposal that all 2007 FCM proceeds be applied directly to their 2007 energy

efficiency program budgets. Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric

Company, d/b/a National Grid, D.P.U. 07-48, at 12-13 (2007); NSTAR Electric Company,

D.P.U. 07-55, at 11-12 (2007).4 In the 2008 Plans, the Program Administrators proposed to


3
       During a transition period lasting until June 1, 2010, FCM capacity payments are based
       on specified amounts. After June 1, 2010, the capacity payments are based on the
       results of annual capacity auctions administered by ISO-NE. These auctions are held
       three years prior to the year in which resources take on their capacity obligation.
4
       The Department approved the same approach regarding the application of 2007 FCM
       proceeds for Western Massachusetts Electric Company and Fitchburg Gas and Electric
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                               Page 4
D.P.U. 08-10-B

apply the projected 2008 FCM proceeds directly to their 2008 energy efficiency budgets,

consistent with the Department-approved method. D.P.U. 08-8, at 10; D.P.U. 08-10, at 10.

       B.     Contribution-Based Approach

       Wal-Mart proposes an alternative contribution-based allocation of FCM proceeds, one

in which a customer that participates in a utility-sponsored energy efficiency program would be

entitled to a share of FCM proceeds flowing from the energy efficiency program demand

reductions (Wal-Mart Brief (National Grid) at 5-6; Wal-Mart Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 5).

Wal-Mart proposes that: (1) a customer and the Program Administrator should share FCM

proceeds based on the percentage of what each contributed to the initial investment; (2) the

costs for administering the contribution-based approach, borne by the Program Administrator,

will be deducted from the customer’s share of FCM proceeds; and (3) in order to participate in

the contribution-based method of allocating FCM proceeds, a customer must enter into a

binding agreement whereby it will reinvest its share of FCM proceeds into energy efficiency

measures in Massachusetts, with such reinvestment to be confirmed by the Department

(Wal-Mart Brief (National Grid) at 6; D.P.U. 08-10, Wal-Mart Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 5).

III.   POSITION OF THE PARTIES

       A.     Program Administrators

       The Program Administrators argue that the current approach for allocating FCM

proceeds assures that all FCM proceeds from energy efficiency activities will be directly


       Light Company, d/b/a Unitil. Western Massachusetts Electric Company,
       D.P.U. 07-85, at 8, 18-20 (2008); Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, d/b/a
       Unitil, D.P.U. 07-57, at 8, 16 (2007).
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                              Page 5
D.P.U. 08-10-B

reinvested into each Program Administrator’s energy efficiency programs for the full benefit of

its customers (National Grid Reply Brief at 2; NSTAR Brief at 6). NSTAR Electric argues

that the current approach is neither unfair nor too restrictive because customer incentives are:

(1) designed to maximize customer participation in energy efficiency programs while balancing

cost-effectiveness; and (2) carefully selected to ensure maximum cost-effective participation

without encouraging free ridership (NSTAR Electric Brief at 16-17; NSTAR Electric Reply

Brief at 2).

       The Program Administrators argue that Wal-Mart’s proposed contribution-based

approach is unfair because it will allow Wal-Mart to receive the standard customer incentive

from participating in the Program Administrators’ energy efficiency programs, in addition to

FCM proceeds, resulting in a windfall for Wal-Mart (National Grid Brief at 6; National Grid

Reply Brief at 2; NSTAR Electric Reply Brief at 2). Further, the Program Administrators

argue that the contribution-based approach is inconsistent with the Department’s findings in

Western Massachusetts Electric Company, D.P.U. 07-85, at 19 (2008), where the Department

determined that requiring customers to waive rights to FCM proceeds in order to participate in

an energy efficiency measure is a reasonable requirement for participating in an energy

efficiency program (National Grid Reply Brief at 2; NSTAR Electric Brief at 9-12; NSTAR

Electric Reply Brief at 3-4).

