Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Advanced Nuclear Ownership topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would allow utilities to own advanced nuclear resources; DOE, generators and utilities warn of cost and regulatory risks
Summary
House Bill 710 FN would authorize electric utilities to own, operate or offer advanced nuclear resources, modeled on the state’s distributed energy resource statute; the bill defines ANRs and sets percentage limits as a starting point for committee discussion.
Representative Michael Vose introduced House Bill 710 FN, a statutory change modeled on existing distributed energy resource (DER) authority that would allow investor‑owned electric utilities to own, operate or offer advanced nuclear resources (ANRs). The bill defines advanced nuclear resources for the committee’s deliberation as reactors with generating capacity between 1 and 90 megawatts (sponsors said the upper limit is a discussable starting point).
Scope and approach: the bill uses the RSA 374‑G model (the existing statute authorizing certain utility ownership of distributed energy resources) to create an authorization framework. It proposes percentage limits (examples discussed in testimony were 15% of a utility’s distribution peak for ANR resources, and an 8% cumulative ceiling for projects owned by a single utility), and assigns additional duties to the state’s coordinator for nuclear development and regulatory activities. The sponsor said he intends to remove some policy text by amendment and treat the bill as enabling legislation.
Testimony and concerns: Department of Energy staff said the department is neutral but urged caution because expanding utility ownership of generation departs from the original restructuring intent to divest utilities from generation and may expose ratepayers to stranded costs. DOE recommended a more methodical study or a phased approach (department investigation or study committee) to protect ratepayers.
Generators and market perspective: the New England Power Generators Association said private investors — not captive ratepayers — should bear the risks for early deployment of novel reactors. NEPGA warned that allowing utility ownership could discourage private developers and expose customers to cost overruns.
Utility view: Eversource testified that it has no current plans to develop nuclear generation, emphasized the early commercial stage of small modular reactors and noted that any utility project would require Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approval under RSA 374‑G (a two‑phase approval and later prudence review for cost recovery).
Alternative recommended approaches: the Conservation Law Foundation suggested using existing procurement authorities (requests for proposals under RSA 374‑F:11) rather than utility ownership; procurement would allow utilities to contract for firm capacity without making utilities the long‑term owner or putting ratepayers directly at risk for construction overrun.
Ending: the committee heard extensive testimony on technical, financial and regulatory issues; no immediate committee vote was taken. Members asked for amendments, clarifications of percentage limits and additional analysis of procurement versus ownership models.
