Department of Energy seeks clearer authority in bill that PUC says could shift costs

The Science, Technology and Energy Committee heard competing testimony March 3 on House Bill 266, legislation from Representative Michael Harrington that would adjust statutory language governing how the newly formed Department of Energy participates in Public Utilities Commission (PUC) proceedings.

The bill’s prime sponsor, Representative Michael Harrington, told the committee HB 266 would make specific statutory changes implemented during the department’s 2021 creation and asked the Department of Energy to explain the requested edits.

Chris Elms, deputy commissioner, Department of Energy, told the panel the department asked for the bill to remove what it views as unnecessary “guardrails” left over from the 2021 reorganization and to make clear that the department can determine which proceedings it will participate in. “This bill was submitted…at the request of the Department of Energy,” Elms said, asking the committee to permit the department to decide when it will file a notice of participation and what evidence it will place in the record.

David Schulock, general counsel, Department of Energy, described the changes as a clarification of the 2021 “bright red line” that limits ex parte interaction in contested cases and as a protection for the department’s ability to provide policy-driven advocacy and supporting evidence when it chooses. Elms and Schulock said the department is willing to accept an amendment narrowing the change on the point that was most contentious — whether the DOE “must be a party to all proceedings” — but insisted that language making clear the department “determines” what it puts in the record is essential to preserve its accountability to elected officials.

PUC chairman Dan Goldner told the committee the commission does not oppose some clarifying language in the bill but warned a structural change that made department participation optional in practice would leave the PUC without a consistent source of independent, non‑monopoly analytical support. “To support this model, the commission would need to enhance our own analytical staffing,” Goldner said, noting that the PUC currently has far fewer dedicated analysts than the DOE and that any change could carry fiscal impacts that require additional funds and approval.

Goldner and other PUC commissioners described structural concerns, asked the committee to consider preserving an administrative attachment that provides back-office support under RSA 21‑G:10, and suggested the commission could absorb purely administrative tasks now handled through that attachment.

Donald (Don) Kreese, the state’s consumer advocate, told the committee he had “never approached this witness table to talk about a bill with more reluctance,” but that he supports the bill as drafted. “Utility regulation in New Hampshire is broken,” Kreese told the committee, saying the split roles between DOE (policy) and the PUC (adjudication) are not working as intended and that the bill is a reasonable next step after four years of experience with the reorganization.

Committee members pressed the DOE and PUC on several procedural points, including how the department determines participation, what happens when the department opts not to participate, and how the PUC will obtain independent evidence if the department is not part of a docket. PUC staff and the DOE gave differing descriptions of the cost and staffing implications if the department’s participation becomes optional rather than routine.

The hearing record showed several areas where both sides said they were willing to negotiate — notably the draft’s language on a mandatory party status and the mechanics of a “notice of participation” — and both agencies said they were open to subcommittee work to produce technical fixes.

The committee did not take final action on HB 266 at the public hearing. The Department of Energy offered to provide drafting language for a narrow amendment the department said would address PUC concerns while retaining the department’s ability to determine the evidence it places in proceedings.

Ending: Lawmakers asked staff to prepare follow-up materials and suggested any changes might proceed by amendment and additional committee discussion. No vote on HB 266 was recorded at the March 3 public hearing.