Committee Summary for Senate Energy and Natural Resources (01/28/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB65 00:03:54.480 - 8:03:00 AM	Public Hearing	relative to stormwater management for solar arrays.	Pearl, Howard (R)[C+]2024
SB106 88s 00:56:20.920 - 8:55:26 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the participation of customer generators in net energy metering.	Lang, Timothy(R)[C+]2024
SB107 01:49:45.440 - 9:48:51 AM	Public Hearing	enabling the state treasurer to invest certain fish and game funds.	Lang, Timothy(R)[C+]2024

SB65: Senator Howard Pearl, Lowden Support00:03:54.480 - 8:03:00 AM; Senator Pearl introduced Senate Bill 65, which aims to update New Hampshire's storm water and wetlands rules for solar projects to align with current scientific standards. He highlighted that the existing rules are based on outdated science, causing unnecessary financial burdens that can lead to project cancellations. These cancellations result in lost lease revenues for landowners, tax revenues for towns, and potential savings on electricity bills for households. Pearl noted that the bill would strengthen New Hampshire's competitive energy market while maintaining environmental protections. He expressed readiness to discuss and refine the bill based on feedback from the Department of Environmental Services (DES).
SB65: Sam Fenbound, Cure Sarge Energy, Boston Support00:06:43.880 - 8:05:49 AM; Sam Fenbound from Cure Sarge Energy supported the bill, emphasizing its necessity for the economic viability of solar projects in New Hampshire. He explained that current DES storm water rules impose significant additional costs, often millions of dollars, which can kill projects. Fenbound noted that solar panels in neighboring states like Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts are considered pervious, allowing rain to drip onto underlying land cover, which is typically a meadow capable of handling storm water. He expressed hope that ongoing discussions with DES would resolve the issue, but stressed the urgency of the situation as projects are currently at risk. He also mentioned a potential wetlands issue that may need addressing in the bill.
SB65: Dale Nap, Walden Renewables, Portland, Maine Support00:16:20.639 - 8:15:26 AM; Dale Nap from Walden Renewables supported the bill, highlighting his expertise as a soil scientist and his experience in the field. He argued that the natural soil and vegetation under solar panels, supported by driven piles, are more effective at storm water management than the current DES requirements for impervious surfaces. Nap mentioned that in Maine, solar panels are not considered impervious, and he endorsed the use of the PV Smart calculator to assess soil and slope for storm water management. He stressed the importance of maintaining vegetative cover to improve soil health and storm water treatment capacity.
SB65: Scott Williams, Pathways Consulting, Lebanon, New Hampshire Support00:20:13.600 - 8:19:19 AM; Scott Williams from Pathways Consulting supported the bill, critiquing the current DES alteration of terrain rules for solar arrays as overly complex and burdensome. He noted that these rules, especially part 1511, do not align with widely accepted science and result in unnecessary expenses and project complications. Williams argued that solar panels should not be treated as impervious surfaces like parking lots or roofs, as the ground beneath them can still absorb runoff effectively. He pointed out that the rules lead to increased site disturbance and potential flooding and erosion issues, making solar projects more costly and sometimes unfeasible.
SB65: Lindsay Beroy, Revision Energy Information Only00:27:13.279 - 8:26:19 AM; Lindsay Beroy, Policy Director for Revision Energy, presented a comparison of development costs for similar-sized solar projects in New Hampshire and Maine. She highlighted that Maine's regulations allow for less stringent stormwater modeling requirements, with a threshold of 20 acres, compared to New Hampshire's 2 acres. This difference results in significantly lower costs in Maine, where a 10 to 20-acre project would cost about $5,000, while the same project in New Hampshire would cost approximately $175,000 due to more conservative stormwater management assumptions and requirements. Beroy emphasized the need for regulatory adjustments in New Hampshire to reduce the cost disparity.
SB65: Sam Evans Brown, Clean Energy New Hampshire Support00:32:40.240 - 8:31:46 AM; Sam Evans Brown, Executive Director of Clean Energy New Hampshire, supported the bill and discussed the organization's efforts to broker peace between parties regarding the Department of Environmental Services (DES) rules. He noted the importance of getting the regulations right due to increasing electricity demands and the lack of proposed energy projects other than solar and battery storage in New Hampshire. Brown stressed the urgency of addressing these issues in the current legislative session to avoid stifling solar project development.
SB65: Griffin Roberge, Eversource Energy Support00:37:29.440 - 8:36:35 AM; Griffin Roberge, Manager of Government Affairs at Eversource Energy, testified in support of Senate Bill 65. He mentioned that the bill would streamline DES permitting for solar projects, thereby reducing development costs and time. Eversource considers investing in solar projects and views the bill as beneficial for future solar development. They are open to future amendments to find common ground with DES.
