|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/enrgy/articles/ |
Upload File : |
<html>
<head>
<title>The New Hampshire Retail Competition Pilot Program & The Role of Green
Marketing</title>
</head>
<body style="font-family: Arial" vlink="#808080">
<div align="center"><center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" width="98%" bgcolor="#000000">
<tr>
<td width="100%" valign="middle"><a name="top"></a><img src="../images/pmamagsm.gif" alt="PMA Online Magazine" border="0" align="right" WIDTH="229" HEIGHT="100"></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><div align="center"><center>
<table border="0" cellpadding="8" width="98%">
<tr>
<td width="25%" valign="top" align="center"><!--webbot bot="ImageMap" rectangle="(14,297) (97,322) http://www.powermarketers.com/adrates.html" rectangle="(11,230) (95,257) http://www.powermarketers.com/pmajobs.htm" rectangle="(12,163) (96,189) http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm##_parent" rectangle="(12,95) (96,121) http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm##_blank" rectangle="(11,29) (96,54) ../pmamag.htm" src="../images/magmenu.gif" alt="PMA OnLine Magazine Menu" border="0" align="center" startspan --><MAP NAME="FrontPageMap"><AREA SHAPE="RECT" COORDS="14, 297, 97, 322" HREF="http://www.powermarketers.com/adrates.html"><AREA SHAPE="RECT" COORDS="11, 230, 95, 257" HREF="http://www.powermarketers.com/pmajobs.htm"><AREA SHAPE="RECT" COORDS="12, 163, 96, 189" HREF="http://www.powermarketers.com/main.htm" TARGET="_parent"><AREA SHAPE="RECT" COORDS="12, 95, 96, 121" HREF="http://www.powermarketers.com/power2.htm" TARGET="_blank"><AREA SHAPE="RECT" COORDS="11, 29, 96, 54" HREF="../pmamag.htm"></MAP><a href="../_vti_bin/shtml.dll/articles/fang.htm/map"><img src="../images/magmenu.gif" alt="PMA OnLine Magazine Menu" border="0" align="center" ismap width="110" height="350" usemap="#FrontPageMap"></a><!--webbot bot="ImageMap" endspan i-checksum="8772" --><p><a href="../searchpma.htm"><img src="../images/archives.gif" alt="Archives Search" border="0" align="center" WIDTH="70" HEIGHT="40"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="fang.htm#top"><img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" WIDTH="71" HEIGHT="35"></a></td>
<td width="75%" valign="top"><div align="center"><center><table BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="2" width="100%" ALIGN="Center" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td><a href="http://www.nrel.gov/research/ceaa/emaa/nhtib/cover.jpg"><img SRC="../images/covertn.jpg" WIDTH="120" HEIGHT="173" vspace="40" ALIGN="Right"></a> <h1>The
New Hampshire Retail Competition Pilot Program & The Role of Green Marketing </h1>
<h5>NREL/SP-260-23446 <br>
November 1997<br>
</h5>
<h3 class="H3">Edward Holt, Ed Holt & Assoc. Inc.<br>
Jeffrey M. Fang, NREL <br>
<font face="Arial" size="2"><strong>(<em>originally published by PMA OnLine Magazine:
03/98</em>)</strong></font></h3>
<p><img SRC="../images/logo1.gif" BORDER="0" ALIGN="Left" WIDTH="235" HEIGHT="63"><br clear="all">
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<table CELLPADDING="2">
<tr VALIGN="Top">
<td width="125" align="top"><font size="-1"><b>Topical Issues Brief-</b></font></td>
<td><font size="-1"><i>The Topical Issues Brief series is sponsored by DOE's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of Utility Technologies</i></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><font size="4">Notice </font></p>
<p><font size="-1"><i>This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any
agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed or represents that
its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
government or any agency thereof.</i></font> </p>
<p><font size="-1"><i>Printed in the United States of America</i></font> </p>
<p><font size="-1"><a name="order">Available to DOE and DOE contractors from:</a></font><br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<font size="-1"><p>Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) <br>
P.O. Box 62 <br>
Oak Ridge, TN 37831<br>
Prices are available by calling (423) 576-8401</font> <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="-1">Available from: </font><br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<font size="-1"><p>National Technical Information Service <br>
U.S. Department of Commerce <br>
5285 Port Royal Road <br>
Springfield, VA 22161 <br>
(703) 487-4650<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="-1">Information pertaining to the pricing codes can be found in the current
issue of the following publications which are generally available in most libraries:
Government Reports Announcements and Index (GRA and I); Scientific and Technical Abstract
Reports (STAR); and publication NTIS-PR-360 available from NTIS at the above address.<br>
</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a name="toc"><h3 class="H3">Table of Contents</a> </h3>
<font SIZE="2"><p><a href="fang.htm#abstract">Abstract</a> </p>
<p><a href="fang.htm#ack">Acknowledgments</a> </p>
<p><a href="fang.htm#I">I. Introduction</a> </p>
<p><a href="fang.htm#II">II. Description</a></p>
<blockquote>
<a href="fang.htm#IIa"><p>Selecting Participants</a> <br>
<a href="fang.htm#IIb">Suppliers</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="fang.htm#III">III. Results</a> </p>
<blockquote>
<a href="fang.htm#IIIa"><p>Marketing</a> <br>
<a href="fang.htm#IIIb">Price</a> <br>
<a href="fang.htm#IIIc">Consumer Reaction</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="fang.htm#IV">IV. Assessment</a> </p>
<blockquote>
<a href="fang.htm#IVa"><p>The Role of Renewable Energy and Green Options</a> <br>
<a href="fang.htm#IVb">Green Marketing Themes</a> <br>
<a href="fang.htm#IVc">The Performance of Green Marketing</a> <br>
<a href="fang.htm#IVd">General Marketing Observations</a> <br>
<a href="fang.htm#IVe">The Market Price of Power Supply</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="fang.htm#V">V. Observations</a> </p>
<blockquote>
<a href="fang.htm#Va"><p>Consumer Education</a> <br>
<a href="fang.htm#Vb">Impact Evaluation</a> <br>
<a href="fang.htm#Vc">Program Data Release and Quality Control</a> <br>
<a href="fang.htm#Vd">Information Disclosure</a> <br>
<a href="fang.htm#Ve">Further Unbundling of Costs</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="fang.htm#VI">VI. Conclusions</a> </p>
<p><a href="fang.htm#VII">VII. Notes</a> </p>
<p><a href="fang.htm#appa">Appendix A:</a> The New Hampshire Retail Competition Pilot Program:
Background <br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<a href="fang.htm#appan"><p>Notes to Appendix A</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="fang.htm#appb">Appendix B:</a> New Hampshire Utilities </p>
<p><a href="fang.htm#appc">Appendix C:</a> New Hampshire Registered Suppliers </p>
<p><a href="fang.htm#appd">Appendix D:</a> Market Shares by Customer Class as of November 30, 1996
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h4 class="H4">Tables</h4>
<p>Table 1 — <a href="fang.htm#t1">Unbundled Utility Residential Rates</a> </p>
<p>Table 2 — <a href="fang.htm#t2">Price Characteristics for the Quarter Ending November 30,
1996</a> </p>
<p>Table A1 — <a href="fang.htm#ta1">Selected Issues Considered in Planning Pilot Program</a>
</p>
<p>Table B1 — <a href="fang.htm#tb1">Selected Issues Considered in Planning Pilot Program</a>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h4 class="H4">Figures</h4>
<p>Figure 1 — <a href="fang.htm#f1.gif">Market Shares of Suppliers with More than 1%</a></font>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a name="abstract"><h3 class="H3">Abstract</a> </h3>
<p>Most states in the United States are involved in electric industry restructuring, from
considering the pros and cons in regulatory dockets to implementing legislative mandates
for full restructuring and retail access for all consumers. Several states and utilities
have initiated pilot programs in which multiple suppliers or service providers may compete
for business and some utility customers can choose among competing suppliers. The State of
New Hampshire has been experimenting with a pilot program, mandated by the State
Legislature in 1995 and implemented by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission
(NHPUC), before it implements full retail access. </p>
<p>The New Hampshire pilot program was he first to be opened to all classes of customers
in a single program, and numerous suppliers and service providers registered to compete.
