Committee Summary for House Science, Technology and Energy (02/04/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB537 00:01:51.439 - 8:01:22 AM	Public Hearing	relative to electric rates approved by the public utilities commission for residential condominium property.	Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2024
HB539 00:31:46.039 - 8:31:17 AM	Public Hearing	requiring electric utilities to use residential electric rates for certain types of residential condominiums.	Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2024
HB680 01:22:53.400 - 9:22:24 AM	Public Hearing	relative to standardizing homeowners associations' electricity billing for shared meter usage.	Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2024
HCR4 02:08:34.320 - 10:08:05 AM	Executive Session	relative to rejecting all offshore wind energy projects in the waters off the coast of New Hampshire and the Gulf of Maine.	Thomas, Douglas(R)[A-]2024
HB682 02:26:00.840 - 10:25:31 AM	Executive Session	relative to the office of offshore wind industry, the offshore and port development commission, and the office of energy innovation.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2024
HB654 04:02:55.720 - 12:02:26 PM	Public Hearing	relative to allowing small customer-generators the ability to participate in group-net metering.	Cormen, Thomas(D)[CT]2024
HB541 04:46:36.680 - 12:46:07 PM	Public Hearing	establishing a committee to study energy and telecommunications infrastructure survivability and resiliency.	McFarlane, Donald(R)
SB4 05:27:40.360 - 1:27:11 PM	Public Hearing	relative to commercial property assessed clean energy and resiliency (C-PACER).	Innis, Daniel(R)[C+]2024
HB166 05:55:40.958 - 1:55:11 PM	Executive Session	establishing a committee to review Internet service providers' infrastructure transition plan from copper to fiber.	Edwards, Jess(R)[B+]2024
HB169 2025-0249h 05:58:55.718 - 1:58:26 PM	Executive Session	relative to a quorum of the public utilities commission.	Cormen, Thomas(D)[CT]2024
HB436 06:07:08.280 - 2:06:39 PM	Executive Session	establishing a commission to solicit reports and testimony regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena in the state.	Ankarberg, Aidan(I)[A-]2024
HB504 2025-0215h 06:10:19.000 - 2:09:50 PM	Executive Session	relative to the state energy policy.	Vose, Michael(R)[A]2024
HB508 06:27:10.680 - 2:26:41 PM	Executive Session	relative to decreasing assessment rates for entities providing VoIP and IP-enabled services, as well as certain local exchange carriers and their affiliates.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2024
SB4 06:31:23.040 - 2:30:54 PM	Executive Session	relative to commercial property assessed clean energy and resiliency (C-PACER).	Innis, Daniel(R)[C+]2024

HB537: Vice Chair Doug Thomas, Science Tech and Energy Committee Information Only00:01:51.439 - 8:01:22 AM; Vice Chair Doug Thomas opened the public hearing for HB 537, noting that several committee members were absent due to illness or other commitments. He mentioned that they would also hear testimony for other bills later in the day.
HB537: Representative Alison Nab, Rockingham 12, Stratham Support00:03:25.560 - 8:02:56 AM; Representative Alison Nab introduced HB 537, explaining that it addresses shared electric meters used for well and septic pumps in residential condominiums. She noted that these meters are currently billed at commercial rates, which are higher than residential rates. The bill aims to ensure that these shared meters are billed at the residential rate, as they serve residential purposes. Nab mentioned that the bill was brought forward by condo owners in The Vineyards, a community in Stratham, and highlighted the issue of cost shifting due to the current billing practice. She expressed willingness to combine this bill with others to address the issue comprehensively and invited questions from the committee.
HB537: Richard Sweat, The Vineyards at Stratham Condominium Association, NH LA Support00:08:09.199 - 8:07:40 AM; Richard Sweat, representing The Vineyards at Stratham Condominium Association and NH LA, supported the idea of combining HB 537 with other related bills to address the issue of shared electric meters. He argued against the Department of Energy's classification of condominiums as commercial entities, stating that residential condominiums should not be charged commercial rates for domestic septic and well pump usage. Sweat explained that HB 537 would amend relevant RSA sections to define residential condominiums and ensure they are charged the correct electric rates. He also mentioned support from the Condominium Leadership Council and the Vineyards' board of directors.
HB537: Megan Stone, Department of Energy Information Only00:18:04.679 - 8:17:35 AM; Megan Stone from the Department of Energy stated that the department is neutral on HB 537 but has concerns about unintended consequences. She explained that the bill would allow condo associations to determine the rate classification for their common areas, potentially shifting costs between residential and non-residential customers. Stone mentioned a non-legislative solution where changing the account holder's name to a resident could result in a residential rate. She clarified that condo associations are considered non-residential due to shared spaces and dues collection, and addressed questions about the classification and the applicability of the bill to shared meters.
HB539: Representative Alison Nab, Rockingham 12, Stratham Support00:31:46.039 - 8:31:17 AM; Representative Alison Nab introduced HB 539, which is similar to HB 537 but amends a different section of the statute. She reiterated the intent to combine these bills to address the issue of shared electric meters in residential condominiums. Nab addressed concerns raised, including the utility's position that shared meters must be billed at commercial rates and the complexities of a non-legislative solution. She emphasized that the bill focuses on septic and well usage, which are essential residential components, and should be billed at residential rates.
