[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6342307,"mediaKeyId","2255352-07523514242dd24634d01985127a2729","parentId",2255352,"title","Lawmakers weigh centralized energy data platform: governance, costs and a pending RFP split panel of supporters and skeptics","audioSeconds",8234,"startMs",3443000,"endMs",11677000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255352-07523514242dd24634d01985127a2729&start=3443&end=11677","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255352-07523514242dd24634d01985127a2729/thumbnail_3443000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6342307/New-Hampshire/Lawmakers-weigh-centralized-energy-data-platform-governance-costs-and-a-pending-RFP-split-panel-of-supporters-and-skeptics","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342307-1f34c47865a09307f80732de9a6709c6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445442&Signature=fyOYhqz4Eb0UHhgQfRRqQtoC6lIfz-ZP~22Xo-PsTrOeqEEuYU2sHbQ8Hrcyg-0hvjTQJXmFmxcskVvrm8DxHHR8xOCrrg4RTC9riULiCQzrgzuMdPX1Uytav8Nt4069ua0VbjWshV-eBsRDVL~R~NiczTfFdnXo-uiDgU3Kiy1b6E6S9TUbOxguTzCn4ScviS4GpSTjKNVNM22m6XDkMqLgtf~H5zFjza1UN3FxTlf7tgvOyOZazOQtHMK4Lrk22In8QKJwDuQMvtuhlPBwkXIGlb1S-6zdZGeI3dazS8mLIV9AOoij0SJ7HWK8Gkbj91x3D76Drq6XCGkQ5HzdIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives Committee","date","2025-02-10T00:00:00Z","article","Lawmakers spent two sessions on the proposed statewide multi‑use online energy data platform: Representative Kat McGee opened a hearing on HB 681, which would update statute to reflect a governance council model, and later Representative Lex Berezny introduced HB 723, a repeal petition that would remove the statutory requirement for the platform.

Representative McGee told the committee the platform’s technical and governance requirements were largely complete and that the governance council — composed of utilities, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Consumer Advocate and other stakeholders — had drafted a request for proposals (RFP) for vendors. She said the council is poised to issue an RFP that will produce firm build costs needed to complete a cost/benefit analysis.

Consumer Advocate Don Kreese and others argued the platform could help residents and municipalities by enabling third‑party services and by producing a single, standardized source of usage data. Kreese described the governance council as having worked productively in the past and stressed that his office would object if the DOE or PUC repudiated the project outright; he also urged preserving PUC review authority for prudence and used‑and‑useful determinations.

The Department of Energy testified that it is neutral on HB 681 but raised procedural objections: the bill would shift final fiscal authority for the platform to a private, non‑public governance council and remove the PUC’s statutory role in reviewing whether platform costs are reasonable for recovery from ratepayers. DOE staff said that under current law the PUC has authority to determine whether the platform costs recovered from customers are “unreasonable and not in the public interest,” and that the governance council’s bylaws currently treat its deliberations as non‑public until filed with the PUC. DOE said the council’s approach reduces transparency and could effectively “deem” expenditures prudent without independent regulatory review; DOE urged caution and said the agency might need access to non‑public materials to complete a full review.

Unitil, one of the state’s utilities and the governance council’s technical manager, said it has worked to shape a narrowly scoped “minimum viable product” RFP, and that the utilities’ IT staff have donated significant time to produce technical requirements. Unitil warned only that a final cost/benefit analysis should inform any decision; several speakers urged the committee to retain the bill until the RFP returns firm pricing.

Consumer, municipal and community energy advocates described concrete user stories: an example was aggregating metered usage for a multifacility municipal owner without requiring distribution of each tenant’s private data; the platform would also simplify benchmarking, program evaluation, and could support pay‑for‑performance energy efficiency and community‑scale programs. Supporters pointed to the Dunsky market evaluation and a draft cost/benefit analysis filed in the PUC docket, which estimated multi‑year benefits in the low‑to‑tens of millions under some scenarios but acknowledged that final numbers depend on actual vendor bids.

