[{"_1":2,"_107":-5,"_108":-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",[32,75,85,95],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_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":73},"mediaId",6605581,"mediaKeyId","2985676-1d12b372199d1fe59069dbe9e4bfb598","parentId",2985676,"title","Housing authorities, developers and clean‑energy groups back pilot for community and low‑income customer generators (SB228)","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",16728000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2985676-1d12b372199d1fe59069dbe9e4bfb598&start=16728&end=16728","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2985676-1d12b372199d1fe59069dbe9e4bfb598/thumbnail_16728000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6605581/New-Hampshire/Housing-authorities-developers-and-cleanenergy-groups-back-pilot-for-community-and-lowincome-customer-generators-SB228","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6605581-ea70aa05ccd9810fb87114dee97d34a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770917939&Signature=ehXJJFJwvJ0lE-VgGuQ3mthbXJrq4gSSQC-CSYpU5V2jlRC24o0od9vNdTLIaDlynjgSeXT~mFj8h8G07oGVXBr6BS-Bup4zl2LKWvZp8ZGDE-89FMm9fCroL2N~xG9pa2P3R~tqHyHeEoAZ~WiZvVWBdt-9sQv-uYp4dKYhGxl6rOIII9TasKctmgcYs5OvT8tX2gBLG9PnpujbtD25yw00dfmAFJgR5eqHoprRsc8Xwj5QCSV~EqKq0GLugsZansFmfWfVsU7X5wPGm8OxN3OsgyEXXlm4meh71SV05aSwj1yelNLu5yQ3TBRQ~bVSp69mJnFDk3Jr60G~Z3dtDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-04-14T20:44:12.06Z","article","During the April 14 public hearing on Senate Bill 228 the committee heard broad support from housing authorities, developers, clean‑energy firms and county officials for a pilot program that would increase flexibility for community and low/moderate‑income (LMI) customer generators.

Nut graf: The bill, as amended by the sponsor, would create a pilot that allows customer generators larger than the current 100 kW threshold up to 500 kW (within a capped program) to receive the small‑customer generator compensation, expand the annual program cap (from 6 MW to up to 18 MW under proposed language), and clarify that public housing authorities and certain nonprofit or educational entities qualify as municipal hosts for larger municipal projects.

Who testified and main points

- Senator David Waters (prime sponsor): Described the bill as a measured way to allow better‑sized community solar projects for LMI households, with a limited pilot and reporting to inform whether a separate compensation schedule is needed for the 500 kW tier.

- Andrea Pickett (Portsmouth Housing Authority): Supported the bill as a practical way for housing authorities to pursue appropriately scaled solar projects and noted participation in federal Solar for All funds; she said projects would reduce operating costs and benefit residents.

- Chris Schleier (Elm Grove Companies) and other multifamily developers: Argued that the 100 kW threshold is often too small for multi‑family housing projects and that larger arrays would allow economies of scale and better use of federal incentives.

- Sam Evans Brown (Clean Energy New Hampshire) and Lindsey Burgoyne (Revision Energy): Supported the pilot approach as a measured, incremental change and said it would increase access for low‑ and moderate‑income households while preserving guardrails.

- Josh Elliott (DOE): Stated the department’s neutrality and flagged implementation questions; the DOE asked for clarity around program scope, duration, and administrative processes for running a pilot and for how municipal host definitions would interact with ownership structures used to access tax or grant dollars.

Contested points and technical clarifications

- Administrative scope: DOE highlighted that a pilot should be time‑limited and narrowly scoped; the draft amendment uses a first‑come, first‑serve approach but does not prescribe detailed scoring, reporting deadlines or sunset dates.

- Ownership and eligibility: Witnesses and DOE noted that public housing authorities often use special‑purpose entities (LLCs) to own projects for tax or grant eligibility; the statute’s municipal host language must be sufficiently precise to avoid unintentionally excluding those structures.

Next steps: Sponsor and DOE will work with OLS and stakeholders on final drafting. The committee took public comment and closed the hearing; it will consider the amendment and technical drafting in future work sessions.

