[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6255160,"mediaKeyId","3167441-f919dd8f35c3becf0d5c39776f8f504f","parentId",3167441,"title","Committee divides on net metering expansion; keeps some bills, kills others, and advances a narrow amendment","audioSeconds",4284,"startMs",6444000,"endMs",10728000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3167441-f919dd8f35c3becf0d5c39776f8f504f&start=6444&end=10728","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3167441-f919dd8f35c3becf0d5c39776f8f504f/thumbnail_6444000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6255160/New-Hampshire/Committee-divides-on-net-metering-expansion-keeps-some-bills-kills-others-and-advances-a-narrow-amendment","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6255160-734a3949154e5b18efdd9c519ffe83d9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771106987&Signature=CW~YhGdnWm~90WKRmnOfwWAT5F8-yywA3czrUpYvB2qsRWAIPwT6Kp-zVn9qdkyASDGwByA7NY2yeX64fW4PFwADjxevZ5WEQFOKxRxi15p4cOUQ9pGXdNAxejNmRqLB3ymr8yv7c4U~y9yVkhj-cs-dVJTC3-E-57SQ5tdmFJIQK0-NKZs~E2-t7ljjSvfcasSvbpvJhPlTHdG9vsbOHlK27pv9yvos0iDrl6XV0jVpkWaw3oxoyDZfoDqPW6kBKbzZOLuzgwOrmYjcszS8L4nVQZTR7viqVf7UVq~4x9CrsdiX~iHnsus5hckzzOr11fcFWK4QSJEQoOxXQTXkqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives ","date","2025-04-21T00:00:00Z","article","The Science, Technology and Energy Committee considered several bills that would change how large customer generators and community customer-generation projects participate in net energy metering. Committee action varied across the measures: Senate Bill 106 was retained 10‑8 for further work, Senate Bill 228 was recommended “inexpedient to legislate” (ITL) by a 10‑8 margin, and Senate Bill 232 was reported out as amended (OTPA) by a unanimous 18‑0 vote.

Lawmakers and stakeholders debated three recurring themes: whether expanded net metering shifts unrecovered distribution and transmission costs onto other customers; whether expanding caps or eligibility is necessary to spur private investment in on-site generation; and whether the state needs additional study or pilot programs before enlarging net metering limits.

Representative McGee argued for caution and suggested program design changes to reduce the possibility of cost shifting, including requiring larger customers to consume more of their on‑site generation rather than exporting most of it to the grid. \"So the 33% that's in the bill currently maybe should be closer to a %, or maybe it should be that they use all of the on-site generation that they generate when they're open for business,\" McGee said.

Representative Harrington and others warned about market and reliability impacts if large customer generators are not subject to supplier-like obligations. Harrington cautioned that permitting significant exported generation without operational obligations could “screw things up” for wholesale markets and lead to higher reserve needs.

Other committee members, including Representative Swanson and supporters of the bills, said larger customers face substantial upfront capital costs to install generation and that modest net‑metering reforms could encourage economic development and lower long‑term energy costs for institutions and businesses. They also urged better use of storage to reduce intermittency concerns.

The committee’s votes were procedural and divergent:

- SB106 (relating to customer-generator participation in net energy metering): Chair Bose moved to retain the bill for further work; the committee adopted the motion 10‑8. The retain vote keeps SB106 in committee for additional drafting and stakeholder consultation.

- SB228 (amendment-based pilot to raise caps and expand political-subdivision definitions): The committee voted 10‑8 to recommend ITL. Supporters had introduced an amendment to create a pilot program; opponents remained concerned that expansion could raise costs for other customers and that the Public Utilities Commission’s pending cost‑shift docket should be resolved first.

- SB232 (technical clarifications and limits on customer-market participation): The committee adopted amendment 1602h and then voted 18‑0 to report the bill out as amended (OTPA). The adopted amendment clarifies how participants that are registered in ISO New England markets or listed as market participants interact with net‑metering and related provisions.

Members argued both that New Hampshire’s last comprehensive ‘value of distributed energy resources’ (VDR) study showed only small net cost‑shifts and that case studies from other states show cost‑shifting can grow as solar penetration increases. Several lawmakers asked the PUC to complete and publish market analyses before large statutory changes are adopted. Others noted the presence of community‑scale projects that need scale (3–5 MW) to be financially viable.

The split votes reflect differing priorities: protect existing ratepayers from possible cost transfers versus encourage private investment and community generation that could reduce demand and long‑term costs. The committee retained and ITL’d two bills to allow more study or negotiation; it advanced one clarifying bill (SB232) unanimously after adding language that stakeholders requested.

