In a letter sent to the state’s Public Utilities Commission, an attorney representing the board of the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative argues that a recent call for the utility provider to be investigated is misguided.

Donald Kreis, the state’s consumer advocate, called for an investigation into the NHEC in his own letter to the PUC, dated June 25. Kreis cited recent turmoil on the board — two board members, both female, had resigned due to what they called bullying and sexism on the cooperative’s board — and an apparent preference, at least for recently-elected board chair William Darcy, for “spot” energy purchases rather than longer-term contracts with electricity providers.

“This situation screams out for public scrutiny,” Kreis said at the time.

A few days later, in a letter dated June 28, attorney Elijah Emerson, with the firm Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer, wrote to request the PUC take no action in response to Kreis’ request, “based on the lack of a justification for such an inquiry.”

Emerson noted that at the June 25 NHEC board meeting, two actions taken included setting rates for the period of August to January — “with residential rates lower than proposed by any of the three investor-owned electric utilities for the same rate period” — and offering options for members to choose to have up to 100% of their electricity from renewable sources.

“The fact that NHEC adopted the lowest rates in New Hampshire for non-municipal electric services and provided new renewable options for its members should be a cause for celebration by the consumer advocate and it demonstrates NHEC’s actions are consistent with the Restructuring Policy Principles,” Emerson wrote.

In his own letter, Kreis noted NHEC has historically provided electricity rates that are lower and more consistent, compared with service provided by investor-owned utilities, Emerson pointed out.

Kreis’ concern about “spot” purchasing of electricity, which can offer short-term savings but also exposes members to the potential of price volatility as Kreis described in his June 25 letter, was described by Emerson as an over-reaction to “the board’s discussion of a proposal that would allow a board committee to review the staff’s plan for the rate period before energy purchases were made,” Emerson wrote. “This proposal was ultimately referred to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration.”

Regarding claims of sexism and bullying on the board, Emerson wrote the NHEC “affirms the importance of eliminating sexism and bullying in the workplace — any and all such behavior should be addressed and eliminated expeditiously.” Emerson also noted state laws describing the PUC’s role in regulating utilities does not provide for interference in internal board matters.

“The commission hearing room is simply not the appropriate forum to address such issues,” Emerson wrote. “As the [consumer advocate] acknowledges, those issues have no relevance to the inquiry the commission would need to make under RSA 374-F:4, XII. They are not implicated in any way by the Restructuring Policy Principles and cannot be a basis for imposing additional regulation on NHEC.”

Daniel Goldner, chair of the Public Utilities Commission, did not return several requests for comment.