Committee Summary for House Science, Technology and Energy (03/03/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB266 00:04:17.680 - 8:03:08 AM	Public Hearing	relative to structural changes to the department of energy.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2025
HR15 01:27:58.560 - 9:26:49 AM	Public Hearing	urging New Hampshire's congressional representatives to advocate for a change in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's policy.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2025
HB599 01:39:37.040 - 9:38:28 AM	Public Hearing	establishing a committee to examine weatherization initiatives for homes in New Hampshire.	Howard, Heath(D)[F]2025
HB567 04:06:48.640 - 12:05:39 PM	Executive Session	relative to the elimination of useful thermal energy from renewable energy classes.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2025
HB696 04:15:28.920 - 12:14:19 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to the application of utility property taxes and statewide education property taxes to electric generating facilities.	Vose, Michael(R)[A-]2025
HB764 2024-0677h 04:35:06.759 - 12:33:57 PM	Executive Session	prohibiting the intentional release of polluting emissions, including cloud seeding, weather modification, excessive electromagnetic radio frequency, and microwave radiation and making penalties for violation of such prohibition.	Potenza, Kelley(R)[A]2025
HB219 0678H 04:58:23.600 - 12:57:14 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to changes to the minimum electric renewable portfolio standards.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2025
HB219 0678H 05:48:29.920 - 1:47:20 PM	General Working Session	(New Title) relative to changes to the minimum electric renewable portfolio standards.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2025

HB266: Representative Harrington, Bill's Prime Sponsor Information Only00:04:17.680 - 8:03:08 AM; Representative Harrington introduced House Bill 266, which proposes structural changes to the Department of Energy as part of its ongoing transition. He mentioned that the bill was submitted at the request of the Department of Energy and noted ongoing discussions between the Department of Energy and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regarding some issues. He suggested that the Department of Energy and PUC representatives should explain their positions on the bill.
HB266: Chris Elms and David Shulock, Department of Energy Support00:06:07.280 - 8:04:58 AM; Chris Elms and David Shulock from the Department of Energy expressed support for House Bill 266, viewing it as a continuation of the department's creation in 2021. They argued that the bill removes unnecessary guardrails from the restructuring and is necessary to prevent the PUC from controlling the Department of Energy's operations. They highlighted concerns about the PUC's desire to dictate the department's participation in proceedings and the evidence it submits. They mentioned ongoing discussions with the PUC, where sections 3, 4, and 5 were seen as non-controversial, but section 2, regarding the department's ability to choose which cases to participate in, was a point of contention. They offered to amend section 2 to address PUC's concerns but noted the PUC's rejection of this proposal, suggesting a deeper issue with the PUC's acceptance of the department's autonomy. They emphasized the importance of the bill for maintaining the department's accountability to elected officials and not to the PUC.
HB266: Representative McGee Information Only00:13:57.759 - 8:12:48 AM; Representative McGee asked for clarification on the language in the bill, specifically on line five, which states 'as determined by the department.' He sought to understand if this represented a shift in policy execution. Chris Elms clarified that it was intended as a clarification rather than a shift, ensuring that the Department of Energy determines what evidence it provides. McGee also inquired about RSA 21-G:10, to which David Shulock explained it pertains to the responsibilities of a department towards any attached agency, focusing on back-office support to avoid duplication.
HB266: Vice Chair Thomas Information Only00:18:47.440 - 8:17:38 AM; Vice Chair Thomas sought clarification on how the Department of Energy determines its position on matters, as mentioned in line five of the bill. Chris Elms explained that the decision-making process is collaborative within the department, with the final decision resting with the commissioner, who reports to the governor.
HB266: Representative Rolds Information Only00:19:45.840 - 8:18:36 AM; Representative Rolds asked for examples of instances where the Department of Energy faced issues with the PUC regarding its advocacy and presentation of information before the commission, as mentioned in section four of the bill. The response to this question was not provided in the transcript.
HB266: General Counsel Information Only00:20:37.600 - 8:19:28 AM; The General Counsel discussed the dynamics between the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the Department of Energy (DOE). They highlighted that the proposed provisions in the bill act as a clear delineation of roles, ensuring that the DOE controls its staff, while the PUC maintains its own. This separation is intended to prevent the PUC from influencing what the DOE presents in proceedings, which has been a point of contention due to previous blurred lines.
HB266: Department Representative Corman Information Only00:21:59.559 - 8:20:50 AM; Representative Corman clarified the roles of the PUC and DOE. They described the PUC's role as adjudicative, making decisions based on applications or records in contested cases. The DOE's role is to advocate for the public interest and provide necessary evidence. They also discussed enforcement, stating that while the DOE can identify violations, it's the PUC's role to order fines.
HB266: Department Representative Information Only00:24:32.640 - 8:23:23 AM; The representative addressed concerns about new responsibilities for the DOE under the bill, particularly regarding investigation and full party status. They clarified that no additional staffing or fiscal impact would be required, as the bill aligns with existing DOE authorities in other statutory jurisdictions, such as the Dig Safe program and SEC enforcements.
HB266: PUC Chairman Dan Goldner and Commissioners Oppose00:26:43.039 - 8:25:34 AM; Chairman Goldner, along with Commissioners, expressed concerns about the bill's impact on the PUC. They highlighted the need for additional analytical staffing if the DOE's support becomes contingent and not guaranteed, which could lead to a lack of independent advice. They also discussed the administrative support relationship with the DOE, suggesting modifications to the bill to sever this attachment and handle basic functions independently. They emphasized the potential need for increased resources and budget adjustments if the bill passes.
HB266: Representative McGee Information Only00:29:16.120 - 8:28:07 AM; Representative McGee questioned the implications of sections of the bill on the PUC's administrative attachment to the DOE and the need for additional staffing. They sought clarity on how the PUC would handle objective research without relying on the DOE's resources, and how this might affect their budget and role in adjudicative proceedings.
HB266: Representative Summers Information Only00:34:34.000 - 8:33:25 AM; Representative Summers inquired whether the bill would speed up the docket flow at the PUC. The response indicated that it might slow down processes because the PUC would need to find alternative resources to reflect the customer's perspective, which is currently provided by the DOE.