In the short marketing blitz that followed the announcement of eligible participants in
May 1996, many marketing strategies, techniques, and messages were tested. These methods
have frequently been used to sell consumer products and services but have rarely, if ever,
been tried by electric monopolies. </p>
<p>Green marketing, an attempt to characterize the supplier or service provider as
environmentally friendly without referring to the energy resource used to generate
electricity, was used by several suppliers or service providers to attract customers. This
appeal to environmental consumerism was moderately successful, but it raised a number of
consumer protection and public policy issues. This issue brief examines the marketing
methods used in New Hampshire and explores what green marketing might mean for the
development of renewable energy generation. It also addresses the issues raised and their
implications. </p>
<p>The New Hampshire pilot program makes a good case study because it was lightly
regulated and allowed the marketplace to function freely. Other states and utilities that
consider pilot programs, and even full-scale competition, would do well to learn its
lessons, including those on consumer education, impact evaluation, data control, uniform
information disclosure, and further unbundling of costs. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a name="ack"><h3 class="H3">Acknowledgments</a> </h3>
<p>The New Hampshire Retail Competition Pilot Program and the Role of Green Marketing was
prepared by Edward A. Holt of Ed Holt & Associates, Inc., and Jeffrey M. Fang of the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), which managed the project with funding
provided by the Office of Utility Technologies of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The
authors would like to acknowledge Joe Galdo, DOE, for the guidance and financial support
he provided to this project. Special thanks are due to the staff of the New Hampshire
Public Utilities Commission for its help and patience in answering many questions.
Finally, thanks to reviewers Joe Galdo (DOE), Eldon Boes (NREL), Larry Goldstein (NREL),
Kevin Porter (NREL), Blair Swezey (NREL), and Steven Rothstein (Environmental Futures,
Inc.) for their comments and suggestions. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="I">I. Introduction</a></h3>
<p>The New Hampshire retail competition pilot program is the first in the nation to offer
direct access to all classes of customers in a single program, and was the largest when it
began in May 1996. It involved a relatively large number of competitive suppliers.
Mass-marketing techniques were used, including green marketing, which resulted in
lower-than-expected retail electricity prices. Because more and more states are
considering opening electricity supply markets to customer choice, most stakeholders in
the electric industry deregulation process are interested in the results of this program.
This brief assesses the program's design, marketing, and implementation </p>
<p>to learn lessons that could apply to retail competition efforts in other states. In
addition to a general description and results, a special focus is given to green marketing
and, in particular, renewable energy options. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a name="II"><h3 class="H3">II. Description</a> </h3>
<p>Unlike the other early retail competition pilot programs in Illinois, Massachusetts,
and New York, where the programs were proposed by the specific electric utilities
involved, the New Hampshire program was ordered by the New Hampshire Legislature in June
1995. From October 1995 through February 1996, interested parties gave intensive
consideration to the issues of implementation and the preliminary and revised guidelines
issued by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (NHPUC). Much of the discussion
was collaborative and involved working groups on specific issues. On February 28, 1996,
the NHPUC issued the final guidelines for implementing the pilot program. The program
start date was set for May 28, 1996, and would last for two years. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn1">1</a>
] </p>
<p>According to the final guidelines, the objectives of the pilot program are to: <ul>
<li>Determine the level of interest among customers and suppliers for competitively provided
retail services </li>
<li>Determine whether all customer classes can benefit from competitive markets </li>
<li>Estimate the financial impact on utilities </li>
<li>Develop unbundled rates. </li>
</ul>
<p>These objectives did not address the full set of issues posed by restructuring, and the
NHPUC recognized the program's limitations. It "is not necessarily a blueprint for
industry restructuring; rather, it should be viewed as an opportunity to examine the
implications of and obstacles to competition in retail electric markets. Accordingly, the
pilot is limited in scope, size, and duration." [ <a href="fang.htm#fn2">2</a> ] </p>
<a name="IIa"><h4 class="H4">Selecting Participants</a> </h4>
<p>All six utilities in the state, Concord Electric Company, Connecticut Valley Electric
Company, Exeter and Hampton Electric Company, Granite State Electric Company, New
Hampshire Electric Cooperative, and Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH), were
to participate (see <a href="fang.htm#appb">Appendix B</a>). The size of the program was limited
to 3% of the retail peak load from each utility (about 50 megawatts [MW] total). Each
customer class was represented in proportion to its aggregate peak load. Also, all new
large commercial and industrial customers (projected to involve about 20 MW) were eligible
to participate. </p>
<p>Customers could become participants in two ways. First, they were given the opportunity
to volunteer. Unitil Resources (the parent of Concord Electric Company, Exeter, and
Hampton Electric Company) and Connecticut Valley Electric Company sent direct-mail notices
to their customers and achieved a 14% response. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn3">3</a> ] PSNH relied
on newspaper advertising and a toll-free number, and received a 3% response. Granite State
Electric Company also did not use direct mail and received less than a 3% response. Except
for Granite State Electric Company, which still accepted volunteers as of early May 1997,
participants were selected at random. </p>
<p>The second method was to be a resident of a town that volunteered to aggregate
customers within its borders. These were called geographic areas of choice (GACs). GACs
received bids from suppliers to serve the aggregate load, but they must convince their
residents to sign up with them. Customers in a GAC might choose not to participate in the
pilot program at all, sign with the GAC, or select their own suppliers. </p>
<p>Those eligible to participate were announced about May 1, 1996, less than one month
before the pilot program was scheduled to begin, and suppliers began to market to these
customers immediately. In total, about 16,500 customers were eligible to participate:
14,765 residential, 1,728 commercial, and 16 industrial customers. Of these, 8,521
residential and 1,019 commercial customers were located in GACs. </p>
<a name="IIb"><h4 class="H4">Suppliers</a> </h4>
<p>To participate in the pilot program, suppliers and service providers were required to
register with the NHPUC, providing only the most basic information such as company name,
address, telephone, and contact person. To ensure that competitive suppliers had adequate
power supply resources to meet their firm load obligations and their apportioned share of
New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) required reserves, suppliers are required to obtain NEPOOL
membership or contract with a NEPOOL member. </p>
<p>A total of 35 competitive suppliers registered for the pilot program (see <a href="fang.htm#appc">Appendix C</a> for a complete list of registered suppliers). The array of
registered suppliers was impressive and included exempt wholesale generators, qualifying
facilities, nonaffiliated marketers and brokers, and non-jurisdictional utilities.
Jurisdictional utilities (those regulated by the NHPUC) had to establish marketing
affiliates if they wished to sell power to pilot program customers. PSNH Energy, Granite
State Energy, and Unitil Resources are examples of such affiliates. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn4">4</a>
] </p>
<p>Affiliation was the game <i>du jour</i> for suppliers as they jockeyed to acquire a
power supply, established a regional presence, strengthened marketing capability, added
customer services, and offered all-source energy supplies. Several registered suppliers
teamed up to market in the pilot program. Others created new partnerships. For example,
Green Mountain Energy Partners includes Green Mountain Power, Hydro-Quebec, Consolidated
Natural Gas, and Noverco. KBC Energy Services is a partnership of Koch Gas Services of
Houston, Bay State Gas, Connecticut Natural Gas, and Koch Power Services. </p>
<p>Branding electricity, i.e., creating a brand name for electric services provided by a
supplier, was being tried out in New Hampshire as well. Northeast Utilities, for example,
offered multiple products through its registered suppliers, PSNH Energy and Connecticut
Light and Power (CL&P), and CL&P marketed under two brand names, Northfield
Mountain Energy and Northeast Utilities Wholesale Power. ChoicEnergy was a brand name of
United Illuminating and KCS Power Marketing. </p>
<p>Only about half the registered suppliers successfully acquired customers. There were
several reasons for this. Some suppliers had not been active and did not plan to be.
