Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Storage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to allow customer batteries to earn net‑metering credits
Summary
House Bill 1718 would explicitly let customer‑sited batteries paired with on‑site generation participate in net metering; supporters said the change is a practical clarification that enables resiliency, utility pilots and future PUC rulemaking.
Representative Michael Vos introduced House Bill 1718, which would authorize customer generators who pair on‑site energy storage with their generation systems to collect net‑metering credits when they export stored electricity to the grid. "That's the plain and simple fact of the bill," Vos told the committee, framing the measure as a technical clarification to reflect how batteries are already used with solar and other distributed generation.
Supporters from the clean‑energy community told the committee the bill keeps statutes aligned with current practice and opens the door to programs that use batteries to reduce peak demand. Dina Dennis of the Community Power Coalition of New Hampshire said the bill "at its core [is] a practical clarification," noting it preserves the rule that batteries should generally be charged by on‑site generation while allowing exceptions for utility‑managed programs and storm‑hardening use cases.
Sam Evans Brown of Clean Energy New Hampshire described the measure as an initial, modest step: "So this is step one," he said, urging passage so the Public Utilities Commission can design tariffs and programs that maximize value to ratepayers. Witnesses pointed to an existing Liberty Utilities pilot that already allows paired batteries to export to the grid as an example of near‑term applications.
Department staff said the bill is neutral but flagged a technical drafting issue about which agency — the department or the commission — should implement particular subsections of RSA 374‑H. Josh Elliot, director in the Division of Policy and Programs, asked the committee to consider one targeted wording change replacing the word "commission" with "department" in a specific subsection to match statutory responsibilities.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about the bill's interaction with existing net‑metering principles and the PUC's authority. Proponents said the bill is intentionally non‑prescriptive: it enables storage to participate under net metering while leaving detailed program design and rates to the commission and department. The hearing closed without a recorded floor vote; sponsors said subsequent PUC rulemaking and tariff design would follow if the bill advances.
Next steps: the committee closed the hearing and left the bill available for further action at a later date.
