Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Distributed Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to expand utility investment in distributed energy prompts split testimony
Summary
Senate Bill 591 would let electric utilities increase investment in distributed energy resources from 6% to 10% of peak distribution, allow certain projects including battery storage, and broaden how the PUC can weigh direct and indirect benefits; utilities back the bill with safeguards while generators and community-power advocates oppose it.
A bill to expand utility ownership of distributed energy resources drew sharply divided testimony at the Science, Technology and Energy Committee on April 7.
Senators who sponsored the bill said raising the cap from 6% to 10% of a utility’s distribution peak would allow utilities to pursue more small-scale local projects — solar, battery storage and other distributed resources — that reduce peak load and can help reliability. The amended measure directs the Public Utilities Commission to weigh both direct and indirect economic benefits when deciding whether a project’s benefits outweigh its costs.
Supporters included Eversource and UNATIL, each pointing to strict PUC review and statutory limitations on project size (typically 5 megawatts or less for distribution-connected resources). Michael Lacata of Eversource said the assets contemplated are distribution-level “load reducers” that are not intended to participate directly in ISO wholesale markets, and noted the statutory review process and nine-factor PUC test required before cost recovery would be allowed.
Opponents included the New England Power Generators Association (NEPGA) and the Community Power Coalition of New Hampshire. NEPGA warned the legislature that expanding utility ownership of generation is a precedent that could discourage merchant generators and shift investment risks onto captive ratepayers. Community power advocates said allowing utilities to recover broader “indirect” benefits through distribution rates could give utilities a structural advantage over competitive suppliers and community aggregation programs.
The Department of Energy testified it was neutral and suggested clarifying the statutory language around indirect benefits because the term could be broad and implications for PUC review should be explicit; the department noted a fiscal note for consultant costs to evaluate utility proposals.
What’s next: The committee heard extensive testimony and questions. Stakeholders on both sides asked for clearer statutory definitions and pointed to the pivotal role the PUC would play in vetting projects before rate recovery.
