Committee Summary for House Science, Technology and Energy (01/27/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
Unclear 00:02:21.080 - 8:01:27 AM	General Working Session	Unclear
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C 00:05:09.960 - 8:04:15 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to the department of energy's 10-year state energy strategy and removing references to the energy efficiency and sustainable energy board.	Thomas, Douglas(R)[A-]2025
HB221 00:34:22.079 - 8:33:28 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) 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.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2025
HB224 01:32:04.320 - 9:31:10 AM	Public Hearing	relative to rebates to ratepayers from the renewable energy fund.	Notter, Jeanine(R)[A-]2025
HB436 04:18:18.520 - 12:17:24 PM	Public Hearing	establishing a commission to solicit reports and testimony regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena in the state.	Ankarberg, Aidan(I)[IN]2025
Unclear 04:14:59.800 - 12:14:05 PM	General Working Session	Unclear
HB627 05:01:03.760 - 1:00:09 PM	Public Hearing	relative to permitting the public utilities commission to approve new providers for the Lifeline program.	Vose, Michael(R)[A-]2025
HB460 05:31:22.718 - 1:30:28 PM	Public Hearing	relative to utility investments in distributed energy resources.	McGhee, Kat(D)[CT]2025

Unclear: Representative Michael Bose, Chair of the Science, Technology, and Energy Committee Information Only00:02:21.080 - 8:01:27 AM; Representative Bose provided an update on the committee's workload, noting that the number of bills assigned to the committee had doubled from 22 to 43 within a week. He outlined a tentative schedule to complete all public hearings by March 3, 2025, assuming no cancellations due to snow or other emergencies. He also mentioned that executive sessions would be interspersed to advance bills to the house calendar, with the next session scheduled for the following morning on three bills, two of which were to be heard that day.
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C: Representative Doug Thomas, Rockingham County 16, Londonderry Support00:05:09.960 - 8:04:15 AM; Representative Thomas, the prime sponsor of HB189, explained that the bill aims to include nuclear energy in the state's definition of clean energy. He highlighted that many states, including New York and Colorado, have similar legislation pending. Thomas emphasized the environmental benefits of nuclear energy, which does not emit CO2, and the economic benefits of attracting investors interested in new nuclear technology. He mentioned an amendment to separate nuclear and fuel diversity in the definition of clean energy, which was inadvertently combined in the original draft. The amendment, number 202-7710 12 P: 7 C, aims to clarify this distinction.
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C: Representative Harrington Information Only00:08:24.000 - 8:07:30 AM; Representative Harrington sought clarification on the term 'small scale nuclear' mentioned in the bill. He questioned whether it referred to small modular reactors (SMRs) and how 'small' was defined, expressing concern over potential ambiguity in the definition that could lead to different interpretations regarding the scale of nuclear installations.
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:10:03.920 - 8:09:09 AM; The speaker questioned the classification of nuclear waste as clean energy, mentioning a field trip to Seabrook where they observed the storage of spent nuclear waste. They pointed out that while the EU and other countries include nuclear in their definition of clean energy, the storage issue was not addressed in the bill. The purpose of the bill, according to the speaker, was simply to define nuclear as clean energy, not to deal with its storage.
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C: Representative Kaplan Information Only00:11:15.720 - 8:10:21 AM; Representative Kaplan asked if the term 'clean energy' appears in other statutes related to energy or utilities. He noted that while 'renewable energy' is defined, 'clean energy' is not, which is why the bill was introduced to provide a definition.
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C: Representative McGee Information Only00:12:19.199 - 8:11:25 AM; Representative McGee questioned the appropriateness of including the definition of clean energy in the statutory construction section. They suggested defining clean energy as non-greenhouse gas emitting sources, which would include nuclear without specifying technologies. They emphasized the need for a clear definition to facilitate understanding and future legislative discussions.
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C: Representative Bernardi Oppose00:15:55.959 - 8:15:01 AM; Representative Bernardi argued against defining clean energy as non-greenhouse gas emitting, citing water vapor as a greenhouse gas. They suggested directly identifying nuclear as a clean fuel source rather than using a broader definition that could exclude potential future fuels like hydrogen.
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C: Representative Schneller Information Only00:17:32.080 - 8:16:38 AM; Representative Schneller clarified that the bill's intent was to simply add nuclear to the definition of clean energy, not to broaden the definition of clean energy itself.
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only00:17:48.760 - 8:16:54 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas questioned the intent of the bill, noting a discrepancy between defining nuclear energy as clean and inviting nuclear technology to New Hampshire. The response clarified that defining nuclear as clean energy would signal to investors that the state is open to nuclear energy business.
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C: Representative McGee Oppose00:19:21.240 - 8:18:27 AM; Representative McGee reiterated their concern about the placement of the definition of clean energy within the statutory construction framework. They argued that simply naming technologies like small-scale nuclear and renewable energy as clean energy does not provide a comprehensive definition that would include future technologies.
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C: Alex Spidel, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission Support00:20:09.159 - 8:19:15 AM; Alex Spidel from the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission expressed support for the bill, emphasizing the importance of an 'all of the above' energy approach in New Hampshire, which includes nuclear energy. They highlighted the state's longstanding energy policy supporting such an approach.
