Committee Summary for House Science, Technology and Energy (04/07/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB65 00:04:59.160 - 8:03:30 AM	Public Hearing	relative to stormwater management for solar arrays.	Pearl, Howard (R)[C+]2024
SB230 00:33:01.120 - 8:31:32 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to electric utility restructuring and investment in distributed energy resources.	Watters, David(D)[CT]2024
SB232 01:04:28.960 - 9:02:59 AM	Public Hearing	clarifying certain net metering terms and conditions.	McConkey, Mark(R)
SB233 04:00:53.120 - 11:59:24 AM	Public Hearing	establishing an energy reliability and large-scale storage task force.	Watters, David(D)[CT]2024
SB108 05:10:12.718 - 1:08:43 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the department of energy.	Pearl, Howard (R)[C+]2024

SB65: Senator Howard Pearl, District 17, Loudon Support00:04:59.160 - 8:03:30 AM; Senator Howard Pearl introduced Senate Bill 65, aimed at facilitating a mutually beneficial agreement between the Department of Environmental Services and the solar industry regarding the alteration of terrain and wetlands issues. He highlighted the increase in permit volumes necessitating adjustments to avoid long and expensive delays. The bill supports a permit by notification structure adopted by the department, which streamlines the process while maintaining structured review and enforcement protocols. Senator Pearl noted that both the department and the solar industry support this legislation, which is part of a broader effort to improve the permitting process in New Hampshire to enhance business operations.
SB65: Representative Flo Information Only00:07:05.639 - 8:05:36 AM; Representative Flo asked Senator Pearl to clarify the changes from the initial introduction of the bill to the current amendment. Senator Pearl explained that the initial language was basic and intended to encourage dialogue between the parties involved. He emphasized his directive for the parties to negotiate and come up with a workable solution, commending the Department of Environmental Services for their efforts in multiple negotiation sessions.
SB65: Senator Pearl Information Only00:08:02.639 - 8:06:33 AM; Senator Pearl discussed the development of Senate Bill 65, emphasizing the collaborative effort between the Department of Environmental Services (DES) and stakeholders. The senator highlighted the importance of the conversations that led to the bill's creation and praised the efforts of both parties in finding a solution. The senator was open to further questions but none were asked at the time.
SB65: Philip Trobridge, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Information Only00:09:45.920 - 8:08:16 AM; Philip Trobridge, from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, provided detailed information on the alteration of terrain program, which is relevant to Senate Bill 65. He explained that the program deals with stormwater permitting for large construction sites, specifically mentioning its application to solar arrays. Trobridge noted that solar projects differ from typical large construction projects, leading to the development of specific rules for solar projects. He discussed the evolution of science regarding runoff from solar panels and how Senate Bill 65 aims to introduce a permit by notification process for smaller solar projects. This process would be faster and more flexible while still meeting the objectives of the alteration of terrain program. Trobridge also answered questions about the differences between new and existing rules for solar panels, the potential cost reduction for solar installations, and the process of permit by notification, which shifts the emphasis from pre-construction review to post-construction compliance checks. He mentioned ongoing collaboration with universities and other experts to refine the models used for these permits.
SB65: Representative Bernardi Information Only00:19:51.360 - 8:18:22 AM; Representative Bernardi inquired about the financial impact of the bill, specifically asking if the fees would cover the costs associated with the work. The response clarified that the fees structured through HB2 would cover the costs, and the initial FN (fiscal note) was due to the bill's proposal to exclude certain projects from permitting, which would have affected fee receipts.
SB65: Representative Corman Information Only00:21:03.120 - 8:19:34 AM; Representative Corman raised concerns about the potential erosion caused by rainwater runoff from solar arrays, particularly when installed on slopes. The response acknowledged the issue, explaining that models consider the orientation of panels to mitigate concentrated flow and erosion, though it's challenging due to varying site conditions.
SB65: Representative McGee Information Only00:22:11.919 - 8:20:42 AM; Representative McGee brought up a suggestion from the New Hampshire Lakes Management Advisory Committee to exempt projects within protected shorelands from the proposed permit by notification (PBN) process, citing RSA 483b. The response indicated that this could be addressed through rulemaking, as the legislation authorizes the development of rules for PBN.
