Committee Summary for House Science, Technology and Energy (04/21/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB236 00:06:16.800 - 8:04:57 AM	Public Hearing	relative to transferring control of the Electric Assistance Program to the department of energy.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB112 00:42:12.240 - 8:40:53 AM	Public Hearing	relative to purchased power agreements for electric distribution utilities.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB106 01:47:18.000 - 9:45:59 AM	General Working Session	relative to the participation of customer generators in net energy metering.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB236 02:13:12.639 - 10:11:53 AM	General Working Session	relative to transferring control of the Electric Assistance Program to the department of energy.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB112 02:18:15.000 - 10:16:56 AM	General Working Session	relative to purchased power agreements for electric distribution utilities.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB106 04:05:16.640 - 12:03:57 PM	Executive Session	relative to the participation of customer generators in net energy metering.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB228 04:10:38.720 - 12:09:19 PM	Executive Session	relative to the limitations on community customer generators.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025
SB232 2025-0602H 04:17:33.159 - 12:16:14 PM	Executive Session	clarifying certain net metering terms and conditions.	McConkey, Mark(R)[B]2025
SB112 04:24:19.159 - 12:23:00 PM	Executive Session	relative to purchased power agreements for electric distribution utilities.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB236 04:30:40.000 - 12:29:21 PM	Executive Session	relative to transferring control of the Electric Assistance Program to the department of energy.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025

SB236: Senator Kevin Avard, District 12 Support00:06:16.800 - 8:04:57 AM; Senator Avard introduced Senate Bill 236, which aims to transfer the control of the electric assistance program from the Public Utilities Commission to the Department of Energy. The goal is to improve oversight and efficiency. The bill ensures funding through a small charge of 1.5 mills per kilowatt hour on electric bills, with the Department of Energy taking over responsibilities for eligibility, benefits, spending, and support for low-income electric consumers. Senator Avard mentioned that the bill was requested by the Department of Energy to enhance efficiency, but he did not consult with the Public Utilities Commission on their opinion regarding the transfer.
SB236: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only00:07:24.639 - 8:06:05 AM; Representative Thomas inquired about the specific problem that Senate Bill 236 aims to solve and how it would promote oversight and efficiency. Senator Avard responded that the bill was requested by the Department of Energy to streamline the process after the department's creation, rather than addressing a specific problem.
SB236: Representative Corman Information Only00:07:24.639 - 8:06:05 AM; Representative Corman asked if the Public Utilities Commission was consulted about the bill, to which Senator Avard responded that he did not consult with them and was not aware of their opinion on the matter.
SB236: Representative Harrington Information Only00:08:29.759 - 8:07:10 AM; Representative Harrington sought clarification on whether the 1.5 mills charge was an additional fee or part of the existing system benefit charge. Senator Avard confirmed that it is already being collected as part of the system benefit charge.
SB236: Representative McGee Information Only00:09:33.760 - 8:08:14 AM; Representative McGee asked about the language in the bill that allows the Department of Energy to reduce the level of funds if there is a buildup of money. Senator Avard indicated that this provision gives the department flexibility but suggested that the department would be better qualified to answer specific details about its implementation.
SB236: Amanda Nunan, New Hampshire Department of Energy Support00:09:33.760 - 8:08:14 AM; Amanda Nunan provided detailed information about the electric assistance program, which has been operational since 2002 and supports 30 to 32,000 households with discounts ranging from 5% to 86%. The program is funded through the system benefit charge, with the 1.5 mills being the statutory cap for the low-income assistance portion. She explained that the language allowing the reduction of funds if there is a significant balance has been part of the provision for a long time. Nunan emphasized that the bill's purpose is to transition oversight and administration from the Public Utilities Commission to the Department of Energy for greater efficiency, especially since the department already manages other assistance programs. She also highlighted the synergy between the electric assistance and fuel assistance programs, both sharing a central intake process.
SB236: Amanda Nunan, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only00:15:12.399 - 8:13:53 AM; Amanda Nunan discussed the efficiency of the Electric Assistance Program (EAP) and its management. She explained that the Department of Energy (DOE) would not need additional resources to manage the program, as it already oversees the EAP advisory board. She highlighted the differences in the administrative processes between the DOE and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), noting that the DOE's process is more streamlined and less costly. She also addressed questions about the program's budget, the role of the advisory board, and the potential impact of transferring the program's management from the PUC to the DOE. She clarified that the DOE would still hold public comment hearings to ensure stakeholder input on any proposed changes to the program.