HB266: Representative Bernardy Information Only00:35:43.480 - 8:34:34 AM; Representative Bernardy questioned the implications of the Department of Energy's (DOE) participation in utility dockets under the proposed legislation. He asked why the DOE should not be trusted in deciding when their participation is necessary, highlighting the DOE's current mandatory involvement and the potential change to optional participation suggested by the bill. This raised concerns about the balance of interests between customers and regulated utilities.
HB266: Sarah Fuller, Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Information Only00:37:03.240 - 8:35:54 AM; Sarah Fuller from the PUC clarified the commission's role as an arbiter, not a party, in utility dockets. She emphasized that the PUC cannot generate its own evidence or interpret the DOE's non-participation as a factual determination. Fuller explained that the absence of the DOE in proceedings could leave the PUC without a counterparty to the regulated utility, affecting the balance of interests in rate-making.
HB266: Representative Swanson Information Only00:39:05.040 - 8:37:56 AM; Representative Swanson withdrew a question during the hearing, indicating no further engagement on the topic at that moment.
HB266: Representative Corman Information Only00:40:22.079 - 8:39:13 AM; Representative Corman inquired about the DOE's stance on removing certain changes in the bill, specifically lines related to mandatory participation. The response indicated a concern that removing some changes without others could lead to disingenuous participation by the DOE, affecting the balance in proceedings.
HB266: Representative McGee Information Only00:42:40.720 - 8:41:31 AM; Representative McGee questioned the PUC's lament about not being a party in proceedings and their role in adjudication without generating evidence. The PUC clarified their role as rate-makers, emphasizing that without DOE participation, they cannot balance interests effectively in certain dockets.
HB266: Chairman Goldner, PUC Information Only00:43:45.839 - 8:42:36 AM; Chairman Goldner added to the discussion by emphasizing the PUC's primary role as rate-makers, with adjudication being a part of that role. He stressed the importance of balancing customer and utility interests in rate-making, which could be affected by the DOE's participation.
HB266: Representative Bernardy Information Only00:45:23.880 - 8:44:14 AM; Representative Bernardy expressed confusion over the implication that the DOE might participate disingenuously if certain sections of the bill are removed. He sought clarification on the necessity of line five in the bill and the DOE's commitment to their role. The response acknowledged the DOE's efforts and suggested alternative solutions to the issue of participation and resource allocation.
HB266: Representative Bernardy Information Only00:45:23.880 - 8:44:14 AM; Representative Bernardy continued discussing the implications of striking section two of the bill, suggesting that it would mandate the Department of Energy (DOE) to be present 100% of the time. He questioned the need for additional resources if the DOE does not participate as per line five, which states 'as determined by the department.' He highlighted potential issues with the DOE's participation and the need for counterbalance, possibly from the Attorney General's office, if the DOE's involvement is limited or disingenuous.
HB266: Attorney Fuller Information Only00:50:45.559 - 8:49:36 AM; Attorney Fuller responded to queries about the DOE's mandatory participation, indicating uncertainty about needing additional resources if the DOE only provides limited review of matters. He mentioned that if the DOE's involvement is just semantics, no additional resources might be required, but if significant, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) might need support to assess the pleadings.
HB266: Commissioner Information Only00:52:00.640 - 8:50:51 AM; The Commissioner responded to a question about the DOE's participation, stating that if section two is removed and the DOE reviews a case with concerns about only one issue, the PUC could still ask the DOE about other issues. However, if the DOE comes to the table with nothing, it poses a challenge for the PUC, which cannot dictate how the DOE allocates its resources.
HB266: Representative Rolds Information Only00:53:13.400 - 8:52:04 AM; Representative Rolds expressed skepticism about the DOE's non-involvement in certain cases, questioning if there are instances where commercial and industrial interests do not intervene, leaving no counterbalance to utility proposals. The Commissioner confirmed that this does happen, especially in smaller cases, due to a lack of representation for commercial and industrial interests compared to residential interests.
HB266: Donald Cree, Office of Consumer Advocate Support00:56:46.440 - 8:55:37 AM; Donald Cree, representing the Office of Consumer Advocate, expressed support for HB266, though reluctantly, due to concerns about the current state of utility regulation in New Hampshire. He highlighted the broken relationship between the DOE and the PUC, suggesting that the PUC's role is to adjudicate cases, not make energy policy. Cree also mentioned other related bills, HB535 and HB610, indicating that HB266 is part of a larger effort to address regulatory issues. He criticized the PUC for discussing pending cases, which he believes violates their statutory code of ethics. Cree also discussed the inefficiencies and conflicts between the DOE and PUC, which are costing ratepayers money and suggested that the Commission on Governmental Efficiency should look into the matter.
HB266: Representative Summers Information Only01:08:40.158 - 9:07:31 AM; Representative Summers asked Donald Cree about potential improvements or additions to HB266 to address inefficiencies. Cree suggested looking favorably at HB535, which he believes attempts to address similar issues. He also mentioned the possibility of a work session to combine efforts from different bills to tackle the problem effectively.
HB266: Representative Parall Information Only01:09:43.000 - 9:08:34 AM; Representative Parall questioned whether HB266 blurs the lines between the judicial and executive roles of the PUC and DOE. Cree clarified that both are part of the executive branch, with the PUC's role being adjudicative, not judicial. He emphasized that the bill aims to clarify the DOE's autonomy from the PUC.
HB266: Representative Kaplan Information Only01:11:54.440 - 9:10:45 AM; Representative Kaplan asked for clarification on how HB266 addresses the 'squabbling' between the DOE and PUC, particularly concerning lines about departmental determination. Cree responded that the bill clarifies the DOE's authority and independence from the PUC, and suggested looking at HB535 for further clarity on the PUC's role. He also discussed the PUC's ability to request evidence from parties during hearings.
HB266: Wendy Thomas Information Only01:15:18.040 - 9:14:09 AM; Wendy Thomas provided an example from Vermont, where she briefly worked, to illustrate how a Department of Public Service and a Public Utility Commission can operate effectively together. She highlighted that Vermont has had longer to develop its system, which has allowed for clearer delineation of roles between the two entities. She suggested that New Hampshire's Department of Energy, established in 2021, was intended to act as a policy shop, unlike the Public Utility Commission (PUC) which should focus on adjudication. She mentioned a concern about the PUC developing internal evidence without public disclosure, specifically referencing the Default Energy Service Bill (House Bill 760), and criticized this as contrary to the intended function of the Department of Energy.