       The Program Administrators also argue that Wal-Mart’s proposed contribution-based

approach to allocating FCM proceeds is inconsistent with the Green Communities Act which

requires Program Administrators to deliver all available cost-effective energy efficiency while
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                               Page 6
D.P.U. 08-10-B

minimizing administrative costs to the fullest extent practicable (National Grid Brief at 8, citing

G.L. c. 25, § 21; NSTAR Electric Brief at 11, 15). Specifically, National Grid argues that

Wal-Mart’s proposed approach violates the Green Communities Act because returning FCM

proceeds to customers will: (1) reduce the total funds available for investment in energy

efficiency; and (2) increase administrative costs (National Grid Brief at 8; National Grid Reply

Brief at 3). Similarly, NSTAR Electric argues that Wal-Mart’s proposed approach will divert

FCM proceeds from Program Administrators’ energy efficiency activities and increase

administrative costs because increased tracking and monitoring of energy efficiency programs

will be required (NSTAR Electric Brief at 11; NSTAR Electric Reply Brief at 4). As a result,

NSTAR Electric argues that Wal-Mart’s proposed contribution-based approach will result in

either lowered program budgets or require additional customer funding to maintain budget

levels (NSTAR Electric Reply Brief at 3).

       The Program Administrators argue that there is no assurance that customers will

reinvest FCM proceeds in energy efficiency activities under Wal-Mart’s proposed allocation

approach (National Grid Brief at 6-7; National Grid Reply Brief at 3; NSTAR Electric Brief

at 7-8, 12-14; NSTAR Electric Reply Brief at 2-3). Finally, the Program Administrators argue

that Wal-Mart offers no regulatory or statutory authority that will enable the Department to

bind customers to Department review and oversight to ensure that FCM proceeds are

appropriately reinvested (National Grid Reply Brief at 3; NSTAR Electric Brief at 12-13).

Accordingly, the Program Administrators argue that Wal-Mart’s proposed approach to
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                               Page 7
D.P.U. 08-10-B

allocating FCM proceeds should be rejected (National Grid Brief at 5; NSTAR Reply Brief

at 3; NSTAR Electric Brief at 5; NSTAR Electric Reply Brief at 5).

       B.     Attorney General

       The Attorney General argues that the Department’s current approach to allocating FCM

proceeds is appropriate because all customers have the option of (1) participating in the

Program Administrators’ energy efficiency programs, or (2) participating in the FCM instead.

(Attorney General Brief (National Grid) at 4; Attorney General Brief (NSTAR Electric)

at 4-5). The Attorney General argues that Wal-Mart’s choice to participate in the FCM instead

of the Program Administrators’ energy efficiency programs is evidence that it is capable of

installing energy efficiency measures outside the incentives provided through the Program

Administrators’ program rebates (Attorney General Brief (National Grid) at 4; Attorney

General Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 4-5). The Attorney General argues that Wal-Mart’s

proposed contribution-based approach is therefore unnecessary (Attorney General Brief

(National Grid) at 4; Attorney General Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 4-5).

       Further, the Attorney General contends that the Department found in D.P.U. 07-85,

at 19, that diverting FCM proceeds to Wal-Mart will reduce energy efficiency funding for

other customers (Attorney General Brief (National Grid) at 2-3; Attorney General Brief

(NSTAR Electric) at 2). The Attorney General argues that Wal-Mart’s proposed

contribution-based approach is inappropriate because it diverts FCM proceeds to customers

with no assurance of energy efficiency reinvestment (Attorney General Brief (National Grid)

at 2-3; Attorney General Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 2-3).
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                             Page 8
D.P.U. 08-10-B

       Finally, the Attorney General argues that Wal-Mart is unable to demonstrate the

reasonableness of any method, formula, or manner by which the Department could ensure that

the FCM proceeds received by customers are reinvested in energy efficiency measures

(Attorney General Brief (National Grid) at 3-4; Attorney General Brief (NSTAR Electric)

at 3-4). The Attorney General argues that regulation of a private company, such as Wal-Mart,

falls outside the jurisdiction of the Department (Attorney General Brief (National Grid) at 3;

Attorney General Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 3). The Attorney General, therefore,

recommends that the Department reject Wal-Mart’s proposed FCM proceeds allocation method

(Attorney General Brief (National Grid) at 5; Attorney General Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 5).

       C.     Wal-Mart

       Wal-Mart argues that the Department’s current approach to the allocation of FCM

proceeds should be discontinued because it unfairly deprives customers of FCM proceeds and,

therefore, discourages participation in the Program Administrators’ energy efficiency programs

and discourages large customers to invest in energy efficiency measures in Massachusetts

(Wal-Mart Brief (National Grid) at 2-3; Wal-Mart Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 2-3). As a result

of the current approach to the allocation of FCM proceeds, Wal-Mart contends that it has not

participated in NSTAR Electric’s energy efficiency programs since 2006. Exhs. WM-KB

(NSTAR Electric) at 5; Tr. at 22-23; NSTAR-KB-17.