SB65: Philip Trowbridge, New Hampshire DES Information Only00:39:03.880 - 8:38:09 AM; Philip Trowbridge, Manager of Land Resources at New Hampshire DES, provided a neutral stance on the bill. He clarified that DES disagrees with some characterizations of their rules and emphasized that the rules are designed to manage stormwater runoff from solar projects, particularly on sloped surfaces. Trowbridge highlighted the importance of site-specific evaluations and ongoing discussions with the solar industry about potential rule revisions. He suggested that working with existing rules and seeking waivers could address urgent situations more quickly.
SB65: Amy Clark, New Hampshire DES Information Only00:43:02.240 - 8:42:08 AM; Amy Clark, with New Hampshire DES, added that their rules do not currently require treatment for solar panel surfaces, whether pervious or impervious. She supported Trowbridge's comments on the need for site-specific evaluations and ongoing rule adjustments.
SB65: Amy Clark, New Hampshire DES Information Only00:43:02.240 - 8:42:08 AM; Amy Clark from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) concluded her testimony on Senate Bill 65. Her discussion focused on the transition from pervious to impervious surfaces and the role of the Matrix in this process. She explained that the transition depends on slope percentages and soil types, with specific concerns arising in the middle slope range (8 to 15 degrees) and adequate spacing between panels.
SB106 88s: Tim Lang, District Two, Chair of Ways and Means Support00:56:20.920 - 8:55:26 AM; Senator Tim Lang introduced Senate Bill 106, emphasizing the importance of addressing energy costs to attract businesses to New Hampshire. He highlighted that the bill aims to allow industrial host generators to produce up to five megawatts of electricity, which must be entirely consumed by the generator. The amendment, 88s, includes a definition of an industrial host generator. Lang discussed the Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) findings on net metering cost shifts, stating that they are minimal to non-existent. He also proposed a 20-year rolling plan for net metering to provide businesses with financing stability.
SB106 88s: Senator Waters Information Only01:00:13.760 - 8:59:19 AM; Senator Waters asked about the possibility of extending the 20-year period mentioned in the bill to a longer term, suggesting that a longer period might be beneficial for financing and stability. Senator Lang responded that he chose 20 years based on discussions and typical project lifecycles, expressing reluctance to extend it further due to uncertainties about future conditions.
SB106 88s: Mike Skelton, President and CEO, Business Industry Association of New Hampshire Support01:02:57.559 - 9:02:03 AM; Mike Skelton from the Business Industry Association of New Hampshire expressed support for Senate Bill 106, emphasizing its importance for New Hampshire's business community. He discussed the urgency of addressing uncompetitive energy costs, noting that electricity prices in New Hampshire have risen 60% from 2013 to 2023. Skelton highlighted the potential of industrial self-generation to lower costs and improve reliability, urging the committee to consider all available solutions to enhance economic competitiveness.
SB106 88s: Jim Shannon, Attorney, Rochester Oppose01:07:00.559 - 9:06:06 AM; Jim Shannon, an attorney from Rochester, expressed opposition to certain aspects of Senate Bill 106, specifically the retroactive effective date of January 1, 2023. He argued that retroactive laws are disfavored and could impair existing contracts, citing his investment in a solar project that began in 2021. Shannon highlighted the potential financial detriment to his project, which could lose significant projected income if forced into a group host arrangement. He suggested that the effective date should be prospective and set well into the future to allow developers time to adjust.
SB106 88s: Josh Elliott, Director of the Division of Policy and Programs, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only01:18:34.120 - 9:17:40 AM; Josh Elliott from the New Hampshire Department of Energy stated that the department is neutral on Senate Bill 106. He mentioned not having seen the amendment but expressed a willingness to work with stakeholders. Elliott discussed the issue of the Legacy period for net metering, which was set to sunset in 2040 by the PUC. He argued that net metering should be fair compensation, not a subsidy, and questioned the fairness of guaranteeing rates for 20 years. He recommended holding off on the bill to allow time for stakeholder engagement.
SB106 88s: Sam Evans Brown, Executive Director, Clean Energy New Hampshire Support01:23:12.080 - 9:22:18 AM; Sam Evans Brown from Clean Energy New Hampshire supported Senate Bill 106 and the amendment, arguing that net metering is intended as just compensation for distributed generation. He refuted claims of cost shifting, citing a study that found large customer generators are undercompensated. Brown also addressed concerns about the effective date, suggesting it might be a typo and should be corrected. He offered to provide evidence from the PUC docket to support his position.
