[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6323010,"mediaKeyId","2343487-6ea7fe100d039406e20d00fc6ba5b67b","parentId",2343487,"title","NH bill would require utilities to plan opt‑in advanced meters; utilities and DOE warn of costs","audioSeconds",84,"startMs",298000,"endMs",382000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343487-6ea7fe100d039406e20d00fc6ba5b67b&start=298&end=382","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343487-6ea7fe100d039406e20d00fc6ba5b67b/thumbnail_298000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6323010/New-Hampshire/NH-bill-would-require-utilities-to-plan-optin-advanced-meters-utilities-and-DOE-warn-of-costs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323010-17111f8d7856072cb392b80bab692da4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775426799&Signature=m9iQByGDN~9p43E-tW3PTIU-~oWJLWmQAw~Xx4wDlQ-7SyRY9iFYYPn1EpxVmNyGR~DIJqQuTaQMnwANMrjhAOG2Ec~3EYzZ8OW-JB~OHUGSO7DhcId9fZ-YY54twEb-ktzCFG67mzikJsuedODRPVPTRJR9KR1HXMpdlFbDtmYWmFohLu0eY8BFTRpldA94z5s84U3asoRralY32pyGBrJrk62mKR0RNSPojgiTuHuoKbRv6GxgNk5cPXwjyhTPoAB9x0QVOEjTDJTyPTmp9wyO5~2ezWf021NleKA66bvtjihHiaoiRO7CAlEhsdcClw7oc8n186Adsv1QzELwNQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Kat McGee (Hillsborough 35) introduced House Bill 692 on Feb. 18, asking utilities to deliver to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) a timeline and plan for making “advanced” interval metering available to customers on an opt‑in basis.

McGee told the Science, Technology and Energy Committee the bill is intended to speed up access to metering that competitive suppliers and community power programs need to offer time‑sensitive pricing and other services. The bill would require utilities that have not implemented interval and advanced meter functionality to file a plan by Nov. 1, 2026, that shows how remaining meters could be converted and how any incremental cost would be allocated to the opting customer rather than shifted to all ratepayers.

Why it matters: Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and interval meters record consumption in sub‑hourly intervals and enable features such as time‑of‑use charging, transactive energy and more granular settlement. Supporters say the meters are a precondition for competitive suppliers, community aggregations and distributed energy resources to provide new rate designs and services that can lower costs and smooth peaks.

Key debate points
- Cost and back‑office work: Eversource and Unitil told the committee that the meter is only one component of AMI. Michael Licata of Eversource said meters, communications networks, meter data management (“head end”) and customer information/billing systems would all require upgrades before AMI functionality can be realized. Eversource’s most recent feasibility work cited system replacement scenarios with total costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
- Pace of replacement: McGee and others said utilities already replace a few thousand meters a year and that, by using forward‑compatible meters and cloud‑based interim data services, migration could happen incrementally. Witnesses from vendors described subscription cloud services and cellular‑meter options that can be deployed on smaller groups of customers for low annual per‑meter fees in pilot settings.
- Who pays: The Department of Energy (DOE) said it was neutral but raised cost‑shifting concerns. DOE staff suggested that if customers opt in, the cost responsibility needs to be clear; the department also questioned whether the PUC or DOE is the appropriate body to direct utilities on the matter.

What the bill would do
House Bill 692 would:
- Require utilities regulated by the PUC to file a plan by Nov. 1, 2026, setting out a timeline to enable interval/advanced metering available to customers on an opt‑in basis.
- Allow recovery of prudently incurred incremental costs associated with customers who request advanced meters, and direct the PUC to provide timely cost recovery.

Context and numbers cited in the hearing
- Eversource testimony: company estimates for a full AMI conversion in prior filings ranged in the hundreds of millions of dollars; an example feasibility study cited totals in the roughly $394M–$473M range (company estimate, testified).
- Meter replacement pace: utilities reported replacing roughly 5,000–13,000 meters a year in filings and testimony; New Hampshire’s total customer meters were cited in the hundreds of thousands.
- Vendor pilot pricing: a cloud‑based subscription data service was described in testimony as costing on the order of a few dollars per meter per year in a small‑scale deployment (vendor example in testimony).