Others reported they had no sales or had made no deliveries of electricity. This could
simply be another way of saying that they had not been active, or it could mean that their
marketing efforts had been unsuccessful, or that they had customer agreements that were
contingent on other developments. </p>
<p>Strategic alliances between registered suppliers also reduced the number of active
marketers. For example, Cincinnati Gas & Electric and PSI Energy were not active
because their parent company CINERGY acted as a wholesale supplier to Wheeled Electric
Power. XENERGY worked </p>
<p>with Freedom Energy Company as a team. Other examples of teams included United
Illuminating and KCS Power Marketing, and Montaup Electric and Louis Dreyfus Electric
Power. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a name="III"><h3 class="H3">III. Results</a> </h3>
<p>Marketing and low prices by competitive suppliers were the two most eye-opening aspects
of the New Hampshire program. Both exceeded most observer's expectations. Consumer
reaction to the program in general and to marketing activities in particular is
noteworthy. </p>
<a name="IIIa"><h4 class="H4">Marketing</a> </h4>
<p>Consumers were subjected to a barrage of mass-marketing efforts. Techniques included
direct mail, telemarketing, print and TV advertising, and other attention-getters. These
efforts were at their peak during the first three months, and have since largely
disappeared. </p>
<p>The following summary of residential marketing is based on a review of direct-mail
advertising and some mass media print advertising. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn5">5</a> ] Techniques
include limited offers, give-aways, environmental appeals, additional services, choice
flexibility, and a few digs at the competition. </p>
<p>Although the NHPUC did not impose a sign-up deadline, some suppliers used <i>artificial
deadlines</i> to urge immediate action.<ul>
<li>"Lock in these prices if you sign up before July 1" (Central Maine Power
[CMP]) </li>
<li>"Act by May 20, 1996, and you'll also get a Free Bonus—an <i>energy-efficient
showerhead </i>(Northfield Mountain Energy) </li>
<li>Special limited supply of low-cost power at 2.29 cents per kWh only available until
June 14 and only for the 1st 500 customers who sign up" (Unitil Resources) </li>
<li>Special introductory rate of 2.75 cents offered for a limited time (Central Vermont
Public Service). </li>
</ul>
<p>Some suppliers offered <i>give-aways</i> to entice customers.<ul>
<li>Immediately after eligible customers were listed, PSNH Energy sent out $25 checks and
told customers that by cashing them they would automatically be signed up with PSNH. </li>
<li>Not to be outdone, Enron sent out $50 checks. Apparently some customers cashed both! </li>
<li>Green Mountain Energy Partners (GMEP) sent free spruce seedlings to potential customers.
</li>
<li>CMP offered a DeLorme New Hampshire Atlas, <i>and </i>savings on long-distance calls. </li>
<li>Granite State Energy wrote, "When you select our Two-Year Savings Plan, you'll also
receive a <i>free</i> bird feeder ($18 value). It's made in New Hampshire and officially
licensed by the National Audubon Society." </li>
<li>Unitil advertised that "one percent of the first 1000 residential customers to sign
up will be picked at random to receive free electric power from Unitil for the duration of
the Pilot Program." </li>
</ul>
<p>Environmental friendliness was another angle used in marketing.<ul>
<li>GMEP advertised: "When you take steps to help the environment, like a home energy
survey, energy-efficient light bulbs, or planting a tree, you'll receive
Eco-Credits—real credits that you can apply to your bill." GMEP also advertises
that it "relies heavily on renewable energy sources, like hydroelectric power, that
offer the most environmentally sound forms of electricity generation." </li>
<li>Granite State Energy advertised: Save Money - Energy - the Environment. "No other
utility is doing more to protect our environment" and "Granite State's family of
companies is the only energy supplier in the pilot to receive the <i>President's
Environment and Conservation Challenge Award </i>for our long-standing commitment to
protecting the environment." </li>
</ul>
<p>Additional services were offered by a few suppliers.<ul>
<li>Northfield Mountain Energy (a trade name of CL&P) offered a "free energy
guidebook, energy savings catalog, energy-efficient light, outlet plate draft stoppers,
child-safe outlet plugs, plug-in rechargeable flashlight." </li>
<li>Freedom Energy/XENERGY offered "meaningful services, like installation and
financing of energy-efficient equipment, to lower your costs further." </li>
<li>Granite State Energy offered "a free analysis of your home's energy use, a free
booklet with tips on conserving energy, and a free catalog of energy-saving
products." </li>
</ul>
<p>Some suppliers required that a customer stay with them for the duration of the pilot
project. Others differentiated themselves from this stance by emphasizing <i>low risk</i>:<ul>
<li>"We'll never restrict your right to change suppliers" (Freedom
Energy/XENERGY). </li>
<li>"We guarantee that if you do find a lower price for electric power in the pilot,
we'll meet or beat that price, or you'll be free to switch to another electric power
provider with absolutely no charge or complication" (NU Wholesale Power). </li>
<li>"If, within 60 days, you find a better offer, we will match it, or switch you at no
charge. No risk. No confusion" (Granite State Energy). </li>
<li>"Best of all, switching to Granite State Energy requires no hassles on your part,
no installation of additional metering equipment, no rewiring, and no interruption in
service" (Granite State Energy). [ <a href="fang.htm#fn6">6</a> ] </li>
</ul>
<p>Of the 35 registered suppliers, 16 succeeded in signing up customers. Of these, 10
achieved more than a 1% market share in any customer class, as shown in <a href="fang.htm#f1.gif">Figure
1</a>. Details on these 16 suppliers are presented in <a href="fang.htm#appd">Appendix D.</a> </p>
<a name="IIIb"><h4 class="H4">Price</a> </h4>
<p>Residential rates for electricity in New Hampshire ranged from 10.5 cents to
15.5 cents/ kilowatt-hour (kWh), depending on the utility, and large-business rates
ranged from 8.0 cents to 10.2/kWh. </p>
<p> </p>
<p ALIGN="Center"><img SRC="../images/f1.gif" WIDTH="373" HEIGHT="233"><br clear="all">
<b><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Figure 1. Market shares of suppliers with more than 1%</font></b>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p>These rates included distribution, transmission, stranded costs, and power supply. One
of the early steps to competition was the unbundling of utility rates. <a href="fang.htm#t1">Table
1</a> shows the unbundled rates for a high-cost and a low-cost utility in New Hampshire. </p>
<p>For the pilot program, the NHPUC argued that participants should not be liable for all
the stranded costs. NHPUC proposed that utility share-holders absorb some of this burden,
and negotiated with each utility to reduce the stranded costs charged to participants.
Because each utility has different stranded costs, the actual amount reduced varied from
one utility to another and among customer classes, but the net result was that program
participants would see a 10% reduction in the total price per kilowatt-hour. </p>
<p>The unbundled price of power supply to residential customers was estimated to be
3.5 cents/kWh (3.1 cents/kWh to large-business customers). Thus, if the competitive
market price was 3.5 cents as expected, residential participants would enjoy an overall
10% savings. If the market price were lower, participants would save more; if higher, they
would save less. </p>
<p>In fact, the actual retail market prices, for the most part, were significantly lower
than 3.5 cents. Judging from supplier advertising, the prices offered for residential
power supply ranged from 2.29 to 3.8 cents/kWh, with most offers in the 2.5 to 3.1 cents
range. Thus, residential savings </p>
<div align="center"><center><table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" BORDERCOLOR="#000000" CELLPADDING="8" WIDTH="100%">
<caption><b><a name="t1">Table 1.</a> Unbundled Utility Residential Rates</b> </caption>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><b><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Cost
Component</font></b></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><b><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Distribution</font></b></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><b><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Transmission</font></b></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><b><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Stranded
Cost</font></b></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><b><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Generation</font></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">High-Cost Utility</font></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">$0.0371 (24%)</font></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">$0.0042 (3%)</font></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">$0.0788 (51%)</font></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">$0.0350 (23%)</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Low-Cost Utility</font></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">$0.0437 (42%)</font></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">$0.0047 (4%)</font></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">$0.0217 (21%)</font></td>
<td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">$0.0350 (33%)</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><p align="center"><b>Source: NHPUC pilot program presentation.</b> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>could be as high as 18%, with most in the 12% to 16% range. Savings for large business
customers were likely in the 15% to 20% range. Average generation prices offered by
participating suppliers in the pilot program are shown in <a href="fang.htm#t2">Table 2</a>. </p>
<p>Suppliers who appealed to environmental values priced their offers mostly in the middle
range. Working Assets charged among the highest prices, at $0.035/kWh. Granite State
Energy offered one of the lower prices, at $0.025/kWh. Green Mountain Energy Partners, at
$0.028/kWh, and Northfield Mountain Energy, at $0.0311/kWh, were in the middle. Thus,
green options were neither the lowest nor the highest prices offered in the pilot program,
possibly because the green power being marketed was mainly from existing hydro projects
(among the cheapest power sources). These were usually blended with other nonrenewable
energy resources. </p>
<p><a href="fang.htm#t1">Table 1</a> also shows another aspect of the cost of electricity. In the
unbundled form, the cost of generation accounted for only 23% to 33% of the total
delivered costs. </p>
<a name="IIIc"><h4 class="H4">Consumer Reaction</a> </h4>
<p>Based on two market research studies, New Hampshire participants clearly appreciated
the opportunity to save money on their electricity bills, but found the marketing
confusing and the effort to understand the competitive offers taxing. </p>
<p>Participants were invited, at random, to participate in four focus groups to learn
about consumer information needs. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn7">7</a> ] But before asking
participants about specific information, they were asked to describe their experience in
the program. Their level of frustration at evaluating the barrage of advertising and
marketing material was very high. They described their efforts to compile tables (and even
spreadsheets) to compare the competing offers, and their difficulty in making comparisons.
