Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee divides on net metering expansion; keeps some bills, kills others, and advances a narrow amendment
Loading...
Summary
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.
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).
