Committee Summary for House Science, Technology and Energy (04/07/2026)

Member	Member	Member
Vose, Michael(Chairman)(R)[A-]2025	Bernardy, JD(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	Thomas, Douglas(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2025
Notter, Jeanine(R)[A-]2025	Schneller, John(R)[B+]2025	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2025
McGhee, Kat(D)[CT]2025	Ploszaj, Tom(R)[A-]2025	Mattson, Rita(R)[B+]2025
Raynolds, Ned(D)[D-]2025	Parshall, Lucius(D)[F]2025	Caplan, Tony(D)[D-]2025
Summers, James(R)[B]2025	Cormen, Thomas(D)[F]2025	Swanson, Dale(D)[D-]2025
Larochelle, John(D)[F]2025	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB590	Public Hearing	relative to electric aggregation plans.	Fenton, Donovan(D)[F]2025
SB591	Public Hearing	allowing utility companies to own or build generation facilities.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB599	Public Hearing	relative to the renewable energy fund.	Pearl, Howard (R)[B]2025
SB591	Public Hearing	allowing utility companies to own or build generation facilities.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB599	Public Hearing	relative to the renewable energy fund.	Pearl, Howard (R)[B]2025
SB589	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to port electrification, microgrid development, and cybersecurity standards for energy and water systems.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025
Unclear	General Working Session	Unclear
SB447	Public Hearing	enabling electric utilities to own, operate, and offer advanced nuclear resources, and relative to purchased power agreements for electric distribution utilities and limitations on community customer generators.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025

SB590: Support 00:09:55.033 - 10:05:31 AM; Senator Fenton introduced SB 590, which allows municipalities with approved electric aggregation plans to establish a revolving fund using non-tax revenues to support local energy services like efficiency, weatherization, and projects that lower costs. The bill provides flexibility to reinvest revenues without annual town meeting appropriations and includes a Senate amendment clarifying no local taxes can be used, aligning with existing RSA 53-E:5 prohibitions. It promotes local control and fiscal responsibility without expanding authority or imposing mandates.
SB590: Support 00:19:26.470 - 10:15:02 AM; Ms. Dennis supported SB 590 as a housekeeping measure enabling revolving funds for non-tax revenues from discretionary rate adders in community power programs. It allows innovation in cost-saving investments like matching grants for energy efficiency, without mandates or authority expansions. The Senate amendment reinforces tax prohibitions under RSA 53-E:5. CPCNH, representing nearly 70 municipalities, urged ought to pass for local flexibility and lower energy costs.
SB590: Support 00:29:05.850 - 10:24:41 AM; Dr. Tucker, from Peterborough's community power committee, supported SB 590 to create a revolving fund for their $192,000 in accrued discretionary reserves from higher renewable rates. Currently, funds require annual warrant articles via expendable trust; the revolving fund allows regular additions and faster access for projects like solar on the new fire station, without tax use. It aligns with existing revenue streams and select board oversight, providing flexibility over capital reserves.
SB590: Oppose 00:45:31.724 - 10:41:07 AM; Representative Nutter opposed SB 590, arguing it allows fees in electric rates to fund town projects via revolving funds without direct public vote, bypassing town meeting transparency and resembling a backdoor tax. Opt-out residents still contribute indirectly, and excess revenues should return to ratepayers. She referenced Merrimack's committee rejecting similar ideas and opposed wealth redistribution.
SB590: Support 00:48:37.177 - 10:44:13 AM; Representative McGee supported SB 590 as a simple addition to enable revolving funds for unanticipated community power needs, using non-tax dollars consistently with other fund categories. It enhances flexibility without tax impacts, countering hypotheticals on future maintenance by noting local decisions and no tax involvement.
SB591: Support 01:00:48.152 - 10:56:24 AM; Senator Avard, prime sponsor, introduced the amended SB 591 authorizing utilities to invest in local power projects, removing non-renewable limits, requiring cost savings to customers, and raising distributed energy investment cap from 6% to 10% of peak demand. It promotes thinking outside the box for more energy via batteries and others, addressing New Hampshire's energy needs.
SB591: Support 01:03:04.400 - 10:58:40 AM; Senator Waters explained SB 591 raises DER investment limits for small projects up to 5 MW, strikes fuel source restrictions for an all-of-above approach, and addresses battery storage for resilience and reduced transmission needs. It balances utility risks with PUC evaluation of direct/indirect benefits outweighing costs. Acknowledging similar House Bill 1775, it encourages utility-municipal partnerships without unfair advantages, given low private investment.