HB539: Richard Sweat, The Vineyards at Stratham Condominium Association, NH LA Support00:39:03.119 - 8:38:34 AM; Richard Sweat testified in support of HB 539, which would amend RSA 371a to ensure residential electric rates apply to well and septic systems in condominiums without commercial enterprises. He explained the difference between the supplier's kilowatt charge and the delivery charge, noting that the utility decides the tariff schedule. Sweat argued that residential condominiums should be assigned the Schedule D tariff for domestic use, as they require water and septic systems for habitability. He mentioned support from The Vineyards and the Condominium Leadership Council.
HB539: Megan Stone, Department of Energy Information Only00:49:25.119 - 8:48:56 AM; Megan Stone clarified that electric service for individual well pumps or septic systems typically runs through a residential meter. However, when a well or septic system serves multiple homeowners, the service is classified as commercial, regardless of whether the organization is for-profit or nonprofit. She emphasized that such organizations are required to register as a business with the Secretary of State, providing clarity on the classification of services as commercial.
HB539: Michael Lata, Eversource Energy Information Only00:51:40.720 - 8:51:11 AM; Michael Lata from Eversource Energy addressed the committee's questions about the classification of electric service for shared septic and water systems in condominiums. He explained that the determination of whether a meter is classified as residential or commercial depends on the entity's registration with the Secretary of State. If registered as a commercial entity, it is charged commercial rates. Lata mentioned that if the account was transferred to an individual's name, it would be charged residential rates, but he expressed concerns about verifying the actual use behind the meter if a commercial entity claimed residential use.
HB539: Alison Nabringham, representing Stratham, New Hampshire Support01:02:27.039 - 9:01:58 AM; Alison Nabringham from Stratham, New Hampshire, testified in support of the bill, noting that it has no fiscal impact on the state. She highlighted that the bill allows homeowners associations to assign charges for shared meters back to the units sharing the meter, rather than passing it back to all members of the association. She also mentioned that an amendment was added to include Electric Co-ops, which were inadvertently left out of the previous bills. Nabringham argued that the bill is a matter of fairness, questioning whether condo association members should be charged at a commercial rate or as residents, like a single-family home. She expressed concerns about the department of energy and Eversource's concerns about the association's ability to determine its residential or commercial status, suggesting that this might need further clarification in the legislation.
HB539: Representative Arrington Information Only01:04:26.599 - 9:03:57 AM; Representative Arrington questioned whether the issue could be resolved internally by the condo association without legislation, suggesting that the president of the condo association could put the group meter in their name and then bill the members directly. Alison Nabringham responded that while it could be a solution, it feels 'funny' because it does not change the situation for the homeowners and puts the onus on the association and an individual to handle billing.
HB539: Representative NAB Information Only01:06:42.640 - 9:06:13 AM; Representative NAB discussed potential issues with the language of the bill, particularly the classification of residential units in homeowners associations by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). He suggested that the PUC might not have the statutory authority to classify these units and raised concerns about the constitutionality of the language. He also mentioned a plan to combine three similar bills into one amendment, indicating that further work might be needed to address the concerns raised by the committee.
HB539: Representative McGee Information Only01:08:22.158 - 9:07:53 AM; Representative McGee suggested amending the bill's language from 'classify' to a less directive term like 'identify' or 'consider' to address concerns about the Public Utilities Commission's authority. He proposed that this could provide the definitional framework needed without requiring the PUC to take specific actions, which might be a good direction for the amendment.
HB539: Representative Rols Information Only01:09:56.120 - 9:09:27 AM; Representative Rols sought clarification on whether the issue the bill aims to solve is related to the physical construction of condominiums. Alison Nabringham indicated that physical construction could be a factor, citing The Vineyards as an example, but deferred to Richard Sweat for further details on this aspect.
HB539: Representative Matson Information Only01:11:07.280 - 9:10:38 AM; Representative Matson asked about the situation where some condos are commercial and others are residential, and how this would affect the bill's application. Alison Nabringham clarified that the bill is intended for residential condos only and does not apply to mixed-use associations.
HB539: Representative Harrington Information Only01:11:59.159 - 9:11:30 AM; Representative Harrington suggested changing the language in the bill from 'the commission shall classify' to 'the utility shall consider' residential units in homeowners associations as residential customers. This change would shift the responsibility from the Public Utilities Commission to the utilities, potentially resolving some of the issues discussed.
HB539: Megan Stone, Department of Energy Information Only01:13:54.040 - 9:13:25 AM; Megan Stone from the Department of Energy testified neutrally on the bill but raised concerns about its implications. She noted that homeowners associations, even if they are 501c3 entities, are still corporations required to register as businesses. She questioned how these associations could be classified as residential when utilities typically bill residential and commercial customers differently. Stone also mentioned that the Public Utilities Commission sets rates based on utility tariffs and might not have the authority or resources to ensure how homeowners associations are billed. She also provided information on the limitations of shared meters under state statute.
