Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor frames net‑metering bill as clarifying, DOE raises monitoring questions; hydro and renewable groups support
Summary
Senate Bill 232 would clarify eligibility and grandfathering in New Hampshire’s group net‑metering program. Sponsors and some industry witnesses said the bill protects existing projects and clarifies metering rules; the Department of Energy and utilities asked for narrower language and monitoring safeguards.
Senate Bill 232 was introduced as a clarifying measure for New Hampshire’s group net‑metering program, intended to resolve uncertainty about metering requirements, participant eligibility and grandfathered provisions.
Senator Mark McConkie, sponsor of SB 232, told the committee the bill "does not expand the net metering program; it simply offers clarity for certain participants in those few existing facilities that are currently eligible but have not yet been approved to participate." He circulated an amendment that streamlines section 3 and sets the effective date upon passage.
Matt Young, attorney with the New Hampshire Department of Energy, said the department is neutral on the bill but asked the committee to consider several points. Young said the bill’s language appeared intended to codify the status quo but that the department would monitor whether market revenues from ISO‑NE continue to be used to offset net‑metering costs for ratepayers. He also warned that a phrase referring to "already eligible facilities" might be too broad and could sweep in an indeterminate set of projects.
Testimony from industry and project owners supported the bill’s intent to protect existing investments. Thomas Lataria, a Milton resident and homeowner with a 1:1 net‑metered system, said the bill would protect homeowners’ contracts and encourage investor confidence in residential and small‑scale generation. Lehi Mineau of the Granite State Hydropower Association said small hydropower facilities have relied on the ability to participate as group hosts and supported protections against retroactive changes.
Clean Energy New Hampshire and other clean‑energy advocates expressed support for the bill as a measure to promote predictability and to reduce the risk of retroactive regulatory changes that would chill investment. Sam Evans Brown of Clean Energy New Hampshire pointed to rate‑making principles of predictability and said the committee should support language preventing retroactivity.
Committee discussion focused on the interplay between SB 232 and other pending legislation (including a separate bill, SB 228, addressing customer generators joining groups). Senators and DOE staff discussed whether SB 232’s protections for "existing" or "already eligible" facilities might conflict with policy changes under other bills. Witnesses suggested drafting clarifying language to avoid unintended consequences for customers who later seek to change group participation.
No final vote on SB 232 was recorded in the transcript; committee members indicated willingness to work on technical edits and asked the department and stakeholders to help refine the bill’s language.
