This RSA section is an unofficial mirror, is not legal advice, and may be incomplete, outdated, or incorrectly processed.
RSA 365:41 · Penalty Against Utility
365:41 Penalty Against Utility. – Any public utility which shall violate any provisions of this title, or fails, omits or neglects to obey, observe or comply with any order, direction or requirement of the commission or the department of energy, shall be subject to a civil penalty, as determined by the commission, not to exceed $250,000 or 2.5 percent of the annual gross revenue that the utility received from sales in the state, whichever is lower. Such penalties shall be applied to the benefit of the utility's ratepayers through a credit to bills, or, if the credit is of an amount determined by the commission to be insignificant on a per customer basis, to programs that benefit low income ratepayers. No portion of any fine, nor any costs associated with an administrative or court proceeding which results in a fine pursuant to this section, shall be considered by the commission in fixing any temporary, permanent, or emergency rates or charges of such utility. Source. 1911, 164:18. 1913, 145:18. PL 238:39. RL 287:40. 1951, 203:11 par. 41. RSA 365:41. 1973, 528:257; 529:87. 1988, 255:1. 2007, 25:3. 2008, 309:2, eff. Aug. 31, 2008. 2021, 91:253, eff. July 1, 2021.
Copy linkSource note
Source. 1911, 164:18. 1913, 145:18. PL 238:39. RL 287:40. 1951, 203:11 par. 41. RSA 365:41. 1973, 528:257; 529:87. 1988, 255:1. 2007, 25:3. 2008, 309:2, eff. Aug. 31, 2008. 2021, 91:253, eff. July 1, 2021.
Source history
- 1911, 164:18
- 1913, 145:18. PL 238:39. RL 287:40
- 1951, 203:11 par. 41. RSA 365:41
- 1973, 528:257; 529:87
- 1988, 255:1
- 2007, 25:3
- 2008, 309:2, eff. Aug. 31, 2008
- 2021, 91:253, eff. July 1, 2021
Related materials
Opinions and discipline decisions mentioning this RSA
- 2011-028, Jo Anne Rainville & a. v. Lakes Region Water Company, Inc. & a. Supreme Court opinion · February 10, 2012
- 2004-785, APPEAL OF VERIZON NEW ENGLAND, INC. d/b/a VERIZON NEW HAMPSHIRE Supreme Court opinion · December 28, 2005