HB189 202-7710 12 P: 7 C: Simon Warwick, Starcube, Portsmouth Support00:22:57.240 - 8:22:03 AM; Simon Warwick, representing Starcube, a Portsmouth-based advanced nuclear industry pioneer, supports the bill. He highlighted the potential for New Hampshire to become a net exporter of electricity to New England by adopting advanced nuclear technologies. He emphasized the reliability and cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy and its recognition as clean energy at both federal and state levels. Warwick mentioned that several states have modified their definition of clean energy to include nuclear energy. He believes that by defining nuclear energy as clean, New Hampshire can strengthen its economy, develop a skilled workforce, and promote a clean environment. He also addressed concerns about nuclear waste, explaining its management and the feasibility of safe long-term storage. Warwick stated that Starcube's reactors are much smaller than traditional ones, and the company is looking to manufacture and operate these in New Hampshire. He sees no risk of oversaturation in the nuclear industry in the state and noted interest from businesses in using advanced nuclear for various applications, including Bitcoin mining and data centers. He mentioned collaborations with universities to develop necessary curricula.
HB221: Mike Harrington, Representative, Strafford District 18 Information Only00:34:22.079 - 8:33:28 AM; Representative Mike Harrington introduced the bill but deferred detailed explanation to the Public Utilities Commission due to a potential issue with the timing of the cost effectiveness review for Energy Efficiency programs. He did not accept questions.
HB221: Alex Spidel, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission Support00:35:53.760 - 8:34:59 AM; Alex Spidel from the Public Utilities Commission expressed support for the bill, appreciating the effort to enhance the commission's analytical rigor in assessing Energy Efficiency programming. He mentioned two key issues: the timing frame that may need adjustment and a provision in the bill that requires attention to reactivate the commission's analytical capabilities. He then deferred to Chairman Goldner for further comments.
HB221: Chairman Goldner, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission Support00:37:28.960 - 8:36:34 AM; Chairman Goldner supported the bill, emphasizing its importance in improving trial plan programs. He highlighted the need for quick passage due to the 12-month stipulation in the bill, which requires the commission to complete adjudication within the current year. He also noted that only 3% of the current trial plan is reviewed by the commission due to statutory limitations and suggested reviewing the entire plan in the future. He then deferred to Commissioner Chattopadhyay for comments on the benefit-cost tests.
HB221: Commissioner Chattopadhyay, New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission Support00:46:03.200 - 8:45:09 AM; Commissioner Chattopadhyay, with a PhD in economics, supported the bill and discussed the benefit-cost ratios from an economist's perspective. He explained the limitations of the Granite State Test, which only considers costs appearing in bills and does not capture all societal costs. He also noted that the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test does not capture all benefits. He suggested that the bill's provision to consider modifications to the Granite State Test and different or additional tests is a step in the right direction but emphasized the need for further improvements in capturing all benefits and costs.
HB221: Unknown Information Only00:52:25.559 - 8:51:31 AM; The speaker expressed interest in the commissioner's view on the necessity of constructing a new test for the bill. They questioned whether the process described in the bill, involving a docket where parties provide input, would be sufficient to start the process of improving the test.
HB221: Unknown Information Only00:53:41.040 - 8:52:47 AM; The speaker, previously a member of the disbanded EASY board, discussed the coordination of triennial budgets and their adjudication by the Public Utilities Commission. They questioned the inclusion of homeowner costs in the Energy Efficiency project's cost-benefit analysis, arguing that these costs should not be part of the program's cost as they are meant to be the homeowner's contribution to increase energy efficiency and lower demand.
HB221: Unknown Information Only00:55:13.640 - 8:54:19 AM; The speaker continued discussing the cost-benefit ratio of the Energy Efficiency program, asserting that the program's design does not account for homeowner contributions, which are meant to be part of their long-term savings. They argued that the cost-benefit analysis should focus only on the state-provided program costs and benefits, and any changes to this should involve more stakeholder input.
HB221: Unknown Information Only00:56:00.839 - 8:55:06 AM; The speaker elaborated on the exclusion of homeowner costs from the Granite State Test, suggesting it was intentional to reflect the program's true cost-benefit ratio. They questioned if the utilities could comment on this and emphasized the importance of measuring societal benefits and costs accurately for any economic efficiency analysis.
HB221: Unknown Information Only00:58:24.480 - 8:57:30 AM; The speaker inquired about the existence of a formula for performing the cost-benefit test discussed academically. They were directed to the literature where various tests, including the utility test and the TRC test, are detailed and used by different jurisdictions.
HB221: Megan Stone, Department of Energy Information Only01:00:13.839 - 8:59:19 AM; Megan Stone, the legislative liaison with the Department of Energy, provided a neutral stance on HB221. She explained that the bill relates to the state's ratepayer-funded Energy Efficiency programs, which must be cost-effective. The current cost-benefit test, the Granite State Test, was developed by stakeholders and approved by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) but is not yet a statutory requirement. House Bill 549 in 2021 aimed to stabilize these programs and limit PUC's considerations, including making the Granite State Test a statutory requirement. HB221 would allow the PUC to change the cost-benefit test starting with the 2027-2029 Energy Efficiency plan period, while keeping the current test for the remainder of the 2024-2026 plan.
HB221: Representative Capan Information Only01:02:44.039 - 9:01:50 AM; Representative Capan expressed gratitude to the chair and Mr. Stone for attending the hearing. He highlighted the need for a holistic approach to the cost-effectiveness of state-sponsored programs. He inquired whether the benefits considered in the Granite State test included climate change mitigation due to increased energy efficiency, indicating a desire to understand the full scope of the program's impact.