SB236: Amanda Nunan, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only00:15:12.399 - 8:13:53 AM; Amanda Nunan concluded her testimony by discussing the coordination between various energy assistance programs, including the weatherization assistance program, fuel assistance, and electric assistance. She highlighted the integration of these programs and the introduction of new software that will facilitate an online application process, making it easier for hourly wage earners to apply without needing to take time off work.
SB236: Representative La Rochelle Information Only00:31:20.880 - 8:30:01 AM; Representative La Rochelle asked about the utilization of energy assistance programs and how they are communicated to the public. She specifically mentioned Rochester, indicating that welfare departments in towns like Rochester should be able to inform residents about these programs. She raised concerns about reaching people without computers.
SB236: Amanda Nunan, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only00:32:15.720 - 8:30:56 AM; Amanda Nunan responded to Representative La Rochelle's question, explaining the challenges of getting people to apply for assistance due to pride or the belief that others need it more. She detailed how information about energy assistance programs is disseminated through welfare offices, electric utilities, community action agencies, and other social service organizations. She also mentioned the use of social media and brochures to spread awareness.
SB236: Representative Thomas Information Only00:34:39.359 - 8:33:20 AM; Representative Thomas inquired about the administrative costs associated with the energy assistance programs and whether these costs are covered by the funds allocated for the programs. She also asked about the oversight of these costs.
SB236: Amanda Nunan, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only00:35:39.599 - 8:34:20 AM; Amanda Nunan clarified that administrative costs for the energy assistance programs are covered by the utilities and community action agencies' budgets. She noted that these costs are incremental and include expenses like legal fees for hearings before the commission. She emphasized that these costs are subject to oversight and approval.
SB236: Donald Crease, Consumer Advocate Support00:36:44.560 - 8:35:25 AM; Donald Crease, the consumer advocate, testified in favor of Senate Bill 236. He introduced himself and his role in representing residential utility customers. He supported the bill introduced by Senator Avard, noting its moderate approach compared to Senate Bill 234, which he had worked on. Crease discussed the benefits of the bill, including streamlining the process and removing the PUC hearing process, thereby vesting more authority in the Department of Energy.
SB236: Representative Partial Information Only00:39:51.760 - 8:38:32 AM; Representative Partial questioned Donald Crease about the fiscal note associated with Senate Bill 234, which was absent in Senate Bill 236. He expressed concerns about additional costs and asked for clarification on how the bill would affect costs.
SB236: Donald Crease, Consumer Advocate Support00:40:57.839 - 8:39:38 AM; Donald Crease responded to Representative Partial's question, agreeing with Amanda Nunan that Senate Bill 236 would not impose additional costs. He explained that the bill streamlines the process by removing the PUC hearing process and giving more authority to the Department of Energy, which he believed would be more efficient.
SB112: Senator Kevin Avard, District 12 Support00:42:12.240 - 8:40:53 AM; Senator Kevin Avard introduced Senate Bill 112FN, explaining that it aims to expand the types of electric generations that can be considered for purchase power agreements (PPAs) under New Hampshire law. He highlighted that the bill would include all energy sources and existing energy resources, aiming to address high electric rates in the state. He mentioned that the bill mirrors a House bill and seeks to reduce market volatility by considering all available energy sources.
SB112: Representative McGee Information Only00:45:14.319 - 8:43:55 AM; Representative McGee expressed confusion about the necessity of Senate Bill 112FN, noting that similar legislation, such as Senate Bill 54, had already been passed to allow long-term PPAs. He questioned how this bill would improve upon existing legislation and expressed concerns about its impact on the competitive market.
SB112: Senator Kevin Avard, District 12 Support00:46:30.240 - 8:45:11 AM; Senator Avard clarified that Senate Bill 112FN adds the word 'existing' to the legislation, allowing for agreements with existing energy sources. He emphasized that the bill does not limit the 2 million megawatt-hour cap but aims to provide more options to address high electric rates and market volatility.
SB112: Representative Thomas Information Only00:47:25.760 - 8:46:06 AM; Representative Thomas asked about the implications of the phrase 'with or independent of any attendant environmental attributes' in the bill. She sought clarification on how this would affect the environmental aspects of the agreements.