       Wal-Mart explains that customers fund energy efficiency measures through the systems

benefits charge (“SBC”) (Wal-Mart Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 2). When a customer chooses

to install a Program Administrator sponsored energy efficiency measure, Wal-Mart states the
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                                Page 9
D.P.U. 08-10-B

customer must make an additional payment for a portion of the cost (Wal-Mart Brief (National

Grid) at 2; Wal-Mart Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 2). Wal-Mart argues that the current

approach denies customers FCM proceeds for energy efficiency measures that they have

funded and, therefore, unfairly ignores customer contributions (Wal-Mart Brief (National Grid)

at 2; Wal-Mart Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 2).

       Wal-Mart argues that its proposed contribution-based approach provides a framework

for the fair allocation of FCM proceeds and is not inconsistent with Department precedent or

the Green Communities Act (Wal-Mart Brief (National Grid) at 4-5; Wal-Mart (NSTAR

Electric) Brief at 4). Wal-Mart argues that in D.P.U. 07-85, the Department encouraged large

electric consumers and the utilities to discuss mutually agreeable opportunities regarding

participation in the FCM5 (Wal-Mart Reply Brief (National Grid) at 6-7, citing D.P.U. 07-85,

at 19; Wal-Mart Reply Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 8, citing D.P.U. 07-85, at 19). Wal-Mart

argues that its proposed approach is, therefore, not inconsistent with Department precedent

(Wal-Mart Reply Brief (National Grid) at 7; Wal-Mart Reply Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 8).

       Wal-Mart also argues that its proposed approach is consistent with the Green

Communities Act because it will help expand energy efficiency programs (Wal-Mart Brief

(National Grid) at 10; Wal-Mart Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 8; Wal-Mart Reply Brief (NSTAR

Electric) at 5-7). Under its proposed approach, Wal-Mart argues that capacity rights are


5
       Wal-Mart notes that its proposal in D.P.U. 07-85 was that 100 percent of FCM
       proceeds be directed back to the customer rather than a portion of the proceeds, as now
       proposed (Wal-Mart Brief (National Grid) at 5 n.2; Wal-Mart Brief (NSTAR Electric)
       at 5 n.2; see D.P.U. 07-85, at 10).
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                             Page 10
D.P.U. 08-10-B

allocated to the Program Administrator or customer, according to their contribution towards

installation of the energy efficiency measures (Wal-Mart Brief (National Grid) at 4; Wal-Mart

Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 4). Based on the equitable allocation of proceeds, Wal-Mart argues

that its proposed approach will increase overall participation in the Program Administrators’

energy efficiency programs and ultimately increase the total FCM proceeds for each Program

Administrator (Wal-Mart Brief (National Grid) at 6; Wal-Mart Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 5-6).

       Wal-Mart recommends that the Department issue draft rules or direct the Program

Administrators to file proposed tariffs necessary to implement its proposed contribution-based

FCM allocation approach. Wal-Mart argues that the Department should ensure that:

(1) participants commit to reinvest all FCM proceeds in energy efficiency measures within

Massachusetts; and (2) participants reimburse the Program Administrators for all

administrative costs associated with the allocation of FCM proceeds (Wal-Mart Brief (National

Grid) at 11-12; Wal-Mart Brief (NSTAR Electric) at 10).

IV.    ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

       The Department’s approach to allocating FCM proceeds is well established. Since

energy efficiency and demand resources have been eligible for participation in the FCM, the

Program Administrators have required customers to forgo all rights to FCM proceeds as a

condition for participating in utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs. The Program

Administrators then reinvest the FCM proceeds into the energy efficiency program budgets,

across customer classes. The current approach was established as a result of settlement
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                           Page 11
D.P.U. 08-10-B

negotiations between the Program Administrators and interested parties, and the Department

has found such approach to be a reasonable method of allocating FCM proceeds.6

       Wal-Mart’s proposed contribution-based approach would return FCM proceeds to

customers, away from the Program Administrators’ approved energy efficiency program

budgets. Wal-Mart states that it only proposes a concept and recommends that the Department

set forth detailed requirements to implement its contribution-based approach including a

requirement that participants reinvest all FCM proceeds in energy efficiency measures within

Massachusetts. A contribution-based approach, however, would necessarily require the

Department to monitor and evaluate the activities of non-utility participants to ensure that FCM

proceeds are appropriately reinvested into energy efficiency measures.

