Senate committee hears bill for reliability‑indexing credits to spur large battery storage; bill re‑referred

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee members heard testimony on SB 111, introduced by Senator David Waters (District 4), a bill to authorize a reliability‑indexing credit pilot program to support large, grid‑scale battery storage in New Hampshire.

Supporters told the committee the bill is intended to encourage developers to build multi‑megawatt battery projects in the state by allowing electric distribution companies to enter multi‑year contracts that pay a dynamic “reliability indexing” credit offset by revenues those projects earn in the ISO New England wholesale markets. James Andrews, chief executive officer of Granite Shore Power, told the committee SB 111 “is part of that solution set, not the only solution,” and described how market revenues would be offset against a contractor’s strike price so ratepayers only fund a remaining deficiency.

The bill would create a pilot under Public Utilities Commission oversight that authorizes long‑term agreements for up to 200 megawatts of battery storage. Hearing testimony described the kinds of projects the bill aims at — developers cited 100–200 MW utility‑scale batteries — and typical battery durations discussed were roughly two hours today with the option to build to four‑hour durations when appropriate.

Why it matters: proponents said large batteries provide second‑by‑second dispatchability, help shave system peaks and reduce exposure to high wholesale prices during scarcity events. Opponents and the Department of Energy urged more time to get details right, saying the pilot’s payment mechanics could unintentionally incentivize discharging at the wrong times and could carry cost and administrative risks if implemented without further study.

Balance of views and committee action: Deputy Commissioner Chris Elms (New Hampshire Department of Energy), joined by regional policy director Dan Phelan, said the department is neutral but raised ratepayer and administrative concerns. They asked for more time to analyze whether the bill’s mechanism would actually incent peak‑shaving behavior rather than simply pay for energy produced at any hour. Granite Shore Power and other developers argued the sharing mechanism — wholesale revenues offset the strike price and either surplus or deficiency is allocated — reduces risk to ratepayers.

The committee took two formal steps on SB 111. Members voted by voice to send the bill to executive session, then voted by voice to re‑refer the bill for further consideration. The committee did not adopt final terms of a pilot at the hearing.

Provisions to watch: the bill as discussed would (a) create a reliability‑indexing credit and a strike price to be compared with wholesale market revenues, (b) authorize the PUC to approve multi‑year contracts for up to 200 MW, and (c) require an investigation and recommended pilot terms as it is implemented.

What’s next: the committee re‑referred the bill for additional work; sponsors and the Department of Energy signaled a desire to continue negotiating the payment mechanics and the pilot’s guardrails before advancing a final proposal.