Senate panel hears bill to align stormwater rules for solar with PV‑SMART science

Sen. Howard Pearl (R‑District 17) opened the Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on Senate Bill 65, saying the bill would “bring New Hampshire's stormwater and wetlands rules for solar projects in line with the best available science on environmental impacts.”

Proponents told the committee current New Hampshire rules can make small utility‑scale and distributed solar projects uneconomic and that adopting the PV‑SMART methodology used elsewhere would reduce unnecessary construction of large stormwater basins while preserving environmental protection.

Sam Feigenbaum, head of policy for Kearsarge Energy, told the committee: “The DES stormwater rules that are currently in place, threaten the economic viability of many projects in Kearsarge's pipeline.” He said a typical 20‑acre solar site in New Hampshire can be required to build “about 3 or 4 acres of concrete stormwater basins,” a requirement he and other witnesses said can add hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to a project and in some cases kill it.

Industry witnesses described the technical basis for change. Dale Knapp, head of development for Walden Renewables and a licensed soil scientist, said systems built on driven piles leave vegetation and soil intact under panels and that “nature does it best” for stormwater treatment when meadows are maintained. Scott Williams, a licensed professional engineer with Pathways Consulting, said New Hampshire's solar‑specific alteration of terrain guidance (Part 15.11) treats panel arrays as impervious in many cases and therefore requires large, centralized stormwater measures that can increase construction, permitting and long‑term maintenance costs.

Lindsey Burgoyne, policy director for Revision Energy, offered a cost comparison drawn from a 10–20 acre hayfield project: under Maine's permit‑by‑rule framework the project’s stormwater permitting cost was about $5,000; in New Hampshire, the example incurred about $15,000 in permitting plus roughly $160,000 per basin for three basins, for a total she described as $175,000 — roughly 35 times the baseline Maine cost in that example.

Proponents repeatedly pointed to the University of Minnesota / NREL PV‑SMART tool as a science‑based method to estimate post‑construction stormwater impacts and asked DES to accept that methodology as an alternative to presuming panels are impervious in many site conditions.

Representing the Department of Environmental Services, Philip Trowbridge, manager of land resources, said DES is not taking a position on the bill but defended the rules as site specific. “Declaring by fiat that all solar projects are pervious on meadows does not match when you're gonna clear cut a steep slope to put down solar panels,” Trowbridge said, arguing that slope, soil and orientation can concentrate runoff and that flexibility and site evaluation are needed. Amy Clark, bureau administrator for the alteration of terrain program, added that DES rules do not currently require permanent treatment for every pervious or impervious surface and that the department has discussed waiver pathways.

Clean Energy New Hampshire, Eversource and other electricity stakeholders told the panel they support action or engagement to resolve the disagreement between industry and DES. Sam Evans Brown, executive director of Clean Energy New Hampshire, said the industry and state face rising load and interconnection queues and urged lawmakers to resolve the permitting uncertainty quickly so projects in developer pipelines and the ISO‑NE queue are not lost.

Committee members asked whether the bill should set a firm legislative standard or require DES rulemaking. Trowbridge recommended continuing rulemaking discussions and noted waivers are already available for site‑specific relief; several senators said they expected additional conversations between DES and industry before the committee acts.

The committee closed the hearing on SB 65 after receiving testimony and indicated it would allow DES and proponents more time to negotiate language and technical cross‑walks between PV‑SMART inputs and the state’s field measurement practices.

Ending: The committee did not take a vote on SB 65. Senators encouraged continued meetings between DES and industry to try to resolve technical differences in rules and implementation before potential legislative action.