SB591: Information Only 01:14:58.696 - 11:10:34 AM; The Department is neutral on SB 591, similar to HB 1775 but narrower. Recommends alignment. Fiscal note unchanged at $150,000-$250,000 for engineering consulting on benefits vs. costs. Suggests clarifying 'indirect' economic benefits to avoid broad interpretation, as PUC already has authority. Notes ongoing ISO-NE investigation under HB 690 on regulatory structures including generation.
SB591: Oppose 01:24:09.111 - 11:19:45 AM; NEPGA opposes SB 591 on principle, as utility-owned generation sets bad precedent, risking cost overruns shifted to ratepayers unlike merchant generators' risks. It suppresses private investment signals despite bill's narrowing. Utilities lack generation expertise; their guaranteed returns make projects costlier than competitive builds. Acknowledges Senate amendments but maintains opposition to re-entering failed utility generation policies.
SB591: Oppose 01:29:48.535 - 11:25:24 AM; Molly Connors continues her testimony, emphasizing the challenges of building in New England due to unclear regulations, higher land costs, and less welcoming investment climate compared to other regions. She notes that flat or reduced demand in wholesale markets over the past decade, only recently increasing, combined with ISO New England's capacity market redesign, has muted investment signals for her members. State preferences for specific technologies in other New England states further distort markets, leading generators to invest elsewhere. In New Hampshire, allowing utilities to meet up to 10% of peak demand mutes private investment signals, making it riskier for independent generators. During questioning, she advises stable public policy, avoiding frequent law changes, improving siting processes, and resisting knee-jerk reactions. She clarifies that doing nothing isn't the answer but calls for careful consideration of who bears risks and pays for solutions. On advanced nuclear, she expresses excitement but prefers seeing successful builds elsewhere before ratepayer funding, suggesting regional cooperation among governors. She stresses prioritizing reliability investments through markets and retaining existing plants, including non-fossil resources like hydro. Responding to concerns about supply and costs, she argues that increasing supply doesn't simply lower prices due to market complexities and middlemen, and New Hampshire's capacity is theoretically sufficient if run continuously, but investments need long-term returns in a competitive landscape.
SB591: Support 01:52:24.851 - 11:48:00 AM; Michael Licata supports SB 591, focusing on its mechanics for distributed energy resources under 5 MW interconnected to the distribution system, used for customer benefits like demand response and peak reduction, not participating in ISO wholesale markets. He clarifies these are not competitive with private generators but regulated utility assets. The statute predates restructuring, with minimal use (only one 5 MW project by Unitil in Kingston). Strict PUC oversight includes a nine-factor test for approval, ensuring benefits. The bill increases the cap from 6% to 10% of distribution peak (for Eversource, from 110 MW to 183 MW in 2025), strikes confusing 3% non-renewable triggers, and provides flexibility. Eversource paused two solar projects in Milford and Milton due to federal tax law changes and siting challenges. On fiscal notes, he notes agencies can fund via utility assessments. These projects reduce market load needs without wholesale competition. The bill signals legislative interest, aiding regulatory clarity, though economics must justify projects under high PUC bars.
SB599: Information Only 03:06:42.274 - 1:02:18 PM; Senator Howard Pearl introduces SB 599 to resolve a conflict between House Bill 2 (effective July 1, 2025), which directed the Department of Energy to transfer up to $1 million annually from the Renewable Energy Fund (RAF) to the General Fund for two years after administrative costs, and House Bill 682 (effective September 30, 2025), which restored original language requiring RAF support for renewable initiatives, eliminating the transfers. This override prevents an assumed $8 million biennial lapse to the General Fund for FY 2026-2027, creating a $4 million annual shortfall. The Department of Energy and Office of Legislative Services identified the issue, prompting the bill to reinstate HB 2's language and align with budget assumptions.
SB591: Support 03:10:13.100 - 1:05:49 PM; Alec O'Meara testified in support of SB 591, noting that Unitil owns a 4.99 MW solar array in Kingston used as a load reducer and distribution asset benefiting all customers. He highlighted that the bill provides a succinct approach compared to companion HB 1775, allowing expansion from 6% to 10% of peak load, enabling up to six such facilities. He clarified potential paths for selling to ISO New England via FERC Rule 2222 but emphasized the facility's purpose is local benefits. O'Meara stressed the bill's fuel-neutral nature and value in exploring local generation opportunities. During questioning, he discussed the rigorous PUC process, benefits to shareholders through regulated returns, cost-benefit analysis showing net benefits, potential to lower transmission costs, and responses to generator concerns by incorporating amendments for modest expansion including energy storage.
