Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Committee pauses bill ordering DOE assessment of transformer vulnerability after security, cost concerns
Summary
The Science, Technology and Energy Committee recessed consideration of HB 17-23, which would direct the Department of Energy to assess New Hampshire’s high-voltage transformer vulnerability to geomagnetic and electromagnetic disturbances, after members questioned funding, technical capacity and confidentiality; the item was rescheduled for March 3.
The Science, Technology and Energy Committee on Feb. 17 recessed action on House Bill 17-23 after a lengthy debate over whether the state should direct the Department of Energy to study the vulnerability of high-voltage transformers to geomagnetically induced currents and recommend mitigation measures.
Representative Matson, the member who had moved the bill, described the replacement amendment as directing the Department of Energy to “investigate the vulnerability of electric transmission transformers and other system components to geomagnetically induced currents,” with a requirement that the investigation start within 90 days of the bill’s effective date and be completed within 12 months. The amendment also included confidentiality protections for sensitive utility data, the chair said.
Meg Stone of the New Hampshire Department of Energy told the committee, “Yes, it is possible that we would require a consultant to do this,” and that the cost could be recovered through a utility assessment if the committee authorized it. Stone said she would check whether the department needs additional statutory language to authorize a utility assessment to pay consultant costs.
Several members urged caution. Representative Harrington said the questions in the amendment — including whether previous magnetic-field standards adequately assess vulnerability and what higher standard should be used — are a “huge scientific endeavor” likely to require outside expertise and explicit funding. He warned that without a fiscal note and a clear funding mechanism the committee was opening “an open ticket” that could lead to requests for money later.
Representative Parchel raised security and source concerns about the bill’s origins, noting testimony from the Center for Security Policy and warning that ‘‘spurious fears’’ could be driving policy. Other members, including Vice chair Thomas, said the issue has bipartisan attention nationally and that the amendment asks needed questions that the state could use to assess whether further action is warranted.
Members pressed on the confidentiality language as well. Representative Kaplan asked whether the Department of Energy was familiar with the protocols referenced in the amendment for handling critical energy infrastructure information and whether it could securely handle location and purpose data. Representative Harrington warned that publishing mitigation strategies could reveal protections that bad actors might exploit.
Given those unresolved questions about funding, technical capacity and confidentiality, the committee paused the executive session while staff prepared a new amendment. Later in the afternoon Representative Matson withdrew the motion to pass HB 17-23, and the committee recessed consideration of the bill until Tuesday, March 3, at 10 a.m.
Next steps: the committee asked the Department of Energy to advise on statutory language to authorize a utility assessment to fund consultant work and for staff to draft an amendment addressing timing, funding and confidentiality protocols.