SB112: Senator Kevin Avard, District 12 Support00:48:27.839 - 8:47:08 AM; Senator Avard responded to Representative Thomas's question, explaining that the phrase 'with or independent of any attendant environmental attributes' refers to Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). He emphasized that the bill's intent is to provide more flexibility in energy sourcing.
SB112: Representative Harrington Information Only00:49:16.319 - 8:47:57 AM; Representative Harrington questioned the mechanics of the Department of Energy's role in issuing RFPs under the bill. He expressed confusion about whether the Department would act independently or force utilities to accept contracts.
SB112: Dan Failen, Regional Policy Director, Department of Energy Information Only00:50:41.640 - 8:49:22 AM; Dan Failen testified neutrally on Senate Bill 112FN. He provided context about Senate Bill 54, passed amidst high energy prices due to geopolitical events, which allowed for long-term PPAs to reduce market volatility. He noted that no utilities had used this option and that Senate Bill 112FN removes time limits on RFPs. He also addressed concerns about the Department's role in issuing RFPs, indicating that the mechanics needed further clarification.
SB112: Representative Kaplan Information Only00:52:21.200 - 8:51:02 AM; Representative Kaplan praised Senate Bill 112FN for removing time limits on PPAs and being open to various energy sources. He asked about the impact of including existing sources, particularly regarding the 2 million megawatt-hour limit, and how it might affect opportunities for new energy sources.
SB112: Dan Failen, Regional Policy Director, Department of Energy Information Only00:53:23.040 - 8:52:04 AM; Dan Failen responded to Representative Kaplan's question, confirming that the 2 million megawatt-hour limit remains in place. He noted that allowing existing resources could significantly impact the program by potentially filling the entire limit, which could limit opportunities for new energy sources.
SB112: Representative Thomas Information Only00:55:44.960 - 8:54:25 AM; Representative Thomas read a paragraph from a letter submitted by another organization, questioning whether Senate Bill 112FN conflicts with the Department of Energy's 2021 New Hampshire 10-year state energy strategy, which advocates for limited government intervention in energy markets.
SB112: Dan Failen, Regional Policy Director, Department of Energy Information Only00:56:54.160 - 8:55:35 AM; Dan Failen acknowledged that Senate Bill 54 was a departure from New Hampshire's energy policy but was justified due to its limited nature. He noted that Senate Bill 112FN would further change the state's energy policy by removing caps and limitations, which would require careful consideration by the committee.
SB112: Representative Harrington Information Only00:57:22.960 - 8:56:03 AM; Representative Harrington asked about the potential impact of Senate Bill 112FN on utilities' behavior, given that no RFPs had been issued under Senate Bill 54. He questioned what would change if the bill passed and whether the Department of Energy would consider issuing RFPs.
SB112: Dan Failen, Regional Policy Director, Department of Energy Information Only00:58:31.119 - 8:57:12 AM; Dan Failen responded that the Department of Energy would need to carefully consider the process of issuing RFPs if Senate Bill 112FN passed. He noted the uncertainty about how to direct utilities to act if they did not want to, and whether the legislation would provide sufficient authority.
SB112: Representative McGee Information Only00:59:32.400 - 8:58:13 AM; Representative McGee discussed potential unintended consequences of Senate Bill 112FN, citing concerns from a letter about how long-term contracts could harm generating facilities without contracts and distort wholesale electricity markets. He asked for the Department's perspective on these issues.
SB112: Dan Failen, Regional Policy Director, Department of Energy Information Only01:00:41.520 - 8:59:22 AM; Dan Failen agreed with the concerns raised by Representative McGee about the impact of long-term contracts on market prices and the potential for market inefficiencies. He noted that New Hampshire has traditionally favored market-based approaches but acknowledged that long-term contracts could serve as a market hedge in certain situations.
SB112: Bruce Berkkey, She Infinity Capital Group, representing Next Energy Resources, Seabrook, New Hampshire Support01:02:27.000 - 9:01:08 AM; Bruce Berkkey, representing Next Energy Resources, the majority owner of Seabrook Station, supports Senate Bill 112FN. He emphasized that the bill is an enabling act that allows for the development of purchase power agreements (PPAs) if investor-owned utilities are interested and the Department of Energy (DOE) has a role. He suggested that the DOE's role could be further defined but stressed the importance of PPAs for stability and protection against market volatility. Berkkey also addressed concerns about large players like Seabrook Station potentially consuming all available capacity under PPAs, expressing willingness to discuss limitations to leave room for developing markets, including small nuclear resources.