Ending: SB228 attracted broad support from housing providers, developers and clean‑energy groups who described a 500 kW pilot as an incremental, practical route to expand community solar benefits to low‑income households while the DOE and others urged careful, time‑limited pilot design and clear administrative rules.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Science, Technology and Energy (04/14/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Public testimony on SB228 supported a pilot program to allow larger community or low/moderate income customer generators (up to 500 kW in pilot) and clarified municipal host eligibility, with housing authorities and developers urging access to net‑metering benefits.","taxTitle","Science, Technology and Energy, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17762,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":42,"_43":78,"_45":78,"_46":79,"_48":80,"_50":81,"_52":82,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6605586,"Businesses and housing advocates urge committee to lift 1 MW cap for industrial/commercial solar; SB106 draws broad support",15446000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2985676-1d12b372199d1fe59069dbe9e4bfb598&start=15446&end=15446","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2985676-1d12b372199d1fe59069dbe9e4bfb598/thumbnail_15446000.jpg","/articles/6605586/New-Hampshire/Businesses-and-housing-advocates-urge-committee-to-lift-1-MW-cap-for-industrialcommercial-solar-SB106-draws-broad-support","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6605586-f9a0061de48f766ec0cb281eea7cfa1f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770917939&Signature=bM0ducSItEoGg0hOfktT~4W2hHE-3Pf7~k-4RBsHnPz69ZjNrnOb~inYYs2nSpiE0M1n5Vl~-Zrn7p6uFnIZsyeglxgIXYbktTuqtioJKw6781RLe3FwoN6XPGP0n9q0cuUZoFapjyOhZlzMKj6Gud05uNmyZINZD6Pn2CHF~u13el1ueHffatzc4VkyGaXJ4NkpViX8PIg8OrRCRocAC6GnmwGlPBvQRdyWdKXsmmAi6XfSRH5b~kMzpLICGNX-WDHMtaJedgrVWE~mMP7zFJoShLo~tmmQZhlUVwT2fWec~hBIQ-OWu3-mObttiWdta0MkDSxh2WPvkGQ9qwAQIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At an April 14 public hearing the Science, Technology and Energy Committee heard extensive testimony in favor of Senate Bill 106, a bill that would raise the cap for renewable installations on industrial and commercial facilities from 1 megawatt to 5 megawatts and provide net‑metering stability for those facilities.

Why it matters: Supporters — including manufacturers, distributors, ski areas, regional bottlers and housing authorities — said higher caps and clearer net‑metering rules are required for large energy users to justify the capital investment. Supporters argued higher self‑generation helps keep businesses competitive, retains jobs and reduces exposure to volatile wholesale electricity prices. Opponents on the record raised reliability and cost‑shifting concerns but did not represent a majority of testimony at this hearing.

Who testified and main points

- Senator Tim Lang (prime sponsor): Framed SB106 as a competitiveness tool for manufacturing and large energy users. He said New Hampshire faces among the highest electricity-price increases in the country and that “Senate Bill 106 helps solve that problem by giving businesses greater control over their energy costs.”

- Mike Skelton, Business & Industry Association: The BIA backed SB106 as “one solution” to make the state more economically competitive; Skelton said the BIA no longer views limited net‑metering expansion as corporate welfare but as a policy to support economic growth and local job retention.

- Russ Greenlaw, Associated Grocers of New England (Pembroke): Described grocery‑distribution operations as high‑load, year‑round facilities (large refrigeration footprints) that would benefit economically from larger arrays; explained operational realities including occasional grid disconnection requests and diesel backup and urged designed policy to let “good actors do good things.”

- Hannah Campbell, The Balsams: The resort testified that a 5 MW allowance would make self‑generation financially viable for a large, year‑round destination resort in the North Country and increase its energy resilience.

- Kyle King, Coca‑Cola Beverages Northeast: Said company is exploring on‑site solar at its Londonderry production site and supported SB106 to unlock larger arrays.

- Jessica Keeler, Ski New Hampshire: Ski areas use significant energy for snowmaking; Keeler said many operations have thin margins and some operators have explored solar in the past but the 1 MW cap often made projects impractical.

- Amy Charbonneau, Continental Paving: A construction/manufacturing speaker described multiple sites across the state where rooftop or site arrays would reduce operating costs and argued that current limits hinder projects that could lower public and private construction costs.

- Chris Peterson and Charles Nickerson (Merrimack County / NH Association of Counties): Testified that municipal/county projects are expected to deliver long‑term savings to taxpayers and that current uncertainties about net‑metering timelines (the 2040 discussion) would significantly affect their payback calculations.

Department of Energy stance: Josh Elliott (DOE) testified that the Department is neutral on SB106 and highlighted drafting and statutory technical questions, including administrative and eligibility issues, but did not oppose the policy direction.

Contested points and concerns

- Reliability and market effects: Representative Harrington and others raised concerns about adding intermittent resources and backup needs; they cited regional reliability analyses and cautioned about overbuilding intermittent generation without suitable firm capacity or storage.

- Cost shifting and incentives: Opponents argued some forms of broad net‑metering expansion can shift costs to other ratepayers. Supporters pointed to the state’s Value of Distributed Energy Resources (VDER) study and argued some distributed generation provides net system value.

Where it stands: The committee closed the public hearing and will weigh testimony along with pending amendment language in subsequent work sessions. Sponsors were asked to prepare draft committee report language and amendments for upcoming meetings.

