Senators hearing public input urge grid modernization, address interconnection costs and generation choices
Loading...
Summary
A Senate Energy and Natural Resources listening session sought feedback on the next state energy strategy, focusing on grid resilience, interconnection rules, distributed generation and affordability. Lawmakers pressed for clearer models on who pays for upgrades and discussed allowing utilities to own generation in-state.
Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a public listening session to gather input on the next iteration of the state energy strategy, department staff told the committee. The session focused on grid modernization, interconnection rules and cost allocation, generation diversity and energy-efficiency programs; staff said written public comments will remain open through September 2.
Senator Art proposed exploring whether utilities should be allowed to own or directly develop generation in the state, saying, "I'm seriously looking at, allowing the utilities to, have known generation in the state." He asked the committee for feedback on feasibility and potential downsides to loosening the current separation between utility ownership and generation.
Senator Waters urged the strategy to emphasize resilience and pragmatic, state-level actions, saying, "I think resilience as a category is very useful for all kinds of things." Waters asked the report to prioritize steps New Hampshire can control, to prepare for rising demand from electrification and to plan for sea-level-rise and extreme-precipitation impacts on coastal infrastructure and the electric grid.
Committee members and staff repeatedly called out interconnection delays and cost allocation as central obstacles to more distributed generation. Committee discussion described two pending department rule sets — referred to as EN 900 for smaller interconnections and EN 1000 for larger interconnections — that staff plans to present to the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR). Lawmakers pressed for a clearer model of who bears upgrade costs when a new project triggers distribution or substation work.
A common framing question at the session was recorded succinctly in committee discussion: "Who pays for what?" Committee members and staff agreed that current practice often requires the party that triggers an upgrade to cover the full cost, even though later projects may benefit from the same upgrade. Participants discussed options for cost-sharing or mechanisms that would allow early developers to recoup a portion of the investment if later projects benefit from it.
Lawmakers urged the strategy to include stronger grid-modernization goals: advanced metering, storage, microgrids and bidirectional electric-vehicle integration as resilience and capacity tools. Several senators also recommended the strategy clarify realistic timelines for new technologies (for example, participants said small modular nuclear units are realistically a decade away) and explicitly connect grid upgrades to affordability protections for ratepayers.
Other topics raised included waste-to-energy options (food-waste composting and methane digesters), the role of natural gas infrastructure and who would ultimately bear large pipeline or transmission costs, and the continuing role of energy-efficiency programs. One senator highlighted the "Granite State Test" (the statutory cost-effectiveness test for efficiency measures) and summarized its dollar-for-dollar requirement: for each dollar invested in an efficiency measure there must be at least one dollar of savings under current guidance.
Department staff reiterated that the session was intended to gather feedback rather than produce immediate policy decisions, reminded the committee that written comments remain open through September 2, and said the department will continue stakeholder work on interconnection rulemaking before presenting final rules to JLCAR. No motions or votes were taken during the listening session.
