New Hampshire Revised Statutes

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 366:5 (2026)

Investigation and Proof

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NH-GCgc.nh.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    366:5 Investigation and Proof. – The department of energy shall have full power and authority to investigate any such contract, arrangement, purchase, or sale and initiate a proceeding related thereto before the commission. If the commission after notice and hearing shall find any such contract, arrangement, purchase, or sale to be unjust or unreasonable, the commission may make such reasonable order relating thereto as the public good requires. In any such investigation, the burden shall be on the public utility and affiliate to prove the reasonableness of any such contract, arrangement, purchase, or sale with, from, or to an affiliate. If the public utility shall fail to satisfy the commission of the reasonableness of any such contract, arrangement, purchase, or sale, the commission may disapprove the same and disallow payments thereunder or such part of any such payment as the commission shall find to be unjust or unreasonable. No payment disallowed by the commission shall be capitalized or included as an operating cost of the public utility in the fixing of rates or as an asset in fixing a rate base. If in any such investigation the public utility or affiliate shall unreasonably refuse to comply with any request of the commission or the department for information with respect to relevant accounts and records, whether of such public utility or any affiliate, any portion of which may be applicable to any transaction under investigation, so that such parts thereof as the commission or the department may deem material may be made part of the record, such refusal shall justify the commission in disapproving the transaction under investigation and disallowing payments in pursuance thereof.

Source. 1933, 182:1. RL 305:4. 2021, 91:254, eff. July 1, 2021.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1989–2005 · leading case: Appeal of Verizon New England, Inc., 889 A.2d 1027 (N.H. 2005).
Appeal of Verizon New England, Inc., 889 A.2d 1027 (N.H. 2005). · cites it 13× “That the PUC may have approved the termination provisions of a contract between a public utility and an affiliate does not preclude it from exercising its regulatory authority over future agreements between the same parties.”
Pub. Serv. Co. of New Hampshire v. New Hampshire (In Re Pub. Serv. Co.), 108 B.R. 854 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1989). · cites it 3× “The statutes provide for review of contracts with affiliates, see N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 366:5 (1984), the issuance of securities, see N.”
Pub. Serv. Co. of New Hampshire v. New Hampshire (In Re Pub. Serv. Co. of New Hampshire), 99 B.R. 506 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1989). “t its plan provides for various transactions in its implementation that ordinarily would be subject to NHPUC regulatory control and approval, citing inter alia, New Hampshire Revised Statutes, RSA 374:30, 374:31 (transfer of franchise, works, system); RSA 369:2 (mortgaging of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.