The Science, Technology and Energy Committee voted 16-1 in executive session to refer Senate Bill 112 for interim study after a lengthy work-session debate about the bill's scope and potential ratepayer impacts.

What the bill would do: SB 112 would authorize electric distribution utilities to enter purchased-power agreements (PPAs) and includes language to allow procurement specifically for "advanced nuclear resources" and, as amended in committee discussion, existing resources that already supply energy to ISO New England markets. The committee's draft amendment (299h) would define "advanced nuclear reactor" by reference to the federal statutory definition and reserve up to 1,000,000 megawatt‑hours of PPA procurements for advanced nuclear resources as a component of the broader program described in the bill.

Concerns raised by members: Representative Harrington and others warned the bill could create a two-tiered market and expose ratepayers to significant long-term costs if utilities are required or encouraged to enter large PPAs. Harrington cited historical examples, including a biomass PPA and Millstone-related contracts in another state, as cautionary tales where PPAs produced large costs to ratepayers. He also noted that the amendment's procurement cap — described in discussion as 2–3 million MWh overall and specifically 1,000,000 MWh reserved for advanced nuclear — could accommodate the output of a single 300 MW small modular reactor at high capacity factor and therefore carry large financial risk if a PPA were approved.

Support and enabling language: proponents said the amendment is enabling language (it does not force procurement) and that any PPA requires Public Utilities Commission approval. Supporters argued that PPAs could help attract investment and preserve or create non-emitting resources, and the amended language includes limits meant to reduce exposure.

Committee action and vote: after debate the committee moved and seconded referral for interim study. The motion passed 16-1; one member stated on the record that referring the bill was a "missed opportunity" and recorded a no vote. The committee majority indicated it will study questions including the potential cost to ratepayers, whether procurement should be open to existing resources, and whether the statute creates inappropriate carve-outs for particular facilities.

Next steps: staff and members asked for more analysis on the bill's potential ratepayer costs, the mechanics of PPA approval and oversight, and how any PPA program would interact with ISO New England market rules. The committee chair said the original Senate version of SB 112 (without the merger amendment discussed earlier) is the version being studied.