HB539: Richard Sweat, Stratum representing NHL Support01:16:45.239 - 9:16:16 AM; Richard Sweat supported the bill and clarified that condominium associations can be unincorporated under RSA 356b, and do not need to be incorporated. He explained that The Vineyards was initially unincorporated but later chose to incorporate, though he noted that legal advice often recommends remaining unincorporated. Sweat detailed how the bill would affect billing for shared residential electric meters used for domestic purposes like well pumps and septic systems, emphasizing that these should be billed at residential rates. He argued that the bill would simplify billing processes for associations and their management companies, benefiting both the vendors and the associations.
HB680: Bureau of Protection, Vineyard Support01:22:53.400 - 9:22:24 AM; The speaker from the Bureau of Protection in Vineyard expressed support for HB680. They explained that for condominiums with more than 10 residential units, it's straightforward to identify and define a residential unit. They also mentioned a case where a unit owner installed a separate meter for business use within a condominium, indicating the flexibility and adaptability of current systems to accommodate different usage types.
HB680: Representative Summers Information Only01:24:31.960 - 9:24:02 AM; Representative Summers asked a question regarding the difference between condominiums and other types of residential structures like apartment buildings, multi-family residences, town home associations, and homeowner associations in the context of HB680. The response clarified that the Condominium Act 356 B specifically defines condominiums, distinguishing them from other types of residential structures which are often owned by corporations and managed for profit.
HB680: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only01:25:35.400 - 9:25:06 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas questioned if there were any conflicts between the three condominium bills discussed that morning. The response indicated no conflicts but suggested it would be more efficient if the bills were combined into one.
HB680: Representative Harrington Information Only01:26:49.520 - 9:26:20 AM; Representative Harrington discussed the essence of the issue, focusing on lines 22 and 23 of the bill, which pertain to how utilities should classify residential units within homeowners associations. The response involved referencing the condominium declaration under RSA 356B, which defines the intent and layout of condominiums, and discussed how utilities might handle new condominiums requesting electricity for various purposes.
HB680: Representative Swanson Information Only01:30:38.719 - 9:30:09 AM; Representative Swanson asked about changing the term 'commission' to 'utility' in the bill text, specifically on lines 7 through 8 and lines 22 through 23. The response indicated uncertainty about the implications of such a change, suggesting the need for further clarification.
HB680: Michael Lata, Eversource Energy Information Only01:33:24.320 - 9:32:55 AM; Michael Lata from Eversource Energy responded to questions about the responsibilities of utilities in classifying customers under HB680. He explained that utilities rely on self-declaration from entities like homeowners associations for classifying them as residential users for shared services. He highlighted the limitations of utilities in verifying such classifications and the practical considerations of managing these classifications based on self-reporting.
HB680: Representative M McGee Information Only01:38:08.880 - 9:37:39 AM; Representative M McGee discussed the need for clarification in the bill's language concerning the role of utilities in servicing homeowners associations. Michael Lata responded, emphasizing the utility's lack of visibility into what happens behind the meter and the challenges in applying different rates based on usage type.
HB680: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:39:56.199 - 9:39:27 AM; The speaker discusses the creation of a new class of customer for utilities, specifically suggesting that Homeowners Associations (HOAs) or Condominium Associations that are nonprofits should be treated as residential customers. They highlight the challenge of verifying the nature of these commercial entities. Representative Bernardi questions whether it would be acceptable for utilities if the legislation designated a single entity within these associations to act as the billing recipient. The response indicates a need to review such a proposal before committing.
HB680: Representative Harrington Information Only01:41:25.400 - 9:40:56 AM; Representative Harrington proposes a solution to the utility billing issue where a condo association could file with a government entity, such as the Secretary of State or the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), to declare their usage as residential. This filing would result in a certificate that allows them to be billed at the residential rate, potentially solving the utility's problem.
HB680: Representative McGee Information Only01:42:57.080 - 9:42:28 AM; Representative McGee points out that the Secretary of State maintains a list of homeowners associations, suggesting that this information could be used to verify the status of such associations for utility billing purposes. They propose that if an association provides evidence of registration, this could be an option to address the utility's concerns, though they note that utilities are wary of additional administrative burdens.
HCR4: Representative Vice Chair Thomas Support02:08:34.320 - 10:08:05 AM; Representative Thomas moves to pass HCR4, emphasizing that the resolution is meant to send a message against offshore wind in the Gulf of Maine due to unanswered questions affecting fishermen. They highlight the need for further vetting and the potential environmental and economic impacts on the fishing industry.
HCR4: Representative Nutter Support02:10:31.760 - 10:10:02 AM; Representative Nutter supports the bill, citing the educational nature of the hearings and the compelling testimony from fishermen about the ecological disruptions and dangers posed by offshore wind installations. They express concern over the impact on the ocean's food chain and the potential hazards of windmill construction.