Ending: SB106 drew broad support from businesses and public entities that said higher net‑metering caps and clearer rules are necessary for large users to finance on‑site renewable resources; committee staff and the DOE flagged drafting and administrative clarifications to be addressed as the bill advances.","Testimony at the April 14 public hearing supported Senate Bill 106 to raise the allowable renewable installation cap for industrial and commercial facilities from 1 MW to 5 MW and extend net‑metering protections, with industry, grocery wholesalers, manufacturers, and housing authorities testifying in favor.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":42,"_43":88,"_45":88,"_46":89,"_48":90,"_50":91,"_52":92,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":93,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":94,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6605590,"Committee delays final action on net‑metering bill after debate over ISO market participation, grandfathering and market‑revenue language",15033000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2985676-1d12b372199d1fe59069dbe9e4bfb598&start=15033&end=15033","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2985676-1d12b372199d1fe59069dbe9e4bfb598/thumbnail_15033000.jpg","/articles/6605590/New-Hampshire/Committee-delays-final-action-on-netmetering-bill-after-debate-over-ISO-market-participation-grandfathering-and-marketrevenue-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6605590-a63e2a678dca1c20f31744dd45b57721/orig.mp4?Expires=1770917939&Signature=Sam5-S57dq0-6~BECrIFXrjZRnJ~sa8nYOOnVPkXZGV2ZP7Iw40QD4GMXiF4EyMf15DeQO2D5vuUTEjJeyTMh7yIKYnZl48wLDf5Msa-dNSk2Kf9C84ZNeLTyZ1-514GjLIhxThL9EwlUSpJowgMcKhIa7Qgiyx0RGLF6hOOp~6lJ6x03dRwE5gqDxJJADKKVH6VzmfInQGL16PokVoneGjk6UGzMk-itD3ITpIpAdpTIfDFpPbDqHd3-5DGngrvCoBWah0BsuCHFmcpH8050~T1SSKd7dK5XmoEGhSNhzvVn0A3S0erGrNUmYkq-hTjJYBzS4716jBqD8bFcdYnlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Science, Technology and Energy Committee resumed work on Senate Bill 232 (clarifying certain net‑metering terms) on April 14 and postponed final action after extended debate over language governing small hydro generators, ISO New England participation, and protections for existing net‑metered customers.

Nut graf: Members pressed for clearer statutory wording to avoid unintended regulatory conflicts. The committee discussed language to require renewable generators that participate in ISO New England electricity markets to transfer market revenues associated with capacity and ancillary services to the interconnected distribution utility for eligibility for net‑metering tariffs; members also debated whether and how to codify protections (\"grandfathering\") for customers operating under existing net‑metering tariffs through 2040.

Key details and debate

- Small hydro and ISO participation: Testimony from Heidi Kroll of the Granite State Hydropower Association and other witnesses described how small hydro resources usually either sell into ISO New England or participate in net metering, but not both simultaneously. Representative Korman asked for explicit statutory language to prevent “double‑dipping.” Kroll told the committee she believed the PUC rules and tariffs already contain checks and balances and said, “I do think that there are checks and balances around that.”

- Market‑revenue transfer language: Committee members considered an amendment that would require renewable energy generators participating in ISO New England markets to \"transfer market revenues associated with any energy capacity and ancillary services entitlements…to the interconnected electric distribution utility\" for the term of their participation as customer generators. Representative McGee and others argued the provision would provide stability to existing small generators that rely on current net‑metering terms, while some members cautioned that statutory restrictions could tie regulators’ hands if future circumstances required changes.

- Grandfathering and the 2040 question: Several members noted existing statutory language and PUC orders, including the net‑metering tariff discussions that led to assurances through 2040 for certain tariffs. Representative Bernardi and others warned that attempts to statutorily lock in specific regulatory outcomes could create conflicts with the PUC or lead to litigation; members flagged that changing law is the proper tool for policy changes rather than unduly constraining the commission.

Next steps: Committee members asked the Office of Legislative Services to merge competing amendment text (the market‑revenue transfer language and alternate grandfathering language) into a single amendment for committee review. The executive session on SB232 was recessed pending that consolidated amendment.

Quotes from the record

- Representative McGee on why some statutory language is sought: “What these guys are asking for is the stability to understand that if they're already in operation as of that January date in 2025…that under the net metering tariff that says now it will be in effect until 02/1940, that's about as much stability as you can ask for in the energy market.”

- Heidi Kroll (Granite State Hydropower Association) on double‑dipping concerns: “I do think that there are checks and balances around that.”