Meeting takeaways
The committee heard technical and policy tradeoffs: sponsors and competitive suppliers pressed for faster access to interval data to enable competitive offerings, while utilities and DOE emphasized system‑level costs, the need for coordinated back‑office upgrades and risk of cost shifting. The public hearing closed with the bill subject to the committee’s further deliberation; no committee vote on HB 692 occurred during this meeting.

Ending: If the PUC or the Legislature moves to require faster AMI adoption, the debate at the hearing shows that the practical constraint is not the physical meter alone but the software, settlement and billing systems that must be upgraded or supplanted before the meters’ full functionality can be used.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Science, Technology and Energy (02/18/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Kat McGee introduced HB 692, which would require utilities to file plans by Nov. 1, 2026, to offer interval and advanced meters to customers on an opt‑in basis.","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},6322994,"Statewide energy data platform debate stalls; committee moves governance bill to ITL, advances related PUC study",939,7532000,8471000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343487-6ea7fe100d039406e20d00fc6ba5b67b&start=7532&end=8471","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343487-6ea7fe100d039406e20d00fc6ba5b67b/thumbnail_7532000.jpg","/articles/6322994/New-Hampshire/Statewide-energy-data-platform-debate-stalls-committee-moves-governance-bill-to-ITL-advances-related-PUC-study","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322994-52cc6c4d251a1da0f2f77f86acce9585/orig.mp4?Expires=1775426799&Signature=a2M3yYZ4z1U5j1QKqnNGvOlwJRwEyL~v0XQyPj2X6CrEHPF-sjH-3pZh79Ecp4IdtNhB980aoY3rG7h~~ZDxkaoUgiTMoDi8f2swO9-v6P-nCBXWx6KA4pzTQ3YvEockYxsw44dwOZ4PkMiMBqzhfhsfWY0afNCL4MTcak1OTOMP8kM1a2nx1I5che7aCinYcmjlF5FfwTeImFDqMA9eo5sBWIStFBS8jNOsOO-sW-cMJViSvGtzmnnASGTGyBL-KuYdjG5KUfQFJoieXXPNa38h1JZpQtAWxZQntmW8zBhiRKjDAO8N06iSAp0A8-y-~3US~xocHuMdSFgNY986Qw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Five years of work to design a statewide energy data platform was the subject of a heated exchange Feb. 18, with proponents saying the platform would give New Hampshire a single, standardized source of meter, generator and grid data and opponents pointing to procurement, governance and cost questions.

What proponents said
Representative Kat McGee, who helped shepherd the project, and Community Power Coalition witnesses said a uniform data model and API‑based platform would let planners, suppliers and communities analyze aggregate usage, run cost‑benefit models and speed market‑enabling reforms such as load settlement, distributed resource valuation and grid modernization. Supporters referenced a Dunsky analysis (not yet completed) and other state examples and said a requested RFP would produce firm cost estimates.

Concerns and DOE comments
The Department of Energy said it was neutral on the specific governance bill and urged the committee to review voluminous materials already filed in active PUC proceedings. DOE staff also flagged the question of whether governance decisions should remain with the PUC or be shifted to a new governing council; the department noted cost controls and statutory authority issues.

Committee action
In executive session the committee adopted the motion “ought to pass” on House Bill 723 (the project funding/authorization measure) by roll call, 10–8. A closely related governance bill, HB 681, was moved to “Inexpedient to Legislate” (ITL) 14–4, reflecting committee concern about changing governance while the RFP and procurement work were still underway. Committee members who opposed ITL asked for more time to see RFP cost numbers by summer before killing statutory changes.

Why it matters
A statewide platform aims to make meter and grid data accessible for planning, equity analysis, and market transactions. Proponents say similar platforms in other states have helped with DER integration and avoided duplicated vendor work; critics worry about governance, procurement complexity and potential duplication of work already unfolding in PUC dockets.