HCR4: Representative McGee Oppose02:11:05.000 - 10:10:36 AM; Representative McGee expresses a nuanced view, acknowledging the compelling testimony from fishermen but arguing against closing the door on offshore wind. They advocate for continued participation in investigating whether offshore wind could be a viable solution for the region, suggesting a balanced approach to the issue.
HCR4: Representative Harrington Oppose02:11:44.280 - 10:11:15 AM; Representative Harrington expressed confusion about the bill initially, mistaking it for another. Upon clarification that it was a resolution, he highlighted his involvement with the offshore wind commission and noted the significant public opposition to offshore wind projects at commission meetings. He supports the resolution for its cautionary stance on offshore wind development.
HCR4: Representative Wendy Thomas Oppose02:13:17.079 - 10:12:48 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas criticized the resolution's language, pointing out vague terms like 'massive amounts' of toxic water and the outdated reference to chlorine use. She also mentioned existing permits and studies in the Gulf of Maine, and argued against the resolution's attempt to influence other states' actions, suggesting it removes New Hampshire from important discussions.
HCR4: Representative Bernardy Support02:14:21.520 - 10:13:52 AM; Representative Bernardy, a member of the Coastal Marine committee, supported the resolution due to concerns raised by fishermen about the environmental impacts of offshore wind, including the effects of chlorinated water on marine life. He emphasized the need for resolution of these issues before moving forward with such projects.
HCR4: Representative Swanson Oppose02:16:40.160 - 10:16:11 AM; As a recreational fisherman, Representative Swanson opposed the bill, citing its regulatory nature and the ambiguity of terms like 'rejection of all projects' and 'more complete understanding'. He felt these ambiguities made the bill problematic and pointless.
HCR4: Representative Vice Chair Thomas Support02:17:54.718 - 10:17:25 AM; Representative Vice Chair Thomas clarified that the resolution is non-binding due to the federal jurisdiction over offshore wind in federal waters. He supported the resolution as it sends a message against offshore wind in the Gulf of Maine, aligning with the governor's stance and emphasizing unresolved questions about the environmental impact.
HCR4: Representative Rols from Portsmouth Oppose02:19:52.600 - 10:19:23 AM; Representative Rols expressed opposition to HCR4, emphasizing his background as a representative from Portsmouth and a retired Coast Guard officer. He highlighted the misinformation presented about floating wind turbines, clarifying that they would not restrict maritime traffic as claimed. He argued that the resolution's blanket rejection of offshore wind is not good public policy, especially considering the economic benefits that could come to Portsmouth's port and the soon-to-be decommissioned Schiller Power Station from the offshore wind industry.
HB682: Representative Summers Support02:26:00.840 - 10:25:31 AM; Representative Summers supported HB682, citing the testimony from fisheries experts the previous day. He emphasized the importance of peer-reviewed research presented, which highlighted the negative impacts of offshore wind on fisheries, including effects on plankton, fish, and whales. He also mentioned an executive order blocking offshore wind, indicating its contentious nature.
HB682: Representative Wendy Thomas Oppose02:28:12.240 - 10:27:43 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas opposed HB682, arguing that it would remove New Hampshire from the discussion of wind power, which is detrimental as the state seeks energy independence. She noted that while the bill does not remove the renewable energy task force, it severely limits its function. She expressed concern over the state's energy future and the bill's impact on it.
HB682: Representative Harrington Support02:29:28.319 - 10:28:59 AM; Representative Harrington supported HB682, explaining that New Hampshire would remain involved in offshore wind discussions through the Department of Energy's participation in regional meetings. He clarified that without a state mandate, no utility in New Hampshire could initiate an offshore wind project, thus the bill does not cut the state out of the process. He also mentioned that other states, like New Jersey, are stepping away from offshore wind projects.
HB682: Representative N Support02:30:23.319 - 10:29:54 AM; Representative N supported HB682, adding to the discussion about New Jersey's decision to step away from offshore wind due to issues with the right whale, further supporting the stance against such projects.
HB682: Representative Swanson Oppose02:31:32.680 - 10:31:03 AM; Representative Swanson opposed HB682, questioning the threat posed by the technology and the need to change legislation to oppose it without a mandate to build windmills. She viewed the bill as anti-business and anti-technology, suggesting it was unnecessary and potentially harmful.
HB682: Representative McGee Oppose02:32:44.000 - 10:32:15 AM; Representative McGee opposed HB682, highlighting its removal of offshore wind from the office of energy innovation's definition and the repeal of the offshore wind industry workforce training center. She argued that moving the grid modernization advisory council into the Department of Energy would reduce transparency. She emphasized the importance of not being threatened by gaining more knowledge on the subject and opposed the bill for these reasons.
HB654: Representative Kat McGee from behalf of Representative Tom Corman Support04:02:55.720 - 12:02:26 PM; Representative Kat McGee introduced HB654 FN, explaining that it would allow small customer generators to participate in group net metering. She detailed the bill's provisions, which include removing the current prohibition on small customer generators joining net metering groups, requiring future rules to allow such participation, and ensuring agencies issuing rules on group net metering consider small customer generators. She clarified that the bill does not intend to allow double dipping in subsidies but aims to enable small generators to join groups and pool their energy.