SB65: Representative Kaplan Information Only00:23:10.240 - 8:21:41 AM; Representative Kaplan asked whether new rules would apply to projects already under the PBN process or if they would be grandfathered. The response clarified that projects are permitted under the rules in place at the time of approval, and any subsequent issues would be handled as compliance cases, not requiring re-permitting.
SB65: Representative Reynolds Information Only00:24:11.360 - 8:22:42 AM; Representative Reynolds sought clarification on the Lakes Management Advisory Committee's suggestion to exempt solar projects in protected shorelands from the PBN process, asking if these projects would remain subject to the full AOT (Alteration of Terrain) permit process. The response confirmed that this was the understanding based on the morning's testimony.
SB65: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:25:35.520 - 8:24:06 AM; The speaker discussed the considerations for the PBM (Permit by Notification) process, particularly focusing on the eligibility criteria for projects less than five megawatts. They highlighted the importance of protecting shoreland areas, which are defined as 250 feet from large lakes, ponds, and fourth-order streams. They noted that there is a precedent for stricter regulations in these areas, with a lower threshold for alteration of terrain projects within the protected shoreland, reducing from 100,000 to 50,000 square feet of impact. They also mentioned Senate Bill 110, which excludes smaller AOT projects in protected shoreland from the PBN process, suggesting consistency with the current approach.
SB65: Representative Flogeier, Belknap County Information Only00:26:37.360 - 8:25:08 AM; Representative Flogeier expressed concerns about the impact of large arrays and runoffs on lakes, as mentioned by other representatives. They inquired about the Department of Environmental Services' (DES) policies regarding farmlands and agricultural lands, specifically mentioning hayfields and meadows. The response indicated that New Hampshire currently does not have specific protections for agricultural lands like those for wetlands or shorelands, suggesting it's more of a local issue. Additionally, they confirmed the department's comfort with the January 1st, 2026, deadline for rule creation, aligning with other legislative requirements.
SB65: Dale Knapp, Walden Renewables, Portland, Maine Support00:29:13.760 - 8:27:44 AM; Dale Knapp, representing Walden Renewables, expressed support for the bill. He commended the collaborative efforts of Phil and his team in developing a workable solution. Knapp believes the permit by notification process aligns these projects with other types of development and addresses concerns about erosion and sedimentation during construction. He emphasized that the intent is not to develop facilities in the shoreline zone and supported exempting these areas during rulemaking. He also discussed the importance of managing pre- and post-construction flows to minimize environmental impact.
SB65: Representative Corman Information Only00:31:14.399 - 8:29:45 AM; Representative Corman asked Dale Knapp about the primary concern regarding erosion during the construction process. Knapp, a soil scientist, explained that the key to site stability is maintaining vegetation, using temporary erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent issues during construction that could persist into operation.
SB230: Senator David Waters, District 4 Information Only00:33:01.120 - 8:31:32 AM; Senator David Waters introduced Senate Bill 230, which focuses on small modular reactors (SMRs) up to 300 megawatts, following the Idaho National Laboratory's definition. The bill aims to include SMRs in the definition of distributed energy resources, despite the larger ones not typically fitting this category. Smaller SMRs could be used for powering critical infrastructure like hospitals or as backup power. The senator mentioned the bill's history, including its original focus on microgrids and the decision to narrow its scope to SMRs due to ongoing studies and future legislative plans. He expressed openness to modifying the definition of SMRs to align with House Bill 710 for a more comprehensive approach.
SB230: Representative McGee Information Only00:36:24.320 - 8:34:55 AM; Representative McGee expressed concerns about the inclusion of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the category of distributed energy resources. He questioned whether this inclusion could impact other incentive programs like the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which are designed for intermittent renewable energy resources, not continuous ones like SMRs. He noted that SMRs might not compete directly with other distributed energy resources due to their different applications and uses.
SB230: Senator David Waters, District 4 Support00:37:23.040 - 8:35:54 AM; Senator Waters responded to Representative McGee's concerns by stating that SMRs should be included in the distributed energy resources category as part of an all-inclusive technology-neutral approach. He argued that SMRs would not necessarily compete with renewable resources due to their different deployment circumstances and uses. He also acknowledged the potential for SMRs to be eligible for similar incentive programs as other resources but believed it was appropriate to consider incentives for SMRs to enhance reliability and cost efficiency.