Although these were for the most part motivated consumers, several said that they gave up
trying to evaluate competing offers, and either guessed or opted not to choose a supplier.
[ <a href="fang.htm#fn8">8</a> ] They spontaneously asked for standardized information
across all suppliers to assist with the decision-making process. </p>
<p>The NHPUC sponsored a quantitative telephone survey of 400 participants. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn9">9</a> ] This survey provided insights into overall reactions as well as
some specific issues. Overall, 67% were either very or somewhat satisfied with the
program. At the same time, only 40% said that the program strongly or somewhat exceeded
their expectations, and 57% said that it strongly or somewhat fell short of their
expectations. </p>
<p>Lower rates appealed most to participants, but their dislikes were scattered. However,
several reasons were related to marketing: too much advertising (5.5%), unclear
information (6.5%), overall confusion (7.0%), and deciding whom to use (2.8%). When asked
an open-ended question about what should be done differently in the future to ensure
competition that best serves consumer interests, respondents gave many answers, but the
two most frequently mentioned were no answer (17.7%) and consumers need more accurate
information (17.5%). </p>
<p>Continuing this theme, 84% of participants felt that power suppliers should be required
to provide consumers with uniform information about the average price of electricity, and
87% agreed that power suppliers should be required to provide consumers with comparable
information in a standardized format about other service characteristics, such as fuel
used to generate electricity, contract length, and environmental emissions. </p>
<p> </p>
<div align="center"><center><table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" BORDERCOLOR="#000000" CELLPADDING="8" WIDTH="100%">
<caption><b><a name="t2">Table 2.</a> Price Characteristics for the Quarter Ending
November 30, 1996</b> </caption>
<tr align="center">
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><b><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Type of
Customer</font></b></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><b><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Average
Generation Price<br>
(All Suppliers)</font></b></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><b><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Number of
Suppliers with Market Share</font></b></td>
</tr>
<tr align="center">
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Residential</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">$0.0273</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">12</font></td>
</tr>
<tr align="center">
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Commercial</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">$0.0239</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">15</font></td>
</tr>
<tr align="center">
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Industrial</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">$0.0238</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">5</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><p align="center"><b>Source: Data provided by Amanda Noonan and Minot Hill,
NHPUC staff, April 15, 1997.</b> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Overall, 84% of those surveyed agreed that supplier competition is good for consumers,
yet 53.5% felt that power suppliers needed to be regulated more to protect consumers. On
the surface these results appear to be contradictory, but if the regulation mentioned
refers to requirements to provide more consistent information and follow
truth-in-advertising, the results are consistent. </p>
<p>Finally, a significant majority (59%) believed that the public utilities commission
should be responsible for educating consumers about electric competition. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a name="IV"><h3 class="H3">IV. Assessment</a> </h3>
<p>Given the pilot program and its results described above, it is appropriate to examine
the role of renewable energy and green options and discuss green-marketing themes and
performance. The price of power supply is also covered. </p>
<a name="IVa"><h4 class="H4">The Role of Renewable Energy and Green Options</a> </h4>
<p>In this brief, a distinction is made between renewable energy and green options.
Renewable energy refers to energy derived from hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass
sources. When such energy is in the form of electricity, it is termed renewable power. In
contrast, green options may include renewable energy, conservation and demand-side
management, and other options that claim to be environmentally friendly or responsible, or
to contribute to improved environmental quality. </p>
<p>In the New Hampshire program, renewable energy or green options were not supported by
explicit public policy. They were not among the major issues considered by the working
groups in planning the pilot program. The Conservation Law Foundation touched on renewable
energy when it commented, in response to preliminary and revised guidelines issued by the
NHPUC, that the pilot program should not violate the state's energy policy relative to
renewable energy and least-cost planning. However, the NHPUC decided that "issues
related to renewable resources, conservation and load management, and the State's Energy
Policy will continue to be explored in the context of the larger debate over
restructuring." [ <a href="fang.htm#fn10">10</a> ] </p>
<p>The NHPUC made no suggestions about how electricity should be marketed. In contrast, in
the Massachusetts Electric Company pilot program, the request for proposals included green
options as one category for which marketing products were solicited. The NHPUC's near
silence on the topic of renewable energy or green marketing is consistent with its
hands-off approach to the marketplace and its stated intention that the pilot program be
an experiment or test. </p>
<p>However, at least six suppliers used an explicit appeal to environmental values in
their advertising. Foremost among these were Green Mountain Energy Partners, Northfield
Mountain Energy, Working Assets, and Granite State Energy. The other two were PSNH and
CMP. PSNH stressed its history of environmental leadership, and CMP indicated that it had
a solid environmental record. Although these latter two power suppliers incorporated
environmental messages in their advertisements, green marketing was not really the focus
of their advertising campaigns. </p>
<p>Suppliers who pursued green marketing did not conduct any significant market research
that led them to emphasize environmental values. Several did none at all, but followed
utility green-pricing programs and thought there might be potential market appeal. The
most active green marketers chose to position themselves as environmentally responsible to
differentiate themselves from pure price competitors and because it was consistent with
their corporate philosophy. </p>
<a name="IVb"><h4 class="H4">Green-Marketing Themes</a> </h4>
<p>It is important to note that electric service providers recognized that the environment
matters to consumers. However, the green marketing employed was superficial at best and
misleading at worst. </p>
<p>Consider the following examples: </p>
<p>Granite State Energy, the marketing affiliate of Granite State Electric, a New England
Electric System company, devoted two pages of an eight-page booklet to Save the
Environment. Accompanied by photographs of a small dam and a man and a boy fishing,
the copy states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Granite State Energy and its sister companies comprise the largest hydroelectric energy
suppliers in New Hampshire. So one of our strongest commitments is our ongoing effort to
preserve and protect the environment. Our conservation efforts are nationally renowned,
and have received numerous awards including the <i>President's Environmental and
Conservation Challenge Award</i>—the nation's highest such honor. We also work with a
number of environmental organizations to ensure the safe, ecologically responsible
treatment of our natural resources and our children's environment. </p>
<p>But perhaps our greatest source of pride is that our customers have an energy company
they can be proud of. A company which, since its very first hydroelectric facility began
operating in 1909, has treated our environment with the respect and care it deserves
— planting more than a million trees; preserving our properties and their surrounding
recreational lands, trails, and water supplies; helping wildlife through habitat
preservation; and much more. In fact, since 1987, we have invested over $550 million in
conservation efforts—more than any other utility in New England. </p>
<p>Providing low-cost energy while protecting the environment is not only possible, it's
the only way of doing business that we know. Which means you can feel good knowing that
every time you turn on the switch, you're saving money and helping to protect the
environment. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This message was true. The company had a good environmental reputation. It did not
promise that it would supply only renewable energy, nor did it claim any specific supply
mix, although it stressed hydroelectric power when its power supply affiliate, New England
Power Company, has a mix of generation that is composed of coal (34%), nuclear (19%), gas
(27%), oil (2%), hydro (6%), Hydro- Quebec (6%), and nonutility renewables (waste to
energy and hydro, 6%). [ <a href="fang.htm#fn11">11</a> ] </p>
<p>Granite State Energy reinforced its image with the offer of a "free analysis of
your home's energy use, a free booklet with tips on conserving energy, and a free catalog
of energy saving products . . . and a free quality-crafted bird feeder ($18
value)—made right here in New Hampshire and officially licensed by the National
Audubon Society." </p>
<p>Northfield Mountain Energy stressed its attractive setting:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>You may have heard of, or even visited the Northfield Mountain recreation area. If so,
you've probably seen the lake at the summit. It's beautiful. But it is also powerful.
