Eversource and United Illuminating urged the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority on Aug. 15 to let parts of the integrated distribution system planning (IDSP) process run in parallel with non-wire solutions (NWA) solicitations and other reviews so that the full sequence of planning, stakeholder review and a related rate case would not stretch nearly five years.

In oral argument, counsel for the utilities showed an exhibit from their written exceptions that mapped a literal sequential implementation of IDSP, non-wire solutions competitive solicitations, PURA review and a subsequent rate case at roughly 59 months. ‘‘If we follow the literal word of what appears in the draft decision, then it could contemplate a process of up to 59 months,’’ Vincent Pace said while asking PURA to confirm whether it wanted sequential timing or the parallel approach the companies proposed. ‘‘All we’re saying here is we want to make sure we follow what you want us to do, but we need direction from you in terms of sequencing and how fast or slow do you want the process to move.’’

Nut graf: The utilities proposed a parallel-track alternative they say would preserve all IDSP and non-wire steps but compress elapsed time by running non-wire competitive solicitations and some stakeholder workstreams at the same time as IDSP development, trimming roughly 29 months from the schedule in their example. They said the compressed schedule would not eliminate opportunity for stakeholder input but would move many tasks concurrently.

Company witnesses explained why flexibility is needed when planning distribution systems. UI engineer (and witness) Paul Freeman told PURA that incremental needs are not all emergent crises; they may be legitimate reliability or capacity needs that materialize after an NWA assessment or between the IDSP filing and the rate case. ‘‘These could be DER-related needs. There could be reliability needs. There could be capacity needs on the distribution feeders,’’ Freeman said. The utilities asked PURA to confirm that projects that legitimately materialize after the IDSP deadline can still be presented in the rate case — where they would be subject to discovery and prudence review.

Several intervenors — including OCC and consumer and industry groups — said they back timely review and careful scrutiny and emphasized that parallel processing should not truncate stakeholder or adjudicatory rights. Commissioner questions focused on whether a standard should be set to justify adding projects to a later rate case; utilities said new projects would be identified in pre-filed rate-case testimony and the company would explain why they were not included in the earlier IDSP.

Ending: PURA closed oral argument by saying it would consider these procedural and timing proposals along with written exceptions before issuing decisions in the three REO dockets. Utilities said they would accept process language that preserves stakeholder review, provides flexibility for legitimate post-filing needs and shortens the total calendar time through parallel workstreams.