The Distributed Generation collaborative has filed "Proposed Uniform Standards for Interconnecting Distributed Generation in Massachusetts." The proposed standards include a review process utilizing a simplified, expedited or standard path depending on the type of facility, time frames and fee schedules for the review process, an overview of network interconnection opportunities and challenges for DG, and a dispute resolution process. The proposed standards also include a sample application form, interconnection requirements, and information tracking form. The collaborative will submit a proposed tariff incorporating the standards on April 15, 2003. The ALJ has indicated that comments will be permitted after the proposed tariff is filed. The full text of the Proposed Interconnection Standards is available on the NEM Website.

The MIPSC issued an Order on licensing procedures for alternative gas suppliers (AGSs) which accepted many NEM proposals. The MIPSC agrees with NEM that: (1) 30 days, under normal circumstances, is the appropriate time frame for reviewing AGS licensing applications; (2) confidential and proprietary information should not be part of the initial application; (3) customer interests will be served by a requirement that allows for the disclosure of certain customer information (to third-party providers and credit agencies) accompanied by a notice that any further disclosure is prohibited. The Order, on NEM’s suggestion, provided more clarity to the term “business ethics” and employee “competence.” The Commission held that Staff intends to adhere to a similar approach to setting bond amounts for both Alternative Electric Suppliers and Alternative Gas Suppliers. The MIPSC rejected Staff’s proposal to relieve existing AGSs from presenting proof of their financial, managerial, and technical capabilities, however, Staff will be allowed to consider and give weight to an existing AGS’s past performance. MIPSC also stated that its ability to examine the books and records of an AGS will not involve routine inspections or reviews. The Commission also noted that a proceeding on slamming and cramming rules would soon be instituted. The full text of the Order is available on the NEM Website.

Commission staff has scheduled a collaborative to discuss stranded costs and related issues as was ordered in the Consumers Energy case. The collaborative is scheduled for March 26, 2003, at 9AM. Staff has prepared a strawman to begin discussions. The strawman proposes transition charges be fixed for a two-year period beginning on January 1 of year 1 and ending December 31 of year 2. The charges would be set by September preceding the two-year period. The charges would be subject to reconciliation for over or underrecovery but adjustments would not be implemented until the next two-year period. The full text of the Notice and Staff Strawman is available on the NEM Website.

NEM has submitted comments on implementation of the HEFPA law. NEM argued that the utilities in the unbundling proceeding must be required to fully unbundle their rates to reflect the embedded costs of providing the competitive function of consumer protection service. NEM urged the Commission to modify the payment allocation order such that payments are applied to first to the consumables portion of the bill and then to the non-consumables portion. NEM argued that if the Commission did not require such a payment allocation order that it should utilize pro-rata allocation of payments or consider utility purchase of supplier receivables. In its comments, NEM also: 1) opposed imposing an obligation to serve on competitive suppliers not acting as POLRs; 2) opposed utility oversight of ESCO terminations; 3) opposed requiring ESCOs to retroactively offer deferred payment agreements and budget billing to existing customers; 4) opposed requiring ESCOs to return deposits to existing customers; and 5) urged that ESCOs be eligible for receipt of payments from social service agencies. The full text of NEM's Comments is available on the NEM Website.

NEM members, Shell Energy Services and Energy America, have requested that the Commission institute an investigation into the Gas Cost Recovery (GCR) process. DEO, CG&E and Columbia recently filed applications to increase their GCRs, from $6.006/Mcf to $7.359/Mcf, from $5.688/Mcf to $7.440/Mcf, and from $7.5774/Mcf to $9.9558/Mcf, respectively, for the month of April. The marketers argue that the GCR as currently structured does not operate effectively, permits midstream changes to the GCR that harm competitive suppliers ability to compete, should be more reflective of the market and should send customers appropriate price signals. The full texts of the Utilities' GCR Applications and the Marketers' Motion for Investigation are available on the NEM Website.

The Commission instituted a proceeding to examine the calculation of net stranded costs. The Commission issued a series of questions for comment as follows: 1) how to define "stranded costs;" 2) how to define "just and reasonable net stranded costs;" 3) what should be the methodology for computing "just and reasonable net stranded costs;" 4) how should stranded costs be recovered; 5) how should over- or under-recovery of stranded costs be dealt with; and 6) statutory constraints on the stranded cost calculation methodology. NEM draft comments on these issues will be circulated for member comment shortly. Comments are due March 21, 2003. The first working group meeting in this proceeding will be held April 1, 2003, in Richmond. NEM members planning to attend this meeting should contact headquarters ASAP. The full text of the Order Instituting Proceeding is available on the NEM Website.