Senate committee hears bill to shift some utility consumer protections from PUC to Department of Energy

Senator Howard Pearl (District 17) opened a committee hearing on Senate Bill 108, saying the bill would transfer some regulatory and adjudicative responsibilities from the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to the Department of Energy (DOE). "This bill transfers specific regulatory and adjudicative responsibilities from Public Utilities Commission to the Department of Energy," Pearl said at the start of the hearing.

The bill, presented to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on behalf of the Department of Energy, would reallocate several statutory duties related to consumer protection, ratepayer communications, net energy metering and complaint handling. David Shulock, general counsel for the Department of Energy, described the draft as a collection of statutory fixes and said the department and stakeholders had identified several technical edits after publication.

Why it matters: supporters and opponents said the measure is intended to reduce confusion about where consumers should file complaints and to update outdated net‑metering language. Opponents and some stakeholders warned that without careful drafting it could create jurisdictional gaps, slow adjudicative processes for residential ratepayers, or unintentionally change longstanding protections tied to PUC orders.

What the bill would do (high points reported at the hearing): - Slamming (unauthorized service switches): the department originally proposed moving enforcement to DOE, but the department asked that the language be deleted so enforcement of slamming remains with the PUC. As David Shulock explained, "slamming is when a competitive provider changes your service without your permission." - Ratepayer communication rules: the draft moves authority for rules about how competitive suppliers contact customers to DOE because consumer protection functions are centralized there; those PUC rules are already under revision and the bill would place contact‑rules under the department’s rulemaking. - Net energy metering: the bill removes antiquated statutory caps on net metering megawatts (the original 50‑megawatt cap has been exceeded) and adjusts language about disclosure and community power aggregation. Several testifiers urged clarity so that customers who were grandfathered under earlier tariff arrangements are not disadvantaged. - Special assessments: the draft clarifies how DOE, the PUC and the Office of the Consumer Advocate are funded by assessments on utilities and makes explicit that once an assessment is calculated for a fiscal year, a company assessed at the start of that year remains responsible even if it leaves the state mid‑year. The department proposed replacing the phrase "flat fee or all 4 quarterly payments as applicable" with the clearer phrase "amount assessed for that fiscal year." - Complaint process and adjudication: the bill proposes to streamline complaint handling across DOE and the PUC. Shulock described two frequent problems: lengthy complaint timelines and the need for ratepayers to file a second formal petition at the PUC after a DOE investigation. To address that, the draft would change the filing and transfer process so that DOE’s investigative record could lead the PUC to open a docket without the consumer filing a second petition. The department also plans to retain adjudicative authority for certain federal‑program complaints that are not under PUC jurisdiction (for example, weatherization disputes tied to federal programs).

What stakeholders said: - David Shulock (general counsel, Department of Energy) walked the committee through the sections and proposed technical edits, including deleting the slamming transfer and fixing a statute citation in section 11 so it references RSA 362‑A:9, Roman numeral 18 instead of a misnumbered subsection. - Donald Priess (Office of the Consumer Advocate) said he "supports" clarifying the respective authorities of the PUC and DOE and urged careful drafting so residential ratepayers are not forced through a burdensome multi‑step complaint process. He described the existing situation as a "triple gauntlet" for consumers who are dissatisfied after initial consumer‑services steps. - Maura Weston (New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association) and other industry witnesses asked for clarifications that limit assessments and complaint jurisdiction to entities already subject to existing statutes, and they offered redline language the department has reviewed. - The PUC’s senior advisors (Alexander Bridal and Ben Martin McDonough) told the committee the commission is neutral on the bill’s intent but will monitor the consumer complaint provisions and seek clarity on whether rate‑making or net‑metering pricing authority is intended to shift to DOE. - Clean Energy New Hampshire and the Community Power Coalition supported statutory cleanup of net‑metering language but asked that protections for customers grandfathered under earlier tariffs be preserved.

Technical fixes proposed in the hearing: committee staff and witnesses noted (and the department accepted) several drafting edits, including removing specific phrases ("of law, franchise, or order") in the complaint‑transfer clause, replacing the assessment wording to read "amount assessed for that fiscal year," and correcting the RSA citation in section 11 so the statutory reference matches the intended net‑metering provision.

Outcome: The session on SB 108 was a hearing and no committee vote was recorded during the transcript. Multiple stakeholders committed to providing redline language for the committee to consider before future markup.

What remains unresolved: several parties asked the committee to clarify whether DOE rulemaking should explicitly reflect existing PUC orders for net‑metering tariffs so that pricing structure authority is not ambiguous; the PUC said it wants to see explicit language about the relationship between DOE rules and PUC orders.

Closing: The committee heard several more witnesses, took technical suggestions from industry and advocacy groups, and closed the public testimony portion of the hearing for later drafting and amendment work.