HB221: Michael Lata, Eversource Energy Oppose01:04:17.520 - 9:03:23 AM; Michael Lata, representing Eversource Energy, opposed HB221. He argued that the bill would undermine the stability and certainty provided by HB 549, which established the Granite State test. Lata emphasized the importance of the current framework for utilities, contractors, and customers, suggesting that reversing HB 549 could lead to detrimental effects on the energy efficiency programs. He stressed the rigorous development process of the Granite State test and its benefits for cost-effective energy solutions.
HB221: Mark Leminger, Eversource Energy Oppose01:06:34.319 - 9:05:40 AM; Mark Leminger, also from Eversource, supported Lata's opposition to HB221. He discussed the development of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and the decision to exclude participant costs and benefits from the Granite State test to maintain symmetry. He argued that the current test provides the necessary stability for all stakeholders involved in the energy efficiency programs.
HB221: Michael Joy, Londonderry, NH Oppose01:11:23.199 - 9:10:29 AM; Michael Joy, a home performance company owner from Londonderry, NH, opposed HB221. He highlighted the success and necessity of the current energy efficiency programs, especially for income-qualified individuals. He shared a story illustrating the program's value, even to its critics, and stressed the importance of maintaining the stability provided by HB 549. He argued that any changes could negatively impact services for those in need.
HB221: Matt Mayberry, New Hampshire Home Builders Association Oppose01:15:46.280 - 9:14:52 AM; Matt Mayberry, CEO of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, opposed HB221, emphasizing its potential to introduce uncertainty into the housing market. He criticized the Public Utilities Commission's past actions and the lack of clarity in the proposed adjudicative process. Mayberry stressed the importance of legislative oversight and stability for providing affordable housing and supporting the state's economy. He urged the committee to vote against the bill to maintain predictability in utility programs.
HB221: Kaplan Information Only01:18:59.840 - 9:18:05 AM; Kaplan shared a personal experience of benefiting from the New Hampshire Saves program last year, having reinsulated their home and noting a significant improvement in comfort during the winter. They questioned the quantifiability of living in a warm and secure house and its cost-benefit analysis but acknowledged that such questions were not appropriate for the committee setting.
HB221: Michael Turkot, Turn Cycle Solutions Oppose01:19:46.199 - 9:18:52 AM; Michael Turkot expressed strong opposition to HB221, highlighting its potential to harm energy efficiency and reduction initiatives in New Hampshire. He stressed the importance of these programs for reducing energy costs and fostering economic and environmental growth. Turkot also voiced concerns about the bill's impact on his business, which employs many and supports local families, suggesting that the legislation would introduce instability into the energy efficiency sector, potentially leading to job losses and weakened local economy. He responded to a question by explaining how HB221 could disrupt the stability provided by previous legislation (HB549), which allowed for business growth and confidence in reinvestment.
HB221: Chase Penoyer, Contoocook Oppose01:23:46.800 - 9:22:52 AM; Chase Penoyer, a business owner from Contoocook, opposed HB221, stating it would eliminate the stability provided by HB549 for energy efficiency programs. He shared his experience during a tumultuous time when energy efficiency programs were at risk and emphasized the daily benefits customers receive from New Hampshire Saves. Penoyer highlighted the importance of job stability in the energy efficiency sector, which employs many across various fields. He also discussed the potential negative impact of the bill on project cost-effectiveness and the uncertainty it introduces into the marketplace.
HB221: Nick Roff, Conservation Law Foundation Oppose01:28:32.920 - 9:27:38 AM; Nick Roff from the Conservation Law Foundation opposed HB221, focusing on a statement made by the PUC Commissioner. He challenged the commissioner's argument in the context of net metering, where societal benefits were not considered in cost-shifting analysis. Roff argued that if the PUC considers costs outside traditional rate-making, it should also consider societal benefits, expressing concern over the one-sided approach to evaluating costs and benefits.
HB224: Janine N, Hillsborough 12, Town of Marlborough Support01:32:04.320 - 9:31:10 AM; Representative Janine N from Hillsborough 12 and the Town of Marlborough introduced HB224 FN, aimed at providing rebates to rate payers from the renewable energy fund. She highlighted the impact of inflation on New Hampshire citizens, especially seniors, and the necessity of reducing energy costs. The bill seeks to rebate funds back to rate payers, potentially saving them between $2.5 and $7.3 million annually. She emphasized the importance of this relief, referencing past savings from the Reggie program and expressing support from various organizations.
HB224: Josh Elliott, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only01:34:25.400 - 9:33:31 AM; Josh Elliott from the New Hampshire Department of Energy provided a neutral stance on HB224 FN, noting some ambiguity in the bill's language regarding the intent and specifics of the rebates. He suggested the need for clarification on what constitutes 'excess' funds after administrative costs and incentive payments, and proposed working with the prime sponsor to refine the legislation to create a relief mechanism for anomalous high revenue years from alternative compliance payments.
HB224: Thomas, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only01:36:44.360 - 9:35:50 AM; Thomas from the New Hampshire Department of Energy addressed concerns about audit oversight for funds related to HB224 FN. He noted that the bill strikes out a sentence that would subject the funds to audit, suggesting that if the bill passes as is, there would be no specific legislative directive for an audit, though it wouldn't prohibit it. He also deferred commenting on the economic impact of the bill on the energy efficiency industry due to uncertainty about the full intent of the legislation.