HB654: Representative Rols Information Only04:11:35.920 - 12:11:06 PM; Representative Rols provided additional information on group net metering, explaining its purpose and mechanics. He used an example of a business in an industrial park wanting to install solar and net meter, requiring the identification of load from other businesses to balance the system. He clarified that group members might or might not be compensated by the host for their participation, and emphasized that the bill aims to allow businesses already in a net metering group to install their own solar and continue participating in the group without double dipping.
HB654: Matt Young, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only04:21:54.840 - 12:21:25 PM; Matt Young from the New Hampshire Department of Energy presented a neutral stance on HB654 FN. He expressed concerns about the bill's proposed changes potentially conflicting with the original intent of group host designation, which was to allow sharing of surplus power among utility account holders who are not customer generators. He highlighted potential complications in utility and department registration and administration if customer generators were allowed as group members. Concerns were raised about 'double dipping' where customer generators could receive benefits from both the alternative tariff and group host arrangements. Young also noted potential billing system upgrades required for utilities, which could impact rate payers. He mentioned the ongoing development of net metering rules by the Department of Energy, suggesting a technical fix may be needed if the bill moves forward.
HB654: Michael Lata, Eversource Oppose04:32:53.080 - 12:32:24 PM; Michael Lata from Eversource expressed concerns about HB654 FN, agreeing with the Department of Energy that the proposed language contradicts the original purpose of group net metering. He explained that the bill could allow small customer generators to participate in both net metering and group net metering, which would complicate administration and accounting. Lata noted that current billing systems could not accommodate this without manual intervention, increasing costs and the potential for error. He discussed scenarios where small generators could join group net metering, emphasizing that these additions would not be considered part of the host facility's capacity, and highlighted the need for the group host's total load to match the members' load to avoid forfeiting net metering benefits.
HB654: Unnamed Speaker, Department of Energy Information Only04:43:31.440 - 12:43:02 PM; The speaker discussed the accounting and management challenges that the Department of Energy would face in handling group net metering as proposed by the bill. They confirmed previous concerns about the complexity of accounting for imports and exports among group members, which would need to be reconciled at the end of the year.
HB541: Representative Donald McFarland, Orange Support04:46:36.680 - 12:46:07 PM; Representative McFarland introduced House Bill 541, emphasizing the need for a committee to study the survivability and resiliency of New Hampshire's energy and telecommunications infrastructure. He highlighted recent nation-state cyber and physical threats to critical infrastructure, citing specific breaches and comments from cybersecurity experts. McFarland argued for the necessity of the bill due to the economic, public safety, and national defense implications of potential disruptions. He proposed that the committee could be a commission for ongoing monitoring and suggested that state and local governments have a role in addressing these issues. He also discussed his background in telecommunications and cybersecurity, which motivated his interest in this legislation.
HB541: Representative Harrington Information Only04:57:03.718 - 12:56:34 PM; Representative Harrington questioned the practicality of a group of New Hampshire state representatives and others addressing a complex global issue, suggesting that the scope might be too broad for a state-level committee or commission.
HB541: Representative McGee Information Only04:58:08.400 - 12:57:39 PM; Representative McGee raised concerns about the bill's narrow makeup and tight timeline for such a broad topic. They suggested considering modifications to allow for more time and a broader approach to the study.
HB541: Representative Summers Information Only04:59:12.680 - 12:58:43 PM; Representative Summers inquired if the proposed committee would address issues like the use of potentially insecure devices such as Huawei Wi-Fi devices, to which Representative McFarland confirmed it could fall within the committee's purview. He cited examples of security vulnerabilities in consumer routers and emphasized the importance of considering supply chain risks in energy and telecommunications infrastructure.
HB541: Representative Swanson Information Only05:01:17.440 - 1:00:48 PM; Representative Swanson expressed concerns about the scope of the committee and the feasibility of investigating IT infrastructures across various facilities and businesses. They questioned the added value of the committee's work and the information it would gather, to which McFarland responded by focusing on preparedness and the need to ensure the state's infrastructure is survivable and resilient against various threats.
HB541: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:06:03.200 - 1:05:34 PM; The speaker mentioned a discrepancy but did not elaborate on its nature. They engaged in a dialogue with Representative Howard about the potential scope of the committee or commission under consideration, specifically whether it would address weatherization of infrastructure. The speaker indicated uncertainty about the relevance of weatherization to the committee's focus.
HB541: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:07:15.600 - 1:06:46 PM; The speaker addressed questions from Vice Chair Thomas regarding the current state efforts in cyber security and coordination with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). They clarified that the bill aims to enhance existing efforts, acknowledging the activities of DHS and the state's cyber security committee. They emphasized the need for the committee to consider changes in behavior of threat actors and the importance of ensuring the survivability, resiliency, and reliability of utility services.
HB541: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:10:23.200 - 1:09:54 PM; The speaker responded to follow-up questions regarding the practical work of the proposed committee, suggesting it would assess the preparedness of key utility companies and consider further testimony from experts based on the companies' responses. They highlighted the importance of understanding the utility companies' perspectives on security issues.