HB266: Representative McGee Information Only01:17:00.719 - 9:15:51 AM; Representative McGee discussed the need for clarifications in statutory language as requested by the Department of Energy. The bill aims to define the roles between the Department of Energy and the Public Utility Commission more clearly, ensuring the Department has the latitude to decide its involvement in cases. McGee confirmed with the previous speaker that the changes proposed in the bill were seen as appropriate and constructive, and sought clarification on the PUC's internal evidence development, which was described as not being part of contested hearings, thereby not allowing for proper scrutiny.
HB266: Representative Kaplan Information Only01:21:41.040 - 9:20:32 AM; Representative Kaplan raised concerns about the PUC relying on internal resources, suggesting it might be forced to do so more if the bill passes due to limited state resources. He emphasized that the PUC has sufficient resources akin to a court and should focus on adjudication based on presented evidence, rather than pursuing a policy-driven, inquisitorial model.
HB266: Representative Corman Information Only01:23:15.120 - 9:22:06 AM; Representative Corman questioned whether the Department of Energy should be involved in every PUC case to provide necessary information. He was informed that the bill does not compel the Department of Energy to be part of every case, as the burden of proof should be on the party presenting the case to the PUC.
HB266: Representative Summers Information Only01:24:00.679 - 9:22:51 AM; Representative Summers inquired about the potential impact of the bill on the speed of PUC dockets. He referenced an earlier question about whether defining the responsibilities of the Department of Energy and the PUC more clearly could slow down the process.
HB266: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:25:08.560 - 9:23:59 AM; The speaker addressed a question about the potential impact of HB266 on the docket process of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). They argued that the PUC controls the pace of its docket process and emphasized that the efficiency of deciding cases depends on the burden of proof. They expressed skepticism about the premise that moving forward with bills like HB266 or House Bill 535 would automatically slow down the process. The speaker highlighted the PUC's role as a decision-making entity that should aim to make decisions as quickly and efficiently as possible, allowing for appeals if necessary.
HB266: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:26:12.880 - 9:25:03 AM; In response to a question from Representative Bernardy, the speaker confirmed that if a case before the PUC requires additional evidence and it is not provided, the PUC makes its decision based on the available information. This aligns with the speaker's position on the decision-making process at the PUC.
HR15: Representative Michael Harrington Support01:27:58.560 - 9:26:49 AM; Representative Harrington introduced House Resolution 15, which urges members of the U.S. Congress to change FERC policy so that only costs associated with new or upgraded electrical transmission projects that are deemed just and reasonable can be collected from ratepayers. He provided an example involving a utility's expenditure on a substation project, explaining the need for the utility to prove the costs are just and reasonable before receiving compensation. He criticized FERC's 'presumption of prudency' policy, which automatically assumes all costs are prudent unless proven otherwise, and noted the lack of oversight in reviewing extensive cost filings. Harrington highlighted the impact on New Hampshire ratepayers from projects in other New England states and mentioned ongoing efforts by other states and consumer advocate groups to address this issue.
HR15: Representative McGee Support01:31:53.159 - 9:30:44 AM; Representative McGee suggested adding a findings section to HR15 to help Congressional members understand the rationale behind the resolution. Harrington agreed to consider this addition, especially if McGee were to draft it.
HR15: Representative Wendy Thomas Support01:32:53.880 - 9:31:44 AM; Representative Thomas pointed out inconsistencies in the language used in the resolution, suggesting that 'justified and reasonable' should be changed to 'just and reasonable' for consistency. Harrington acknowledged the correction and mentioned that other states in New England are also addressing similar issues, emphasizing the need for a uniform standard across different types of utility projects.
HR15: Unidentified Speaker Support01:33:58.400 - 9:32:49 AM; An unidentified speaker expressed support for HR15 and inquired about its progress through the legislative process. Harrington responded that he was focusing on getting the resolution through the committee and the House before dealing with the Senate.
HR15: Representative Reynolds Support01:34:58.719 - 9:33:49 AM; Representative Reynolds asked about any advocacy or resolutions from bodies like NARUC or other regional organizations on the topic of FERC's presumption of prudency. Harrington mentioned discussions with the Department of Energy and the New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE), indicating broader regional concerns about the issue. He also acknowledged that the resolution could be improved by explicitly mentioning the presumption of prudency to better inform Congressional recipients.
HR15: Representative Corman Information Only01:36:30.920 - 9:35:21 AM; Representative Corman raised concerns about the potential workload increase for FK due to the proposed bill, questioning whether it would lead to more work and possibly a backlog. The discussion highlighted that the bill would indeed create additional costs, though these costs are minimal compared to the national scale of transmission projects. The conversation touched on the necessity of upgrading transmission due to data centers, distributed generation, and intermittent resources, suggesting a significant national investment in transmission infrastructure.
HB599: Representative Heath Howard, representing Strafford and Barrington Support01:39:37.040 - 9:38:28 AM; Representative Heath Howard introduced House Bill 599, emphasizing the urgent need for weatherization in New Hampshire to address the harsh winters and high energy costs. He highlighted that many homes in the state, built before 1980, lack modern energy efficiency, leading families to spend significantly more on heating. Howard argued that weatherization could reduce costs by 25% and lower the state's carbon emissions. He stressed the health benefits of weatherization, noting reduced emergency room visits in weatherized homes. Howard advocated for a study committee to unify existing efforts, leverage federal funds, and create targeted solutions for low-income and rural households, aiming to align with the state's sustainability goals.
HB599: Representative Kaplan Support01:42:46.280 - 9:41:37 AM; Representative Kaplan expressed strong support for the bill, agreeing with Howard's assessment on its potential to reduce the state's carbon footprint and improve residents' quality of life. Kaplan also connected the bill to addressing the housing affordability crisis, suggesting that weatherization could be key to solving this issue.
HB599: Representative Corman Information Only01:44:27.520 - 9:43:18 AM; Representative Corman inquired whether increasing funding for the NH Saves program, which already conducts weatherization, would be a more effective approach than forming a new committee. Howard acknowledged this as a possibility that the committee could study.
HB599: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only01:45:28.560 - 9:44:19 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas asked if the proposed committee would also consider reviewing New Hampshire's energy codes. Howard responded affirmatively, indicating that this could be part of the initiative.