SB230: Representative Harrington Information Only00:38:24.160 - 8:36:55 AM; Representative Harrington sought clarification from Senator Waters on whether the bill would include SMRs in the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Senator Waters confirmed that the bill does not directly change the RPS but includes SMRs in the definition of distributed energy resources, which could potentially impact other areas.
SB230: Representative Corman Oppose00:39:30.560 - 8:38:01 AM; Representative Corman raised concerns about the bill allowing utilities to invest in SMRs, questioning if this would contradict the principle of restructuring. Senator Waters responded that the definition of distributed energy resources includes various technologies, and he believed SMRs fit within this category.
SB230: Representative Vice Chair Thomas Information Only00:40:18.920 - 8:38:49 AM; Representative Vice Chair Thomas asked for clarification on the terminology used in the bill regarding power capacity, specifically whether it aligns with terms used for other power generators like solar panels or wind turbines. Senator Waters deferred the question to Chairman Bose, indicating that the terminology might be addressed in a replacement definition.
SB230: Representative Wendy Thomas Oppose00:41:24.079 - 8:39:55 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas expressed concern about the financial implications for ratepayers if utilities were allowed to invest in SMRs, pointing out the potential for billions of dollars in costs for unproven technology. Senator Waters disagreed with her assessment.
SB230: Representative McGee Information Only00:42:25.680 - 8:40:56 AM; Representative McGee followed up on Representative Corman's question, asking if the inclusion of SMRs in the distributed energy resources category would fall under the current 6% cap on utility investments in such resources. Senator Waters confirmed this and mentioned his opinion that the cap should be raised, referencing past work on related statutes.
SB230: Meg Stone, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only00:44:31.040 - 8:43:02 AM; Meg Stone from the New Hampshire Department of Energy provided a neutral perspective on SB230. She highlighted that the department had worked with Chairman Vose on a similar definition in HB710, suggesting that the committee might consider reconciling the definitions between the two bills. She also clarified that unless the bill specifically makes nuclear eligible, it would not be part of the RPS program. She responded to questions about the language in HB710 and the limitations on utility investments.
SB230: Nick Krakoff, Conservation Law Foundation Oppose00:47:59.440 - 8:46:30 AM; Nick Krakoff from the Conservation Law Foundation opposed SB230, arguing that it is unnecessary due to the passage of HB710, which allows utility procurements of energy from ANR facilities. He criticized the approach of SB230 for allowing utility ownership of small modular reactors (SMRs) up to 300 megawatts, which he sees as a significant departure from the restructuring law aimed at reducing consumer costs through competitive markets. He highlighted the risks to ratepayers due to the unknown costs of SMRs and pointed out inconsistencies in the bill's language regarding the definition of distributed energy resources (DERs). He suggested either retaining the bill for further consideration or killing it.
SB232: Senator Mark McConi, Lakes Region District 3, Freedom Support01:04:28.960 - 9:02:59 AM; Senator Mark McConi, representing the Lakes Region District 3 from Freedom, introduced SB232. He explained that the bill allows renewable energy generators to retain their market participant status while qualifying for net metering tariffs, modifies requirements for the development and renewal of alternative net metering tariffs, and clarifies metering practices for custom generators.
SB232: Senator Mark McConi, Lakes Region District 3, Freedom Information Only01:04:28.960 - 9:02:59 AM; Senator McConi expressed gratitude for the committee's work on energy issues and mentioned his newness to the Senate side. He introduced the bill but deferred detailed questions to others more knowledgeable, indicating his role was primarily to bring the bill forward.
SB232: Josh Elliot, Director of the Division of Policy and Programs, Department of Energy Information Only01:07:11.760 - 9:05:42 AM; Josh Elliot focused his remarks on section two of the bill, discussing the complexities of metering arrangements and the need for clarity in utility tariffs and rules. He highlighted the importance of ensuring revenue-grade meters for accurate compensation. Elliot also addressed section three, explaining the need for changes due to the evolving nature of the electrical distribution system. He expressed concerns about section two, particularly lines 22 through 25, which he felt were too broad and could lock in current practices without allowing for future beneficial changes. He discussed the potential complications and risks for developers and ratepayers if the bill were to pass as written, and he offered to provide further clarification on the impacts and processes involved.
