Lawmakers weigh centralized energy data platform: governance, costs and a pending RFP split panel of supporters and skeptics

Lawmakers spent two sessions on the proposed statewide multi‑use online energy data platform: Representative Kat McGee opened a hearing on HB 681, which would update statute to reflect a governance council model, and later Representative Lex Berezny introduced HB 723, a repeal petition that would remove the statutory requirement for the platform.

Representative McGee told the committee the platform’s technical and governance requirements were largely complete and that the governance council — composed of utilities, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Consumer Advocate and other stakeholders — had drafted a request for proposals (RFP) for vendors. She said the council is poised to issue an RFP that will produce firm build costs needed to complete a cost/benefit analysis.

Consumer Advocate Don Kreese and others argued the platform could help residents and municipalities by enabling third‑party services and by producing a single, standardized source of usage data. Kreese described the governance council as having worked productively in the past and stressed that his office would object if the DOE or PUC repudiated the project outright; he also urged preserving PUC review authority for prudence and used‑and‑useful determinations.

The Department of Energy testified that it is neutral on HB 681 but raised procedural objections: the bill would shift final fiscal authority for the platform to a private, non‑public governance council and remove the PUC’s statutory role in reviewing whether platform costs are reasonable for recovery from ratepayers. DOE staff said that under current law the PUC has authority to determine whether the platform costs recovered from customers are “unreasonable and not in the public interest,” and that the governance council’s bylaws currently treat its deliberations as non‑public until filed with the PUC. DOE said the council’s approach reduces transparency and could effectively “deem” expenditures prudent without independent regulatory review; DOE urged caution and said the agency might need access to non‑public materials to complete a full review.

Unitil, one of the state’s utilities and the governance council’s technical manager, said it has worked to shape a narrowly scoped “minimum viable product” RFP, and that the utilities’ IT staff have donated significant time to produce technical requirements. Unitil warned only that a final cost/benefit analysis should inform any decision; several speakers urged the committee to retain the bill until the RFP returns firm pricing.

Consumer, municipal and community energy advocates described concrete user stories: an example was aggregating metered usage for a multifacility municipal owner without requiring distribution of each tenant’s private data; the platform would also simplify benchmarking, program evaluation, and could support pay‑for‑performance energy efficiency and community‑scale programs. Supporters pointed to the Dunsky market evaluation and a draft cost/benefit analysis filed in the PUC docket, which estimated multi‑year benefits in the low‑to‑tens of millions under some scenarios but acknowledged that final numbers depend on actual vendor bids.

Opponents of the platform or of statutory changes warned of risks. The DOE and some committee members highlighted concern that statutory changes could strip regulatory safeguards, reduce public transparency and allow private governance council actions to become binding without adequate PUC oversight. The transcript shows the DOE placed an estimated range — $4.6 million to $7.0 million — on utility back‑end work to make systems interoperable and an ongoing operations range of roughly $272,000 to $416,000 annually, figures the DOE said informed its fiscal review.

Representative McGee asked that the committee wait for RFP returns and a completed cost/benefit analysis before making final statutory changes. Representative Berezny and others filed HB 723 — a repeal — arguing the platform lacked demonstrated economic viability and had been turned down twice for federal grant funding. The committee did not take immediate action on either bill; many witnesses encouraged retention until the RFP and a complete cost/benefit analysis are available.

The record includes detailed PUC docket references (docket DE19197) and many technical filings. Several witnesses urged legislative clarity about what is a public body decision and what remains subject to PUC prudence review.