SB112: Molly Connors, New England Power Generators Association Oppose01:09:26.080 - 9:08:07 AM; Molly Connors from the New England Power Generators Association opposes Senate Bill 112FN. She argued that the bill expands on an already problematic policy by allowing ratepayers to subsidize not only new but also existing resources, thereby increasing the financial risk for consumers. Connors highlighted the negative impact on the competitive wholesale markets, suggesting that the bill would undermine the economics of power plants without contracts, affecting reliability and affordability. She also discussed the potential 'watering down' effect on new technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs) due to the long-term commitment of funds to existing resources through PPAs. Connors clarified her view on PPAs as subsidies, emphasizing that such agreements provide a steady revenue source not accessible to all market participants, potentially at a higher cost to consumers.
SB112: Molly Connors, New England Power Generators Association Oppose01:16:17.760 - 9:14:58 AM; Molly Connors discussed the potential impacts of Canadian tariffs and the dependency on foreign energy policies. She also addressed concerns about long-term contracts, referencing a past example where a power generation facility went bankrupt due to a subsidized deal. Connors emphasized that SB112FN could increase risks for ratepayers by shifting risks from merchant plants to consumers, which she described as a significant policy shift. She expressed opposition to the underlying bill, suggesting that any amendments should narrow the scope to limit risks to ratepayers.
SB112: Representative Harrington Information Only01:17:10.800 - 9:15:51 AM; Representative Harrington questioned the implications of SB112FN, suggesting it would revert the state's energy policy to a pre-restructuring model where the risk is transferred back to ratepayers. He expressed concern that the bill could encourage merchant plants to sign long-term contracts without bearing the associated risks, thus shifting the burden to consumers.
SB112: Representative Thomas Information Only01:18:59.120 - 9:17:40 AM; Representative Thomas referenced a letter expressing concern about SB112FN's potential to raise customer rates. She highlighted that consumers have some control over their energy costs through choices like competitive suppliers or municipal aggregation, but the bill could limit this flexibility and increase costs they cannot control.
SB112: Representative Kaplan Information Only01:21:11.040 - 9:19:52 AM; Representative Kaplan discussed the original intent of the power purchase agreement program, which was to address market irregularities and support new generation facilities through long-term contracts. He inquired about the possibility of amending SB112FN to limit its scope, particularly to existing generation, to which Connors responded that narrowing the scope could reduce risks to ratepayers.
SB112: Representative Reos Information Only01:23:11.440 - 9:21:52 AM; Representative Reos discussed the volatility in energy markets, questioning what Connors believed to be the greatest source of risk to consumers. Connors identified weather, fuel costs, and regulatory uncertainty as significant factors driving market dynamics and price volatility.
SB112: Representative Corman Information Only01:26:20.159 - 9:25:01 AM; Representative Corman asked about the fraction of the state's energy consumption that the bill's cap of 2 million megawatt hours represents, to which Connors estimated it to be roughly 15-20%. He also questioned the potential effects on the wholesale market, with Connors explaining how contracts could lead to artificially low bids and impact market dynamics.
SB112: Representative McGee Information Only01:27:30.800 - 9:26:11 AM; Representative McGee sought more information on the bill's potential effects on the competitive market, given Connors' representation of a significant portion of the region's energy producers. Connors elaborated on how contracts could distort market prices and lead to unintended consequences such as reduced investment in new generation capacity.
SB112: Michael Licata, Eversource Energy Information Only01:35:29.480 - 9:34:10 AM; Michael Licata from Eversource Energy provided context on the existing power purchase agreement legislation, noting it was passed during a period of high market volatility due to the war in Ukraine. He explained the bill's intent to incentivize new energy resources and expressed concerns about unclear language regarding the Department of Energy's role in solicitations. Licata also mentioned the financial risks to utilities from entering long-term contracts and the lack of contracts being entered due to falling wholesale market prices.
SB112: Michael Licata, Eversource Energy Information Only01:35:29.480 - 9:34:10 AM; Michael Licata from Eversource Energy concluded his testimony at 01:35:29.480, indicating a neutral stance on the bill. He explained that the bill is enabling rather than mandatory, allowing utilities the flexibility to issue RFPs and approve contracts, which is why they maintain a neutral position.
SB112: Representative Bernardi Information Only01:42:17.040 - 9:40:58 AM; Representative Bernardi asked Michael Licata about his position on the bill, to which Licata responded that Eversource Energy is neutral on the bill due to its enabling nature rather than being a mandate.