Where you see a breathtaking vista, we see megawatts. The way it happens is simple: Water
is pumped up the mountain at night and flows down during the day to generate low-cost
power. And now, thanks to the pilot program, we're able to bring our years of experience
and highly-advanced technology to New Hampshire. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This copy is describing pumped storage. The company—CL&P, a subsidiary of
Northeast Utilities—saved money by using low-cost, off-peak power to pump the water
up the mountain and then ran it through turbines when other plants were more expensive to
run. Pumping the water uphill required other power sources that the advertising did not
disclose. The general assumption by environmental observers was that baseload
plants—coal and nuclear—did the job. Whatever the mix, the emphasis on
hydropower was not the whole story. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn12">12</a> ] </p>
<p>Green Mountain Energy Partners presumably derived its name from Green Mountain Power
Company in neighboring Vermont, and the name was ready-made for an environmental message.
GMEP's advertising copy read "Choose wisely. It's a small planet." In fact, that
tagline was service marked. GMEP raised a high profile when, during the weeks before the
pilot program, it flew an eight-story green hot-air balloon to create name recognition
across the state. It also sent a spruce seedling to participants to get their attention
and to emphasize its commitment to the environment. </p>
<p>One of its print ads touted its power source:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Not all electricity is created equal. And not all power companies are the same. When
you choose your electricity provider, here are some key questions you'll want to ask: </p>
<p><font face="Arial"><b><i>Ask How Their Power is Generated</i></b></font> </p>
<p>At first, it might not seem to matter. After all, a kilowatt is a kilowatt. But there
are different ways to generate that kilowatt, and some are cleaner than others. </p>
<p>At Green Mountain Energy Partners, over 90% of the electricity we supply to the power
grid is hydroelectric power. And that's no coincidence. We want to be a company that makes
a real contribution to the environment, starting with our energy sources. No energy source
is perfect, but we think hydroelectric is one of the best options available. It doesn't
pollute the air, it's renewable, and it's inexpensive. </p>
<p>So when you're considering a new provider, take a close look at their power source.
Your decision could have a real impact on the environment and your future. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>A news article went further and stated that hydropower would supply 97% of the power,
with the rest split between nuclear and fossil fuels, and that only 1.5% of the
electricity was made from sources that generate greenhouse gases. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn13">13</a>
] </p>
<p>Of the green marketing in the pilot program, GMEP's was the clearest about the kind of
energy the consumer was buying and where it came from. Based on some advertising, one of
GMEP's partners was Hydro-Quebec, and GMEP was selling electricity that Hydro-Quebec
generated. The issue here was that some environmentalists objected to large hydro projects
undertaken by Hydro-Quebec, some of which were very controversial. The reaction
illustrates all too well GMEP's copy: Not all electricity is created equal, and no energy
source is perfect. </p>
<p>Working Assets Green Power tried to differentiate itself by advertising what it was not
selling: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We know you are currently being barraged with marketing from other electricity
providers, many of them claiming to offer huge savings. Some even claim to be an
environmental choice. But before you choose another company, ask them a few simple
questions: <ul>
<li>Do they currently use nuclear power; thereby generating tons of radioactive waste? </li>
<li>Do they currently use power derived from burning coal; the cause of acid rain? </li>
<li>Do they purchase power from Hydro-Quebec; the sponsor of some of the most destructive
dams in North America? </li>
</ul>
<p>Unless they answer NO to each one, the hidden costs of your electricity are just too
high! </p>
<p>Working Assets Green Power does not rely on nuclear power, coal, or Hydro-Quebec. We
donate 1% of your power bill to groups working to protect New Hampshire's environment. And
we only charge 3.5 cents per kWh. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>So where did Working Assets' power come from? "The ultimate source of our power is
the New England Electric System, widely recognized for its environmental performance and
overall reliability. We looked long and hard for a great partner and decided that New
England Electric was the only supplier that could meet our tough standards." </p>
<p>If consumers understood who the suppliers were, this might sound like an ad for Granite
State Energy, part of the New England Electric System (NEES) family. </p>
<p>Working Assets was severely criticized for marketing social responsibility without
substance, but the company denied this by stating: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>In our contract with New England Power, we are purchasing shares of the output of
eleven specific production facilities, which include small- and large-scale hydroelectric
in New England, natural gas, landfill gas, and oil-pumped storage sources. None of these
sources are nuclear plants, coal, or Hydro-Quebec facilities, which destroy native
lands . . . The actual purchased mix for the first quarter of 1997 has averaged 51%
hydro, 41% natural gas, 3% landfill gas and 1% oil-pumped storage. Balancing power, which
we estimate at about 4% of the mix and is typically used during power surges, has to be
purchased from the NEPOOL system and thus cannot be targeted to specific sources. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn14">14</a> ] </p>
</blockquote>
<a name="IVc"><h4 class="H4">The Performance of Green Marketing</a> </h4>
<p>The market shares of the suppliers who used green marketing are not known publicly, so
it is difficult to say how well those specific suppliers performed. However, a survey of
pilot program participants conducted for the NHPUC in January 1997 provides some insight
into what influenced participants' choices. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn15">15</a> ]
Overwhelmingly, price was the strongest factor in the decision to choose a supplier.
Seventy-one percent of those surveyed said that price was a strong influence. </p>
<p>The best insight into the role the environment and renewable energy played in customer
choice is that 20% said that the environmental message had a strong influence, and an
additional 17% said the environmental message had a moderate influence in their decisions.
