Lawmakers Hear Split Views on House Bill 3309, Omnibus Energy Measure

House Bill 3309 (H 3309), a wide-ranging energy bill pending in the General Assembly, drew sharply different testimony at a Senate Energy Subcommittee hearing where witnesses urged more protections for ratepayers, stronger procurement rules for renewables and clearer metrics for energy efficiency.

The bill “contains constructive amendments,” said Taylor Allred, coastal policy director for the Coastal Conservation League, but as written he warned H 3309 could “increase ratepayers’ risk of paying higher bills than necessary and delay the growth in clean energy resources.”

Why this matters: Lawmakers must balance two aims that several witnesses described as competing priorities — ensuring affordable, reliable power while enabling investment to meet rapid demand growth from large customers such as data centers. Multiple witnesses told the subcommittee that H 3309 could be improved with changes to integrated resource planning, rate design, efficiency programs and rules that allow large customers access to clean energy.

The Coastal Conservation League proposed several planning reforms, including requiring utilities to adopt best practices in load forecasting, to survey large prospective customers about their clean-energy needs, and to iterate transmission and generation modeling so portfolios avoid stranded-asset risk. “If these customers are included in load forecasts, the utilities should be required to survey them regarding their clean energy needs,” Allred testified.

Developers representing solar and storage companies pressed for mandatory, transparent competitive procurement tied to utility integrated resource plans. Hamilton Davis, vice president for regulatory affairs at Energy Re and a board member of the Carolina’s Clean Energy Business Association, urged the subcommittee to require competitive solicitations so renewable and storage offers are tested against other options rather than awarded by sole-source contracts.

Consumer advocates said the bill must avoid shifting costs onto households. John Ruth of AARP said the financial consequences of discount rates and special contracts fall to typical residential customers because “rate setting is a zero-sum game.” He recommended mechanisms such as an incremental-cost test or a separate rate class for very large, energy‑intensive customers.

Other reforms proposed by several witnesses included: adding a fuel‑cost sharing mechanism so investor‑owned utilities share some exposure to volatile gas prices; preserving the ability of the Public Service Commission and interveners to use third‑party experts in complex proceedings; and improving energy‑efficiency targets and program oversight — including a change that the Office of Regulatory Staff should study how to implement a third‑party administrator but not whether one should exist.

Several witnesses pointed to two market reforms as immediate priorities: participation in an energy imbalance market (EIM) to enable five‑minute settlement and more efficient dispatch across balancing areas, and a fuel‑cost sharing mechanism so ratepayers are not fully exposed to volatile natural‑gas prices. Eddie Moore of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said roughly “70% of the bill is essentially utility written” and urged the Senate to use the subcommittee process to rebalance the package.

Ending note: Witnesses from conservation groups, the solar industry and consumer advocates asked lawmakers to keep negotiations open and to incorporate more transparent procurement, stronger consumer protections and clearer efficiency obligations into any final bill. Several speakers asked the committee for more time to craft targeted amendments rather than adopt the House language wholesale.