Opponents of the platform or of statutory changes warned of risks. The DOE and some committee members highlighted concern that statutory changes could strip regulatory safeguards, reduce public transparency and allow private governance council actions to become binding without adequate PUC oversight. The transcript shows the DOE placed an estimated range — $4.6 million to $7.0 million — on utility back‑end work to make systems interoperable and an ongoing operations range of roughly $272,000 to $416,000 annually, figures the DOE said informed its fiscal review.

Representative McGee asked that the committee wait for RFP returns and a completed cost/benefit analysis before making final statutory changes. Representative Berezny and others filed HB 723 — a repeal — arguing the platform lacked demonstrated economic viability and had been turned down twice for federal grant funding. The committee did not take immediate action on either bill; many witnesses encouraged retention until the RFP and a complete cost/benefit analysis are available.

The record includes detailed PUC docket references (docket DE19197) and many technical filings. Several witnesses urged legislative clarity about what is a public body decision and what remains subject to PUC prudence review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Science, Technology and Energy (02/10/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers heard competing views on whether New Hampshire should complete and enshrine a utility‑led governance structure for a statewide energy data platform (HB 681) or repeal the platform requirement (HB 723); supporters said the hub would standardize and democratize meter data, while DOE and others warned statutory changes could remove regulatory safeguards and reduce transparency.","taxTitle","Science, Technology and Energy, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17762,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342312,"PUC and utilities flag technical tensions in House Bill 674 on nonwire alternatives and time‑of‑use rates",377,3023000,3400000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255352-07523514242dd24634d01985127a2729&start=3023&end=3400","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255352-07523514242dd24634d01985127a2729/thumbnail_3023000.jpg","/articles/6342312/New-Hampshire/PUC-and-utilities-flag-technical-tensions-in-House-Bill-674-on-nonwire-alternatives-and-timeofuse-rates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342312-664cb231459c7e9ff29fac8c0db81c8d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445442&Signature=DBIq77KFoN4pzJkD9GX3kZJJG0R6GZ9YSKq2DcRxayO3iWkrPiSksgoUN2U4yRAsJ78789N5lmIjBNAYHE0kIAjGuH6lANzfbNwO~wh2nNkE~5yD3Y9GQXOTXmCuZK69Bi6ec0Mvm7ZBm8LYNU8KSNtwJqJ4ueVv3FEq7Wc5p1mTvaGt350PW3ujyG6p8b0vKdWidfHlEKABLfhZ07OkuvZReYBd68UMeoteIrdSX6HlAE1jUpzcHiLmfXKmTPeKmtn4DJVBMF8rJCbFK3zBpHkrO9q2kZc0Yb~MN~GkP9XQbl-5Z8USmbknngxYy7OFRF2W~e-xcj7kqG9JXi0HBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Kaplan introduced House Bill 674 FN as a broad vehicle to examine utility reform, including non‑wire alternatives, time‑of‑use tariffs and multiyear rate settings. Kaplan said the bill was intended to launch discussion and ideally be retained as a bipartisan study vehicle.

Matt Young, an attorney with the New Hampshire Department of Energy, urged patience and said the Department had several concerns with the bill but was prepared to yield time if the sponsor preferred to carry the measure into committee study rather than push a floor vote.

Alexander Bridal of the Public Utilities Commission told the committee that part C of Roman III of the bill contains a drafting problem: the bill would appear to assign the Department of Energy and the PUC shared authority to “set rate cases” while actual rate setting is an adjudicatory function of the PUC. Bridal also defended the current six‑month default service procurement cycle, saying it makes supply procurement responsive to market conditions and warned that a five‑year default service cycle proposed by the measure could leave ratepayers exposed to multi‑year market shifts.

Representatives of Eversource said the utility was grateful to Representative Kaplan for engaging them but that the bill contained provisions that raised concerns. Eversource cited recent statutory progress on integrated distribution planning and existing requirements for non‑wire alternatives, and urged more stakeholder work on the details rather than immediate passage.

