Housing authorities, developers and clean‑energy groups back pilot for community and low‑income customer generators (SB228)

During the April 14 public hearing on Senate Bill 228 the committee heard broad support from housing authorities, developers, clean‑energy firms and county officials for a pilot program that would increase flexibility for community and low/moderate‑income (LMI) customer generators.

Nut graf: The bill, as amended by the sponsor, would create a pilot that allows customer generators larger than the current 100 kW threshold up to 500 kW (within a capped program) to receive the small‑customer generator compensation, expand the annual program cap (from 6 MW to up to 18 MW under proposed language), and clarify that public housing authorities and certain nonprofit or educational entities qualify as municipal hosts for larger municipal projects.

Who testified and main points

- Senator David Waters (prime sponsor): Described the bill as a measured way to allow better‑sized community solar projects for LMI households, with a limited pilot and reporting to inform whether a separate compensation schedule is needed for the 500 kW tier.

- Andrea Pickett (Portsmouth Housing Authority): Supported the bill as a practical way for housing authorities to pursue appropriately scaled solar projects and noted participation in federal Solar for All funds; she said projects would reduce operating costs and benefit residents.

- Chris Schleier (Elm Grove Companies) and other multifamily developers: Argued that the 100 kW threshold is often too small for multi‑family housing projects and that larger arrays would allow economies of scale and better use of federal incentives.

- Sam Evans Brown (Clean Energy New Hampshire) and Lindsey Burgoyne (Revision Energy): Supported the pilot approach as a measured, incremental change and said it would increase access for low‑ and moderate‑income households while preserving guardrails.

- Josh Elliott (DOE): Stated the department’s neutrality and flagged implementation questions; the DOE asked for clarity around program scope, duration, and administrative processes for running a pilot and for how municipal host definitions would interact with ownership structures used to access tax or grant dollars.

Contested points and technical clarifications

- Administrative scope: DOE highlighted that a pilot should be time‑limited and narrowly scoped; the draft amendment uses a first‑come, first‑serve approach but does not prescribe detailed scoring, reporting deadlines or sunset dates.

- Ownership and eligibility: Witnesses and DOE noted that public housing authorities often use special‑purpose entities (LLCs) to own projects for tax or grant eligibility; the statute’s municipal host language must be sufficiently precise to avoid unintentionally excluding those structures.

Next steps: Sponsor and DOE will work with OLS and stakeholders on final drafting. The committee took public comment and closed the hearing; it will consider the amendment and technical drafting in future work sessions.

Ending: SB228 attracted broad support from housing providers, developers and clean‑energy groups who described a 500 kW pilot as an incremental, practical route to expand community solar benefits to low‑income households while the DOE and others urged careful, time‑limited pilot design and clear administrative rules.