HB224: Josh Elliott, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only01:38:17.119 - 9:37:23 AM; Josh Elliott, responding to questions about the renewable energy fund and its usage, detailed the current programs supported by the fund, including rebate programs for commercial, industrial, and residential sectors, and grant programs for low to moderate-income solar and competitive commercial projects. He mentioned that the fund also supports the office of offshore wind industry and energy innovation. Elliott explained that if HB224 FN passes, it would disrupt the funding for these programs and the office, and he could not comment on the economic impact of such changes without more details on the bill's structure.
HB224: Representative McGee Information Only01:40:40.719 - 9:39:46 AM; Representative McGee inquired about the economic impact of eliminating alternative compliance payments and whether it would stimulate Renewable Energy Credit sales, potentially lowering costs for ratepayers. Josh Elliott responded that eliminating these payments would remove financial incentives for utilities to purchase renewable energy certificates, but the exact impact would depend on the specifics of any proposed legislation.
HB224: Representative Harrington Information Only01:42:14.440 - 9:41:20 AM; Representative Harrington discussed the goal of maximizing renewable energy production in New Hampshire and questioned the amount spent on alternative compliance payments. Josh Elliott explained that the amount varies and is influenced by external market factors, providing a rough estimate of $5 to $6 million for the previous year, and agreed to submit detailed figures for the last five years to the committee.
HB224: Representative Rolds Information Only01:44:35.440 - 9:43:41 AM; Representative Rolds sought clarification on the relationship between renewable energy certificates and alternative compliance payments. Josh Elliott confirmed that renewable energy certificates represent the renewable attributes of electricity and that alternative compliance payments serve as a price cap to prevent utilities from paying excessively for renewable energy.
HB224: Representative Parshall Information Only01:45:25.880 - 9:44:31 AM; Representative Parshall raised concerns about New Hampshire's competitiveness in the energy market if it steps away from renewable energy investments, citing a Stanford study. Josh Elliott noted he was not familiar with the study but would review it if provided, and emphasized that such decisions are fundamentally policy choices for the legislature.
HB224: Representative Kaplan Information Only01:47:33.599 - 9:46:39 AM; Representative Kaplan asked about the impact of HB224 FN on integrating additional renewable and clean energy sources in New Hampshire. Josh Elliott responded that the bill would lead to the sunset of programs currently supported by the renewable energy fund, but he could not comment on the broader impact on the state's grid without further details.
HB224: John Reynolds, National Federation of Independent Business of New Hampshire (NFIB NH), Amherst Support01:49:04.840 - 9:48:10 AM; John Reynolds, representing NFIB NH from Amherst, supported HB224 FN, stating that small businesses are increasingly concerned about energy costs, which have entered the top 10 issues in recent surveys. He mentioned a recent survey where 87% of small business owners prioritized affordability and reliability in energy policy. Reynolds also highlighted the federal Inflation Reduction Act's significant investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency, suggesting that while HB224 FN does not solve all affordability issues, it would provide some relief on electric bills for small businesses.
HB224: John Reynolds, National Federation of Independent Business of New Hampshire (NFIB NH), Amherst Support01:49:04.840 - 9:48:10 AM; John Reynolds concluded his testimony by affirming that the bill, despite being a small step, is a move in the right direction for businesses in New Hampshire. He emphasized that it sends a message to businesses that the state is trying to mitigate electrical expenses, which are often beyond their control.
HB224: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:51:10.040 - 9:50:16 AM; The speaker responded to a question about the direction of the bill, agreeing that it is a step in the right direction for businesses, even if small. This was in response to a query by Representative Corman.
HB224: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:51:43.040 - 9:50:49 AM; The speaker addressed Representative Corman's question regarding the fiscal impact of the bill on independent businesses. They noted that any financial relief from the state would likely be reinvested into the business or its employees. The speaker highlighted that small businesses like restaurants and independent grocery stores, which typically have high energy costs, would benefit the most from the bill.
HB224: Wendy Thomas Information Only01:52:57.960 - 9:52:03 AM; Wendy Thomas inquired about the percentage of small business clients who have utilized the New Hampshire Saves programs. The speaker responded that they did not have that information as it was not directly relevant to the bill under discussion.
HB224: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:53:31.040 - 9:52:37 AM; The speaker responded to Representative Rolfs' question about the participation of small businesses in the renewable energy fund. They did not have specific numbers but reiterated that 87% of their members prioritized affordability and reliability in energy, according to a recent survey.
HB224: Mark Froehlich, FRin Energy, Keene Oppose01:54:16.119 - 9:53:22 AM; Mark Froehlich, from FRin Energy in Keene, opposed the bill. He explained that his company, which installs wood pellet and wood chip boilers, benefits indirectly from the renewable energy fund through grants to clients. He argued that the bill would reduce funding, which in turn would increase costs for municipalities and other public facilities, ultimately affecting taxpayers. He provided an example of a local Cheshire County nursing home that significantly reduced its heating costs thanks to the fund, emphasizing the broader community benefits.
HB224: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:56:54.040 - 9:56:00 AM; In response to Representative Rolfs' question about the affordability and reliability of renewable energy solutions, the speaker confirmed that clients choose wood pellet and wood chip boilers for their long-term affordability and reliability. They used the example of Cheshire County Nursing Home, which reduced its heating costs substantially after receiving a grant from the fund.