Decisions recorded during the committee’s executive session matched the votes reported at the end of the day: SB106 retained (10‑8), SB228 ITL (10‑8), and SB232 OTPA as amended (18‑0).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Science, Technology and Energy (04/21/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers split on multiple bills expanding net metering and community customer generation: the committee retained SB106 (10‑8), voted ITL on SB228 (10‑8), and approved SB232 as amended (18‑0). Lawmakers cited uncertainty about cost‑shifting, market impacts and the need for clearer data.","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},6255165,"Committee retains controversial PPA bill after debate on market and ratepayer risks",3849,2495000,6344000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3167441-f919dd8f35c3becf0d5c39776f8f504f&start=2495&end=6344","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3167441-f919dd8f35c3becf0d5c39776f8f504f/thumbnail_2495000.jpg","/articles/6255165/New-Hampshire/Committee-retains-controversial-PPA-bill-after-debate-on-market-and-ratepayer-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6255165-8953251a1174c3aa4a67ccccb12d5ea9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771106987&Signature=U1xZDDgx5Fv4JmZD-mktyedDXvEqp1ghJTNjL-bMZsZ0Ca2b-y6hgZS4gmTd0H4EWVf9wbX6euiz7M6txodoKlo7yQWqKL849WouhduC3rhn5ElvugSXYH9dC4IYNgsN9ZoM7Sa5WIWzGdJygBM-7CTCI3J6Zn2g-WozkqILG9O920HCsGLIfBYmXmZFPLA5vjOrKCJ35rAC-z-zPOCrUykktipLTRN5bazBFzLD8MlKaf6uMzoCW52KQaAYT5TNDx-6goAagtBthkmGrNvdRob6Fn54KrLIm9hh4UmATRXxfHpuSf6PhkduoK83mG22E4SLDDes5K3BiJNKxLpvnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 112, proposed to expand the types of generation that can be procured through long-term purchase power agreements (PPAs) and to add the Department of Energy to the entities that can solicit such agreements, was retained by the Science, Technology and Energy Committee after extensive testimony and debate about market effects and long-term risk to ratepayers.

Proponents described the bill as an enabling tool to reduce price volatility and to provide another procurement option for distribution utilities; critics warned that long-term contracts for existing generators could distort wholesale markets, discourage merchant investment and shift risk to ratepayers.

Senator Kevin Avard, the bill’s prime sponsor, said SB 112 “is designed to expand upon the type of electric generations that can be considered for purchase power agreements under New Hampshire RSA ...” and characterized the measure as “another tool in the toolbox” to address high electric rates. He said the proposal would extend enabling authority for long-term PPAs to a broader set of energy sources and noted it mirrors similar provisions being considered elsewhere.

Dan Phelan, regional policy director for the Department of Energy, testified the department took a neutral stance and said a key difference from recent law is that the bill removes the near-term sunset date for the PPA authority — language he described as creating an open-ended procurement mechanism. \"The bill eliminates the time period ... which is fast approaching,\" Phelan said, warning the change would create a procurement authority without the earlier statute’s time limit.

Representatives of generators and owners emphasized the tool’s potential to provide price stability. Bruce Berkey, representing NextEra Energy Resources (the majority owner of Seabrook Station), called SB 112 “an enabling act” and said PPAs can “bring stability and protect against market volatility.” He also suggested limiting how much of the annual statewide cap one existing resource could consume so that new developers would still have room to compete.

Industry critics and market participants urged caution. Molly Connors of the New England Power Generators Association (NEPGA) said her association opposes the bill. She warned that long-term, out‑of‑market contracts can “undermine the economics of the power plants that don't have a contract” and argued that such contracting risks suppressing wholesale prices and making it harder for merchant plants that rely on competitive markets to recover costs. Connors said those dynamics could reduce investment in needed generation and lead to expensive, untargeted subsidies.

Utility testimony was mixed. Michael Licata of Eversource said his company was neutral: utilities retain discretion about whether to issue solicitations and file contracts for approval, and Eversource preferred clarity on the bill’s language about whether the Department of Energy would act jointly with utilities or independently if the authority were broadened.

Committee members focused questioning on several features: the existing annual megawatt-hour cap (discussed as roughly 2,000,000 MWh, or about 15–20% of New Hampshire load), the length of potential contracts (20 years remains in statute for some contracts), whether adding existing generation would crowd out new resources, and how the Department of Energy’s role would operate in practice.

On procedural action, Representative Bernardi moved that the committee retain SB 112 for further study; Representative Matson seconded. On the roll call the committee adopted the motion to retain by a vote of 10‑8. The bill will remain with the committee for additional work and possible amendment rather than being reported out for a floor vote.