SB232: Representative Corman Information Only01:14:51.679 - 9:13:22 AM; Representative Corman sought clarification on whether existing customer generators would be locked into current net metering tariffs and unable to benefit from future changes, such as Net Metering 4.0. He also asked about the implications of changing the definition of municipal host, specifically regarding the eligibility of new entities like airports.
SB232: Representative McGee Oppose01:17:16.880 - 9:15:47 AM; Representative McGee expressed concerns that the bill does not provide a stable environment for investment in net metering and could hinder market evolution. He questioned the purpose of the bill, suggesting it might be a response to the lack of a net metering tariff from the Public Utilities Commission.
SB232: Representative Harrington Oppose01:20:08.800 - 9:18:39 AM; Representative Harrington raised concerns about section one of the bill, which could allow net metering customers to participate in ISO New England markets, potentially affecting transmission assessments and costs. He questioned the financial implications and the possibility of double dipping.
SB232: Representative Thomas Oppose01:23:45.840 - 9:22:16 AM; Representative Thomas questioned whether the bill would allow large-scale generators to benefit from both wholesale markets and retail net metering, suggesting it could be considered double dipping. He sought clarification on how payments are assigned and the potential inclusion of small modular reactors (SMRs) in net metering.
SB232: Representative Kaplan Information Only01:25:40.400 - 9:24:11 AM; Representative Kaplan sought further clarification on whether a customer generator could participate in both net metering and ISO New England markets simultaneously. He requested a detailed explanation of the payment process and its implications.
SB232: Sam Evans Brown, Clean Energy New Hampshire Support01:28:24.560 - 9:26:55 AM; Sam Evans Brown, the executive director of Clean Energy New Hampshire, supports SB232. He mentioned that the bill originated from concerns raised during the net metering docket 22060 at the Public Utilities Commission, which has since closed. However, there are ongoing motions for rehearing and a challenge at the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which could potentially reopen the docket. The bill aims to prevent retroactive changes to net metering tariffs, which could affect investments made by participants. He clarified that the bill does not substantially change the status quo but rather locks it in, ensuring that utilities continue to determine the net metering regime for new customer generators. He expressed a willingness to discuss the Department of Energy's concerns further but believes the bill simply maintains existing terms.
SB232: Maline Mano, Grand State Hydropower Association Support01:35:26.880 - 9:33:57 AM; Maline Mano from the Grand State Hydropower Association supports SB232, stating that it does not expand the net metering program but aims to maintain and clarify the status quo. The bill was spurred by the ongoing net metering docket that started in 2022, which has since closed but is under investigation and appeal. The association invested resources to protect members from retroactive changes. The bill clarifies that hydro power members transitioning from qualifying facilities to group net metering hosts can continue participating in ISO New England markets, with revenues transferred to utilities to offset net metering costs. This prevents stranded assets and ensures stability for participating projects.
SB232: Heidi Crawl, Grand State Hydropower Association Support01:48:20.239 - 9:46:51 AM; Heidi Crawl from the Grand State Hydropower Association supports SB232 and emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo for hydro power members transitioning from qualifying facilities to group net metering hosts. She highlighted the ongoing uncertainty and instability due to the PUC's constant re-evaluation of the net metering program. The bill ensures that these members can continue participating in ISO New England markets, which is crucial for avoiding stranded assets and maintaining revenue streams. She also addressed concerns about the process for delisting and relisting in ISO markets, which could take up to a year, impacting the benefits to consumers and the state.
SB232: Michael Lacata, Eversource Energy Support01:49:31.520 - 9:48:02 AM; Michael Lacata from Eversource Energy supports SB232, particularly section one, which he believes clarifies the process for previous qualifying facilities participating in the net metering program. He explained that these facilities assign their output to the utility, which then bids it into ISO markets, with the revenues offsetting net metering costs for customers. He provided examples of the significant revenue offsets from 2023 to 2025, totaling millions of dollars. He also confirmed comfort with section three of the bill, which addresses metering issues, and noted that the bill aims to provide stability for current net metering participants.