HB224: Greg Moore, Americans for Prosperity Support01:59:19.800 - 9:58:25 AM; Greg Moore, representing Americans for Prosperity, testified in support of HB224 FN. He suggested that the simplest solution for the bill's technical components would be to bring the Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) down to zero, which would eliminate the need for a rebate mechanism. He also addressed the fiscal note's concern about the Office of Offshore Wind Industry Development and Energy Innovation, pointing out that due to a recent executive order halting wind energy development, the bill's focus on state competitiveness could be more beneficial. Moore emphasized the importance of state competitiveness, citing that New Hampshire's decisions are making it increasingly attractive for businesses. He referenced a small business survey showing energy affordability and reliability as top priorities but noted his organization had not conducted a similar survey. He discussed New England's high electricity costs, using Sig Sauer's decision to locate an ammunition plant in Arkansas as an example of how high energy costs impact business decisions. Moore also touched on personal experiences with energy efficiency, suggesting that financial incentives are often enough without government programs.
HB224: Heidi Kroll, Granite State Hydro Power Association Oppose02:08:01.440 - 10:07:07 AM; Heidi Kroll, representing the Granite State Hydro Power Association, testified in opposition to HB224 FN. She argued that the Renewable Energy Fund, funded by Alternative Compliance Payments, should not be used for unintended purposes. Kroll emphasized the fund's role in increasing renewable energy supply and lowering Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) compliance costs. She highlighted how the fund supports various renewable energy projects, leveraging significant private investment and contributing to job creation and economic growth. Kroll expressed concerns about the potential impact of the bill on fuel diversity and the RPS program, suggesting that setting the ACP to zero would effectively eliminate the RPS. She concluded by noting the small but significant contribution of the fund to hydro facilities, enhancing their efficiency and renewable energy certificate production.
HB224: Heidi Kroll, Granite State Hydro Power Association Information Only02:08:01.440 - 10:07:07 AM; Heidi Kroll discussed the impact of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) on hydro facilities in New Hampshire. She highlighted that RPS revenue is crucial for these facilities, helping them meet regulatory and operational expenses. Kroll also addressed the importance of hydro power in maintaining a diverse and stable energy supply for the state, emphasizing its role as a base load power source due to its ability to operate 24/7. She responded to questions about the potential effects of the RPS folding up, stating it would significantly impact smaller hydro facilities and could affect the state's energy needs by reducing diversity and increasing consumer prices.
HB224: Charlie Nebling, Bow Oppose02:19:35.398 - 10:18:41 AM; Charlie Nebling, a semi-retired forester and renewable energy consultant, expressed opposition to HB224 FN. He questioned the clarity and purpose of the bill, suggesting that the renewable energy fund's objective is to generate Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to help meet statutory obligations without resorting to alternative compliance payments. Nebling emphasized the importance of the fund in supporting renewable technologies and highlighted New Hampshire's heavy reliance on fossil fuels, advocating for increased investment in in-state renewable energy. He criticized the current management of the renewable energy fund, noting a significant unspent balance and suggesting that the committee should focus on ensuring the fund is used effectively to meet its intended goals.
HB224: Sam Evans Brown, Clean Energy New Hampshire Oppose02:24:02.720 - 10:23:08 AM; Sam Evans Brown, Executive Director of Clean Energy New Hampshire, opposed HB224 FN, emphasizing the importance of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the Renewable Energy Fund. He noted the fund's balance has grown significantly over recent years, suggesting that the Department of Energy has been overly cautious with fund deployment. Brown argued that the RPS is designed to be self-balancing, with alternative compliance payments funding new projects that generate more RECs, thereby reducing compliance costs. He highlighted the modest cost impact on residential ratepayers and the broader benefits of renewable energy projects, including their role in depressing regional wholesale electricity prices. Brown warned that removing the fund could devastate ongoing projects and questioned the rationale behind the bill, especially given the fund's small impact on individual ratepayers compared to its significant support for renewable energy initiatives.
HB224: Jason Stock, New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association Oppose02:28:48.439 - 10:27:54 AM; Jason Stock, representing the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, testified in opposition to the bill. He highlighted the benefits of the renewable energy programs to small businesses within their association, specifically mentioning three members: Britain Lumber in Bath, DCI in Littleton, and Middleton Building Supply in Middleton. These businesses utilize biomass and solar energy, which are supported by the renewable energy fund. Stock emphasized the importance of energy diversity for reliability and affordability, arguing that the renewable energy fund promotes local, homegrown power, which is crucial for maintaining energy stability and supporting small businesses.
HB224: Jared Mullner, IM Sy Main Sis, Auburn, NH Oppose02:34:11.680 - 10:33:17 AM; Jared Mullner from Auburn, NH, representing IM Sy Main Sis, spoke against the bill. He discussed the evolution of wood as a heating fuel and its refinement into chips and pellets, which require higher capital costs due to specialized equipment. He explained how rebates from the renewable energy fund help offset these costs, allowing more people in New Hampshire to switch to wood pellet or chip fuel. Mullner stressed the need for stability in funding to ensure continued adoption of this renewable energy source, and highlighted the long-term economic benefits of switching to wood fuel compared to fossil fuels.
HB224: Meredith Hatfield, The Nature Conservancy Oppose02:39:56.960 - 10:39:02 AM; Meredith Hatfield, representing The Nature Conservancy, opposed the bill, reinforcing points made by previous speakers about the technologies and projects supported by the renewable energy fund. She noted that these projects benefit not only the owners and residents of host municipalities but also reduce the state's dependence on the regional electric grid. Hatfield referenced the annual report from the Department of Energy and the renewable energy fund dedicated funds report, suggesting that the fund's balance of over $20 million last June should be used for its intended purpose. She recommended either finding the bill inexpedient to legislate or amending it to establish a study committee to explore the issues further.
