Senate committee hears revisions to bill moving utility oversight tasks from PUC to Department of Energy

Sen. Howard Pearl, sponsor of Senate Bill 108, opened the hearing saying the bill would transfer selected regulatory and adjudicative responsibilities from the Public Utilities Commission to the Department of Energy, including provisions on unauthorized telecommunications service changes, ratepayer communication preferences and net energy metering procedures.

Why it matters: The bill would change which agency enforces specific consumer and utility rules, reassign rulemaking and complaint duties, and remove antiquated statutory caps on net metering. That affects where ratepayers bring complaints, which agency writes and enforces rules for competitive suppliers, and which agency assesses utilities for agency funding.

Department of Energy general counsel David Shulock told the committee the department supports the bill’s overall intent but recommended several targeted edits after stakeholder conversations. "Section 1 ... we're now asking that that section be deleted and that, the enforcement of slamming, remain with the commission," Shulock said, referring to an initial draft that would have moved enforcement of unauthorized service-switching ("slamming") to the department.

Shulock described other specific drafting changes the department sought: moving consumer-communication rule authority to the Department of Energy (section 2); deleting antiquated language that capped net metering megawatts (section 3); clarifying the special assessment that funds the Department, the Public Utilities Commission and the Office of Consumer Advocate (section 4); and restructuring complaint procedures (sections 5–10) so a complaint investigated by the Department would be forwarded to the PUC as a complete docket packet rather than requiring consumers to file a second petition.

Donald Priess, the state Consumer Advocate, said his office supports clarifying respective agency authorities created when the Department of Energy was formed and urged refinement on the complaint process so residential ratepayers are not put through a burdensome three-step path: consumer services, a department adjudicative process, then a separate PUC petition. "Anything that clarifies the respective authorities of the PUC and the Department of Energy, I support," Priess said, while warning the current split can impose significant burdens on individual complainants.

Industry and sector witnesses said they had been working with the department on technical edits. Maura Weston of the New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association asked for language to make assessment and complaint provisions apply only to entities currently subject to assessment, so unrelated registrants (for example, home security companies) would not be swept in. She also asked that certain communications consumer-protection complaints remain within the Department of Justice’s consumer-protection statute when appropriate.

Representatives of community power aggregators and clean-energy groups supported removing the expired net‑metering cap and aligning statute with the department’s rulemaking. Dina Dennis of the Community Power Coalition said members were satisfied after the department noted a typographical correction in section 11 that should refer to RSA 362-A:9, Roman numeral 18. Clean Energy New Hampshire’s Sam Evans Brown supported cleanup of the net‑metering statute but cautioned that deleting some language (for example, the clause requiring identical tariffs for certain grandfathered customers) could create uncertainty for customers who relied on earlier net‑metering rules.

The Public Utilities Commission’s senior advisors Alexander Bridal and Ben Martin told the committee the commission remained neutral but would monitor the bill. Bridal asked the committee to clarify whether the bill’s insertion of language saying net‑metering tariffs "shall be made available ... in conformance with net‑metering rules adopted by the department and orders issued by the commission" was intended to shift rate‑setting authority or simply to confirm a cross‑agency relationship.

Where things stand: Witnesses described several agreed edits — for example, restoring PUC enforcement of slamming, removing the expired megawatt cap language, clarifying assessment billing language to refer to "amount assessed for that fiscal year," deleting a drafting phrase ("of law, franchise, or order") from the complaint‑scope sentence, and correcting a statutory citation in section 11 to refer to RSA 362‑A:9, roman numeral 18. NECTA said the department had no concern with NECTA’s proposed complaint‑process language and had shared redlined text.

What comes next: Committee questions centered on whether statutory changes would alter who sets rates under net metering, and whether the new complaint provisions would ease burdens on residential customers. Several witnesses asked the committee to accept the department’s and stakeholders’ edits as friendly amendments and to continue technical work on remaining points.

Ending note: No formal committee action or votes were recorded during the hearing. Lawmakers and agency staff told the committee they would continue refining statutory language to reflect the division of rulemaking and adjudicative responsibilities that followed the Department of Energy’s creation.