Renewable energy had a strong influence for 17% and a moderate influence for 13% of those
surveyed. Of course, the 20% of participants who were strongly influenced by the
environmental message does not necessarily indicate the combined market share of the four
suppliers who used a strong environmental message. These suppliers would have other
factors, such as price, familiarity, and reputation, and the recommendation of a GAC, that
could work for or against them. </p>
<p>The same survey also reported that one-third of the participants believe they received
unfair or deceptive advertising from suppliers. The survey was not specific, however,
about the source or cause of this perception, or whether they found the green marketing
unfair or deceptive. Some marketers sold system power and a green image, without
attempting to address renewable energy at all. A major concern is that, if consumers find
these marketing efforts confusing or even deceptive, the future credibility of green power
marketing will be undermined. </p>
<p>For example, some marketers repackaged existing renewable resources and promoted them
as green. Reliance on current resources did not increase the amount of renewable energy in
the region, nor did it improve the environment. Green power advocates wanted to
incrementally add clean power and consequently retire or displace dirtier plants. New
Hampshire green marketers defended themselves by arguing that the pilot programs are too
small and too short. The number of customers gained was insufficient to justify acquiring
new renewable power plants, and directing consumers' dollars to cleaner and renewable
sources of energy that would, in the longer term, improve environmental quality. Based on
focus group research not related directly to the New Hampshire pilot program, consumers
apparently understood that their purchase of green power would result in longer-term
investment in cleaner facilities. For the most part they did not expect immediate changes
in the way power was produced. But how long they will remain patient is unknown. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn16">16</a> ] </p>
<a name="IVd"><h4 class="H4">General Marketing Observations</a> </h4>
<p>The number of registered suppliers and their marketing efforts demonstrated that the
New Hampshire pilot program was a test bed for learning competitive behavior. This is what
the NHPUC wanted. In addition to the experience in competitive supply markets, suppliers
were interested in gaining a foothold in New Hampshire before the entire state opens for
competition in 1998 and in New England, where most other states have proposals or
legislation that will lead to open markets in the near future. Many people, however, were
surprised by the quickness and intensity of the marketing, described by some as a feeding
frenzy, which resulted in part from a relatively large number of suppliers chasing a
relatively small number of customers. </p>
<p>The marketing effort, which included tele-marketing, direct mail, print ads, radio, and
television, was varied and probably quite expensive. Most suppliers were willing to incur
this expense because, on balance, they felt it held the potential for winning market
share, and because they wanted the experience. Some, however, were discouraged by the
marketing investment (and perhaps were caught flat-footed), and decided not to participate
actively. </p>
<p>The marketing was intense when the market first opened, but it died down after the
first three months. To maintain that level of intensity would be expensive. Although
marketing efforts continue today, the activity is less visible. Some suppliers continue to
pursue specific customers. Residential customers were the object of marketing by about a
dozen of the 16 active suppliers, although a few of these suppliers garnered only a few
customers and may have been halfhearted in their efforts. This result may allay concerns
that small consumers would be ignored by competitive suppliers. The cost of marketing to
these customers, however, may deter some suppliers from this market segment in the future,
and small customers may still need to be aggregated to make some market segments
attractive to marketers. </p>
<p>Will marketing be as intense in other states? Probably not for small pilot programs,
but when an entire state (or part of a much larger state) is opened to competition,
marketing will likely be just as strong as in the New Hampshire program, and with more
innovation in products and services. The larger markets will require and justify bigger
investments in marketing costs. This may work to the advantage of the larger suppliers
with deep pockets. Small suppliers will find it more difficult to compete if they lack the
resources to achieve wide recognition and reputation. On the other hand, small suppliers
may find niche markets, including green markets, if they can develop targeted and
cost-effective marketing strategies. </p>
<a name="IVe"><h4 class="H4">The Market Price of Power Supply</a> </h4>
<p>Prices of power supply (generation) in the New Hampshire pilot program were lower than
expected. Some suppliers believed that their competitors were selling below cost, because
the prices offered for generation were so low. Others were not so sure but agreed that the
pricing was very aggressive and might be at or near market cost for short-term purchases.
Whether prices were, in fact, below cost cannot be verified, and whether other states will
see similar savings is not known. Prices may not be as low, depending on regional power
markets and how long suppliers can afford to operate on thin margins. For this program,
however, suppliers were apparently not out to make money, but wanted to gain experience
and market share. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn17">17</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a name="V"><h3 class="H3">V. Observations</a> </h3>
<p>What can we learn from the experience of the New Hampshire pilot? What should be done
in other pilot programs, or for full retail competition, to improve on the process in New
Hampshire? Observations for consumer education, impact evaluation, program data release
and quality control, information disclosure, and further unbundling of costs are presented
below. </p>
<a name="Va"><h4 class="H4">Consumer Education</a> </h4>
<p>Most residential and small-business customers seldom think about electricity except
when paying their bills, and they are not used to making decisions about electricity
supply. Because this is a new area of choice for them, a systematic program of consumer
education needs to be undertaken. A successful consumer education program might have
features such as: starting the program well before the market opens, multiple exposures
through different media, providing consumer guides and assistance, covering a variety of
issues, and non-preferential to specific providers. </p>
<a name="Vb"><h4 class="H4">Impact Evaluation</a> </h4>
<p>In order to derive appropriate lessons from the implementation of a retail competition
pilot, it is necessary to develop a plan for evaluating the impacts of the pilot. Such an
evaluation plan might have the following elements: <ul>
<li>Statements about the goals and objectives of restructuring or increased competition</li>
<li>Questions that must be answered by the evaluation </li>
<li>A rationale for the information required to answer those questions </li>
<li>Identification of data needs </li>
<li>Data collection method(s) </li>
<li>Before-and-after surveys of consumer knowledge and attitudes for judging the
effectiveness of the efforts, assessing consumer satisfaction with market changes, and
identifying areas that need to be addressed by policy. </li>
</ul>
<a name="Vc"><h4 class="H4">Program Data Release and Quality Control</a> </h4>
<p>Electric service providers in the New Hampshire pilot were required to file quarterly
reports to the NHPUC on the number (and account numbers) of customers served, the amount
of kWh sales and revenues. This information could be used to determine average prices and
market share for each supplier. Whether this type of data will be made publicly available
or kept confidential can be decided in advance, based on the questions the pilot program
is trying to answer, and the needs of program evaluation. To ensure data filed by
suppliers are accurate and meaningful, it is also necessary to develop a quality control
plan. </p>
<a name="Vd"><h4 class="H4">Information Disclosure</a> </h4>
<p>The experience in the New Hampshire pilot shows that there is a need to disclose
information concerning the fuel mix of the generation portfolio of suppliers and unit
price of electricity. Like the Food and Drug Administration nutritional labeling, this
would be another piece of information that consumers could use to make their choices
concerning electric service provider. If consumers really do have a preference for clean
energy, they will then be able to exercise their choice with some assurance that they get
what they pay for. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn18">18</a> ] There are also interests that the
disclosure requirement be extended to include environmental impacts, presented in a
standard format that supports comparison shopping. [ <a href="fang.htm#fn19">19</a> ] </p>
<a name="Ve"><h4 class="H4">Further Unbundling of Costs</a> </h4>
<p>In the New Hampshire pilot, generation is the only competitive component in electricity
costs, accounting for only about a quarter to one-third of the average delivered costs to
consumers. There are arguments that, in future pilots or full-scale competition,
subjecting a larger share of the final consumer cost of electricity to competition by
allowing competition in metering and billing services could further reduce the total
delivered costs of electricity. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a name="VI"><h3 class="H3">VI. Conclusions</a> </h3>
<p>The New Hampshire pilot program caused a major shift in the thinking about marketing in
the electric industry. Mass marketing and branding of electricity had begun elsewhere
(e.g., UtiliCorp United's EnergyOne brand), but had achieved little visibility with
consumers and the media, and was not fully internalized by many utility industry
participants until it was experienced in New Hampshire. </p>
<p>The need for consumer education is great. New Hampshire participants were overwhelmed
by the marketing blitz and frustrated by their inability to compare supplier offers. Also,
they were surprised to learn that the cost of electricity is such a small part (23% to
33%) of the total delivered cost. </p>
<p>The pilot program created significant pressure to resolve many practical technical and
business arrangements for metering, billing, power pool arrangements, customer data
transfer, and standards of conduct between franchised utilities and their marketing
affiliates. Some such issues and their resolutions are listed in <a href="fang.htm#appa">Appendix
A</a>. </p>
<p>The pilot program was a very small step in the development of renewable energy in that
learning about green marketing occurred. It showed that there is consumer interest in
green power and that there is supplier recognition of a potential green power market. It
also showed that valid comparative information on supply offerings needs to be provided to
the consumer. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a name="VII"><h3 class="H3">VII. Notes</a> </h3>
<p><a name="fn1">1.</a> For additional background of the New Hampshire pilot program, see
Appendix A. The focus of this brief is on the pilot program, not the full retail
competition. With respect to the latter, it is noteworthy that Public Service Company of
New Hampshire had filed suit to suspend its implementation until various issues were
settled. As of October 1997 the lawsuit was still pending. </p>
<p><a name="fn2">2.</a> New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, DR 95-250, "Order
Establishing Final Guidelines and Requiring Compliance Filings." Order
No. 22,033, February 28, 1996. This order and other documents relating to the pilot