SB232: Clifton Boilo Oppose01:59:44.080 - 9:58:15 AM; Clifton Boilo opposes section one of SB232, arguing that it could be found invalid under the Federal Power Act due to its impact on interstate commerce. He believes that dual market participation in both New Hampshire net metering and ISO New England markets results in less value for ratepayers, as these generators are not treated as load reducers. He cited evidence from the net metering docket and the value of distributed energy resources study, suggesting that treating these generators as load reducers would save ratepayers approximately $3 million annually. He recommended not moving forward with section one and allowing the PUC to further investigate the issue.
SB232: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:06:00.679 - 10:04:31 AM; The speaker discussed the value of net metered resources, particularly focusing on the savings and value they provide to the system. They mentioned that the settling parties, including utilities, Clean Energy New Hampshire, and the Hydro Association, estimated potential savings from net metered resources at around $36 million. The speaker explained how net metered customer generators function as load reducers, reducing the amount of load that needs to be bought from ISO New England. They highlighted that the output of these generators is treated as unaccounted for energy, which reduces apparent losses and contributes to savings. The speaker also discussed how transmission costs are allocated and how market participation affects these costs, suggesting that there is a significant value in avoided transmission costs that is not currently credited to large generators.
SB232: Representative Harrington Information Only02:11:37.679 - 10:10:08 AM; Representative Harrington asked for clarification on the concept of load reduction and its impact on savings in the capacity market. They questioned whether the current operation of net metering, where the output is turned over to the utility and bid into the energy market, takes advantage of the load reduction savings. The speaker confirmed that the current approach does not fully capitalize on load reduction savings and suggested an alternative approach where generators are not market participants to better reflect the value of avoided transmission costs.
SB232: Representative McGee Information Only02:15:40.560 - 10:14:11 AM; Representative McGee inquired about the distribution of the additional value created by load reducers. They asked if the value goes to the system generally or directly to the generator. The speaker explained that while generators are compensated at a rate higher than the value they produce as load reducers, they do not receive credit for avoided transmission costs. The speaker also mentioned that market participants might be overcompensated and discussed the potential for generators to switch between market participation and load reduction based on profitability.
SB232: Representative Reynolds Information Only02:21:36.960 - 10:20:07 AM; Representative Reynolds challenged the speaker's use of the term 'dual market participation,' noting that previous testimonies indicated that facilities do not participate in both markets simultaneously but maintain registration in the ISO New England market as a precaution. The speaker clarified that from a technical standpoint, the generator is participating in both a federal wholesale market and a state net metering program. They argued that the fear of needing to switch back quickly to market participation is a red herring, as it is unlikely that net metering would be phased out without warning.
SB233: Senator David Waters Support04:00:53.120 - 11:59:24 AM; Senator David Waters introduced Senate Bill 233, which aims to establish an energy reliability and large-scale storage task force. He highlighted the need to address reliability issues due to growing electricity demand, loss of generating capacity, and the intermittent nature of renewable resources. The bill originally focused on storage technologies but has been broadened to include all new energy technologies, including nuclear, to address short-term and long-term reliability needs. The senator discussed the rapid development of storage technologies and the potential of different storage capacities to mitigate peak demand cost spikes. He also mentioned the task force's composition and its duties, including investigating reliability challenges, the role of energy storage, and developing market-based solutions to incentivize these technologies.
SB233: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:07:35.279 - 12:06:06 PM; The speaker asked Senator Waters to explain the difference between a task force and a commission. The senator responded that while it could be called either, the term 'task force' was used due to legislative provisions requiring a majority of legislators on commissions, and the task force would be more nimble in addressing emerging technologies.
SB233: Vice Chair Thomas Information Only04:08:43.840 - 12:07:14 PM; Vice Chair Thomas inquired about the differences between the proposed task force and the 10-year energy plan, asking if they would mesh together or be duplicative. Senator Waters explained that the task force would be more focused and nimble, allowing the legislature to act more quickly on emerging technologies compared to the broader scope of the 10-year energy plan.
SB233: Representative Harrington Information Only04:09:48.319 - 12:08:19 PM; Representative Harrington asked if there was consideration to include representatives from NESCO or ISO New England on the task force to better coordinate with other states. Senator Waters acknowledged the suggestion but noted potential complications with their involvement in state policy, though the task force could call upon them for input.