Supporters said the bill could help secure long-term price stability in periods of extreme market volatility; opponents said it risks shifting merchant/market risk back to ratepayers and could depress market prices and investment. The committee’s retain vote reflects those unresolved policy tradeoffs and sets the bill up for further committee-level negotiation in the coming months.","Lawmakers retained Senate Bill 112, which would expand long-term purchase power agreements to a broader set of generation resources and add the Department of Energy to procurement processes; the committee voted 10‑8 to hold the bill for further review.",{"_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},6255169,"Committee backs transferring low-income electric assistance from PUC to Department of Energy",2117,341000,2458000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3167441-f919dd8f35c3becf0d5c39776f8f504f&start=341&end=2458","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3167441-f919dd8f35c3becf0d5c39776f8f504f/thumbnail_341000.jpg","/articles/6255169/New-Hampshire/Committee-backs-transferring-low-income-electric-assistance-from-PUC-to-Department-of-Energy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6255169-b93845fbf12baee55af41223a609e2dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771106987&Signature=fN94IVLwrcvYPeWQAkRlVpqIM3f2Vcaj5QB-ZYvhm8BVkwidKDrXzrkcKIxDRFN9MyVA4uMRibj1Ds2dXcWqeCJ3HvWYjvasUQgyX8FTB624CzMB2ycOiFvrUUmi7WjInLjLi5BkHKcbTm7ocI~nzE3~CcMK8~FoN3FbuS7Rp4YG69lnMD2EYEJH5prbtCO4902LvVfIQKX6iGd6Y1Ho6Coa1AbkddjoAML7k9wxWIXzHHH3E5qCYo67y0c~lf-2q~3Y8DFC9y0PmWdKAYjqF9sSleOiXEn-vWNZM6avEdgD8k-7QHx63YeS8joVYozoehXtZ~UFvtDVB7fkDl-rBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 236, which would transfer administration of New Hampshire’s Electric Assistance Program from the Public Utilities Commission to the New Hampshire Department of Energy, won unanimous committee support on a voice and roll-call vote.

Supporters told the Science, Technology and Energy Committee the change is an administrative cleanup meant to align program oversight and fiscal authority in a single agency and to improve coordination with related household energy programs.

The bill moves the Electric Assistance Program (EAP) — funded by a portion of the system benefit charge — under the Department of Energy’s purview. Proponents argued the department already manages related federally funded programs and the single-agency approach would shorten the current two-step process that requires the PUC to hold adjudicative hearings on EAP adjustments while lacking direct control of the dedicated fund.

Senator Kevin Avard, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee, “SB 236 transfers the control of the electric assistance program from the Public Utilities Commission to the Department of Energy.” He said the bill preserves the program’s funding mechanism and gives the Department of Energy authority over “eligibility, benefits, spending, and ensuring continued support for low income electric consumers.”

Amanda Noonan of the New Hampshire Department of Energy said the EAP provides “very meaningful bill assistance to New Hampshire's most vulnerable households.” She told lawmakers the program serves between “30 and 32,000 households” and that discounts vary “from 5% to 86%” depending on need. Noonan said the fund is supplied through the system benefit charge and that the 1.5-mill cap on the low‑income portion of that charge is set in statute and can only be changed by the Legislature.

Noonan described the EAP fund’s mechanics: participating utilities collect the low‑income portion of the system benefit charge and either pay enrolled customers directly or deposit excess collections into a dedicated EAP fund held by the state treasurer; utilities request payments from the fund when collections fall short. She said that because the PUC lacks direct fiscal authority over the dedicated fund, the current process requires an extra step and associated expenses for adjudicative hearings. “It seems much more efficient for the Department to have oversight and administration of this program,” Noonan said, noting that the Department already administers the federally funded fuel assistance program and that the two programs share an intake and eligibility process.

Donald (Don) Kreese, the state consumer advocate, testified in favor of the bill and said he had worked on a companion bill (SB234) with advocacy groups. “I urge you to report this bill out of committee — ought to pass,” Kreese said, adding that the EAP advisory board has historically reached consensus on program matters and the Department has relevant program-management expertise.

Committee members asked about the fund balance, whether a wait list exists (Noonan said there is no current wait list), and whether the PUC had been consulted (Senator Avard and Noonan said they had not recently engaged the PUC on the bill). Lawmakers also questioned a statutory provision allowing a non‑adjudicative reduction in the charge if a significant balance builds; Noonan said the language dates back to the program’s earlier provisions and is intended to prevent large unspent balances.

On the committee floor, Chair Bose moved “ought to pass” and Vice Chair Wendy Thomas seconded. On a roll-call vote the committee adopted the motion 18-0. The committee placed SB 236 on the consent calendar for further processing.

The bill does not change the statutory cap (1.5 mills per kilowatt-hour) on the low‑income portion of the system benefit charge; that cap remains set by statute and can be changed only by the Legislature. For clarity, 1.5 mills per kilowatt-hour equals $0.0015 per kWh (0.15¢ per kWh).

Looking ahead, the Department of Energy would administer EAP policy decisions in public, non‑adjudicative proceedings with stakeholder comment and would continue to convene the EAP advisory board, which includes utilities, community action agencies, municipal welfare directors and the Office of the Consumer Advocate. The committee’s recommendation will be reported to the full House for consideration.","The Science, Technology and Energy Committee voted 18-0 to recommend Senate Bill 236, which moves administration and fiscal authority for New Hampshire's Electric Assistance Program from the Public Utilities Commission to the New Hampshire Department of Energy.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee divides on net metering expansion; keeps some bills, kills others, and advances a narrow amendment

Committee retains controversial PPA bill after debate on market and ratepayer risks

Committee backs transferring low-income electric assistance from PUC to Department of Energy