HB224: Nick Coff, Conservation Law Foundation Oppose02:44:19.240 - 10:43:25 AM; Nick Coff from the Conservation Law Foundation testified against the bill, arguing that rebating the renewable energy fund would result in only trivial benefits to ratepayers. He cited the Department of Energy's annual report, indicating that the average residential customer would receive a rebate of only 34 cents per month if the fund were rebated in 2023. Coff emphasized the fund's broader benefits, such as boosting the state economy, creating jobs, and supporting schools and towns with energy systems, including a grant awarded to Raymond High School for a biomass heating system. He also mentioned the fund's support for low-income projects, such as one by New Hampshire Catholic Charities benefiting 59 households. Coff concluded that eliminating the fund would harm communities and low-income residents without providing significant benefits to ratepayers.
HB224: Representative Nter Information Only04:07:44.319 - 12:06:50 PM; Representative Nter expressed concern about the lack of a prime sponsor and co-sponsors for the bill being discussed. They noted the difficulty in holding a public hearing without anyone present to discuss the substance of the bill. They questioned the feasibility of a discussion with only one person present and mentioned the rule that every bill must have a public hearing, despite the current situation.
HB224: Representative Plog Information Only04:08:35.720 - 12:07:41 PM; Representative Plog suggested that one of the committee members could introduce the bill to facilitate a public hearing. They expressed willingness to introduce the bill themselves and mentioned the need to review it again before proceeding.
HB224: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only04:09:23.600 - 12:08:29 PM; Representative Wendy Thomas inquired if the person introducing the bill would be willing to take questions on it. They referenced previous discussions on similar topics like contrails and indicated readiness to move forward with the public hearing.
HB224: Representative PL Information Only04:10:09.640 - 12:09:15 PM; Representative PL introduced House Bill 436, which establishes a commission to investigate unidentified anomalous phenomena in the state. They mentioned their own past experiences with unexplained aerial phenomena and the need for such a commission to gather and discuss reports from citizens. They also noted the lack of sponsors available to testify and expressed their willingness to take questions despite not being the prime sponsor.
HB436: Representative Vice Chair Thomas Information Only04:18:18.520 - 12:17:24 PM; Representative Vice Chair Thomas questioned the scope of the bill, noting that it includes phenomena in the skies, territories, and water. They sought clarification on the broad application of the bill and its relevance to the concerns of constituents.
HB436: Representative Parial Information Only04:19:43.920 - 12:18:49 PM; Representative Parial raised concerns about the composition of the commission proposed in the bill, noting it was unusual for a commission to have only House members and no Senate members. They also questioned the permanent nature of commissions and the inclusion of outside members.
HB436: Representative Corman Information Only04:20:29.399 - 12:19:35 PM; Representative Corman questioned the status of the public hearing, asking whether it should be closed due to the lack of further witnesses. They also inquired about the possibility of moving to an executive session to discuss the bill, referencing rules and procedures.
Unclear: Representative Vice Chair Thomas Information Only04:14:59.800 - 12:14:05 PM; Representative Vice Chair Thomas suggested using the recess time to plan field trips for the spring. They proposed discussing potential locations with lobbyists and organizing these trips, indicating a desire to use time productively.
Unclear: Representative N Information Only04:26:51.279 - 12:25:57 PM; Representative N suggested visiting the Advanced Regenerative Medicine Institute (ARMI) and the Segway Factory as potential field trip locations. They expressed enthusiasm about the educational value of these visits.
Unclear: Representative Parshall Information Only04:27:40.080 - 12:26:46 PM; Representative Parshall proposed visiting ISO New England and suggested the Granite State Hydro Power Association's facility in Marlborough. They mentioned other locations like Pack Monadnock, which has a communication tower and weather instrumentation, and Troll Energy in Marlborough.
Unclear: Representative Doug Thomas Information Only04:29:15.840 - 12:28:21 PM; Representative Doug Thomas suggested a trip to the natural gas power plant in Laconia, formerly run by Calpine, and a nearby weather indicator station. They highlighted the educational and practical benefits of such visits.
Unclear: Representative McGee Information Only04:30:01.880 - 12:29:07 PM; Representative McGee recommended visiting Granite Shore Power's facility on the Seacoast, where batteries are being installed. They mentioned their previous visit during Clean Energy Week and the interesting developments at Schiller Station.
Unclear: Representative Corman Information Only04:30:48.640 - 12:29:54 PM; Representative Corman mentioned an upcoming trip to Form Energy's battery factory in Weirton, West Virginia, with Representative Manos. They expressed willingness to report back to the committee, noting potential restrictions on taking photos due to proprietary information.
Unclear: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only04:31:34.279 - 12:30:40 PM; Representative Wendy Thomas suggested visiting Mount Washington to see the new weather stations installed on the east side of the mountain. They highlighted the value of understanding weather monitoring and prediction.
HB627: Representative Michael Vose, Rockingham District 5 Support05:01:03.760 - 1:00:09 PM; Representative Michael Vose introduced House Bill 627, which expands the providers of the federal Lifeline Services program. He explained that the bill aims to improve access to healthcare, remote learning, emergency services, and affordable broadband and wireless communications for low-income New Hampshire citizens. He emphasized that the bill does not require state funding, as it is supported by federal Universal Service Fund fees. Vose highlighted the bill's basis on similar legislation in Maine and its potential to enhance services for seniors and veterans in the state.