HB541: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:11:14.638 - 1:10:45 PM; The speaker addressed Representative Wendy Thomas's questions about the committee's scope, confirming that it would consider threats both foreign and domestic. They emphasized a comprehensive approach to security threats, including physical and cyber elements, and mentioned the importance of protecting against all serious enemies without focusing on any one geographical region.
HB541: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:14:42.798 - 1:14:13 PM; The speaker responded to Representative Bernardi's query about the bill's scope, confirming that it includes the investigation of threats to the grid and the need for hardening. They cited examples of physical attacks on substations in other states and the long lead times for critical equipment, emphasizing the importance of considering physical security in addition to cyber security.
HB541: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:16:54.440 - 1:16:25 PM; The speaker addressed Representative Schneller's question about the role of the executive branch versus the legislature in the proposed legislation. They deferred the decision on the exact form of the legislation to the committee's expertise, indicating flexibility in how the bill could be structured.
HB541: Michael Lata, Eversource Energy Information Only05:18:14.400 - 1:17:45 PM; Michael Lata from Eversource Energy expressed appreciation for the bill sponsor's goals and testified about the existing regulatory oversight and coordination with various state and federal agencies. He highlighted the comprehensive nature of current security measures for electric transmission and distribution systems and raised concerns about sharing confidential security planning information with a legislative committee. He emphasized Eversource's agreement with the intent to enhance security but pointed out the complexity of coordinating with multiple agencies.
HB541: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:21:13.120 - 1:20:44 PM; The speaker responded to Vice Chair Thomas's question about whether the proposed legislation could evaluate the coordination among various agencies. They noted the difficulty in assessing the roles and gaps of different agencies, especially given the broad scope of the legislation beyond electric infrastructure to include natural gas, telecommunications, and electric generation.
HB541: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:23:11.400 - 1:22:42 PM; The speaker expressed concerns about the feasibility of the bill, noting that it would require participation from various agencies. They acknowledged the significant undertaking that the bill represents if passed, and responded to a question from Representative Summers about whether the bill could enhance security understanding of electrical grids and state IT infrastructure. The speaker indicated that while the bill could facilitate general planning and oversight discussions, it would not allow for the sharing of sensitive materials.
HB541: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:24:24.958 - 1:23:55 PM; The speaker continued to address Representative Summers' question, emphasizing that while the bill could allow for general discussions with state agencies and private entities like utilities and telecom companies, it would not enable the sharing of confidential security plans due to the public nature of committee meetings. They then responded to Representative Wendy Thomas, confirming that Eversource has multiple departments dedicated to cybersecurity, IT, and physical security, extending to their operations and grid automation systems. The speaker expressed confidence in the rigorous security programs at Eversource but could not speak for other utilities.
SB4: Representative Michael Vose, Rockingham District Five Support05:27:40.360 - 1:27:11 PM; Representative Vose introduced Senate Bill 4, which is identical to a previously discussed C-PACER bill with two changes. He explained that the Senate passed the bill and sent it to the House, suggesting that the House should pass it and hold onto their own version until the Senate bill reaches the full House. If it passes, it would go to the governor, and the House bill could be disposed of.
SB4: James Key Wallace, Executive Director of the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority Support05:29:58.600 - 1:29:29 PM; James Key Wallace detailed the two changes in the Senate bill from the House version. The first change clarifies that all owners must consent to encumber the property, and the second change specifies the protection of confidential commercial and financial information under statute 91a. He answered questions from representatives about the bill's complexity, its application to commercial properties, the mechanism of tax assessments for loan repayments, and the benefits of C-PACER loans over conventional loans. He emphasized that the program is opt-in for municipalities, with no liability to them, and that the BFA would administer it without state funds.
SB4: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only05:33:19.400 - 1:32:50 PM; Representative Thomas confirmed that the current bill is the same as the previous one except for the two mentioned edits. She also asked about the typical duration of C-PACER loans, to which Wallace responded that the loan length is determined by the lender based on the nature of the improvement, aiming to be cash flow positive.
SB4: Representative Harrington Information Only05:41:28.920 - 1:40:59 PM; Representative Harrington inquired about the applicability of C-PACER loans to private houses and the role of municipalities in the loan process. Wallace clarified that C-PACER is for commercial properties and explained the mechanism where the loan is paid through a special assessment on the municipal tax bill, with no liability for the municipality. Harrington also asked about the administrative costs and the need for the BFA, to which Wallace explained that the BFA already exists and would administer the program without state funds. He also addressed concerns about loan defaults, stating that the lender would bear the cost in such cases.
SB4: Representative Swanson Information Only05:37:32.480 - 1:37:03 PM; Representative Swanson asked about the payment schedule for C-PACER loans, to which Wallace explained that the payment frequency can be structured as agreed upon by the lender and borrower, typically monthly despite the tax assessment being semi-annual.
SB4: Representative Thomas Information Only05:39:27.280 - 1:38:58 PM; Representative Thomas asked about how C-PACER loan payments are handled when property taxes are combined with mortgage payments. Wallace explained that the money must go to the C-PACER lender, not the town, and that it could be managed similarly to escrow payments for mortgages.
