1. MA DPU’s filed its 1st set of Information Requests (IRs) in the @ColumbiaGasMA-@EversourceCorp asset sale docket (20-59; bit.ly/2BPqUaN). B/c the IRs re the Settlement Agreement, not the asset sale per se, their adjudicatory purpose reqs clarification.
# mapoli
# mapoli
2. After all, the DPU appointed Richard Enright & Janine Vargas of its Pipeline Safety Division as “Settlement Intervention Staff” (SIS) in docket 19-140. (bit.ly/2Xgurqj). They were appointed to settle 19-140: a condition of the CMA-Eversource Asset Purchase Agreement.
3. SIS aren’t routinely appointed. In fact, in their motion to have the SIS appointed the parties to the Settlement Agreement cited precedent cases in which SIS *had* been appointed. The most recent was 12 years ago, in 2008. bit.ly/32z8s1h.
4. It’s crucial to note that docket 19-140 was opened to investigate CMA’s role in the 9/13/18 explosions in the Merrimack Valley. Eversource is NOT a party to 19-140, yet the Settlement Agreement includes concessions Eversource has offered to make to foster the *asset sale*.
5. The motion to appoint the SIS states that they would “participate in the resolution of [19-140].” The motion also states the request was made “in furtherance of” the asset sale.” (Resolution of 19-140 was a condition of the CMA-Eversource Asset Purchase Agreement.)
6. The motion cites 3 specific tasks for the SIS (p. 9):
7. “Identify the specific areas of alleged non-compliance with the [DPU’s] pipeline safety regulations that [it] expects to adjudicate as part of D.P.U. 19-140, as well as other assessment, compliance or enforcement actions currently pending...”
8. “Identify the improvement or modifications of operating procedures, process changes, or other non-monetary compliance efforts that should be instituted by CMA...and/or by Eversource [after the asset sale]...to address the areas of non-compliance identified...in Item 1.”
9. “Quantify the payment in lieu of penalties that would be sufficient for NiSource and CMA to make to terminate D.P.U. 19-140 and fulfill the prerequisite to closing of the MDPU Required Resolution.”
10. Given those 3 discrete tasks, the appointed SIS would have exceeded their authority if they participated in developing any of the monetary concessions Eversource included in the Settlement Agreement w/re to the asset sale.
11. Moreover, b/c in none of the DPU precedents cited by the parties to the SIS motion were SIS employed in asset sale proceedings, the SIS’ participation in developing any of Eversource’s monetary concessions in re the asset sale would also be w/o precedent.
12. Did the SIS appointed in 19-140 participate in developing any of Eversource’s monetary concessions In furtherance of the 20-59 asset sale? The motion to approve the Settlement Agreement doesn’t say.
13. Presumably the SIS limited their participation to the 3 specific tasks listed in the approved motion for their appointment. (Query whether a personal statement to that effect should be filed by the two SIS in 20-59 given the dual purpose of the Settlement Agreement?)
14. If SIS participation was limited to resolving the issues in 19-140, and not developing Eversource’s non-safety related, monetary concessions, as they should have been, then asset sale matters are exclusively the province of the 20-59 hearing officer.
15. The motion to appoint the SIS—approved by stamp w/o comment from the DPU—describes the division of labor b/t the SIS & DPU “advisory staff”:
16. “The advisory staff conducts the adjudicatory portion of the proceeding, including discovery, public and evidentiary hearings, and legal briefing, while providing advice and counsel to the [DPU] as to the final decision to be issued by the [DPU]. The SIS ...
17. ...maintains separation from the advisory staff, participating in negotiations with the utility and other intervenors to settle some or all of the contested issues in the case.”
18. In other words, there s/b a bright line b/t the SIS & DPU advisory staff.
And the affect that SIS have on case resolution? “Typically, the [DPU] will accept a proposed settlement, if settlement is reached with the participation of SIS, although the [DPU] always...
And the affect that SIS have on case resolution? “Typically, the [DPU] will accept a proposed settlement, if settlement is reached with the participation of SIS, although the [DPU] always...
19 ...reserves the authority to address the specific circumstances of the proceeding under consideration. The [DPU] has recognized that the chief advantages of settlements are *reductions in the administrative burdens of developing a record, holding hearings, and achieving...
20. ...speedier resolution of utility applications.*” Again, the DPU may accept the portions of the Settlement Agreement that resolve the matters in 19-140. But the Settlement Agreement should not, solely b/c of SIS involvement, ...
21. ...reduce the “administrative burdens of developing a record, holding hearings,” etc. w/respect to the asset sale—notwithstanding that the parties to the Settlement Agreement have asked the DPU to approve the $1.1B asset sale in a mere 90 days. ###
