Committee debates repeal of statewide energy data platform law as RFPs near issuance; vote to re‑refer recorded

CONCORD, N.H. — The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee heard extended testimony July 23 on House Bill 723, which would repeal the statute (RSA 378:50–54) authorizing a statewide multi‑use energy data platform. Committee members questioned whether to kill the law now or wait for two imminent requests for proposals (RFPs) and a cost‑benefit analysis that proponents say will quantify costs and benefits.

Representative Lex Baresni, R‑Grafton (District 11) introduced HB 723, telling the panel the project has been in statute for six years and that previous federal grant applications were rejected. Baresni said he believes the platform is “not economically viable” as currently conceived and argued that utilities or private software companies should lead such projects rather than placing the requirement in statute. He cited a federal grant rejection letter that concluded custom data solutions are often business as usual, that the project’s impact description “may be unrealistic,” and that the application did not justify economic viability.

Several witnesses who helped design the platform urged caution about repealing the law before RFPs are issued. Representative Kat McGee, who said she managed early subcommittee efforts after the law passed in 2019, described a multi‑year PUC docket (DE‑19‑197) that produced “user stories” and a governance council involving utilities, stakeholders and the Department of Energy. McGee said the governance council has approved RFP language and that Unitil and other utilities had been prepared to issue the RFPs and supply a cost‑benefit analysis to quantify both capital and operating costs and potential savings.

Donald Kreece, the state’s consumer advocate, testified in opposition to repeal. Kreece said the platform advances “customer freedom” by enabling customers to authorize third‑party access to usage data and that the only remaining question is whether benefits justify costs; he argued the RFPs would provide that answer and that repeal at this moment could stop the project before bids and costs are known.

Clean Energy New Hampshire’s legislative director Nick Paul and other supporters described potential market benefits: the platform provides a “secure, standardized way for customers to share their energy usage data with contractors, competitive suppliers, property managers, or efficiency programs.” A draft cost‑benefit analysis cited by Paul estimated $27 million in net benefits in the first five years and up to $94 million over ten years; Paul described savings from streamlined data exchange, increased participation in efficiency programs and reduced administrative costs for landlords and contractors.

Dan Phelan, regional policy director at the New Hampshire Department of Energy, testified the department is neutral on HB 723 but confirmed the agency and utilities have committed substantial staff time to the project and that prior federal grant efforts involved consultant costs (cited as $150,000). Phelan said it is unclear who will opt in to the platform, how quickly utilities can supply interval data (many customers currently supply only monthly totals), and how benefits will flow through to ratepayers.

Unitil’s Alec O’Meara said the company has acted as a facilitator within the governance council and reiterated that an RFP, if issued, would likely produce cost and timeline certainty; Unitil estimated approximately 14 weeks after an RFP is issued to obtain responses and a cost‑benefit analysis.

Committee discussion focused on whether to allow the RFP process to proceed. Supporters of repeal argued the legislature should “cut losses” on a six‑year effort that has not produced a built platform and that the statute creates perpetual obligations without clear ownership. Opponents said the statute does not force the state to build or operate the platform and that repeal would effectively halt a project that has almost completed governance work and an RFP package reviewed at the Public Utilities Commission.

Procedural action: the committee voted to re‑refer HB 723 to executive session to allow the RFP process and PUC activity to proceed; committee discussion indicated members expected the re‑referral would push further work and allow time for RFP responses and a cost‑benefit report before final disposition. The motion was moved and seconded and passed on a voice vote (committee recorded “aye”; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the transcript).

Ending — Testimony reflected a split: sponsors and some members who favor repeal emphasized cost, uncertain customer opt‑in rates and six years without a built system; consumer advocates, utilities, clean‑energy groups and DOE described near‑term steps (RFP issuance, vendor bids and a cost‑benefit analysis) that they said should be allowed to complete before the law is repealed.