SB112: Representative Kaplan Information Only01:42:17.040 - 9:40:58 AM; Representative Kaplan questioned Michael Licata about potential destabilizing effects of the bill. Licata reiterated their neutral stance, emphasizing the utility's flexibility under the current and proposed legislation.
SB112: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only01:43:32.400 - 9:42:13 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas asked Michael Licata if he agreed with concerns about consumer rates increasing due to the bill. Licata acknowledged the possibility of increased costs but also noted potential savings if market prices spike.
SB112: Nick Kraoff, Conservation Law Foundation Information Only01:44:52.719 - 9:43:33 AM; Nick Kraoff from the Conservation Law Foundation chose to forgo his testimony, stating that all his points had already been covered by others.
SB106: Representative McGee Information Only01:47:18.000 - 9:45:59 AM; Representative McGee discussed the compelling testimony from large businesses looking to lower costs through net metering, referencing examples like Associated Grocers and a family paving company. He raised concerns about the expansion of net metering caps for CNI customers and suggested that the costs should not be borne by residential ratepayers but by other CNI customers. He proposed increasing the on-site usage requirement to 100% or limiting net metering to times when businesses are closed.
SB106: Representative Harrington Information Only01:49:52.880 - 9:48:33 AM; Representative Harrington clarified the situation with Associated Grocers, noting their involvement in the forward capacity market and the potential for businesses to profit from net metering by selling excess electricity. He expressed concern about the 33% on-site usage requirement and the potential market distortion if multiple entities engage in this practice. He also mentioned a recent PUC docket looking into cost shifting for larger net metering systems.
SB106: Representative Bernardi Information Only01:52:10.639 - 9:50:51 AM; Representative Bernardi expressed support for retaining the bill to further explore its implications, particularly the potential for cost shifting and the need for a closer look at the bill's details.
SB106: Representative Swanson Information Only01:53:27.920 - 9:52:08 AM; Representative Swanson argued that net metering is not a money-making proposition for businesses, as they make significant upfront investments. He emphasized that net metering reduces demand on utility suppliers, thus not requiring additional capacity from the network.
SB106: Representative McGee Information Only01:54:00.800 - 9:52:41 AM; Representative McGee countered arguments about cost shifting, referencing the Value of Distributed Energy Resources (VDER) report which indicated negligible cost shifting. He emphasized the importance of supporting large businesses in reducing their energy costs through net metering, and highlighted the potential benefits of local sustainable energy generation. He challenged the notion of significant cost shifting without evidence and noted the potential reverse cost shift where net metered energy's value could exceed the default rate.
SB106: Representative Bernardi Information Only01:58:45.560 - 9:57:26 AM; Representative Bernardi refuted the claim of no cost shifting, citing the VDER study and evidence from other states with higher solar penetration. He argued that businesses could build solar without net metering and supported retaining the bill for further examination.
SB106: Chairman Information Only02:00:46.159 - 9:59:27 AM; The Chairman initiated a discussion on SB106FM, describing it as a pilot program to increase the megawatts from 6 to 18 for projects. The intention is to gather data on energy shifting and its effects. Several committee members are co-sponsors of the bill.
SB106: Representative Corman Information Only02:01:59.760 - 10:00:40 AM; Representative Corman clarified that the pilot project was introduced via an amendment from the bill's sponsor, Senator Waters. The amendment itself was later modified to remove its first section.
SB106: Representative Summers Information Only02:03:00.960 - 10:01:41 AM; Representative Summers shared personal experience with solar panels, discussing the financial benefits and the cost-benefit analysis over time. He questioned the necessity of further incentives for net metering once the systems reach a net zero point.
SB106: Representative Swanson Information Only02:04:21.040 - 10:03:02 AM; Representative Swanson supported the idea of solar reducing demand on the grid during peak times and highlighted the potential for energy fed back into the grid to be sold to others. He also mentioned the local backup power supply benefit.
SB106: Representative Corman Information Only02:05:33.280 - 10:04:14 AM; Responding to Representative Summers, Representative Corman argued that energy fed back into the grid should have some value, although possibly less than the default rate. He pointed out the benefits of net metering in reducing the clearing price on the market.
SB106: Representative Corman Information Only02:06:34.079 - 10:05:15 AM; Representative Corman discussed the predictability of solar production and its impact on the spot market. He suggested that increased support for energy storage could further enhance the benefits of solar energy.