program may be found at <a href="http://www.state.nh.us/puc/pilotfnl.html">http://www.state.nh.us/puc/pilotfnl.html</a>
</p>
<p><a name="fn3">3.</a> Schachter, Deborah, "Public Outreach and Education in
Electric Utility Restructuring," National Consumer Law Center and the Regulatory
Assistance Project, August 23, 1996. </p>
<p><a name="fn4">4.</a> See <a href="fang.htm#appb">Appendix B</a> for the parent companies and
the number of customers of these utilities. Note also that instead of establishing a
marketing affiliate, New Hampshire Electric Cooperative (NHEC) petitioned the NHPUC to act
as an aggregator for its customers. As a result NHEC has solicited and evaluated bids from
competitive suppliers, but it is not taking action until legal issues relating to its
wholesale power purchase contracts with PSNH are resolved by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). In the meantime, its pilot program customers who want to make their own
choice may do so, but those who wanted NHEC's assistance as a facilitator were waiting as
of early May 1997. </p>
<p><a name="fn5">5.</a> Marketing strategies for business customers generally have not
relied on public channels, although printed mail advertising is available. </p>
<p><a name="fn6">6.</a> Schachter (op. cit.) questions whether this message is misleading
by inferring that switching to other suppliers <i>would</i> entail these hassles. </p>
<p><a name="fn7">7.</a> These focus groups were sponsored by the National Council on
Competition and the Electric Industry. See Levy, Alan, Mario Teisl, Lynn Halverson, and
Edward Holt, <i>Information Disclosure for Electricity Sales: Consumer Preferences from
Focus Groups</i>. July 1997. Available from the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners, Washington, D.C. </p>
<p><a name="fn8">8.</a> This experience was in sharp contrast to the feelings expressed by
participants in the Massachusetts Electric pilot program, who were all provided with
standard information about each supplier in a table provided by the utility. Although the
Mass Electric participants wanted the same kinds of information as participants in the New
Hampshire pilot program, they did not express the same frustration and difficulty in
making a choice of supplier. </p>
<p><a name="fn9">9. </a>UNH Survey Center <i>Retail Electric Competition Pilot Program
Survey Report</i>. The survey was conducted for the NHPUC in January 1997. The report is
available at the NHPUC </p>
<p>Web site:<<a href="http://www.state.nh.us/puc/pilotfnl.html">http://www.state.nh.us/puc/pilotfnl.html</a>>
</p>
<p><a name="fn10">10.</a> See note <a href="fang.htm#fn2">2</a>. </p>
<p><a name="fn11">11</a>. New England Electric System, Form 10-K for fiscal year ending
December 31, 1995, page 20. Data presented is net generation estimated for 1996. </p>
<p><a name="fn12">12.</a> Center for Science in the Public Interest, "10 Bad Ads
'Win' Lemon Awards." Press release dated December 4, 1996. See also accompanying
statement by Karl R. Rabago, Energy Program Manager for the Environmental Defense Fund. </p>
<p><a name="fn13">13.</a> "Green Mountain to Provide 'Green' Power to NH,"
Global Warming Network Online Today, June 19, 1996. </p>
<p><a name="fn14">14.</a> Laura S. Scher (CEO Working Assets), e-mail message dated April
17, 1997. </p>
<p><a name="fn15">15.</a> See Note <a href="fang.htm#fn9">9</a>. </p>
<p><a name="fn16">16.</a> Teisl, Mario, Lynn Halverson, and Edward A. Holt, <i>Information
Disclosure for Electricity Sales: Consumer Preferences from Focus Groups, Report 2: West
Coast</i>. Draft. June 1997. Available from The Regulatory Assistance Project, Gardiner,
Maine. </p>
<p><a name="fn17">17</a>. Schuler, Joseph F. Jr. "Residential Pilot Programs: Who's
Doing, Who's Dealing?" <i>Public Utilities Fortnightly</i>, January 1, 1997. </p>
<p><a name="fn18">18.</a> See, for example, Holt, Edward A., "Disclosure and
Certification: Truth and Labeling for Electric Power,"<i> REPP Issue Brief No. 5</i>,
College Park, MD: Renewable Energy Policy Project, January 1997. </p>
<p><a name="fn19">19</a>. New Hampshire pilot program participants have voiced a strong
desire for this kind of information. See Note <a href="fang.htm#fn7">7</a>. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a name="appa"><h3 class="H3">Appendix A</a> </h3>
<a name="appa1"><h4 class="H4">Background</a> </h4>
<p>The New Hampshire pilot program was ordered by the New Hampshire Legislature in June
1995:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The commission shall establish a pilot program, under such terms and conditions as the
commission shall deem appropriate, for the purpose of determining the impli-cations of
retail competition in the electric industry, provided that the commission determines that
such program is fair, lawful, constitutional, consistent with RSA 378:37 and in the public
good. This pilot program shall be open to all franchised areas and to all classes of
customers. [ <a href="fang.htm#fna1">1</a> ] </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In response to this legislative direction, the New Hampshire Public Utilities
Commission (NHPUC) issued Preliminary Guidelines on October 9, 1995, and subsequently
First Revised Guidelines on November 20, 1995. On January 23, 1996, the NHPUC issued
Second Revised Guidelines, which addressed additional comments submitted by interested
parties and the recommendations that emerged from an intensive series of collaborative
meetings held during late December 1995 and early January 1996. Hearings were held on the
Second Revised Guidelines on January 29, 1996. [ <a href="fang.htm#fna2">2</a> ] </p>
<p>Significant pilot program issues discussed during the planning period are listed in <a href="fang.htm#ta1">Table A.1</a>. The role of renewable energy, and whether it merited any
special consideration, was not a significant factor in the debate. The reason for this
seems to be that, although the NHPUC approved contracts for wood generators under the
Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act during the early 1980s, New Hampshire has not had
activist policies that support renewable energy research, development, and demonstration
projects. States with more aggressive renewables support policies have enjoyed vigorous
debate about the fate of such policies in utility industry restructuring. New Hampshire,
lacking such policies, had little to lose from restructuring. According to NHPUC staff,
although the least-cost planning statute directs the NHPUC to take environmental issues
into consideration when reviewing resource portfolios, other goals, such as minimizing
rates, have often taken precedence. [ <a href="fang.htm#fna3">3</a> ] </p>
<p>The NHPUC issued the Final Guidelines implementing the legislature's mandate on
February 28, 1996. It established the official start date for the pilot program of May 28,
1996, for a term of two years. On May 21, 1996, while the pilot program was being
implemented, House Bill 1392 became effective, requiring the NHPUC to establish a plan and
implement full retail choice for all customers by January 1998, with an allowable delay of
six months (no later than July 1, 1998) without prior legislative approval. [ <a href="fang.htm#fna4">4</a> ] </p>
<h4 class="H4"><a name="appan">Notes to Appendix A</a></h4>
<p><a name="fna1">1.</a> New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 374:26-a. </p>
<p><a name="fna2">2.</a> New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission, DR 95-250, "Order
Establishing Final Guidelines and Requiring Compliance Filings." Order No. 22,033,
February 28, 1996. </p>
<p><a name="fna3">3</a>. George McCluskey (NHPUC). Personal communication, June 19, 1997. </p>
<p><a name="fna4">4.</a> House Bill 1392 (RSA Chapter 374-F). NHPUC DR 96-150, Order of
Notice. </p>
<p><a name="fna5">5.</a> New Hampshire PUC, DR-250, "Report Addressing Comments and
Collaborative Process Recommendations and Establishing Second Revised Guidelines,"
January 23, 1996. </p>
<p> </p>
<table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" BORDERCOLOR="#000000" CELLPADDING="8" WIDTH="100%">
<caption><b><a name="ta1">Table A1:</a> Selected Issues Considered in Planning Pilot
Program</b> [ <a href="fang.htm#fna5">5</a> ]</caption>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b>Issues
Considered</b></font> </td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP" align="center"><b><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Result</font></b>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Effect of pilot program
decisions on full restructuring</font> </td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Decisions apply to pilot
program only and do not establish precedent for full restructuring</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Jurisdiction between NHPUC
and FERC over intrastate transmission</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Negotiated mechanism that is
nonprecedential to avoid delay of pilot</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Pilot program size and
duration</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Declined to extend or ramp up
pilot</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Selection procedures for
participants</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Random selection of
individual and community volunteers; aggregation later</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Requirements of competitive
suppliers</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Minimal requirements for
registration with NHPUC and NEPOOL membership or access</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">NHPUC role in consumer
education</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Brochure prepared and
distributed</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">NHPUC role in policing
marketing activities</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">No NHPUC role; no limits on
supplier marketing activities beyond current law</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Accounting of pilot program
costs by franchised utilities</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Utilities required to report
marketing costs; no ratepayer subsidies allowed</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Franchised utilities
marketing to consumers in own territories</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Allowed; franchised utilities
required to compete through a separate marketing affiliate</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Continuation of utility
conservation and load management (C&LM)</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Franchised utilities required
to provide C&LM as before; costs to be borne by all customers</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Determining customer load
shapes for NEPOOL billing</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Estimated based on customer
class load profiles, rather than individual hourly meters</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Customer metering and billing</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Use extant meters; suppliers
may contract for billing by utility or may bill on their own</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Treatment of stranded costs</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Initial 50/50 split between
utilities and customers, with true-up after completion of separate stranded-cost docket</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Unbundling of franchised
utility retail services</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Disaggregated to customer
service, transmission, distribution, C&LM, market price of power supply, and stranded
cost</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Monitoring and analysis of
pilot program results</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Utilities to report pilot
program costs, revenues, and customer participation; suppliers report sales and customer