HB599: Representative Kaplan Information Only01:45:28.560 - 9:44:19 AM; In a follow-up question, Representative Kaplan asked if NH Saves has the capacity to assess the state's housing stock comprehensively. Howard's response suggested that this assessment might fall outside NH Saves' current mission, implying that a new committee could fill this gap.
HB599: Representative Howard Information Only01:46:30.080 - 9:45:21 AM; Representative Howard discusses the proactive versus reactive approach of energy efficiency providers, expressing uncertainty about their current practices. They mention not being contacted by state officials regarding participation in any state commissions or committees but note interest from other individuals in participating in study committee meetings.
HB599: Representative Vice Chair Thomas Information Only01:48:09.400 - 9:47:00 AM; Representative Vice Chair Thomas suggests an alternative to the bill, proposing that instead of forming a committee, the Department of Energy should be tasked with conducting a study and report on the subject, citing the department's existing data and potential efficiency.
HB599: Representative F Information Only01:49:19.440 - 9:48:10 AM; Representative F inquires if any construction or rehabilitation businesses reached out to Representative Howard regarding the bill. Howard mentions a few individuals contacted them, including someone involved with energy code bills, possibly an inspector, but is unsure if they are business owners.
HB599: Representative F (follow-up) Information Only01:50:05.239 - 9:48:56 AM; Representative F expresses personal experience with weatherization sales and asks if there is a need for more education and resources on weatherization, suggesting a lack of information available to consumers.
HB599: Representative Howard (response to Representative F) Information Only01:50:54.520 - 9:49:45 AM; Representative Howard agrees there are opportunities for businesses in weatherization and emphasizes the bill's aim to provide resources and opportunities without imposing new requirements, focusing on benefits for both businesses and consumers.
HB599: Representative Scheller Information Only01:51:55.920 - 9:50:46 AM; Representative Scheller questions whether the issue of weatherization should be handled by businesses as a matter of sales and marketing, rather than through state initiatives. Howard responds by discussing the broader impact on energy usage and costs, suggesting a state-level approach could help lower overall rates.
HB599: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only01:53:02.440 - 9:51:53 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas, a BPI building analyst, emphasizes the importance of education in energy efficiency, particularly for homeowners. They discuss visible signs of poor insulation and the potential for significant energy savings, suggesting that education could play a crucial role in the bill's success.
HB599: Representative Swanson Information Only01:54:27.000 - 9:53:18 AM; Representative Swanson asked Representative Howard for clarification on the $1 to $2.50 return on investment mentioned in the context of weatherization. Howard explained that for every dollar spent on weatherization, such as insulation or energy-saving services, homeowners can expect a return of $2.50 in energy bill savings. Swanson sought to understand whether this investment comes from the homeowner or business, to which Howard confirmed it does.
HB599: Meg Stone, Department of Energy Information Only01:55:45.159 - 9:54:36 AM; Meg Stone from the Department of Energy stated that the department is neutral on HB599, which proposes a study committee to assess and promote weatherization in New Hampshire. Stone outlined the duties of the proposed committee, including identifying the state of weatherization, analyzing existing programs, and developing proposals. She explained the department's involvement in managing the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and its collaboration with community action agencies to deliver services to income-eligible households. Stone highlighted the funding New Hampshire receives for weatherization and the challenges in tracking weatherized homes as mentioned in the bill. She mentioned the department's plan for a future data management system and responded to questions regarding funding specifics and potential data collection methods for the study committee.
HB567: Representative Harrington Information Only04:06:48.640 - 12:05:39 PM; Representative Harrington moved to recommend the bill as inexpedient to legislate (ITL). He expressed his belief that the wood heat standard is flawed, particularly because electric ratepayers should not subsidize wood heating. However, he acknowledged that adjustments made in HB219 might address some of these concerns. He suggested focusing on HB219 instead of HB567, indicating that further pursuit of HB567 would be a waste of time.
HB567: Representative Summers Information Only04:07:00.000 - 12:05:51 PM; Representative Summers seconded the motion to recommend HB567 as ITL.
HB567: Representative Thomas Support04:08:52.199 - 12:07:43 PM; Representative Thomas agreed with the ITL motion, indicating support for moving forward with the recommendation to kill the bill.
HB567: Representative McGee Oppose04:09:15.000 - 12:08:06 PM; Representative McGee opposed the bill, highlighting the compelling testimonies received during hearings about the benefits of the current thermal program. He pointed out its importance to new builds and existing investments, including those in his town, and warned that passing the bill would be disruptive to those who have made such investments.
HB567: Representative Corman Oppose04:10:10.800 - 12:09:01 PM; Representative Corman also opposed the bill, emphasizing that many people rely on thermal energy and that newer technology is efficient. He supported the ITL motion to maintain the status quo for those reliant on the current system.
HB567: Representative Rolds Oppose04:10:45.000 - 12:09:36 PM; Representative Rolds opposed the bill, stressing the importance of the RPS for the wood industry and the investments made by school districts and municipalities in thermal wood heating technologies. He agreed with the ITL motion to avoid disrupting these efforts.
HB567: Representative Harrington Information Only04:11:33.680 - 12:10:24 PM; Representative Harrington acknowledged the issue of funding thermal energy through a surcharge on electricity rates and mentioned plans to work on a new legislative service request (LSR) to create a wood heat standard funded by other revenue sources. He welcomed suggestions from others on this matter.
HB567: Representative McGee Oppose04:12:48.880 - 12:11:39 PM; Representative McGee further opposed the bill by discussing the broader objectives of the RPS, including transitioning to cleaner energy and leveraging local sustainable sources. He argued that the RPS was designed to support multiple energy objectives and that focusing narrowly on one aspect misses the broader picture.
HB696: Unnamed Speaker Support04:15:28.920 - 12:14:19 PM; The speaker opened the executive session on House Bill 696 and moved for an ought to pass vote. They mentioned that the bill is a result of a three-year study commission, which was reconstituted three times over three consecutive years to thoroughly study the issue.
HB696: Unnamed Speaker Support04:16:16.520 - 12:15:07 PM; The speaker continued discussing House Bill 696, stating that while it doesn't address all concerns raised during the study commission's 16 to 18 hours of meetings last fall, it significantly helps in breaking the litigation logjam. The logjam results from the current system where electricity generators, treated as manufacturers rather than utilities, are taxed under the utility property tax. This leads to discrepancies between assessments by the Department of Revenue Administration and municipalities, causing costly litigation.
