[C]ustomers of Vermont’s largest electrical utility will see a slight rate decrease on their bills for the first nine months of next year.
The rate case drew an unusual amount of public scrutiny last month due to an anonymous letter, and subsequent public comment from a former senior official, claiming that the state failed to properly advocate for ratepayers in the hearings.
But last Friday, the state Public Utility Commission — a three member, quasi-judicial board that regulates utilities in Vermont — approved the requested 5.43 percent increase in rates for Green Mountain Power customers.
Although the rate increase goes into effect this January, the utility will use money from federal tax cuts to offset the rate hike with a credit on bills through Sept. 30. That credit translates into a roughly one percent rate decrease during that time period, said Kristin Carlson, vice president of regulatory affairs for the utility.
The rate change for GMP customers after the tax credits have been returned is unclear as the PUC is still reviewing a three-year alternative regulation proceeding that will provide a framework for future annual rate setting.
“It’s too soon to say what will happen next year,” said Carlson.
The utility filed for a multi-year plan because traditional rate cases, like the eight-month
proceeding that just went before the PUC, are costly and provide less stability for customers, Carlson said.
In their decision Friday, the commissioners note that although GMP had already agreed to some of the Department of Public Service’s rate reduction requests, there was still disagreement over over whether $13 million in investments for transmission and distribution system upgrades, Tesla Powerwalls and a heat pump water heater program should be included in this year’s rate filing.
The PUC agreed with the Department’s request to exclude heat pump water heaters from rates, but felt that the other investments were justified.
“We’re really pleased that in this order, the PUC said that utilities really need to continue to innovate, to find new ways in this changing energy landscape, and that’s exactly what GMP is doing,” said Carlson.
Jim Porter, director of public advocacy for the department, said that DPS felt the decision provided guidance for future pilot projects, like the powerwalls, as electrical utilities invest in more “grid modernization” efforts.
“It used to be an electric company would invest in poles and wires and might get another piece of plant that was going to be in service for 60 years,” he said. “Everything with the innovation is just on a much faster timeframe and I think as regulators we have to be able to deal with the timeliness of the new technologies that are coming online.”
GMP’s rate case garnered media attention last month when the PUC posted an anonymous letter as a public comment alleging that DPS Commissioner June Tierney and GMP Chief Executive Mary Powell cooperated to push through a rate proposal that benefits the company at the expense of ratepayers.
Brian Winn, former finance director for DPS, filed a subsequent comment last month claiming that Tierney had prevented department staff from adequately advocating for public interest in the case. GMP and the DPS filed responses with the PUC categorically denying claims in both of the letters.
PUC Chairman Anthony Roisman said that those public comments did not influence the outcome of the rate case. “Nothing ever got into the evidentiary record, so none of it had any impact on our decision,” he said.
In his comments, Winn said he did not want the PUC to deny GMP’s rate request but rather hoped Gov. Phil Scott and the Legislature would recognize the need to separate the energy policy and ratepayer advocacy functions of the department.
“The Department of Public Service is clearly in need of leadership and structural change,” he wrote.
PUC acknowledged in their decision that the comments “reflect significant disagreements about regulatory policy and the best strategy for protecting the interests of Vermonters in this proceeding.”