SB591: Oppose 03:25:55.465 - 1:21:31 PM; Dina Dennis opposed SB 591, appreciating the goal of incentivizing homegrown energy but arguing it expands utility control over distributed resources without removing barriers for competitive suppliers. She criticized section two, line 16, allowing utilities to count direct and indirect benefits, recovered through non-bypassable distribution rates paid by all customers, including those on competitive service, creating a disadvantage for market participants. Dennis noted risks of conflicting outcomes with HB 1775 and urged inexpedient to legislate. In questions, she explained both bills share rate recovery issues under RSA 374-G:5(III), opposed both for bolstering utility monopoly, detailed barriers like obscured price signals in load settlement and billing systems, noted positive steps in Unitil's pending settlement, and clarified non-bypassable costs from rate making for distribution assets. She estimated 24-28 of 68 member communities interested in distributed projects and discussed impacts on competitive markets, potential cost increases from multiple projects, and regulatory rigor ensuring benefits exceed costs.
SB599: Information Only 03:40:17.631 - 1:35:53 PM; Meg Stone stated the Department of Energy is neutral on SB 599. She confirmed the sponsor explained the bill's background and noted implementation of HB 2 changes to RSA 362-F:10-1 effective July 1, 2025, which conflicted with HB 682 effective September 20, 2025, overwriting those changes. She offered to answer questions and responded that nearly $18 million was transferred from the Renewable Energy Fund to the general fund as per HB 2.
SB599: Oppose 03:42:15.667 - 1:37:51 PM; Nick Krakoff opposed SB 599, arguing it unconstitutionally raids the Renewable Energy Fund by transferring funds to the general fund, converting a lawful regulatory fee from alternative compliance payments (ACPs) into a general revenue tax. He explained ACPs fund clean energy projects to produce RECs and reduce future ACPs, but redirection violates Part II, Article 6 of the NH Constitution as it's not a uniform tax on property but on failure to purchase RECs, with varying effective rates based on REC shortfalls. Krakoff urged voting against it to avoid liability. In questions, he noted potential challenges by other entities despite CLF standing issues, confirmed the constitutional provision requires taxes on property uniformly, analogized to car registration fees maintaining nexus to purpose, agreed returning ACPs to ratepayers avoids tax conversion, and clarified the $18 million surplus could have funded projects if not transferred.
SB599: Oppose 03:52:53.973 - 1:48:29 PM; Representative Timothy Horrigan opposed SB 599, noting unchanged perspective on renewables but highlighting recent events like the fossil fuel-subsidized war. He argued renewables have fewer externalities than fossil fuels and supported siphoning federal money for projects. Horrigan praised encouraging individual residential solar, which helps families and can generate income, opposing the bill in its current form as a legislator.
SB589: Information Only 03:56:36.005 - 1:52:12 PM; The chair moves to enter executive session for SB 589, motions for Ought to Pass, and recognizes Representative McGee. After entering executive session, the chair motions again for Ought to Pass on SB 589.
SB589: Support 03:56:36.005 - 1:52:12 PM; Representative McGee seconds the motion to enter executive session and the Ought to Pass motion. She describes SB 589 as a critical infrastructure bill heard the previous day, featuring testimony from Commissioner Scott of the Department of Environmental Services on a cybersecurity study including microgrids and water systems. She notes it seemed like a no-brainer and suitable for quick execution.
SB589: Information Only 03:57:56.085 - 1:53:32 PM; The chair discusses an amendment to add 'electric distribution utilities' to the bill, which is seconded. The chair pauses to consult the House clerk via text about using a Senate amendment in the House, learning it must be a House amendment with only House sponsors. The chair suspends the executive session to take up the bill on Monday, April 13th, after creating a House amendment.
SB589: Support 04:01:11.234 - 1:56:47 PM; Representative McGee agrees to create the House amendment for SB 589.
Unclear: Information Only 04:01:11.234 - 1:56:47 PM; The chair mentions passing out updated fiscal notes for Senate Bill 591, recently finished, and Senate Bill 449, heard the previous day. The notes have changed since originals but do not significantly impact the bills.
SB447: Information Only 04:02:55.557 - 1:58:31 PM; Vice Chair Thomas takes the gavel and opens the public hearing on Senate Bill 447, welcoming Chairman Vose to introduce the bill in place of Senator Avard.
SB447: Information Only 04:02:55.557 - 1:58:31 PM; Chairman Vose introduces SB 447 on behalf of Senator Avard, providing detailed history: Originated from HB 710 in the House and a Senate bill last year, merged but altered in Senate ENR Committee, leading to non-concurrence and failed committee of conference. Reconstructed into HB 221, coming before the House on Thursday, where he plans to motion non-concur and request committee of conference to make it acceptable to the governor by including definitions of advanced nuclear resources, limitations on distributed generation investments, clarifying coordinator duties, and allowing PPAs for advanced nuclear. Urges ITL for SB 447 to focus on HB 221, as SB 447 duplicates efforts and is unacceptable in current form to both House and governor.