HB696: Unnamed Speaker Support04:17:04.399 - 12:15:55 PM; The speaker further explained that by exempting electricity generators from the utility property tax and subjecting them to the Statewide Education Property Tax (SWEPT), most of the litigation caused by assessment discrepancies could be eliminated. They noted that the exemption preserves existing PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) agreements for generators until 2032 and recognizes generators as manufacturers, aiming to treat them appropriately within their business category.
HB696: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:18:34.239 - 12:17:25 PM; The speaker addressed concerns raised by Representative Thomas Wendy Thomas regarding the impact of the bill on public education revenue and the lack of reporting requirements from assessors. They distributed a copy of the commission report to the committee, which indicated a potential reduction of about $6 million in education trust fund monies due to the exemption of generators from the utility property tax. However, moving them to SWEPT would recover most of that loss.
HB696: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:20:30.359 - 12:19:21 PM; The speaker discussed the financial implications of the legislation on the education trust fund, stating there is a $110 million surplus, and thus the bill would have no impact on education funding. They also addressed the issue of reporting requirements for electricity generators, explaining that the legislation treats them as manufacturers and does not impose additional reporting requirements as requested by municipalities due to the availability of voluminous public information on these facilities.
HB696: Representative Corman Information Only04:21:58.600 - 12:20:49 PM; Representative Corman expressed confusion over the bill's impact on education funding, referencing the fiscal note which indicates a decrease in ETF revenue by $5.36 million in FY 28 and $12.72 million subsequently. They were concerned about the overall decrease in education funding despite the SWEEP rate staying constant and sought clarification on whether the total education funding would indeed decrease.
HB696: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:23:15.680 - 12:22:06 PM; The speaker responded to Representative Corman's concerns, explaining that while the utility property tax contribution to the education trust fund would decrease, overall education revenue might increase due to the inclusion of generators in SWEEP. They clarified that the education trust fund has a cap and any changes to this cap would be dealt with in the budget process, not by this bill.
HB696: Representative Summers Information Only04:24:47.760 - 12:23:38 PM; Representative Summers added that the committee had spent considerable time discussing these issues with the Department of Revenue the previous year. They noted that passing the bill would resolve the troubles faced regarding utility and property taxes, which had been a point of contention between the House and the Senate.
HB696: Representative Migy Information Only04:25:53.720 - 12:24:44 PM; Representative Migy discussed the impact of the bill on the education trust fund, noting that the utility tax contribution to the fund would be eliminated, but the overall education funding might remain unchanged or increase due to the generators' payments into SWEEP. They sought further clarification on whether the rate of funds going into SWEEP would balance out the loss from the ETF.
HB696: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:27:12.560 - 12:26:03 PM; The speaker clarified that the bill does not eliminate the utility property tax but exempts generators from paying it. They emphasized the negligible impact of the bill on the education trust fund due to its $110 million surplus, suggesting no negative consequences from passing the bill.
HB696: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:27:57.800 - 12:26:48 PM; The speaker concluded the discussion, stating that the committee voted 18 to 0 in favor of the motion to pass House Bill 696. The bill will be placed on the regular calendar, not the consent calendar, and the committee report will be written accordingly.
HB764 2024-0677h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:35:06.759 - 12:33:57 PM; The speaker updated the committee about the status of amendments for House Bill 764 FN. They mentioned that errors were found in the newly crafted amendment, specifically on lines 15 and 19 where the word 'prohibit' needed to be changed to 'discourage'. They contacted the clerk to inquire if the amendment could be adopted with corrections or if a new amendment was required. The clerk advised that the amendment could not be corrected directly but could be adopted and then fixed with a floor amendment.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Plog Information Only04:37:26.799 - 12:36:17 PM; Representative Plog made a motion to adopt Amendment 2024-0677h for House Bill 764 FN.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Bernardi Information Only04:38:19.400 - 12:37:10 PM; Representative Bernardi seconded the motion to adopt Amendment 2024-0677h.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative N Information Only04:39:45.000 - 12:38:36 PM; Representative N clarified the procedural steps for handling the amendment, stating that a motion of 'ought to pass as amended' (OTPA) needs to be made first before dealing with the amendment itself. They also mentioned that the amendment significantly changes the original bill, including changing the title to 'discouraging the intentional release of polluting emissions' and altering the content to discourage geoengineering activities rather than prohibit them.
HB764 2024-0677h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:41:20.280 - 12:40:11 PM; The speaker discussed modifications in the amendment related to catastrophic drought scenarios. The amendment proposes that the state should conduct a 14-day environmental review instead of a one-month review, arguing that a shorter period is more suitable during a drought catastrophe. Additionally, the amendment grants the Department of Environmental Services oversight over cloud seeding activities, though the specifics of this oversight are not detailed. The amendment also mandates the Department to notify various federal entities within 30 days about the discouragement of geoengineering activities.