Witnesses did not request a committee vote at the hearing; Representative Kaplan said he would welcome the bill being retained for study.","A brief public hearing on HB 674 FN drew PUC and utility attention to a structural tension: the bill would require fair and reasonable time‑of‑use tariffs while also proposing a five‑year default service rate‑setting cycle, a combination witnesses said is difficult to reconcile.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342318,"Lumber, forestry and school officials urge lawmakers not to strip thermal renewable credits; critics call program a hidden subsidy",4656,301000,4957000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255352-07523514242dd24634d01985127a2729&start=301&end=4957","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255352-07523514242dd24634d01985127a2729/thumbnail_301000.jpg","/articles/6342318/New-Hampshire/Lumber-forestry-and-school-officials-urge-lawmakers-not-to-strip-thermal-renewable-credits-critics-call-program-a-hidden-subsidy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342318-c5b7975a2fc3ce4c3f0a7d554af641cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445442&Signature=GhIEgPn-jAfTdFt4Te74H1HTd6kcoZYrxU9KHEHmhxwSe1AQHnRor43X226nnYJdInL02FXAoY3RFKrGmJxr6NbAyFrd5SmtjlYl9B2jIn1Nuk7sjXYonXi6~XeRSIIMpVJK~LksTzgnM7g2o0TrnEXRUn44WsWtimSlvj6rLGyuAeO-~CSZGPsKi76B~RFF1Y4UP0PamJEkGdM6haPhYQaIG8WcgWE4TInu3xvnld-iXOMVk~bH0upDK9zYqoFEnGNjjsy7YWu5slhxsxG6O2aHFV7B0vTlXLT3EDF1ILh6-vX2w3~OcZJ8~M6MBEfkJGMC3qVwMVtsWPje57fxeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative John Harrington reopened a continuation of the public hearing on House Bill 567 FN, which would eliminate certain renewable‑energy classifications that currently allow heat generated from wood and other thermal sources to earn renewable energy credits. Harrington described the thermal credits as “one of the worst examples of government” and said they amount to a hidden subsidy baked into electric rates.

The hearing drew more than a dozen witnesses who either backed or opposed the bill. Jason Stock, executive director of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, testified in opposition, saying HB 567 would do more than change thermal credits: “It completely eliminates class 3, which are the existing biomass plants, which do produce electricity,” he said, adding that the change would threaten local jobs, taxes and forest‑product markets.

Foresters and industry witnesses offered technical and economic details meant to counter the bill’s critics. Forester Charlie Niebling told the committee that modern wood‑heating and combined heat‑and‑power projects in New Hampshire currently total about 57 megawatts of installed capacity and that several projects displace large volumes of imported fuel oil or propane — Niebling cited examples of projects that would reduce heating oil or propane use by tens of thousands of gallons per year. He and other industry witnesses said those projects keep fuel dollars in local economies and support loggers and sawmills.

Manufacturers, installers and municipal customers described how REC revenues factor into project finances. Installer Mark Froling said most of the T‑REC proceeds go back to the public entities that host systems — citing examples, he said a single school district currently receives several thousand dollars annually in T‑REC payments that are used for operations and to pay down capital costs. Several witnesses warned that removing T‑REC revenue would force schools and counties to replace that income with taxpayer dollars or forego projects.

Proponents of keeping thermal in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) argued the program spurred innovation and localized renewable fuel use. Witnesses pointed to sawmills and manufacturers — cited in testimony as Durgin & Kroll and Bridal Lumber, among others — that have invested in wood boilers and in some cases combined heat‑and‑power to reduce purchased fossil fuels. Jason Stock said USDA forest inventory data show the state’s forest growth currently outpaces removals, a point used to argue for sustainable wood supply for thermal use.

Those opposing the thermal classification said burning wood produces carbon dioxide and that electricity ratepayers should not be subsidizing wood‑fuel projects that principally deliver thermal energy rather than electricity. Representative Harrington pressed that electric customers are unaware they may be paying higher rates to support thermal credits and urged either a tax‑funded subsidy or removal of the program.

Department of Energy regulators and others acknowledged program complexities. Witnesses noted past PUC and legislative work to define and verify thermal generation, that the RPS has multiple “classes” (class 1, class 3) for different resources, and that recent rulemaking intended to expand meter and verification options for smaller systems is still in progress. Several speakers asked the committee to avoid changes that would destabilize investments made on the basis of existing law.

The hearing record included repeated requests from the industry side for a measured approach that maintains incentives while exploring verification and efficiency standards for thermal systems. Critics continued to press for transparency on how costs flow to electric bills.