SB106 88s: Py Campbell, Former State Representative, Rochester Oppose01:26:14.880 - 9:25:20 AM; Py Campbell, a former State Representative from Rochester, expressed opposition to certain aspects of Senate Bill 106, particularly the change in the definition of customer generation and the retroactive effective date. He argued that these changes could harm small solar projects like his own, which provide positive cash flow to utilities and benefit rate payers. Campbell suggested amendments to keep the definition of customer generation unchanged and to adjust the size threshold for the bill's applicability to avoid affecting existing projects.
SB106 88s: Kyle King, Operations Sustainability Manager, Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast Support01:41:54.000 - 9:41:00 AM; Kyle King from Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast expressed support for Senate Bill 106, highlighting the company's interest in on-site solar projects. He noted that their Londonderry facility could benefit from a 3-megawatt solar project, which would support their business and sustainability goals. King emphasized the need to increase the current one-megawatt cap to accommodate larger projects.
SB106 88s: Jonathan Le, Point Representative, Associated Grocers of New England, Pembroke Support01:43:25.880 - 9:42:31 AM; Jonathan Le from Associated Grocers of New England in Pembroke supported Senate Bill 106, emphasizing its impact on their business. He described their existing 1-megawatt solar array, which offsets nearly 20% of their electrical load. Le argued that removing the one-megawatt cap and providing a predictable term for industrial generators would help control energy costs and support economic development in New Hampshire.
SB106 88s: John Morrison, Executive Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer, Hitchner Manufacturing, Milford Support01:46:14.560 - 9:45:20 AM; John Morrison from Hitchner Manufacturing in Milford supported Senate Bill 106, highlighting the company's significant energy consumption and the high cost of electricity in New Hampshire. He noted that Hitchner has invested in efficiency projects, including a small solar array, but larger projects are needed to offset their growing demand. Morrison stressed the need for the bill to enable more efficient scale net metering to remain competitive.
SB107: Grant Bossy, Deputy Chief of Staff, New Hampshire Senate Information Only01:49:45.440 - 9:48:51 AM; Grant Bossy introduced Senate Bill 107 on behalf of Senator Tim Lang, the bill's prime sponsor. He explained that the bill is intended to authorize the treasurer to invest funds from the non-game species special fund, which currently sit idle in a bank account. The purpose is to allow investment returns to be fed back into the non-game species special fund, as requested by the Fish and Game Department.
SB107: Dan Buron, Chief of the Wildlife Division, New Hampshire Fish and Game Support01:50:32.679 - 9:49:38 AM; Dan Buron clarified that the Fish and Game Department already receives interest on the money in the non-game species account, but it currently goes into the general Fish and Game fund. The proposed bill would allow this interest to be redirected back into the non-game fund, benefiting the non-game program directly. He mentioned that the non-game program is largely funded by private donations and state wildlife grants, and that larger donors have expressed interest in ensuring their donations can generate interest to support the program. He also noted that this change would help leverage additional federal dollars and is consistent with how other department accounts are managed.
SB107: Unnamed Senator Information Only01:53:40.040 - 9:52:46 AM; The unnamed senator raised concerns about the potential impact of the bill on the Fish and Game Department's federal funding. They questioned whether passing the bill would deplete the department's funds and necessitate additional requests for general funds. They also inquired about the amount of federal money the department receives annually and suggested a possible amendment to clarify that only federal funds specifically allocated to the non-game species account would be affected by the bill.
SB107: Dan Buron, Chief of the Wildlife Division, New Hampshire Fish and Game Support01:54:26.480 - 9:53:32 AM; Dan Buron responded to the senator's concerns, stating that the bill would transfer a relatively small amount of interest, estimated at $3 to $50,000, from the Fish and Game fund to the non-game account. He emphasized that this would not significantly impact the overall funds and that it aligns with the department's goals, particularly given the funding sources of the non-game program. He also clarified that the bill's language is consistent with other department accounts and would not affect federal funds allocated to other programs.
SB107: Unnamed Senator Information Only01:55:58.440 - 9:55:04 AM; The senator continued to express concerns about the bill's wording, particularly regarding the phrase 'including any federal monies which become available.' They worried that this could potentially divert a large amount of federal money into the non-game fund. They suggested that the bill be reviewed by the Finance Committee to clarify these issues and ensure it does not inadvertently affect the department's overall funding.
SB107: Unnamed Senator Information Only02:00:36.079 - 9:59:42 AM; Another senator suggested that the bill could be amended to clarify that only federal monies deposited into the non-game species account would be affected. They proposed adding language to specify this and mentioned that further review might be necessary with the Attorney General's office. They also discussed the possibility of waiving a Finance Committee review if the amendment could be made in the current session.

Avard, Kevin(Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Pearl, Howard (V Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Watters, David(D)[CT]2024
Rosenwald, Cindy(D)[CT]2024	McConkey, Mark(R)