HB764 2024-0677h: Vice Chair Thomas Information Only04:42:58.600 - 12:41:49 PM; Vice Chair Thomas mentioned a change in the amendment on page one, line 12, where the phrase 'harm to human health and safety' was replaced with 'have unknown effects to human health and safety.' This was the only change discussed by Vice Chair Thomas.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative PL Information Only04:44:10.040 - 12:43:01 PM; Representative PL requested clarification on the amendment number being discussed, which was identified as 0214 for the record.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Corman Information Only04:44:10.040 - 12:43:01 PM; Representative Corman expressed confusion over the meaning of 'discouraging' certain activities and questioned the enforceability and implications of stating that no person should engage in these activities, suggesting that the language might not constitute a law.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Beres Oppose04:45:10.120 - 12:44:01 PM; Representative Beres opposed the amendment and the bill, citing a lack of clarity on what is enforceable. They questioned the effectiveness of laws that merely discourage actions without penalties or enforcement clauses, suggesting a house resolution might be more appropriate.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only04:45:10.120 - 12:44:01 PM; Representative Wendy Thomas raised several concerns about the bill. She questioned the logic of identifying unknown effects on public health through a 14-day environmental study. She also criticized the broad language used that could potentially discourage all aircraft over New Hampshire due to their emissions. Additionally, she pointed out the ambiguity in who within the state is responsible for conducting the environmental review and expressed skepticism about the feasibility of a 14-day review period.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative from Marlow Oppose04:46:24.760 - 12:45:15 PM; The representative expressed opposition to the bill, citing the difficulty in assessing the environmental, public health, and wildlife harms of pest control within the 14-day timeframe proposed by the bill. They specifically mentioned the town of Marlow, indicating a long wait of nine years for such assessments.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Kaplan Oppose04:47:26.878 - 12:46:17 PM; Representative Kaplan opposed the bill due to concerns about the exemption for cloud seeding in case of drought, questioning its effectiveness and necessity. They also criticized the bill's notification process to federal agencies, suggesting it might unnecessarily duplicate existing state-federal communication channels.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Harrington Oppose04:48:25.080 - 12:47:16 PM; Representative Harrington found the bill's requirement to notify various federal agencies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Park Service, to be unnecessary and somewhat humorous, given the lack of relevance to New Hampshire. They will vote against the bill.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Swanson Oppose04:49:52.040 - 12:48:43 PM; Representative Swanson believes that even if the bill were to pass, it would not satisfy its originators and would be an exercise in futility. Therefore, they are against the bill.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Bernardi Support04:51:14.600 - 12:50:05 PM; Representative Bernardi supports the amendment, noting that it aligns with the prime sponsor's intent to repeal RSA 12f and make a statement against geoengineering. They believe moving forward with the amendment is necessary to prevent similar bills from recurring.
HB764 2024-0677h: Vice Chair Thomas Support04:52:19.600 - 12:51:10 PM; Vice Chair Thomas supports the amendment because it repeals RSA 12f and includes more acceptable wording to pass the bill. They acknowledge the bill's purpose as a statement against geoengineering, despite it not being able to be changed into a resolution.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Kaplan Oppose04:53:13.718 - 12:52:04 PM; Representative Kaplan acknowledges that the current amendment is better than the earlier version but still cannot support it due to elements beyond the repeal of RSA 12f.
HB764 2024-0677h: Vice Chair Thomas Oppose04:54:19.520 - 12:53:10 PM; Without the adoption of the amendment, Vice Chair Thomas cannot support the bill at all.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Matson Information Only04:55:08.878 - 12:53:59 PM; Representative Matson corrected the vote count, clarifying that there were eight 'no' votes, not ten, and specifically mentioned votes from Representatives Harrington and Bry.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative Corman Information Only04:55:58.558 - 12:54:49 PM; Representative Corman moved for a vote of Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on House Bill 764 FN. The motion was seconded by Representative McGee. The vote on the ITL motion passed with a vote of 17 to 1.
HB764 2024-0677h: Representative McGee Information Only04:55:58.558 - 12:54:49 PM; Representative McGee seconded the motion for Inexpedient to Legislate on House Bill 764 FN.
HB764 2024-0677h: Chairman Vose Information Only04:56:57.120 - 12:55:48 PM; Chairman Vose oversaw the voting process for the ITL motion on House Bill 764 FN. After the vote passed, he noted that Representative Corman would write the committee report. There was an objection to placing the bill on the consent calendar, leading to it being placed on the regular calendar instead. The executive session on House Bill 764 was then closed.
HB219 0678H: Representative Harrington Information Only04:58:23.600 - 12:57:14 PM; Representative Harrington moved to pass House Bill 219 FN with Amendment 0678H. The amendment makes significant changes to the bill, including the elimination of Class 2 from the electric renewable portfolio standard and a reduction in the obligation under Class 1 thermal. The amendment also includes minor changes such as the elimination of references to Class 2. The changes are intended to generate savings for ratepayers by removing unnecessary obligations.
HB219 0678H: Representative Berney Information Only04:59:15.240 - 12:58:06 PM; Representative Berney seconded the motion to pass House Bill 219 FN with Amendment 0678H.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:00:12.958 - 12:59:03 PM; An unnamed speaker asked for clarification on the amendment number and discussed the details of Amendment 0678H. The amendment eliminates Class 2 from the electric renewable portfolio standard due to utilities not purchasing Class 2 RECs, which would save ratepayers about $1.5 million. Additionally, the amendment reduces the Class 1 thermal obligation from 2.2% to 1.7%, aiming to save ratepayers about $4.2 million without affecting the production of thermal RECs.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:03:36.520 - 1:02:27 PM; The speaker discussed the amendment 0678H to HB219 FN, highlighting changes in class two sections throughout the bill. A significant change noted was the redefinition of wind energy in class one to exclude government-mandated procurements, aiming to prevent offshore wind from overwhelming class one and devaluing the renewable energy credits (RECs) in that class.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:04:29.440 - 1:03:20 PM; The speaker continued discussing the amendment, focusing on changes to the Alternative Compliance Payments (ACPs) for classes 1, 3, and 4. These changes aim to set the ACPs about $2 above those in Massachusetts and Connecticut to encourage more RECs to be satisfied in New Hampshire rather than being exported.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:05:15.480 - 1:04:06 PM; The speaker further elaborated on the amendment's impact, noting that it would reduce the amount of ACP payments going into the renewable energy fund. Additional changes include the repeal of class two references and other deletions, such as a sentence on page three regarding class two output. These changes are projected to save ratepayers approximately $5.7 million without negatively affecting renewable growth.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:06:30.760 - 1:05:21 PM; The speaker provided a comparison with Massachusetts, noting that nearly 30% of the average electricity bill there is spent on public policy. They criticized Massachusetts' approach to energy efficiency spending, which was increased from $4 billion to $4.5 billion, describing it as public policy gone off the rails. The speaker advocated for the proposed reforms in the amendment to avoid similar issues in New Hampshire and invited further discussion from the committee.