SB106: Representative Harrington Information Only02:07:34.560 - 10:06:15 AM; Representative Harrington raised concerns about the intermittent nature of solar energy, particularly during winter peaks when solar production is low. He emphasized the need for the grid to support full load capacity regardless of solar production.
SB106: Representative Swanson Information Only02:08:42.960 - 10:07:23 AM; Representative Swanson reiterated that the electric company does not need to increase capacity due to solar installations, as the existing infrastructure can handle peak demands, and solar helps reduce stress on the grid during high demand periods.
SB106: Representative Bernardi Information Only02:09:58.920 - 10:08:39 AM; Representative Bernardi countered that the energy demand continues to grow due to increased electrification, necessitating more generators to support the system when intermittent power sources are not producing.
SB106: Representative Corman Information Only02:11:04.880 - 10:09:45 AM; Representative Corman highlighted a mismatch between how the transmission system is built for maximum capacity and how it is billed based on volume, suggesting a fundamental problem in the current system.
SB106: Representative Summers Information Only02:12:23.280 - 10:11:04 AM; Representative Summers added that once solar panels are paid off, they become a revenue source for the companies buying the excess power, suggesting a potential benefit for utilities.
SB236: Chairman Information Only02:13:12.639 - 10:11:53 AM; The Chairman described SB236 as straightforward, involving the transfer of the EAP program to the Department of Energy without any rate setting, suggesting it should proceed as presented.
SB236: Representative Corman Information Only02:14:18.880 - 10:12:59 AM; Representative Corman pointed out redundant language in the bill and suggested a minor fix. He also questioned the use of 'mills' instead of cents in the bill, seeking clarification.
SB236: Commissioner Chris Elms Information Only02:15:26.239 - 10:14:07 AM; Commissioner Elms explained that the use of 'mills' in the bill is for precision, as it is a unit smaller than cents, and aligns with existing law.
SB236: Representative McGee Information Only02:15:52.199 - 10:14:33 AM; Representative McGee agreed with the precision argument for using mills over cents, ensuring that the numbers align correctly if converted.
SB236: Representative Swanson Information Only02:16:34.159 - 10:15:15 AM; Representative Swanson confirmed the definition of 'mills' after researching, supporting the use of the term in the bill.
SB236: Representative Harrington Information Only02:17:23.120 - 10:16:04 AM; Representative Harrington mentioned a letter from the PUC opposing the bill, citing concerns about the commission's authority to set rates, although no rates are mentioned in the bill.
SB112: Chairman Information Only02:18:15.000 - 10:16:56 AM; The Chairman expressed concerns about the potential negative consequences of SB112, suggesting it might need to be retained for further review due to its controversial nature.
SB112: Vice Chair Thomas Oppose02:19:00.000 - 10:17:41 AM; Vice Chair Thomas strongly opposed SB112, expressing serious concerns about the bill and doubting that retaining it would resolve the issues.
SB112: Representative Wendy Thomas Oppose02:19:30.000 - 10:18:11 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas also opposed SB112, viewing it as fundamentally flawed and unlikely to be salvageable even if retained.
SB112: Representative Harrington Oppose02:20:15.000 - 10:18:56 AM; Representative Harrington expressed significant problems with SB112, highlighting the philosophical shift it represents in terms of risk allocation between generators and ratepayers.
SB112: Representative Reynolds Oppose02:21:00.000 - 10:19:41 AM; Representative Reynolds agreed with Representative Harrington's opposition to SB112, expressing strong concerns about the bill's implications.
SB112: Representative Wendy Thomas Oppose02:16:58.439 - 10:15:39 AM; Representative Thomas expressed opposition to the bill, highlighting concerns about it being a significant step back from principles discussed in the committee. She emphasized the potential unintended consequences of market interventions, using her question to a representative from NEPka as an example.
SB112: Representative Kaplan Information Only02:18:09.040 - 10:16:50 AM; Representative Kaplan reminded the committee of a previously passed bill in the House related to nuclear energy, suggesting a contradiction in their current stance. He proposed retaining the bill to consider aligning it with past decisions, noting a key difference being the inclusion of existing resources.
SB112: Representative Partial Oppose02:18:09.040 - 10:16:50 AM; Representative Partial advocated for an ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) recommendation on the bill, expressing a preference for moving forward with other bills they would retain, to manage the committee's workload.