       In D.P.U. 07-85, at 19-20, the Department declined to adopt a similar proposal made

by Wal-Mart in Western Massachusetts Electric Company’s (“WMECo”) 2008 energy

efficiency plan proceeding, finding that:




6
       Western Massachusetts Electric Company, D.P.U. 08-47, at 29-30 (2009); Fitchburg
       Gas and Electric Light Company, d/b/a Unitil, D.P.U. 08-30, at 21-22 (2008);
       Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, d/b/a Unitil, D.P.U. 07-57, at 16 (2008);
       D.P.U. 07-85, at 18-20; D.P.U. 07-55, at 11-12 (2007); DPU 07-48, at 13 (2007).
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                             Page 12
D.P.U. 08-10-B

       WMECo’s rebates are specifically designed to be sufficient to motivate
       customers to invest in energy efficient measures; customers should not need
       additional incentive to adopt such measures. In addition, the FCM payments
       enable WMECo to provide additional support for energy efficiency activities,
       thereby resulting in additional efficiency savings for other customers to enjoy.
       Allowing Wal-Mart to collect FCM payments in addition to the financial
       incentive offered by WMECo would direct funding away from electric
       consumers that solely rely on WMECo rebates.

The Department concluded that requiring customers to waive rights to FCM proceeds is a

reasonable condition for participation in the Program Administrators’ energy efficiency

programs. D.P.U. 07-85, at 19-20.

       Consistent with the Department’s findings in D.P.U. 07-85, the Department concludes

that the distribution of FCM proceeds to participating customers in addition to the Program

Administrators’ energy efficiency program rebates could result in a windfall for the

participating customers – at the expense of non-participating customers – and could, therefore,

undermine the design of the energy efficiency programs and rebate structure. In addition, we

agree with the Program Administrators that the contribution-based approach will negatively

impact energy efficiency program funding. If FCM proceeds are directed away from

utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs, additional customer funding will be required to

maintain the Program Administrators’ energy efficiency budget levels. The Department finds

that the current approach to allocating FCM proceeds is structured in such a way as to

maximize funding and implementation of energy efficiency programs across the

Commonwealth. Large electricity consumers, such as Wal-Mart, may choose to either collect

utility rebates by participating in utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs, or implement

energy efficiency measures on their own in order to earn FCM payments. See D.P.U. 07-85,
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                        Page 13
D.P.U. 08-10-B

at 19. The Department concludes that Wal-Mart has not provided us with sufficient

justification to depart from our current approach to allocating FCM proceeds. The

Department, therefore, approves the allocation of FCM proceeds, as proposed by National

Grid and NSTAR Electric in their 2008 Plans.

V.     ORDER

       Accordingly, after due notice, hearing, and consideration, it is:

       ORDERED: That the treatment of FCM proceeds as proposed in Massachusetts

Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company, d/b/a National Grid’s 2008 electric

energy efficiency plan is APPROVED, and it is

       FURTHER ORDERED: That the treatment of FCM proceeds as proposed in NSTAR

Electric Company’s 2008 electric energy efficiency plan is APPROVED, and it is

       FURTHER ORDERED: That Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric

Company, d/b/a National Grid and NSTAR Electric Company shall comply with all other

directives contained in this Order.


                                                    By Order of the Department,


                                                                   /s/
                                                    Paul J. Hibbard, Chairman


                                                                 /s/
                                                    Tim Woolf, Commissioner


                                                                   /s/
                                                    Jolette A. Westbrook, Commissioner
D.P.U. 08-8-B                                                                           Page 14
D.P.U. 08-10-B

         An appeal as to matters of law from any final decision, order or ruling of the
Commission may be taken to the Supreme Judicial Court by an aggrieved party in interest by
the filing of a written petition praying that the Order of the Commission be modified or set
aside in whole or in part. Such petition for appeal shall be filed with the Secretary of the
Commission within twenty days after the date of service of the decision, order or ruling of the
Commission, or within such further time as the Commission may allow upon request filed
prior to the expiration of the twenty days after the date of service of said decision, order or
ruling. Within ten days after such petition has been filed, the appealing party shall enter the
appeal in the Supreme Judicial Court sitting in Suffolk County by filing a copy thereof with the
Clerk of said Court. G.L. c. 25, § 5.

				
DOCUMENT INFO