The committee did not take action on HB 567 at the hearing; testimony will remain in the record for the committee’s later consideration.","A lengthy public hearing on House Bill 567 FN produced sharply divided testimony: timber and local industry representatives said state thermal renewable energy credits (T‑RECs) support jobs, local fuel markets and school budgets, while critics, led by Rep. Harrington, called T‑RECs a disguised subsidy buried in electric bills.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342303,"Votes at a glance: committee adopts ITL or other motions on five bills during executive sessions",3231,7337000,10568000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255352-07523514242dd24634d01985127a2729&start=7337&end=10568","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255352-07523514242dd24634d01985127a2729/thumbnail_7337000.jpg","/articles/6342303/New-Hampshire/Votes-at-a-glance-committee-adopts-ITL-or-other-motions-on-five-bills-during-executive-sessions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342303-2e2c25c879b02fb3323001788b09a28c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770445442&Signature=ZNYfQm7HHtulA9Od2fZrX64jhZ4W6EL8sXQe95hjKgkpPDu4D7uhrdSfWiDBKmmZ-iypoO~8YjPjLVF7SiV6eUTAT3m8TWZP7I3SmwKzNajfVAgAfef4e1Raplq-OCzMQbeS1MgkTUH1fgWb9Y3ZWcyZzyixOr2NzpBk6qkp7FivCWgfa9S8YiwUDk3EaVPxtwWJkynh4Kt1bTkg~vUX3Elu0lm9G20B9endkJhoqbg-nacNeuZtWI9i3NtU1uwH0E9HwK4w3UjOdUBc6uvjF~QZo4UM7p9lhORGHpRoV87wFL7iOKrb10WNND3nlwlhu7QMdQYPsWrbY04RHjgYuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee held executive sessions and recorded formal committee actions on multiple bills. The roll calls and outcomes were recorded on the transcript; this summary lists each formal action, the stated motion, and the committee tally.

- HB 575 FN — Prohibiting offshore wind energy infrastructure: Motion adopted — ITL (inexpedient to legislate). Rationale given by the committee leadership cited constitutional and federal preemption concerns, potential litigation risk and redundancy with previous legislation. Vote: 16 yes, 1 no.

- HB 654 FN — Allow small customer generators to participate in group net metering: Motion adopted — ITL. Committee leadership said the Department of Energy and PUC opposed the bill citing possible double‑dipping and procurement complications. Vote: 12 yes, 5 no.

- HB 541 FN — Establish committee to study energy and telecommunications infrastructure survivability and resiliency: Motion adopted — ITL. Committee members said federal and state agencies and existing industry programs already cover much of the proposed scope and recommended avoiding duplicative study. Vote: 17 yes, 0 no.

- HB 224 FN — Amendments to Renewable Energy Fund provisions: Adopted as amended (OTPA) — The committee adopted amendment 2025‑0288h, which would rebate remaining REF monies in excess of administrative costs to retail electric ratepayers, while preserving some funding for the Office of Offshore Wind Industry Development and Energy Innovation. Final committee motion: OTPA as amended. Vote: 10 yes, 7 no.

- HB 460 FN — Utility investments in distributed energy resources: Motion adopted — ITL. The committee majority said the Public Utilities Commission is conducting a detailed analysis and legislative change is premature. Vote: 10 yes, 8 no.

These motions were each recorded by roll call in the transcript; vote counts above match the committee clerk’s roll calls. The committee prepared majority and, where requested, minority reports for the items that advanced.","During afternoon executive sessions the Science, Technology & Energy Committee voted on several bills. Major outcomes included ITL (inexpedient to legislate) for the offshore wind prohibition and other measures; one bill (HB 224) passed OTPA as amended. The summary lists vote tallies and basic context for each action.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers weigh centralized energy data platform: governance, costs and a pending RFP split panel of supporters and skeptics

PUC and utilities flag technical tensions in House Bill 674 on nonwire alternatives and time‑of‑use rates

Lumber, forestry and school officials urge lawmakers not to strip thermal renewable credits; critics call program a hidden subsidy

Votes at a glance: committee adopts ITL or other motions on five bills during executive sessions