Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PUC and utilities flag technical tensions in House Bill 674 on nonwire alternatives and time‑of‑use rates
Summary
A brief public hearing on HB 674 FN drew PUC and utility attention to a structural tension: the bill would require fair and reasonable time‑of‑use tariffs while also proposing a five‑year default service rate‑setting cycle, a combination witnesses said is difficult to reconcile.
Representative Kaplan introduced House Bill 674 FN as a broad vehicle to examine utility reform, including non‑wire alternatives, time‑of‑use tariffs and multiyear rate settings. Kaplan said the bill was intended to launch discussion and ideally be retained as a bipartisan study vehicle.
Matt Young, an attorney with the New Hampshire Department of Energy, urged patience and said the Department had several concerns with the bill but was prepared to yield time if the sponsor preferred to carry the measure into committee study rather than push a floor vote.
Alexander Bridal of the Public Utilities Commission told the committee that part C of Roman III of the bill contains a drafting problem: the bill would appear to assign the Department of Energy and the PUC shared authority to “set rate cases” while actual rate setting is an adjudicatory function of the PUC. Bridal also defended the current six‑month default service procurement cycle, saying it makes supply procurement responsive to market conditions and warned that a five‑year default service cycle proposed by the measure could leave ratepayers exposed to multi‑year market shifts.
Representatives of Eversource said the utility was grateful to Representative Kaplan for engaging them but that the bill contained provisions that raised concerns. Eversource cited recent statutory progress on integrated distribution planning and existing requirements for non‑wire alternatives, and urged more stakeholder work on the details rather than immediate passage.
Witnesses did not request a committee vote at the hearing; Representative Kaplan said he would welcome the bill being retained for study.
