Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Efficiency Cost Effectiveness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates changing how system benefits charge programs are reviewed; no final committee vote recorded
Summary
Lawmakers discussed HB 221, which would give the Public Utilities Commission more latitude to consider alternative cost-effectiveness tests for energy efficiency programs. Members were divided over whether to preserve the Granite State Test and program stability.
House Bill 221 prompted a lengthy committee debate about which cost-effectiveness tests should govern the state's energy efficiency triennial plans and how much discretion to give the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).
Representative McGee, who explained the amendment during the March 4 work session, told the committee that the bill and amendment would allow the PUC flexibility to consider additional tests through an adjudicative process and to approve any new test by order "prior to commencement of any triennial order, period beginning with the program year 2027." Members referenced HB 541 (passed in 2022), which they said inadvertently limited the PUC to reviewing only changes between triennia rather than the full triennial plan.
Opponents warned the change could undermine stability in the New Hampshire Saves programs and small businesses that serve weatherization markets. Representative Harrington and others argued the Granite State Test historically produced strong returns: one member said a past three-year report showed "$3.8 for every dollar spent." Supporters, including representatives who worked with the PUC, said the agency sought authority to conduct a full, adjudicated review of triennial plans because the existing statutory language restricts its ability to examine entire plans.
Committee members suggested alternative approaches during the discussion, such as directing the PUC to open a docket to develop a new test and requiring the legislature to approve any replacement test. No final committee vote on HB 221 was recorded in the meeting transcript excerpted for this work session; the item was placed on the executive session agenda earlier in the day but the transcript does not include a subsequent roll-call outcome for the bill.
Because the discussion raised questions about statutory language added in 2022, members emphasized clarifying whether the intent was to limit review to changes between triennia or to allow a full review. The PUC and the Department of Energy were referenced frequently; several members requested more detailed justification from the PUC about why it believes the existing Granite State Test is insufficient before changing statute.
