Committee delays final action on net‑metering bill after debate over ISO market participation, grandfathering and market‑revenue language

The Science, Technology and Energy Committee resumed work on Senate Bill 232 (clarifying certain net‑metering terms) on April 14 and postponed final action after extended debate over language governing small hydro generators, ISO New England participation, and protections for existing net‑metered customers.

Nut graf: Members pressed for clearer statutory wording to avoid unintended regulatory conflicts. The committee discussed language to require renewable generators that participate in ISO New England electricity markets to transfer market revenues associated with capacity and ancillary services to the interconnected distribution utility for eligibility for net‑metering tariffs; members also debated whether and how to codify protections ("grandfathering") for customers operating under existing net‑metering tariffs through 2040.

Key details and debate

- Small hydro and ISO participation: Testimony from Heidi Kroll of the Granite State Hydropower Association and other witnesses described how small hydro resources usually either sell into ISO New England or participate in net metering, but not both simultaneously. Representative Korman asked for explicit statutory language to prevent “double‑dipping.” Kroll told the committee she believed the PUC rules and tariffs already contain checks and balances and said, “I do think that there are checks and balances around that.”

- Market‑revenue transfer language: Committee members considered an amendment that would require renewable energy generators participating in ISO New England markets to "transfer market revenues associated with any energy capacity and ancillary services entitlements…to the interconnected electric distribution utility" for the term of their participation as customer generators. Representative McGee and others argued the provision would provide stability to existing small generators that rely on current net‑metering terms, while some members cautioned that statutory restrictions could tie regulators’ hands if future circumstances required changes.

- Grandfathering and the 2040 question: Several members noted existing statutory language and PUC orders, including the net‑metering tariff discussions that led to assurances through 2040 for certain tariffs. Representative Bernardi and others warned that attempts to statutorily lock in specific regulatory outcomes could create conflicts with the PUC or lead to litigation; members flagged that changing law is the proper tool for policy changes rather than unduly constraining the commission.

Next steps: Committee members asked the Office of Legislative Services to merge competing amendment text (the market‑revenue transfer language and alternate grandfathering language) into a single amendment for committee review. The executive session on SB232 was recessed pending that consolidated amendment.

Quotes from the record

- Representative McGee on why some statutory language is sought: “What these guys are asking for is the stability to understand that if they're already in operation as of that January date in 2025…that under the net metering tariff that says now it will be in effect until 02/1940, that's about as much stability as you can ask for in the energy market.”

- Heidi Kroll (Granite State Hydropower Association) on double‑dipping concerns: “I do think that there are checks and balances around that.”

Why this matters: SB232 would adjust how distributed generators that also participate in regional wholesale markets are treated under state net‑metering law. That balance affects utility billing, wholesale market interaction, and economic viability of some small hydropower and community generators.