SB112: Representative Summers Oppose02:19:17.040 - 10:17:58 AM; Representative Summers indicated their support for an ITL recommendation, referencing a previous question about the Burgess Power Plant as indicative of their position.
SB106: Chair Information Only04:05:16.640 - 12:03:57 PM; The Chair announced the transition to an executive session on Senate Bill 106FN, and shared new information from the committee administrator about the consequences of leaving personal items in the building, including lockers, which would be trashed if not removed by May 22nd.
SB106: Chair Information Only04:06:38.880 - 12:05:19 PM; The Chair made a motion to retain Senate Bill 106FN, citing serious questions about its implementation and potential long-term unforeseen consequences, and opened the floor for discussion.
SB106: Vice Chair Thomas Support04:06:38.880 - 12:05:19 PM; Vice Chair Thomas seconded the motion to retain Senate Bill 106FN, agreeing with the need for further examination of the bill's practical implications and potential improvements.
SB106: Representative McGee Information Only04:07:17.520 - 12:05:58 PM; Representative McGee questioned the decision not to recommend Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on the bill, highlighting the common practice of not retaining bills due to insufficient time for thorough review in the second year of the biennium. They expressed concern about the effectiveness of retaining the bill without substantial progress on resolving issues.
SB106: Representative Swanson Information Only04:08:28.479 - 12:07:09 PM; Representative Swanson supported Representative McGee's concerns, noting that during discussions, no close solutions were proposed, and retaining the bill did not seem likely to lead to resolution. They felt that the idea of retaining was unproductive.
SB106: Chairman Bose Information Only04:09:53.120 - 12:08:34 PM; Chairman Bose responded to the comments by stating that it was a budget year, implying that financial considerations might affect the decision to retain the bill. Following this, a vote was taken on retaining Senate Bill 106, resulting in a decision to retain by a vote of 10 to 8.
SB228: Vice Chair Thomas Support04:10:38.720 - 12:09:19 PM; Vice Chair Thomas moved to recommend Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on Senate Bill 228, citing the bill's increase in net metering costs and its expansion to include colleges and other institutions as political subdivisions, which were seen as flaws by many committee members.
SB228: Representative Corman Oppose04:10:38.720 - 12:09:19 PM; Representative Corman opposed the ITL motion, mentioning an amendment proposed by Senator Waters that would change the bill into a pilot program. They argued that trying the pilot program posed no harm and could be beneficial.
SB228: Representative Kaplan Oppose04:11:48.640 - 12:10:29 PM; Representative Kaplan disagreed with the motion, pointing out the committee's differing views on the costs and benefits of net metering. They supported expanding net metering to include low-income households and educational establishments, seeing potential benefits in the bill.
SB228: Representative McGee Oppose04:12:55.199 - 12:11:36 PM; Representative McGee argued against ITL, emphasizing the potential for the bill to help public higher education institutions reduce energy costs, which could benefit the state's budget. They highlighted the savings municipalities had achieved through similar measures and questioned the reluctance to support cost-saving initiatives.
SB228: Representative Swanson Oppose04:12:55.199 - 12:11:36 PM; Representative Swanson noted significant online support and compelling letters in favor of the bill. They believed that with the discussed amendment, the bill could be moved to Ought to Pass (OTP), indicating a preference for advancing the bill rather than killing it.
SB228: Vice Chair Thomas Support04:12:55.199 - 12:11:36 PM; Vice Chair Thomas reaffirmed their support for the ITL motion, acknowledging the bill's value to certain organizations but expressing concern over the expansion of net metering costs, which they felt would burden ratepayers. They advocated for not expanding the program.
SB228: Representative Wendy Thomas Oppose04:14:01.840 - 12:12:42 PM; Representative Wendy Thomas voted no on the ITL motion and corrected a misunderstanding about titles and names during the voting process, emphasizing the importance of clear identification in committee proceedings.
SB228: Chairman Bose Information Only04:15:16.479 - 12:13:57 PM; Chairman Bose concluded the session by announcing the vote results, which favored the ITL motion by 10 to 8 for Senate Bill 228. They noted that a majority report would be written, and a minority report would be prepared by Representative Corman.
SB228: Chairman Bose Information Only04:15:16.479 - 12:13:57 PM; Chairman Bose discussed an administrative issue regarding the confusion between Representative Kaplan and Representative Corman on committee reports due to their consecutive listing in an administrative tool. He mentioned that the issue could recur and suggested that the administrator, Robin, should be more attentive when inputting data. He humorously suggested writing poor committee reports to shift the blame to Tony.