SB233: Representative Corman Information Only04:10:59.040 - 12:09:30 PM; Representative Corman asked about the amendment to SB233, specifically questioning the repeal of the DOE's responsibility to investigate energy storage and the definition of an indexing storage credit model. The response clarified that the amendment replaces section two of the original bill, and the indexing storage credit model is a potential method to reimburse storage projects based on their ability to reduce peak costs.
SB233: Representative Thomas Information Only04:13:00.560 - 12:11:31 PM; Representative Thomas inquired about the composition of the task force proposed in the bill, expressing concerns about potential industry-driven outcomes. The response emphasized that the task force's role is advisory, with the legislature making final decisions, and suggested that the composition could be adjusted if necessary. Further, Representative Thomas asked about the timeline of the task force's final report, questioning if it might delay action, to which it was responded that the timeline was not considered too long and legislative action could proceed independently of the task force's completion.
SB233: Representative Bernardi Information Only04:14:53.439 - 12:13:24 PM; Representative Bernardi discussed the definitions of different types of energy storage systems in the bill, suggesting that the term 'reliable duration energy storage system' might be more understandable as 'short-term'. The response agreed and noted that the amendment simplified the definitions to two types of energy storage systems.
SB233: Vice Chair Thomas Information Only04:16:11.920 - 12:14:42 PM; Vice Chair Thomas asked for clarification on the terms 'energy markets' and 'energy technologies' in the amendment, and what type of public representatives would be involved. The response explained that energy markets relate to cost-effectiveness and market-based regulatory structures, while energy technologies focus on the actual technologies. Examples of market experts were suggested, such as those from academic institutions or ISO New England.
SB233: Meg Stone, Department of Energy Information Only04:18:26.319 - 12:16:57 PM; Meg Stone from the Department of Energy stated that the department is neutral on the bill and has no concerns with the Senate-passed version. The amendment addressed their main concerns, and they are willing to participate in the task force. In response to questions, Stone clarified that the department is not currently undertaking an investigation into energy storage, which had been paused due to previous legislative actions.
SB233: Sarah Jackson, Form Energy Support04:22:12.319 - 12:20:43 PM; Sarah Jackson from Form Energy expressed support for the bill and introduced their technology, a 100-hour duration battery made from iron, air, and water. She highlighted the potential of their technology to address reliability challenges in New England, particularly in Maine, and its ability to support the integration of intermittent resources like wind and solar. Jackson also clarified that Form Energy was founded to meet the market need for long-duration storage, not to take advantage of subsidies.
SB233: Sarah Jackson, Form Energy Information Only04:28:36.120 - 12:27:07 PM; Sarah Jackson discussed the role of emerging energy technologies and the importance of understanding their business models and support needs. She emphasized the task force's role in exploring various options for meeting reliability needs in New Hampshire, including long-duration storage technologies like those developed by Form Energy. She also mentioned the importance of evaluating technologies for short, medium, and long-term needs, and the potential impact of the task force on policy development.
SB233: James Andrews, Granite Shore Power Support04:39:02.958 - 12:37:33 PM; James Andrews, CEO of Granite Shore Power, expressed support for the bill, highlighting the inefficiencies in ISO New England markets and the need for reliable generation resources. He discussed the impact of the pay-for-performance regime on generators and the challenges posed by the increasing reliance on intermittent solar resources. Andrews emphasized the necessity of a task force to investigate market efficiency, resource needs, and potential solutions for reliability in the short, medium, and long term.
SB233: Jim Monahan, Granite Shore Power Information Only04:47:10.798 - 12:45:41 PM; Jim Monahan provided insights on the legislative construction and amendment related to the bill. He supported the repeal of an existing investigation at the Department of Energy, suggesting it has been overtaken by market developments. He endorsed the task force's focus on market-based solutions and discussed the concept of indexing storage credits as a potential market-based approach.