information; most information confidential</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Consumer protection rules</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">NHPUC winter termination
rules apply to competitive suppliers and franchised utilities</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="44%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Consumer responsibilities</font></td>
<td WIDTH="56%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Responsible to negotiate and
evaluate competitive supply offers</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<a name="appb"><h3 class="H3">Appendix B</a> </h3>
<h4 class="H4">New Hampshire Utilities</h4>
<p>New Hampshire is served by six franchised utilities with a retail market worth about $1
billion. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) is by far the largest of these
with about 80% of the total New Hampshire load. The following table presents information
concerning the parent company and the number of customers. </p>
<p> </p>
<div align="center"><center><table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" BORDERCOLOR="#000000" CELLPADDING="8" WIDTH="100%">
<caption><b><a name="tb1">Table B1:</a> Utility Parent Companies and Customers</b></caption>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b>Utility</b></font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b>Parent</b></font></td>
<td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b>Customers</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Concord Electric Company</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Unitil Corporation</font></td>
<td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">25,000</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Connecticut Valley Electric
Company</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Central Vermont Public
Service</font></td>
<td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">10,000</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Exeter and Hampton Electric
Company</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Unitil Corporation</font></td>
<td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">36,000</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Granite State Electric
Company</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">New England Electric System</font></td>
<td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">36,000</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">New Hampshire Electric
Cooperative</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">member-owned</font></td>
<td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">65,000</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="49%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Public Service Company of New
Hampshire</font></td>
<td WIDTH="33%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">Northeast Utilities</font></td>
<td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2">414,000</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="appc">Appendix C.</a></h3>
<h4 class="H4">New Hampshire Registered Suppliers</h4>
<font SIZE="3"><p>AGF Inc.</p>
<p>Alternate Power Source</p>
<p>American National Power</p>
<p>ANP Energy Direct</p>
<p>Bangor Hydro-Electric </p>
<p>Central Maine Power</p>
<p>Central Vermont Public Service</p>
<p>Cincinnati Gas & Electric</p>
<p>Connecticut Light & Power</p>
<p>Duke/Louis Dreyfus Energy Services</p>
<p>Eastern Power Distribution</p>
<p>Enron Power Marketing</p>
<p>Freedom Energy Company</p>
<p>Global Petroleum Corp.</p>
<p>Granite State Energy</p>
<p>Great Bay Power Corp.</p>
<p>Green Mountain Energy Partners</p>
<p>KBC Energy Services</p>
<p>KCS Power Marketing</p>
<p>Louis Dreyfus Electric Power</p>
<p>Montaup Electric Company (EUA)</p>
<p>Oceanside Energy Inc.</p>
<p>Plum Street Enterprises (NMPC)</p>
<p>PSI Energy</p>
<p>PSNH Energy</p>
<p>QST Energy</p>
<p>QST Energy Trading</p>
<p>Sprague Energy Corp.</p>
<p>Strategic Energy Ltd.</p>
<p>United Illuminating</p>
<p>Unitil Resources</p>
<p>Virginia Electric and Power Co.</p>
<p>Wheeled Electric Power</p>
<p>Working Assets Funding Service</p>
<p>XENERGY</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3"><a name="appd">Appendix D.</a></h3>
<div align="center"><center><table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="2" BORDERCOLOR="#000000" CELLPADDING="8" WIDTH="100%">
<caption><b>Market Shares by Customer Class as of November 30, 1996</b></caption>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="bottom" rowspan="2"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER"><b>Supplier</b></font></td>
<td WIDTH="28%" VALIGN="bottom" COLSPAN="2"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b><p ALIGN="CENTER">Residential</b></font></td>
<td WIDTH="30%" VALIGN="bottom" COLSPAN="2"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b><p ALIGN="CENTER">Commercial</b></font></td>
<td WIDTH="29%" VALIGN="bottom" COLSPAN="2"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b><p ALIGN="CENTER">Industrial</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b><p ALIGN="CENTER">Number</b></font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b><p ALIGN="CENTER">Percent</b></font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b><p ALIGN="CENTER">Number</b></font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b><p ALIGN="CENTER">Percent</b></font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b><p ALIGN="CENTER">Number</b></font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b><p ALIGN="CENTER">Percent</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">1</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">14</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.17</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">3</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.36</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">2</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">25</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.30</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">18</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">2.18</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">6</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">40.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">3</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">522</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">6.34</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">53</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">6.41</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">6</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">40.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">4</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">7</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.85</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">5</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">773</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">9.39</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">330</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">39.90</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">6</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">1,784</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">21.66</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">53</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">6.41</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">7</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">813</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">9.87</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">67</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">8.10</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">8</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">18</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.22</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">22</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">2.66</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">9</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">3,066</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">37.23</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">165</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">19.95</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">2</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">13.33</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">10</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">1</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.12</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">1</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">6.67</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">11</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">1</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.12</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">12</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">1,027</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">12.47</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">91</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">11.00</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">13</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">1</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.12</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">14</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">16</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.19</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">4</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.48</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">15</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">126</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">1.53</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">16</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">52</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.63</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">11</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">1.33</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">0.00</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><b><p ALIGN="CENTER">Total</b></font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">8,236</font></td>
<td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">100.00</font></td>
<td WIDTH="17%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">827</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">100.00</font></td>
<td WIDTH="16%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">15</font></td>
<td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p ALIGN="CENTER">100.00</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><font FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="2"><p align="center"><b>Source: Data provided
by Amanda O. Noonan and Minot Hill, NHPUC, April 15, 1997.</b></p>
</font><p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h3 class="H3">Topical Issues Briefs Previously Published by The National Renewable Energy
Laboratory*</h3>
<p><i>Green Marketing in the Massachusetts Electric Company</i> <br>
Retail Competition Pilot Program <br>
October 1997 <br>
NREL/TP-460-23507 </p>
<p><i>Power Marketing and Renewable Energy</i> <br>
September 1997 <br>
NREL/SP-460-22080 </p>
<p><i>Net Metering Programs</i> <br>
September 1996 <br>
NREL/SP-460-21651 </p>
<p><i>Open Access Transmission and Renewable Energy Technologies</i> <br>
September 1996 <br>
NREL/SP-460-21427 </p>
<p><i>Small Turbines in Distributed Utility Application:<br>
Natural Gas Pressure Supply Requirements</i> <br>
May 1996 <br>
NREL/SP-461-21073 </p>
<p><a href="fang.htm#order">Click here</a> for ordering information.</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div><p><br>
</p>
<p>[ <a href="fang.htm#toc">Table of Contents</a> ] </td>
</tr>
</table>
</center></div>
<p align="center"><a href="fang.htm#top"><img src="../images/b-t-top.gif" alt="Back To Top" border="0" WIDTH="71" HEIGHT="35"></a></p>
</body>
</html>