HB627: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:05:20.680 - 1:04:26 PM; The speaker raised questions about the primary purpose of the bill, which seems to be shifting authority to determine eligibility for telecommunications carriers. They inquired about who would be affected by this change, noting that major service carriers in the state might already be categorized under this program. The speaker was seeking clarification on the beneficiaries of the bill.
HB627: Representative Winnie Thomas Information Only05:06:51.878 - 1:05:57 PM; Representative Thomas asked about the specifics of the bill, particularly focusing on the language that allows the commission to designate any commercial mobile service provider or telecommunications company as an eligible telecommunications carrier. They questioned the lack of qualifications or standards for these providers, indicating confusion about the criteria for designation.
HB627: Representative Corman Information Only05:08:23.440 - 1:07:29 PM; Representative Corman inquired about the origin of the bill's idea, mentioning a conference where Senator Judson Hill from Georgia suggested that New Hampshire adopt this authority, as it is one of only five states without it. The bill was inspired by efforts to expand Lifeline Services across the U.S.
HB627: Representative Berard Information Only05:10:42.200 - 1:09:48 PM; Representative Berard sought clarification on the financial implications of the bill, specifically whether the transfer of money from federal to state level would result in any net change in costs. They were reassured that the fee collected nationally would continue to fund the program without additional costs.
HB627: Representative Harrington Information Only05:11:29.520 - 1:10:35 PM; Representative Harrington summarized that the bill aims to expand the existing Lifeline program for landline phones to include cell phones, as some people only use cell phones. They emphasized the importance of this expansion for those without landlines or internet access, highlighting the complexity of the modern economy.
HB627: Representative Partial Information Only05:12:17.680 - 1:11:23 PM; Representative Partial inquired if the bill would affect the carrier of last resort, questioning whether it would make cell phone options more affordable. They were informed that the designation as a Lifeline support carrier is separate from being a carrier of last resort.
HB627: Megan Stone, Department of Energy Information Only05:13:04.240 - 1:12:10 PM; Megan Stone from the Department of Energy stated that the department is neutral on HB627. She explained that the state has traditionally deferred to the FCC for designating eligible telecommunications carriers. She noted that changing this duty to the state might not guarantee more carriers offering Lifeline discounts and that the FCC might be better suited for this role due to the absence of a state Universal Service Program.
HB627: Kaplan Information Only05:17:34.040 - 1:16:40 PM; Kaplan inquired about the number of New Hampshire citizens covered by programs like the Lifeline program under existing carriers and the need for broadband access. They were seeking an estimation of the need for such programs.
HB627: Doug Thomas Information Only05:18:20.878 - 1:17:26 PM; Doug Thomas asked about the potential costs for carriers to apply to the FCC for capability and whether those costs would be more expensive than having the state handle it. They expressed curiosity about the financial implications for carriers.
HB460: Representative Cat McGee, Hillsboro 35, Hollis Support05:31:22.718 - 1:30:28 PM; Representative Cat McGee introduced HB460, emphasizing its aim to further define factors for the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to consider when determining the public interest before authorizing utility recovery rates for investments in distributed energy resources. McGee highlighted that the bill seeks to specify the effect on competition within regional and state energy markets, including utility rates, tariffs, metering data sharing, consolidated bills, load estimation, and settlement processes. These factors are intended to help the PUC calculate a just and reasonable reimbursement value for utility investments. McGee addressed concerns about a fiscal note, explaining that the PUC might need to hire staff or consultants for adjudicative proceedings, but argued that these factors are standard in energy valuation and should not be a stumbling block for regulators. They responded to questions about the bill's impact on competition and its role in ensuring proper valuation and allocation of benefits among stakeholders in energy projects.
HB460: Representative Harrington Information Only05:43:09.680 - 1:42:15 PM; Representative Harrington questioned the analysis required by the PUC on the proposed factors, suggesting that the PUC would need to analyze and possibly verify the data provided by utilities and other stakeholders. Harrington expressed concern about the PUC's capacity to handle such analysis given current staffing levels.
HB460: Representative Kaplan Information Only05:51:28.000 - 1:50:34 PM; Representative Kaplan sought clarification on how the bill would encourage more distributed energy generation and preserve a competitive marketplace. They appreciated the effort to explain the bill's complexities but wanted to ensure it aligned with broader energy goals.
HB460: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only05:54:25.320 - 1:53:31 PM; Representative Wendy Thomas asked whether the factors outlined in the bill were already being considered in competitive market assessments and if standardizing these factors would enhance efficiency and fairness. They emphasized the importance of clarity in statutory language for consistent case evaluations.
HB460: Representative Bernardi Information Only05:56:43.478 - 1:55:49 PM; Representative Bernardi questioned the necessity of the bill's language, suggesting that existing subsections G and H of the statute already cover the costs and benefits to utilities and ratepayers. They inquired if the factors listed in the bill could be integrated into these subsections instead, or if they were unnecessary.
HB460: Matt Young, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only06:00:14.958 - 1:59:20 PM; Matt Young, an attorney with the New Hampshire Department of Energy, provided neutral testimony on HB460-FN. He mentioned that the department was initially unclear about the intent and effect of the bill but gained some clarity after hearing Representative McGee's testimony. Young emphasized that the bill deals specifically with projects under RSA 374-G, and during his time at the department, he is aware of only two such projects that have come before the Public Utilities Commission. He also noted that several of the factors listed in the bill are currently being considered in other dockets at the Public Utilities Commission, although not all factors are considered in every case. He was open to answering questions to provide further clarity.