SB447: Information Only 04:09:38.302 - 2:05:14 PM; Vice Chair Thomas thanks Chairman Vose for the history and calls on Representative Kaplan for a question.
SB447: Information Only 04:09:38.302 - 2:05:14 PM; Representative Kaplan questions whether HB 221 includes provisions on community solar projects, group net metering, and definitions for political subdivisions like public housing authorities from sections five, six, and seven of SB 447's analysis.
SB447: Information Only 04:10:49.922 - 2:06:25 PM; Chairman Vose confirms HB 221 contains those provisions, which is why it is not acceptable to the governor, and the committee of conference will aim to remove them.
SB447: Information Only 04:10:49.922 - 2:06:25 PM; Vice Chair Thomas calls on Representative Barney for a question.
SB447: Information Only 04:10:49.922 - 2:06:25 PM; Representative Barney asks if sections five, six, and seven will be negotiated in the committee of conference.
SB447: Information Only 04:10:49.922 - 2:06:25 PM; Chairman Vose confirms that sections five, six, and seven are the items to be negotiated in the COC.
SB447: Information Only 04:10:49.922 - 2:06:25 PM; Vice Chair Thomas calls on Representative McGee.
SB447: Information Only 04:11:35.852 - 2:07:11 PM; Expressed concern about enabling PPAs for utilities, noting they already have the ability to enter such agreements, questioned the new accomplishments of the bill, highlighted high costs of small modular reactors ($3,000 to $5,000 per kilowatt), and wondered about economic viability in lowering costs.
SB447: Support 04:12:47.560 - 2:08:23 PM; Clarified reference to page 3, section 9 on purchase power agreements, explained that investor-owned utilities may issue RFPs for multi-year agreements by June 30, 2040, for energy with or without environmental attributes, and noted section 10 requires megawatt hours from existing, new, or incremental resources. Addressed differences in bill language compared to HB 221, confirmed operating from the correct version, and committed to follow-up. Responded to Rep. Swanson on the 6 vs. 18 megawatts issue from committee conference, noting HB 221 lowered to 12 megawatts, and negotiation with governor's office for compromise. To Rep. Harrington, discussed analysis mentioning Department of Energy issuing RFPs, clarified it's for community solar, and noted missing pieces from merging HB 710 and Senate bill.
SB447: Information Only 04:13:39.970 - 2:09:15 PM; Pointed out that the language in the bill differs from HB 221, questioned if using an earlier version, and sought confirmation on the correct version moving forward.
SB447: Information Only 04:14:34.118 - 2:10:10 PM; Recalled supporting committee conference last fall, asked if the 6 vs. 18 megawatts was a governor concern and if compromise possible.
SB447: Information Only 04:15:46.446 - 2:11:22 PM; Questioned where in the bill the Department of Energy issues RFPs as per analysis, noted it's for community solar net metering. Suggested simplifying definition on page 3, line 13 to 'small modular reactor' up to 300 megawatts instead of 'advanced nuclear resource' including unfamiliar terms like HTGRs. Questioned adding 'existing' to sources, noting Seabrook's license extension.
SB447: Information Only 04:18:21.760 - 2:13:57 PM; Appreciated historical perspective, noted missing item in analysis about group net metering members signing agreements with multiple hosts, not found in bill, suggested it was thrown together last minute.
SB447: Information Only 04:19:35.786 - 2:15:11 PM; Asked if contemplating ITL the bill in favor of committee conference compromise as per Senator Abard's recommendation, and if need to hash out details if objective is ITL.
SB447: Information Only 04:20:15.306 - 2:15:51 PM; Neutral on the bill, noted multiple changes and vehicles. Suggested aligning definition of 'advanced nuclear resource' with federal law (42 USC 16271, as amended). Explained net metering change from 100 kW to 500 kW threshold shifts systems to small customer generator status, allowing 100% credit for energy and transmission, 25% for distribution, increasing compensation for exports >100 kW to <500 kW, with ratepayers paying more.
SB447: Information Only 04:23:34.651 - 2:19:10 PM; Questioned using federal definition instead of state-specific zero to 300 megawatts for small nuclear reactors, unsure if federal covers designs like AP300.
SB447: Support 04:24:31.851 - 2:20:07 PM; Explained prior amendment to retained bill merging HB 710 and SB 112 used federal definition per Department of Energy input, also included missing PPA kilowatt hours language not in SB 447, anticipated tweaks in committee of conference.
SB447: Oppose 04:24:31.851 - 2:20:07 PM; Stated opposition to SB 447.
SB447: Oppose 04:26:20.484 - 2:21:56 PM; The speaker indicates they do not need to expand on previous remarks, expresses anticipation for discussions on bill 221, thanks for the update, and offers to send the committee their previously submitted testimony against SB 447 from the Senate to inform related discussions.