SB233: Hampshire Support05:03:35.560 - 1:02:06 PM; Hampshire, speaking last, emphasized the importance of energy storage in addressing market failures and enhancing grid functionality. They likened storage to 'the bacon of the grid' for its ability to improve various aspects of energy management, including deferring costly infrastructure upgrades on both distribution and transmission systems. They highlighted ongoing proceedings and the new concept of 'storage as a transmission asset' (SA), indicating a need for better integration of storage into regulatory and market frameworks. Hampshire expressed skepticism about ISO New England's slow progress in recognizing storage's value and urged policymakers not to yield their powers to this regional body, stressing the need for state-level action to unlock storage's potential. They supported the idea of a task force to advance the bill.
SB108: Senator Howard Pearl, Louden Support05:10:12.718 - 1:08:43 PM; Senator Pearl introduced Senate Bill 108FN as a technical cleanup bill requested by the Department of Energy. The bill aims to transfer specific regulatory and adjudicative responsibilities from the PUC to the Department of Energy, including provisions on unauthorized telecommunication services, ratepayer communication preferences, and refining procedures for net energy metering, assessment, complaint investigation, and aggregation. He mentioned the bill's technical nature and the efforts made in the Senate to address stakeholder concerns, expressing hope for a swift passage through the committee. He deferred to David Shulock for further technical details.
SB108: David Shulock, Department of Energy Support05:11:46.440 - 1:10:17 PM; David Shulock, the general counsel at the New Hampshire Department of Energy, explained that Senate Bill 108FN was requested by the department to clean up, clarify, and improve certain aspects of energy regulation. He detailed that section one of the bill deals with ratepayer protection regarding competitive suppliers, specifically allowing customers to choose their communication preferences, with existing PUC rules being enforced by the department and new rules to be adopted within the next year. Section two aims to remove outdated sections of the net metering statute, reflecting changes over time.
SB108: David Shulock, Department of Energy Information Only05:13:54.958 - 1:12:25 PM; David Shulock from the Department of Energy continued his testimony by clarifying that the department, not the commission, adopts rules to implement the net metering statute. He mentioned that the language was initially department language but was amended in the Senate to address concerns from Clean Energy New Hampshire. The department reviewed and accepted the amended language, which aims to ensure old tariffs remain available until new tariffs are implemented. Shulock noted that the PUC had requested different language at the end of the Senate process, which was not included. He suggested that if the PUC's request is received, the department would be willing to remove the entire provision and work with the PUC on the 900 rules during the summer.
SB108: David Shulock, Department of Energy Information Only05:16:05.920 - 1:14:36 PM; Shulock further explained that section three of the bill deals with the assessment process by which the department collects funds to operate itself, the commission, and the Office of Consumer Advocate. He clarified that the additional language in this section is meant to clarify the existing process, which some providers find confusing when they decide to leave the state. He also discussed sections 4 through 9, which aim to simplify the complaint process for ratepayers. The current process is burdensome, requiring ratepayers to work with the consumer division, file a formal complaint with the department, and then start over at the PUC if unsatisfied. The proposed changes would allow the department to transfer complaints directly to the commission, broadening the complaint process to all jurisdictional utilities and removing unnecessary language related to community power aggregation.
SB108: David Shulock, Department of Energy Information Only05:18:39.160 - 1:17:10 PM; Shulock continued by explaining that section five clarifies that the broadening of the complaint process does not include unregulated entities like VoIP and IP-enabled telecommunications providers and cellular carriers. Section nine removes language from the community power aggregation statute that conflicts with the new complaint process outlined in the bill. Section ten repeals language related to old net metering caps, which are no longer in effect. He then opened the floor for questions.
SB108: David Shulock, Department of Energy Information Only05:20:46.958 - 1:19:17 PM; In response to questions from Vice Chair Thomas, Shulock explained that the confusing language on page three, lines 31 through 35, is old-style grammar and was not rewritten in the bill. He clarified that if a public utility corrects a billing error and refunds the overcharge, the matter is considered resolved, and no further action is needed. Representative Thomas asked about the addition of 'formal' on page three, line five, and Shulock explained that it was to clarify the process, which still requires an informal step with the consumer division before a formal complaint can be filed. He also confirmed that complaints about local energy aggregators are already handled by the department, as outlined in section nine of the bill.
SB108: Unknown Information Only05:30:54.080 - 1:29:25 PM; The speaker provided a summary of the testimonies received for Senate Bill 108, noting that there were five in support, none in opposition, and one neutral testimony. This concluded the public hearing on the bill.

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)