Senate debate over expanding purchase‑power agreement authority includes Seabrook and nuclear procurement; DOE warns of ratepayer risks

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee members heard SB 112, introduced by Senator Kevin Avard (District 12). The bill would expand the state law authorizing purchase‑power agreements under New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 374:11 to permit utilities and state actors to consider a wider range of electric generation resources when pursuing long‑term contracts.

Supporters — including Michelle Gardner, executive director for NextEra Energy Resources in the Northeast, and Bruce Birkin (Ginfini Capital Group) representing Exeter Energy Resources — said the change would let New Hampshire participate in regional solicitations and potentially secure long‑term contracts for low‑cost, low‑carbon baseload generation such as Seabrook Station, a 1,250‑megawatt nuclear plant in New Hampshire. Gardner told the committee that regional procurements in Massachusetts and Connecticut have already moved to enable contracting with nuclear resources and that “New Hampshire should not be left out” of multistate solicitations.

Opponents and cautious voices included the New Hampshire Department of Energy, which testified it was neutral but warned that expanding PPA authority can expose ratepayers to long‑term costs and market distortions. Deputy Commissioner Chris Elms and Dan Phelan emphasized that PPAs have in some neighboring states produced substantial costs: witnesses referenced Connecticut’s Millstone procurement as an example of significant post‑contract costs and credit impacts. The department also pointed to legal constraints under the Federal Power Act and cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Hughes v. Talen (2016) as a caution when states craft out‑of‑market supports tied to wholesale prices.

Eversource said it shared concerns about removing the 2,000,000 megawatt‑hour cap and warned that PPAs can tie up a utility balance sheet and create credit and financing consequences that ultimately affect customers. Private sector witnesses said PPAs can lock in price stability and reduce exposure to global commodity shocks; supporters noted modeling that showed the magnitude of upside protection can exceed downside risk in extreme price events.

Why it matters: supporters argue the authority is a practical tool to secure price stability and avoid exposure to volatile natural gas markets; critics say PPAs can lock ratepayers into costly contracts and distort competitive markets.

What the committee heard: testimony covered technical details including possible contract terms (10–20 years were referenced as typical), the difference between new‑resource versus preservation motivations, and the potential need to add the Department of Energy formally to the RFP development process. Witnesses recommended drafting amendments to clarify participation rules, adjust caps and dates in existing statute, and add the department to the RFP process; some stakeholders suggested removing or modifying a 2,000,000 MWh cap in RSA language to allow flexibility.

Next steps: no final committee vote was reported during the hearing. Sponsors and department representatives signaled a willingness to continue working on amendment language addressing caps, term lengths and protections for ratepayers.