Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Net Metering Industrial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate hearing on SB 449FN spotlights industrial net‑metering expansion and storage rules
Summary
Senator Tim Lang and industry supporters described SB 449FN as a tool to let large industrial customers aggregate on‑site accounts and use storage to shave peak demand; the Department of Energy warned the bill’s definitions and compensation language need clarification and could shift risk to ratepayers.
Senator Tim Lang introduced Senate Bill 449FN to allow large industrial customer generators to aggregate multiple on‑site meters (1–5 megawatts) and clarify how energy storage interacts with net metering, arguing the change would cut peak demand costs and improve manufacturers’ competitiveness. Lang said the amended bill narrows the policy to industrial campuses with multiple meters and puts in guardrails that require payment adjustments when generation exceeds a customer’s annual consumption.
The bill’s sponsor emphasized that on‑site generation paired with storage can reduce costly long‑distance transmission upgrades and outages, and that providing predictability (including a 20‑year program eligibility window) would help firms make long‑term capital investments. Witnesses from Lonza and Coca‑Cola told the committee larger rooftop and campus arrays would help meet sustainability goals and contain operating costs.
Department of Energy staff, Meg Stone and Josh Elliot, testified they are neutral on the bill but urged changes before adoption. The department said the proposed ‘‘industrial customer’’ construct resembles a ‘‘group host’’ without including the statutory compensation and operational rules that group hosts must follow, which creates ambiguity over how customers above the one‑megawatt threshold would be compensated. The department also flagged potential conflicts with other pending legislation and asked for clearer reference to the EN‑900/PUC rule framework the PUC is updating.
Committee members pressed for details on how excess generation would be valued and reconciled under updated PUC rules, and whether the draft fiscal note remains accurate after Senate amendments. Members also questioned whether the bill’s protections would require utility rate adjustments or new rulemaking at the PUC. Supporters, including the Business & Industry Association and Clean Energy New Hampshire, argued expanded eligibility could attract or retain manufacturers and noted studies that show distributed resources can reduce system costs and summer peaks; opponents urged more granular modeling of potential cost shifts.
The committee did not take a vote on SB 449FN in this hearing. Legislators requested additional technical fixes to statutory definitions and asked DOE and the PUC to provide written recommendations about compensation approaches, behind‑the‑meter consumption thresholds, and how storage should be treated under existing and forthcoming rules.