HB219 0678H: Representative McGee Information Only05:07:31.000 - 1:06:22 PM; Representative McGee thanked the previous speaker for the explanation and asked about the percentage of New Hampshire electricity bills spent on programs, noting that there have been no significant complaints about this in New Hampshire. The speaker responded that the percentage in New Hampshire is between 10 and 15%.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:08:41.958 - 1:07:32 PM; The speaker discusses the conservative approach taken by the state regarding energy policy, emphasizing that the state has been careful not to overcharge citizens. They mention the renewable energy fund and the changes proposed by the bill, specifically addressing the repeal and replacement of certain sections of the RSA 362 F10, which deals with the renewable energy fund. The speaker clarifies that the bill does not repeal the fund but adjusts the ACP payments for different classes of renewable energy.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:11:07.360 - 1:09:58 PM; The speaker continues the discussion on the renewable energy fund, emphasizing that the fund is not being repealed but is being modified in terms of the ACP payments. They clarify the changes to different classes of renewable energy and discuss the basis for these changes, referencing other states' practices.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:12:00.400 - 1:10:51 PM; The speaker further clarifies the changes to the renewable energy fund, stating that the section is being repealed and reenacted with new ACP payment amounts for different classes. They discuss the rationale behind these changes, referencing the practices in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
HB219 0678H: Representative Corman Information Only05:12:45.920 - 1:11:36 PM; Representative Corman expresses difficulty in understanding the extensive changes proposed in the bill and requests either a recess of the hearing to allow more time for review or retention of the bill for further input from the public. They emphasize the need for a thorough understanding of the changes before making a decision.
HB219 0678H: Representative McGee Information Only05:13:59.160 - 1:12:50 PM; Representative McGee raises concerns about the capacity factor rating used in the bill for class one installations, questioning its accuracy and relevance. They suggest that if significant changes are being made, the committee should ensure they understand the implications fully, hinting at the need for further review or modification.
HB219 0678H: Representative Swanson Information Only05:15:51.200 - 1:14:42 PM; Representative Swanson, new to the committee, inquires about the process for public hearings on amendments. They received considerable feedback on the original bill and are positive about the changes but seek clarification on whether another public hearing is needed for the amendment, given the level of changes. The response clarifies that since the amendment addresses the same section of law as the original bill, it is considered germane and does not require another public hearing.
HB219 0678H: Representative Kaplan Information Only05:17:12.520 - 1:16:03 PM; Representative Kaplan began by questioning the impact of the amendment on class two and ACP payments, expressing initial confusion about whether these payments would increase or decrease. After clarification that the amendment decreases ACP amounts but keeps them higher than in neighboring states, Kaplan raised concerns about the vague language regarding government-mandated wind energy procurements, wondering which government the amendment refers to and how it would apply to external jurisdictions.
HB219 0678H: Representative PL Support05:18:19.360 - 1:17:10 PM; Representative PL expressed support for the amendment, citing input from constituents and involvement in the issue over the years. They specifically mentioned understanding the explanation on page one, lines 27-28, of the amendment regarding the use of thermal REX and stated their intention to vote in favor of passing the amendment.
HB219 0678H: Representative McKe Information Only05:19:41.878 - 1:18:32 PM; Representative McKe sought clarification on the amendment's impact, particularly focusing on the percentage changes from 2014 to 2023 and the subsequent reduction. They expressed concern about the potential negative effect on investments in new renewables, citing an example of a new thermal unit investment that was influenced by the availability of REX, and questioned the impact of lowering the value of these investments at a time when other states are increasing support for fuel diversity.
HB219 0678H: Representative Harrington Oppose05:23:08.920 - 1:21:59 PM; Representative Harrington argued against the amendment, stating that it forces electric rate payers to subsidize industrial wood boilers without any direct benefit to their electric bills. They pointed out that the switch to wood from other fuels like oil or propane does not decrease electricity usage, and thus, rate payers are essentially paying more to support these industrial conversions.
HB219 0678H: Representative McGee Support05:24:06.760 - 1:22:57 PM; Representative McGee supported the amendment, citing examples from their town of Hollis where investments in thermal generation have led to significant savings on energy bills. They argued that these investments, supported by the amendment, help lower costs and increase energy reliability, countering the argument that there are no benefits to rate payers by highlighting the broader financial benefits and potential savings across the community.
HB219 0678H: Representative Kaplan Information Only05:27:10.080 - 1:26:01 PM; Representative Kaplan raised concerns about the elimination of class two under the amendment, wondering about the impact on businesses and potential investments in the state. They sought more information on how eliminating class two might affect future opportunities for renewable energy projects, noting that many class two REX are now claimed under class one.
HB219 0678H: Representative McGee Information Only05:31:00.798 - 1:29:51 PM; Representative McGee expressed concern over the impact of the amendment on existing solar projects that would no longer be eligible under REX if class two is eliminated. They emphasized the need for clarity on the effects of the amendment before it becomes law, highlighting the potential negative consequences for previous investments in renewable energy.
HB219 0678H: Unidentified Speaker Information Only05:33:01.040 - 1:31:52 PM; The speaker announced the conclusion of the executive session on House Bill 219 FN and outlined the schedule for the following day, which included a full committee work session from 10:30 until noon on four or five different bills, followed by a lunch break, and then another executive session at 1:00 PM.
HB219 0678H: Unidentified Speaker Information Only05:33:48.680 - 1:32:39 PM; The speaker provided further scheduling details for the upcoming week, stating that the committee would meet on Monday, March 10th, but not on Tuesday, March 11th due to town meeting day. They mentioned that there would be an executive session on the 10th to discuss the remaining 11 bills, with the possibility of extending the session to the following Monday, March 17th, if necessary. All bills at this point had already had their hearings, and the committee needed to make decisions on them.
HB219 0678H: Unidentified Speaker Information Only05:35:08.520 - 1:33:59 PM; The speaker listed several significant bills that the committee would need to address, including House Bill 760 and House Bill 755, and confirmed that the work session on March 10th would be followed by an executive session, likely lasting until 5:00 PM.
HB219 0678H: Representative Flog Information Only05:36:47.958 - 1:35:38 PM; Representative Flog reported on the Blue Book numbers for several bills. For House Bill 266, there were zero entries on the blue sheet and three in support and three opposed online. House Resolution 15 had no input on the blue sheet and one in support and two opposed online. House Bill 599 had no entries on the blue sheet and eight in support and three opposed online.
HB219 0678H: Representative Corman Information Only05:37:36.440 - 1:36:27 PM; Representative Corman reminded the committee about a subcommittee work session immediately following the current session, focusing on House Bill 537, House Bill 539, and House Bill 680 FN. He noted that while committee members were welcome to stay for the work session, it was not mandatory.