Why this matters: SB232 would adjust how distributed generators that also participate in regional wholesale markets are treated under state net‑metering law. That balance affects utility billing, wholesale market interaction, and economic viability of some small hydropower and community generators.","Committee debated changes to SB232 addressing small hydro, ISO market participation and protections for existing net‑metering participants; members asked OLS to merge competing amendment language and recessed action.",{"_33":96,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":97,"_41":98,"_43":99,"_45":100,"_46":101,"_48":102,"_50":103,"_52":104,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":105,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":106,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6605595,"Science, Technology and Energy Committee adopts four measures, tables one; votes recorded",27,7805000,7832000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2985676-1d12b372199d1fe59069dbe9e4bfb598&start=7805&end=7832","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2985676-1d12b372199d1fe59069dbe9e4bfb598/thumbnail_7805000.jpg","/articles/6605595/New-Hampshire/Science-Technology-and-Energy-Committee-adopts-four-measures-tables-one-votes-recorded","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6605595-52c7ac0042df97025484d2c5d6795b4b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770917939&Signature=H2u7hBhWUPbm4voS2GryhDLAuD-k6TuPm47-YSgnp2GfETmJdbIWAqE4uuVRS5kay6Yx-5Ad0hhkiH7hoBQLjOhX6ZjSNjRcMJVD43xA-W8~CF~L21yYWAZ0WUEHo61uhFDW4g8xpiOaIax8bBvH0fwloRGL1g-o--yhO4mdX3X4ROaO3cHflM5xRQgunAy8EgrKNp5sBcpk-7M6sEQ2RVPZXoj4GMdAe~EYAbrNM6J6xXf3l-CChweroGJqCTNfEpcy~0V4gaxiUShBDDSxW~KzFDIsn~ntSkQs9yehQOhgjvRTVfqPRSzuUBjltY8C6EHcC1vsfjMd5QHW2wxH6w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Science, Technology and Energy Committee voted on four senate bills during an April 14 committee meeting, adopting amendments and recommending passage on several measures while recommending “inexpedient to legislate” for another.

The committee adopted an amendment and voted “ought to pass as amended” for Senate Bill 65 (stormwater management for solar arrays), voted ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on Senate Bill 230 (electric utility restructuring/advanced nuclear investment language), approved Senate Bill 233 as amended (adds reliability/storage work into the grid modernization advisory group), and adopted Senate Bill 108 as amended (technical changes to Department of Energy-related language). The committee recessed an executive session on Senate Bill 232 for further amendment work.

Why it matters: The votes move several energy and grid-related matters forward toward the House calendar and the consent calendar — including cleanup language and a retooled approach to a new storage/reliability study — while rejecting language the committee judged unnecessary or risky for ratepayers.

What the committee did

- Senate Bill 65 (stormwater rules for solar arrays): Representative McGee offered amendment 1594H to clarify that projects located within shoreland areas (pursuant to RSA 483‑B) would not be eligible for the abbreviated “permit by notification” and instead would proceed through the standard alteration-of-terrain permit review process. The committee adopted the amendment and then voted “ought to pass as amended.” The roll call recorded 18 yes, 0 no.

- Senate Bill 230 (electric utility restructuring / advanced nuclear wording): The committee recommended ITL on SB 230 by voice and roll call after members concluded that earlier statutory and bill language (notably changes enacted elsewhere in House Bill 710) made the sections redundant or risky for ratepayers. Motion carried, 18–0.

- Senate Bill 233 (energy reliability and large-scale storage task force): Instead of creating a new legislative task force the committee adopted amendment 1592H to assign the work to the existing Grid Modernization Advisory Group and voted “ought to pass as amended,” 18–0.

- Senate Bill 108 (Department of Energy): The committee adopted amendment 1585H that removes a contested Section 2 (a provision the PUC had objected to) and then voted “ought to pass as amended,” 18–0.

What remains pending

- Senate Bill 232 (net metering clarifications / small hydro and ISO participation): Committee members discussed substitute language and market‑revenue transfer concepts. The committee recessed the executive session to allow the Office of Legislative Services to merge competing amendment text; the item was set to resume at a later date.

A note on procedure and next steps: Several of the bills advanced without recorded objections and were slated for the consent calendar; committee members asked bill sponsors to file committee reports by the deadlines the chair specified. The committee also scheduled further drafting and OLS work for SB 232 before final action.","The committee met April 14 for a work session and executive sessions and voted on multiple senate bills. Four bills were advanced to the consent calendar; one was recommended ITL; another remains under revision.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Housing authorities, developers and clean‑energy groups back pilot for community and low‑income customer generators (SB228)

Businesses and housing advocates urge committee to lift 1 MW cap for industrial/commercial solar; SB106 draws broad support

Committee delays final action on net‑metering bill after debate over ISO market participation, grandfathering and market‑revenue language

Science, Technology and Energy Committee adopts four measures, tables one; votes recorded