HB166: Representative Harrington Oppose05:55:40.958 - 1:55:11 PM; Representative Harrington moved for 'inexpedient to legislate' (ITL) on House Bill 166, arguing that the bill was unnecessary as providers are already transitioning from copper to fiber. He pointed out technical errors in the bill, such as involving the Public Utilities Commission, which has no jurisdiction over the internet, and the inclusion of union representatives, which he found irrelevant.
HB166: Representative McGee Support05:56:53.320 - 1:56:24 PM; Representative McGee expressed agreement with Representative Harrington's motion to recommend ITL on House Bill 166.
HB169 2025-0249h: Representative Vice Chair Thomas Oppose05:58:55.718 - 1:58:26 PM; Representative Vice Chair Thomas moved for a vote of Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on House Bill 169 FN, stating that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) holds many hearings without full commissions, and current Commissioners oppose the change. They argue that the bill attempts to fix a non-existent problem and is therefore unnecessary.
HB169 2025-0249h: Representative Bernardi Oppose05:59:41.958 - 1:59:12 PM; Representative Bernardi seconded the motion for ITL on House Bill 169 FN, indicating their support for the decision to deem the bill inexpedient to legislate.
HB169 2025-0249h: Representative McGee Support06:00:11.920 - 1:59:42 PM; Representative McGee discussed an amendment to the bill, 2025-0249h, which was intended to clarify that a majority means at least two Commissioners. They believed this amendment was crucial as it aimed to ensure that decisions at the PUC are made by more than one individual, addressing the core intent of the bill.
HB169 2025-0249h: Representative Harrington Oppose06:01:34.040 - 2:01:05 PM; Representative Harrington argued that the bill is unnecessary, explaining that the current law already defines a quorum and allows hearings to be conducted by one or two Commissioners. They highlighted the operational challenges the PUC faces, such as scheduling conflicts due to vacations or illnesses, and emphasized that limiting hearings to two Commissioners would severely impact the PUC's efficiency.
HB169 2025-0249h: Representative PL Oppose06:04:18.400 - 2:03:49 PM; Representative PL supported Representative Harrington's point that other professionals, like hearing examiners, conduct hearings within the PUC without Commissioners, and limiting this could bog down the process.
HB436: Representative Schneller Oppose06:07:08.280 - 2:06:39 PM; Representative Schneller moved for ITL on House Bill 436, noting that the bill had no sponsor, no testimony, no information, and no interest or discussion. They described the bill as anomalous and recommended it remain as such, hence proposing it be deemed inexpedient to legislate.
HB436: Representative Matson Oppose06:07:08.280 - 2:06:39 PM; Representative Matson seconded the motion for ITL on House Bill 436, indicating their agreement with the decision to deem the bill inexpedient to legislate.
HB504 2025-0215h: Representative Vice Chair Thomas Support06:10:19.000 - 2:09:50 PM; Representative Vice Chair Thomas moved to adopt amendment 2025-0215h for House Bill 504, explaining the changes made to the original bill's language. The amendment adds terms like 'diverse', 'fostering', and 'customer choice', and references to state laws RSA 362-F and RSA 374-F. They believed these changes enhance the clarity and precision of New Hampshire's energy policy.
HB504 2025-0215h: Representative McGee Oppose06:12:41.400 - 2:12:12 PM; Representative McGee expressed concerns about the amendment to House Bill 504, particularly the exclusion of renewable energy sources from the definition of 'diverse'. They argued that the amendment narrows the state's energy policy compared to the more inclusive RSA 378:37, which they prefer. They believed the amendment contradicts the goal of fuel diversity as a hedge against cost spikes.
HB504 2025-0215h: Representative Rolds Oppose06:16:00.718 - 2:15:31 PM; Representative Rolds expressed appreciation for the amendment but stated opposition to HB504. He argued that New Hampshire's goal of energy independence is unrealistic due to the state's lack of fossil fuels and heavy reliance on imports. He criticized the amendment for not acknowledging the value of intermittent energy resources, which he believes contribute significantly to the grid when available, thus preserving imported fossil fuels for future use. He believes the current energy policy is more appropriate.
HB504 2025-0215h: Representative Barne Information Only06:19:02.280 - 2:18:33 PM; Representative Barne discussed the existing energy policy, focusing on the part about providing energy at the lowest reasonable cost while ensuring reliability and diversity of sources. He expressed difficulty in understanding how the current policy was more inclusive than the proposed amendment, which he found more prescriptive and detailed.
HB504 2025-0215h: Representative Swanson Information Only06:19:40.878 - 2:19:11 PM; Representative Swanson acknowledged improvements in the amendment to HB504 and suggested adding a clause to include on-demand and firm resources. He questioned whether this addition would make the amendment more acceptable to the committee.
HB504 2025-0215h: Representative Bney Support06:22:44.760 - 2:22:15 PM; Representative Bney supported the amendment to HB504, stating that the new policy is prescriptive and includes everything from the old policy, just more clearly spelled out. He believed it to be an improvement over the existing policy.