Ending
The committee vote split the issue: the authorization/technical project advanced while statutory governance changes were tabled. The record shows strong local interest and technical complexity that will require additional procurement transparency and regulatory coordination before a statutory fix is adopted.","A multi‑year push to establish a statewide energy data platform drew support from community power and municipal witnesses and caution from DOE and some legislators.",{"_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},6322999,"Committee hears bill to let batteries participate in net metering; DOE neutral, pilots cited as proof of concept",4470,888000,5358000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343487-6ea7fe100d039406e20d00fc6ba5b67b&start=888&end=5358","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343487-6ea7fe100d039406e20d00fc6ba5b67b/thumbnail_888000.jpg","/articles/6322999/New-Hampshire/Committee-hears-bill-to-let-batteries-participate-in-net-metering-DOE-neutral-pilots-cited-as-proof-of-concept","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322999-9d33bf7019e94599a70fc55091c358cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1775426799&Signature=YrKt8al7IbOM1cVuuBI7tPv~af9pQ3sEa-eS90sVonNFtZkTB1MVibLE9Azd4uvtPXBhB0AWtxI315ZE-iUnzP7x83FFAlE60z~tSbfiAP8YDPb2MZ2GnezRbqe~Bgq-xS9NU5uu-kjq1W76DlHIslUjqzzLnS5nDHfacz~pGZ~95YtpFoJI99bumFL~r2hjUeeTUx~JmbTYrPBF45Ix1LDYoeraMyyLC0CNo2U919MxnqhMq~nI9jpxo7mecJKwOvAmsBk~Gv~XQz~MhrMZfKOTA8844FY2tXTySZs7S6kTdGSuKpmjmOsUm6OALMfbKoUSQ~OyDyuUOEJmhzvqVA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Tom Corman introduced House Bill 761, which would authorize the Department of Energy to adopt rules and the Public Utilities Commission to approve tariffs that allow customer energy storage systems to participate in net‑metering arrangements.

Sponsor's case
Corman told the committee the measure is narrowly focused: enable storage owners to receive net‑metering compensation when they export energy back to the grid. He said storage is rapidly evolving — batteries are becoming denser, cheaper and safer — and that allowing storage to be valued in net‑metering arrangements would let owners store midday solar and export it at evening peaks, helping flatten load, support reliability and lower wholesale costs.

Support and pilots
The Community Power Coalition, municipal energy committees and Clean Energy New Hampshire supported the bill. Witnesses pointed to pilot projects — including a Liberty Utilities battery pilot that the PUC found cost‑effective — and to local examples of storage programs that can participate in peak reduction programs. One witness cited ISO New England data showing most high‑price shortages were concentrated in relatively few hours; well‑targeted storage dispatch can displace those high‑cost events.

DOE and PUC concerns
Matt Young of the Department of Energy said the department is neutral and raised structural and jurisdictional questions: statutory net‑metering language and PUC rule scopes may need adjustment to implement storage rules; the department noted an energy storage task force bill is moving through the Senate and said coordination would help.

Utility testimony and operational issues
Cooperative and utility witnesses noted implementation complexity. The New Hampshire Electric Cooperative told the committee it had tested an hourly transactive energy rate and abandoned it after a year because billing, device integration and customer understanding proved difficult. Utilities emphasized that integrating storage into billing, settlement and interconnection systems requires careful rulemaking and back‑office work.

Next steps
The committee heard technical details and jurisdictional questions but did not vote on the bill that day. Supporters urged the committee to adopt the statute to clarify roles and accelerate pilots; regulators and utilities recommended coordinated rulemaking and careful pilot expansion before system‑wide changes.

