Natural Resources officials say H.125 overlaps planned climate data tool; urge coordination

Secretary Julie Moore told the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee on April 17 that the state already collects many of the datasets H.125 would require and that a separate, planned tool should meet much of the bill’s intent.

"I understand that the overall goal of H.125 is really to be able to have data informed policy discussions," Moore said. "Most of this information or the information requested by the bill is already collected and provided. It's just...a challenge to me in this moment where I feel my team is stretched unbelievably thin to see that it's value added to repackage that information into another report."

Moore said the agency supports giving legislators consistent, multi‑year data but recommended aligning the bill with work already underway. Jane Lisertak of the Climate Action Office told senators that the agency’s contractor is drafting a "measuring and assessing progress" (MAP) report and infrastructure recommendations, with Phase 1 due May 15.

"We have a contractor on board at this point to help us with implementing the measuring and assessing progress tool," Lisertak said. She offered to share the draft report and the tables of datasets now being considered so the committee can compare them to the metrics requested in H.125.

Moore and Lisertak described two distinct uses for data: tracking historical trends and identifying leading indicators. Moore said the MAP tool is intended to provide both, and she singled out requests in H.125 that ask the agency to recommend additional data that would serve as leading indicators of emerging energy or climate challenges.

On specific metrics, Moore and senators discussed normalizing energy measurements — for example, energy consumption per unit of economic output or per capita — so population growth or weather variability does not mask long‑term trends. Moore said some work already exists from the Energy Action Network showing declines in residential heating energy when normalized by heating degree days.

Moore and Lisertak urged the committee to review the MAP draft before finalizing H.125 to avoid duplicative reporting. They also noted staffing constraints: Moore said the responsible teams are "stretched unbelievably thin" and flagged the value of aligning statutory reporting requirements with the MAP tool’s datasets and displays.

The committee did not take a vote on H.125 during the hearing. Senators asked the agencies to provide the MAP draft and the tables of datasets for comparison with H.125’s requirements, and officials said they would do so.

Looking ahead, Lisertak said Phase 1 of the MAP tool will identify logic models, metrics for mitigation and resilience, and an infrastructure recommendation that could inform whether H.125 should require additional or new reporting.

Moore emphasized the policy purpose: accurate, comparable multi‑year data to inform the General Assembly’s climate and energy decisions rather than single‑year snapshots.