HB504 2025-0215h: Representative McGee Oppose06:23:40.000 - 2:23:11 PM; Representative McGee opposed the amendment to HB504, arguing that the existing policy is more comprehensive and inclusive of all stakeholders and aspects of the energy market. He highlighted the current policy's focus on meeting energy needs at the lowest reasonable cost while considering reliability, diversity, efficiency, and safety.
HB504 2025-0215h: Unnamed Speaker Support06:24:31.638 - 2:24:02 PM; An unnamed speaker supported the amended version of HB504, referencing the consumer advocate's description of the existing policy as contradictory. They noted that the Department of Energy found the new policy easier to understand and implement, urging the committee to pass the bill as amended.
HB508: Representative Harrington Support06:27:10.680 - 2:26:41 PM; Representative Harrington supported HB508, stating it would reduce the regulatory assessment for legacy telephone companies from 33% to 10%, acknowledging that these companies are hardly regulated anymore. He apologized for not providing an amendment earlier and suggested either passing the bill and asking the Senate to correct it or having a floor amendment in the House.
HB508: Representative Bernardi Information Only06:28:21.400 - 2:27:52 PM; Representative Bernardi suggested the option of a House floor amendment to correct the bill, ensuring that a good bill is passed to the Senate.
SB4: Representative McGee Support06:31:23.040 - 2:30:54 PM; Representative McGee supported SB4, explaining that it would enhance the C-PACE program, enabling financing for long-range energy efficiency improvements in commercial buildings. He believed this would increase building value, save energy, and potentially aid in providing more housing, including affordable options, by allowing for energy-efficient renovations.
SB4: Representative Harrington Oppose06:33:50.398 - 2:33:21 PM; Representative Harrington opposed SB4, expressing concern that it introduces a new government program that he believes is unnecessary and potentially risky. He argued that if projects were economically viable, they would be financed without government involvement, and feared it might ultimately cost taxpayers or ratepayers.
SB4: Vice Chair Thomas Support06:35:15.120 - 2:34:46 PM; Vice Chair Thomas supported SB4 after hearing testimony that reassured him that in cases of default or other issues, the lender, not the state or municipalities, would be responsible for losses. He felt this protection justified his support for the bill.
SB4: Representative Bernardi Information Only06:35:15.120 - 2:34:46 PM; Representative Bernardi clarified that SB4 does not apply to single-family homes but could be used for renovations turning buildings into apartment complexes or similar housing situations, thereby potentially aiding housing circumstances.
SB4: Representative Bney Information Only06:35:15.120 - 2:34:46 PM; Representative Bney raised a question about the guarantees of energy efficiency gains from projects under SB4 and the potential impact if a contractor overcharges.
SB4: Unnamed Speaker Information Only06:36:34.638 - 2:36:05 PM; The speaker discusses the potential drawbacks of the CPCE (Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy) program, mentioning that in previous versions and in other locations, there were issues with unscrupulous contractors doing shoddy work and taking advantage of the program. The current version shifts the responsibility for any poor work to the lender, not the state or municipality, which is intended to prevent such fraud.
SB4: Representative PL Support06:37:58.920 - 2:37:29 PM; Rep. PL expresses support for the bill, noting it as a pro-banking bill because it minimizes the risk of bankruptcy for banks by allowing them to loan money with lower risk. They believe the bill will help push forward renovations for energy efficiency in buildings in New Hampshire.
SB4: Representative Rolds Support06:39:22.958 - 2:38:53 PM; Rep. Rolds supports the bill, highlighting its innovation in policy structure. They appreciate the inclusion of the term 'Market transformation' in the amendment, which they see exemplified in this bill. They explain that the loan being attached to the property rather than the owner, and repayment facilitated by the municipality, helps overcome the market failure associated with energy efficiency investments.
SB4: Representative Harrington Oppose06:41:35.080 - 2:41:06 PM; Rep. Harrington opposes the bill, arguing that it could lead to corruption and problems. They express concerns that the government's involvement might not make the investment better and predict future expansions of the program to include subsidies for low-income people or specific neighborhoods, which they view skeptically.
SB4: Representative Parshall Information Only06:43:47.080 - 2:43:18 PM; Rep. Parshall's initial remarks were not audible due to a microphone issue, and they were asked to repeat themselves. However, the content of their testimony was not captured in the transcript provided.

Vose, Michael(Chairman)(R)[A]2024	Bernardy, JD(Clerk)(R)[A-]2024	Thomas, Douglas(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2024
Notter, Jeanine(R)[A]2024	Schneller, John(R)	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2024
McGhee, Kat(D)[CT]2024	Ploszaj, Tom(R)[A-]2024	Mattson, Rita(R)
Raynolds, Ned(D)[CT]2024	Thomas, Wendy(D)[CT]2024	Parshall, Lucius(D)[CT]2024
Berezhny, Lex(R)[A+]2024	Caplan, Tony(D)[F]2024	Summers, James(R)[B+]2024
Cormen, Thomas(D)[CT]2024	Swanson, Dale(D)	Larochelle, John(D)