Ending
House Bill 761 framed storage as a practical, near‑term tool to shift energy use and provide local value. The hearing highlighted a common pattern: pilots have shown feasibility, but scaling requires rule changes, meter and settlement capabilities, and careful allocation of costs and responsibilities.","House Bill 761 would direct the Department of Energy and PUC to establish rules and tariffs to allow customer energy storage systems to participate in net‑metering and related retail programs.",{"_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},6323004,"Energy Forward Act aims to open retail market to distributed resources; utilities and DOE raise practical concerns",3277,2924000,6201000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343487-6ea7fe100d039406e20d00fc6ba5b67b&start=2924&end=6201","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343487-6ea7fe100d039406e20d00fc6ba5b67b/thumbnail_2924000.jpg","/articles/6323004/New-Hampshire/Energy-Forward-Act-aims-to-open-retail-market-to-distributed-resources-utilities-and-DOE-raise-practical-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323004-4ee6270e17c5e8b33d66cc6cbaa10a52/orig.mp4?Expires=1775426799&Signature=Xd9Fu7WEI0wFOy5-fsxCxMwt-PjuaAvR5n2w8yiaXc5imxUa0RwEQU6~W89SjvncQKmc6xXJJCHEqolm1D~pwCMmb54r0L3YhU8QsUV-Z2X8rIZkTVh-PBL7cFKq5N20J4ZqGNTunFLe~lSYFtFxlbYqfr2qb90ESqKQrG4EXz2iZJ8thdlL0ShxS92L84CpPpXieH7QFpHvYd~Bdxrlhhfvzh4bLwHjxLB35tKGilFG~rZyOyf49Q5iTdSucnyhcQVX3HQ8f8~Bs-JD0a6KRD2CsssXfmpoVT~oKu86XIsau0GVUBC1d4rBvHWEOW1VUt0PoZATccpH1KO4Y5bj~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Kat McGee introduced House Bill 755, dubbed the New Hampshire Energy Forward Act, as a wide‑ranging package of retail market reforms intended to accelerate use of distributed energy resources (DERs), expand time‑sensitive pricing and enable competitive suppliers and community aggregators to offer advanced services.

The proposal would amend statutory definitions (including “grid modernization”), add a definition for “load reducer” up to 5 MW, and direct changes to metering, billing, data access and load‑settlement procedures so competitive suppliers and community power programs can contract for local generation, storage and demand flexibility.

Why it matters
Supporters — led by the Community Power Coalition of New Hampshire — told the committee the package would remove utility business‑process and data bottlenecks that have kept most residential and small commercial customers locked into flat commodity rates. They argued the changes would unleash private investment in local generation and storage, help flatten system peaks, and allow customers to benefit directly from avoided wholesale, transmission and capacity costs.

Utility and regulator concerns
Eversource, Unitil and the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative said many of the reforms touch systems the utilities do not yet support and would require major upgrades to metering, meter‑data management, customer information and billing systems. Eversource cited feasibility work finding full AMI conversions and system replacement scenarios in the hundreds of millions of dollars and warned that changing settlement approaches and creating a new “load reducer” class could shift costs between customer groups.

The Department of Energy said it was neutral but cautioned the committee that similar issues are already being litigated at the PUC and that the department has questions about cost‑shifting and which entity (DOE or PUC) should lead certain rulemakings. DOE also noted FERC Order 2222 and ISO New England reforms are pressing questions for market access and aggregation.

Support from community power and vendors
The Community Power Coalition (CPCNH) and proponents said clarifying the statutory rules would allow community power programs and competitive suppliers to contract for local projects and to settle exports and load reductions in ways that reflect their system value. Witnesses cited active vendor products for settlement and cloud‑based meter data management that can be implemented incrementally and at lower per‑meter cost for pilots.

Next steps
The committee heard technical and policy testimony but did not take an immediate vote. The bill is likely to require close coordination with ongoing PUC dockets, vendor pilots and additional technical study to produce workable line‑loss and settlement rules.