SB232 2025-0602H: Chairman Support04:17:33.159 - 12:16:14 PM; The Chairman moved to pass SB232 with amendment 2025-0602H, which was seconded by Vice Clerk Bernardi. The amendment was discussed previously and stakeholders had contacted the committee requesting its adoption. The amendment clarifies what net metering clients can and cannot do if they are registered in the ISO New England electricity markets, protecting existing hydro generators.
SB232 2025-0602H: Representative Corman Support04:20:00.640 - 12:18:41 PM; Representative Corman expressed that while the Community Power Coalition had issues with the amendment, preferring to retain the original bill, he would not vote against it. He mentioned his preference for retaining part of Section 2 from the original bill but was okay with the amendment.
SB232 2025-0602H: Representative McGee Support04:20:00.640 - 12:18:41 PM; Representative McGee elaborated on the amendment, discussing its purpose and the concerns from the Community Power Coalition regarding the categorization of market participants as load reducers. He supported the amendment and mentioned the removal of contentious language from Section 2.
SB232 2025-0602H: Clerk Information Only04:21:19.120 - 12:20:00 PM; The clerk called the roll for the adoption of amendment 162H, which passed unanimously with 18 votes in favor.
SB232 2025-0602H: Chairman Support04:22:28.239 - 12:21:09 PM; The Chairman moved to pass SB232 as amended, which was seconded by Vice Clerk Bernardi. The motion passed unanimously with 18 votes in favor, and the bill was set to go on the consent calendar.
SB112: Representative Bernardi Support04:24:19.159 - 12:23:00 PM; Representative Bernardi moved to retain SB112FN, suggesting that there were opportunities to incorporate good points from the bill into a similar structure as HB710. He believed that retaining the bill would allow for further discussion on new technologies and their business investment recovery.
SB112: Representative Matson Support04:24:19.159 - 12:23:00 PM; Representative Matson seconded the motion to retain SB112FN.
SB112: Representative McGee Oppose04:25:37.199 - 12:24:18 PM; Representative McGee argued for Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) for SB112FN, citing significant pushback on its potential effects on generator stability and the market. He suggested that a study committee might be more appropriate but noted that retaining a bill typically does not lead to studies.
SB112: Representative Corman Oppose04:26:48.560 - 12:25:29 PM; Representative Corman supported the ITL motion for SB112FN, highlighting major issues with the bill, including its potential to change energy policy and the unclear process of DOE issuing requests for proposals. He believed the bill was not ready for retention.
SB112: Representative Wendy Thomas Oppose04:28:02.800 - 12:26:43 PM; Representative Wendy Thomas agreed with Representatives Corman and McGee, expressing concerns that the bill could increase ratepayer rates, which the committee generally opposes.
SB112: Representative Kaplan Information Only04:28:02.800 - 12:26:43 PM; Representative Kaplan mentioned his agreement with the idea that passing HB710 and then considering SB112FN seemed inconsistent.
SB112: Vice Chair Thomas Information Only04:28:41.520 - 12:27:22 PM; Vice Chair Thomas expressed concerns about some language in the bill but suggested retaining it to work on a resolution.
SB112: Clerk Vote04:29:54.399 - 12:28:35 PM; The clerk called the roll on the motion to retain Senate Bill 112, resulting in a vote of 10 to 8 in favor of retaining the bill.
SB236: Vice Chair Thomas Support04:30:40.000 - 12:29:21 PM; Vice Chair Thomas moved and seconded the motion to adopt 'ought to pass' on Senate Bill 236, citing that the Public Utilities Commission's objection was not relevant as the Department of Energy's administration of the program does not involve setting rates. He viewed the bill as a straightforward administrative fix.
SB236: Representative Corman Support04:32:01.199 - 12:30:42 PM; Representative Corman expressed agreement with the motion to pass Senate Bill 236.
SB236: Clerk Vote04:32:47.680 - 12:31:28 PM; The clerk called the roll on the question to pass Senate Bill 236, resulting in a unanimous vote of 18 to 0 in favor of passing the bill.
SB236: Representative Matson Information Only04:34:10.320 - 12:32:51 PM; Representative Matson inquired about Senate Bill 232, confirming it cannot be put on the consent calendar due to amendments.

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