Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Power topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portsmouth advisory group urges council work session, stops short of recommending immediate withdrawal from Community Power
Summary
Committee members debated whether Portsmouth should withdraw from CPCNH (Community Power), with speakers urging more transparency from the program and stronger outreach to at‑risk customers. The committee requested more financial details, withdrawal costs/timeline and invited coalition leadership and the consumer advocate to an April 20 work session.
The Portsmouth Energy Advisory Committee spent substantial time discussing Community Power (CPCNH/CPCH) and whether the city should pursue withdrawing from the program. Chair Tracy Cameron confirmed the committee will be part of an April 20 council work session that will include coalition representatives Henry Hearnden and Jackson Kaspari and New Hampshire consumer advocate Don Crease.
Committee members expressed a mix of caution and continued support. Kevin Sheret urged patience and better public transparency before considering withdrawal, saying it would be "very shortsighted to take the option away" from residents if CPCNH can stabilize operations and remain competitive. Several members echoed the need for the coalition to present clear timelines for restoring reserves and demonstrating that active portfolio management and hedging practices have improved.
Speakers who favored remaining emphasized consumer choice and municipal climate goals. A member said community power provides an option that allows customers both to access renewable products and to switch back to default utility service when it is cheaper; removing that option, the argument went, would return customers to a single supply choice. "If you want to take a small step and you want to support more green energy, you can do that through community power," one committee member said.
Others raised sharper concerns about CPCNH's operational performance, reserve levels and the mechanics of the market. MC noted a chart showing reserves had been restored to about $7 million in November 2025 but committee members also said that reserves remained below the cost‑sharing agreement minimums and that CPCNH may require additional reserve adders and rate adjustments in future periods. Several members pressed for clearer reporting on reserve projections and the potential additional rate impacts for Portsmouth residents.
Equity and outreach were recurring themes. Members warned that low‑income customers often do not notice mailings or opt‑out notices and therefore bear disproportionate risk when supply rates change; they urged the consumer advocate and the Public Utilities Commission to require stronger outreach and easier opt‑out/switch mechanisms.
On the practical question of what withdrawing would cost the city, staff said the cost‑sharing agreement outlines termination timing and any buyout if pre‑purchased power would have to be repaid; the committee requested that coalition leadership present a clear example of withdrawal costs and timelines at the April 20 work session.
No formal motion to withdraw was taken. Instead, the committee refined questions for the council and for CPCNH leadership and said it would use the April 20 work session to press for more complete financial disclosures, clearer outreach plans for vulnerable customers, and a demonstration that CPCNH's governance and portfolio management have improved.