HB460: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only06:01:46.320 - 2:00:52 PM; Representative Wendy Thomas questioned Matt Young about the factors considered by the Public Utilities Commission in current dockets. She inquired whether the absence of some factors in decision-making could lead to insufficient information. Young clarified that the dockets in question were not 374-G projects, and the consideration of factors like data sharing related to consolidated billing was being discussed. Thomas sought to understand the balance of considering different factors in different cases, but Young indicated difficulty in fully understanding the question.
HB460: Representative Swanson Information Only06:03:15.000 - 2:02:21 PM; Representative Swanson asked Matt Young if the bill would encourage more due diligence on the enumerated items to enhance public confidence. Young responded that the bill would provide more specificity than what is currently required.
HB460: Representative Harrington Information Only06:03:51.760 - 2:02:57 PM; Representative Harrington sought clarification on the procedural aspects of the bill if passed into law. He asked whether the Department of Energy would review and submit recommendations to the Public Utilities Commission based on utility submissions. Young explained that utilities would file petitions at the Public Utilities Commission, to which the department would be a party and conduct its review before providing a recommendation to the commission.
HB460: Henry Hearn, Community Power Coalition of New Hampshire Support06:06:30.000 - 2:05:36 PM; Henry Hearn, representing the Community Power Coalition of New Hampshire, testified in support of HB460-FN. He explained that the bill aims to level the playing field between utility companies and the competitive market by allowing cost-effective distributed energy resources (DERs) to reduce wholesale power costs, ISO New England costs, and interstate transmission infrastructure costs. He highlighted Unitil's Kingston project as an example of how utilities can save customers money by developing local renewable energy projects. Hearn argued that the same justifications used by utilities for their projects should be available to competitive market actors to drive down costs for customers. He clarified that the bill's intent is not to increase regulation but to enable less regulation, allowing unregulated entities a level playing field. Hearn addressed questions about the mechanics of how the bill would work, emphasizing that it would allow competitive suppliers to use the same load estimation and tariff methodologies as utilities.
HB460: Michael Lata, Eversource Energy Oppose06:23:51.280 - 2:22:57 PM; Michael Lata, representing Eversource Energy, testified in opposition to HB460-FN as introduced. He argued that the bill would add new factors not currently considered by the Public Utilities Commission when reviewing utility investments under RSA 374-G. Lata emphasized that the commission's review is project-specific and location-specific, focusing on costs, benefits, and public interest. He expressed concern that the new factors would shift the conversation away from the project's merits to whether unregulated third parties should receive compensation for their competitive DERs. Lata disagreed with statements made by Henry Hearn, particularly those suggesting that utilities are blocking investment or monopolizing DERs. He argued that the bill could have a chilling effect on utility investment and complicate the evaluation of specific projects. Lata also addressed questions about the difficulty of quantifying benefits like avoided load and transmission costs, emphasizing the difference between estimating savings for customers and compensating third parties directly.
HB460: Wendy Thomas Information Only06:35:21.798 - 2:34:27 PM; Wendy Thomas raised a point of order concerning the integrity and honesty of testifiers during the hearing. She questioned the appropriateness of one testifier questioning another's integrity and suggested inviting the original testifier back to clarify and defend their statements. However, the chair disagreed, stating that the criticism was directed at the facts and ideas presented by Mr. Heen, not his honesty, and thus, there was no need to allow Mr. Heen to return to defend himself.
HB460: Representative Kaplan Information Only06:36:22.958 - 2:35:28 PM; Representative Kaplan revisited a previous point about the underlying statute that prioritizes distributed generation resources for utility investments. He noted the slow uptake by utilities and questioned Eversource's Michael Lata about the factors that should be considered to incentivize utilities to invest more in distributed generation. Lata responded by mentioning that previous Public Utilities Commission orders had caused concern among utilities about investments under this statute, but acknowledged Unitil's successful project and Eversource's ongoing considerations.
HB460: Sam Evans Brown, Clean Energy New Hampshire Information Only06:38:39.718 - 2:37:45 PM; Sam Evans Brown from Clean Energy New Hampshire provided a neutral stance on the bill. He emphasized the importance of understanding the value of distributed energy resources and the locational value of distributed generation, as outlined in recent studies. He highlighted the discrepancies in value across different circuits and suggested that other states have implemented tariffs and programs to incentivize generation in areas of high value. He advocated for a discussion with utility partners to structure a rate or program that could create the necessary price signals.
HB460: Alec Oma, Unitil Information Only06:42:51.240 - 2:41:57 PM; Alec Oma from Unitil provided an educational perspective on their Kingston solar array project. He clarified that the project's value lies in its ability to offset transmission and distribution costs, benefiting all Unitil electric customers in New Hampshire. He mentioned an ongoing docket (22660) before the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission that will review concepts related to load settlement and compensation. Oma expressed concern that adding language to the statute could lead to repeated litigation of these issues and potentially hinder future utility projects.
HB460: Representative Harrington Information Only06:48:15.878 - 2:47:21 PM; Representative Harrington asked Alec Oma about the uniqueness of the Kingston project's analysis to its specific location and whether similar analyses would apply elsewhere. Oma confirmed that the location of a project is a critical factor and that each project should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
HB460: Representative Corman Information Only06:48:39.638 - 2:47:45 PM; Representative Corman sought clarification from Alec Oma on how the bill could lead to projects being relitigated. Oma explained that the broad language in the statute could create parallels with the active docket before the Public Utilities Commission, potentially leading to repeated reviews of these topics.

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	Thomas, Wendy(D)[CT]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