HB219 0678H: Representative Bernardy Information Only05:48:29.920 - 1:47:20 PM; Representative Bernardy opened the subcommittee work session focused on three bills related to residential condominium property electric rates. He highlighted the key issue where services billed to a business address receive a commercial rate, despite being used for residential purposes. He suggested a proposal where a named individual in the association could receive the bill, thus qualifying for a residential rate, avoiding the need for utility companies to overhaul their billing systems.
HB219 0678H: Representative Bernardy Information Only05:49:22.400 - 1:48:13 PM; Continuing from the previous speaker, Representative Bernardy clarified that the discussion pertains to electric meters for shared well and septic systems in homeowners associations. He noted that previous attempts to include other common areas like sprinklers were met with resistance, leading to a focus solely on well and septic systems. He emphasized the issue of billing these services at a commercial rate despite their residential use and the challenge of equitable billing within the association.
HB219 0678H: Representative Bernardy Information Only05:50:58.680 - 1:49:49 PM; Representative Bernardy mentioned the lukewarm response from the Department of Energy regarding sending a letter to associations to address the billing issue. He also noted the existence of a list of 501c4 entities, some of which are registered with the Secretary of State, that could be involved in this matter.
HB219 0678H: Representative Corman Information Only05:51:47.760 - 1:50:38 PM; Representative Corman elaborated on the focus of the bills, emphasizing that they are specifically targeting shared well and septic systems in residential units. He discussed the challenges of billing these services at a commercial rate when they serve residential purposes and the issue of equitable billing within the association. He also mentioned working on an amendment with Representative Manos to address these concerns.
HB219 0678H: Mr. Sweat Information Only05:55:37.840 - 1:54:28 PM; Mr. Sweat provided detailed information on the tariff regulations, specifically Schedule D and G2, which differentiate between domestic and non-domestic use but do not address shared meters. He presented a cost comparison showing significant differences in billing rates between commercial and residential rates for the same usage, particularly highlighting the impact of demand and meter charges. He argued that the utility company should be able to differentiate billing rates based on use, not billing address.
HB219 0678H: Eric Shanesy Support06:00:27.120 - 1:59:18 PM; Eric Shanesy, an attorney representing condominium associations, expressed support for the proposed amendment to statute 356b, section 45. He emphasized the amendment's focus on assigning residential rates for septic and well services, ensuring that only the units using these services are charged. He discussed the legal framework of condominium billing and the necessity for the amendment to ensure fairness and equity in billing practices.
HB219 0678H: Eric Shanesy Information Only06:01:34.200 - 2:00:25 PM; Eric Shanesy further explained the legal complexities around billing in condominiums, referencing sections 45(2) and 45(3) of the existing law. He clarified that the ability to charge back services to specific units depends on the condominium instruments, and without specific provisions, all unit owners are charged equally, which the proposed amendment aims to rectify.
HB219 0678H: Zoe Manos, Stratham Information Only06:04:37.080 - 2:03:28 PM; Zoe Manos from Stratham, where The Vineyards is located, spoke about the impracticality of the proposed solution of putting meters in the name of individual homeowners. She mentioned that Unitil had previously refused to do this for The Vineyards and that even if it were possible, it would lead to conflicts between unit owners over billing responsibilities. She highlighted that The Vineyards has 22 paired meters, which could lead to numerous disputes over unpaid bills and deteriorating relationships, thus emphasizing the need for the legislation to address these issues.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Representative Information Only06:06:41.200 - 2:05:32 PM; An unnamed representative added to Zoe Manos's testimony by discussing potential issues that could arise when units change tenants. They highlighted a scenario where a new tenant, C, might not want to be the record holder for a meter, leading to potential conflicts and animosity among unit owners.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Representative Information Only06:07:43.200 - 2:06:34 PM; The representative discussed a draft amendment that was distributed, which was developed after considering three bills (537, 539, and 680). They explained that the amendment included language about the purposes and restrictions of condominium units, particularly regarding commercial or business enterprises. They also suggested moving certain language from RSA 378 to RSA 356b, specifically to section 45, to address the chargeback of shared meter usage for septic systems and well pumps.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Representative Information Only06:08:50.040 - 2:07:41 PM; The representative continued discussing the draft amendment, emphasizing the need to charge back the costs of shared meter usage to residential units that share the meter. They mentioned the inclusion of Rural Electric Cooperatives and the need to ensure that the costs are equally split among the units sharing the meter. They suggested that this language should be part of the condo chapter rather than the utility chapter.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Representative Information Only06:11:07.798 - 2:09:58 PM; The representative discussed ensuring that the electric rate schedule filed with the Public Utilities Commission includes provisions to charge condominium associations the same rates as residential units for domestic septic and well pump electric usage. They also mentioned the need to cover Rural Electric Cooperatives and other distribution or billing entities.
HB219 0678H: Unitil Representative Information Only06:13:23.600 - 2:12:14 PM; A representative from Unitil apologized for not being at the public hearing and provided background on their tariffs. They explained that their tariffs have a domestic rate for individual private dwellings and a general rate for all other purposes, including shared meters for septic and well pumps. They confirmed that their interpretation of the tariff was guided by the Department of Energy and raised questions about how the bill would affect billing distribution within condo associations.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Representative Information Only06:17:34.958 - 2:16:25 PM; The representative responded to the Unitil representative, clarifying that the amendment would change the tariff rate for shared meters to residential rates, but the billing process would remain the same, with the HOA redistributing the costs among the units. They also discussed the definitions of rate classes and the potential need for regulatory review if changes were made.
HB219 0678H: Unitil Representative Information Only06:19:55.520 - 2:18:46 PM; The Unitil representative explained that their rate definitions are specific to individual residential dwellings for the domestic rate and everything else falls under the general rate. They mentioned that any change in rate class would need to be reviewed by the Public Utilities Commission, and the costs would be redistributed across the system.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Representative Information Only06:22:02.360 - 2:20:53 PM; The representative acknowledged the Unitil representative's explanation and emphasized that the meters in question serve purely residential units, suggesting that residential rates should apply. They also noted that the current distribution of payments is incorrect and needs to be addressed.
HB219 0678H: Unnamed Representative Information Only06:22:58.680 - 2:21:49 PM; The representative mentioned the need to work with the Department of Energy to ensure that section two of the amendment covers all necessary entities. They planned to come back with another amendment.

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