Ending
HB 755 put at the center of the hearing a persistent tension in modern grid policy: the desire to unlock private investment and competition at the customer edge versus the reality that accurate settlement, billing and distribution system operations depend on expensive, carefully integrated IT and meter networks.","House Bill 755 would require utility and market reforms to let distributed energy resources and aggregators participate more fully in retail price signaling and settlement. Supporters say the bill would clarify rules, improve data and enable competition; utilities warned of large system costs and settlement complexity.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322989,"Committee executive-session results: votes on five energy bills and a resolution (Feb. 18)",952,7470000,8422000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343487-6ea7fe100d039406e20d00fc6ba5b67b&start=7470&end=8422","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343487-6ea7fe100d039406e20d00fc6ba5b67b/thumbnail_7470000.jpg","/articles/6322989/New-Hampshire/Committee-executive-session-results-votes-on-five-energy-bills-and-a-resolution-Feb-18","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322989-19322aed75992584216bcb8638bcf43d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775426799&Signature=ado9fTdv5QMUf8lvtjurkNSczc9aU1yajN9siG40QsbZf0Ixh~bF-OZZMQB45YKQfy61M5nDyrqRbhXdkCWfd9ORlBKkkNVWc-VkIuwAi1kADsF-xfr8UTDr6kalhTFZSFOTgyHMRyBo0iOFFP0jXybmFmGhR0FYKQOWFMQDyct6axuWUAENNX2o2oX5Apme7ObJWPeU1V6B0r1rdqP8zEVJxe30J0Gu~~EnRFmQeolck17-Ul1UqKzgi6u7bdXVC7l~v1I5UwEMEydwXMOZBzqKgFcBgVTUhAjkUXQDpuLD-fdr6RHDor8Js7ZyFsFu3Lo3uBKQmzgsMLtfsPc~tw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the Feb. 18 executive sessions the Science, Technology and Energy Committee took recorded votes on several measures. The committee published roll‑call vote results during the meeting. The main outcomes were:

Votes at a glance
- HB 723 (statewide energy data platform authorization): motion \"Ought to Pass\" adopted, roll call 10–8. Mover: Representative Vereshni; second: Representative Ploge. Majority report assigned to Representative Berejny; minority report to Representative McGee.

- HB 690 (study of participation/withdrawal from ISO New England and strategy options): motion \"Ought to Pass\" adopted, roll call 10–8. Mover: Representative Summers; second: Representative Matson. Majority report assigned to Representative Summers; a minority report was filed.

- HB 681 (governance for the statewide energy data platform): motion \"Inexpedient to Legislate\" (ITL) adopted, roll call 14–4. Mover: Representative Brezhny; second: Representative Schneller. Majority report assigned to Representative Berejny; Representative Korman agreed to prepare a minority report.

- HB 674 (non‑wire alternatives, time‑of‑use and multiyear rate setting): motion \"Inexpedient to Legislate\" (ITL) adopted, roll call 10–8. Mover: Representative Harrington; seconded by Representative Bernardi. Majority report assigned to Representative Harrington; Representative Kaplan to file a minority report.

- HCR 2 (resolution declaring advanced nuclear technology development in the state’s interest): motion \"Ought to Pass\" adopted, roll call 16–2. Mover: Vice Chair Wendy Thomas; second: Representative Nader. Majority report assigned to Vice Chair Thomas; a minority report was requested by Representative Wendy Thomas.

How the votes were reached
The committee’s votes reflect a mix of policy priorities and procedural caution: the panel advanced measures perceived as immediate project authorizations while tabling or returning to ITL those bills that would make statutory governance changes or broad market reforms before further technical and procurement work was complete. Several motions were seconded and debated briefly in executive session before recorded roll calls.

What happens next
The committee assigned majority and minority report authors where noted. Several members said they want additional procurement cost estimates, PUC docket information and technical clarifications prior to any further statutory action. The votes now advance the measures to the clerk with committee recommendations per standard legislative process.","The House Science, Technology and Energy Committee completed executive sessions on Feb. 18 and recorded final committee votes on five bills and one concurrent resolution. The committee advanced some measures and moved others to Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

NH bill would require utilities to plan opt‑in advanced meters; utilities and DOE warn of costs

Statewide energy data platform debate stalls; committee moves governance bill to ITL, advances related PUC study

Committee hears bill to let batteries participate in net metering; DOE neutral, pilots cited as proof of concept

Energy Forward Act aims to open retail market to distributed resources; utilities and DOE raise practical concerns

Committee executive-session results: votes on five energy bills and a resolution (Feb. 18)