Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Data Platform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House keeps statewide energy data platform alive after members reject repeal; bill sent to Finance Committee
Summary
Lawmakers voted to advance the committee recommendation on House Bill 7 23, preserving the statewide multi‑use energy data platform mandate and referring it to the Finance Committee after supporters said the platform could unlock consumer savings.
The House on March 6 declined to repeal a six‑year-old mandate to pursue a statewide energy data platform, adopting the committee’s recommendation and sending House Bill 7 23 to the Finance Committee.
Proponents argued the platform — designed to consolidate utility electric and gas usage data into a secure, automated hub — could let consumers, municipalities and private firms analyze energy use and find cost savings. Opponents said the project has been years in the making without final software procurement and urged repeal to avoid continued state expenditures.
Representative Jerick McGee, speaking against repeal, said the platform is intended to give ratepayers access to information that can generate savings: “Automating all our energy data in one place can give individuals a way to figure out the cheapest way to lower their energy bills,” McGee said. He urged colleagues not to “kill this project before the cost‑benefit analysis is completed this fall.”
Representative Lex Korman, who opposed keeping the mandate, said the project had not materialized into deployed technology after six years and that prior federal grant applications were rejected because the programs did not adequately demonstrate economic viability. “It’s best left to entrepreneurs, to risk takers, and the free market, not to a state government bureaucracy,” Korman said.
On a roll call, the House adopted the committee recommendation to retain the mandate and sent the bill to Finance; the recorded tally was 201 members voting in favor and 60 opposed.
Supporters pointed to outside preliminary studies suggesting the platform’s benefits would mostly accrue to residential ratepayers and could be substantial once the final cost and deployment plan are set. Opponents said the utilities can already offer customer‑facing usage portals (citing Unitil’s platform as an example) and questioned whether a statewide platform would provide net benefit after connection and governance costs.
The Public Utilities Commission docket that originally set up the effort remains the forum for a formal cost‑benefit analysis; lawmakers who supported keeping the mandate said the House decision preserves the state’s ability to see the formal analysis through the PUC process before abandoning the project.
The Finance Committee will now receive the bill and the record for fiscal review and will consider the project’s estimated costs and the claimed consumer savings as the next step.
