Committee Summary for Senate Energy and Natural Resources (02/03/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB518 00:04:12.640 - 8:02:53 AM	Public Hearing	relative to asset condition projects.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB536 01:05:30.319 - 9:04:11 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the solid waste facility site evaluation committee.	Rochefort, David(R)[B-]2025
SB540 0450 02:42:58.080 - 10:41:39 AM	Executive Session	relative to portable solar generation devices.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025
SB589 0461s 02:49:21.120 - 10:48:02 AM	Executive Session	relative to establishing a multi-agency report on transmission corridors, interstate trucking charging terminals, and port electrification; authorizing a pilot program for microgrid development; and requiring guidelines for cybersecurity of distributed energy resources.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025
SB592 0469s 02:54:18.399 - 10:52:59 AM	Executive Session	enabling regional, conservation, and energy resource planning for habitat strongholds and wildlife corridors.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025

SB518: Chris Paster Oppose00:04:12.640 - 8:02:53 AM; Chris Paster, who has studied asset condition projects for nearly three years, expresses confusion over SB 518, viewing it as an illusion of regulation that allows Eversource to continue building and charging ratepayers for these projects. She cites past DOE actions, including opposition to PUC investigations in 2023 and automatic approvals of river crossing applications since 2022 without verifying necessity. Paster argues for PUC investigations into over 85 Eversource projects for need, planning, and cost prudence, and suggests reducing Eversource's guaranteed rate of return. She criticizes the bill's wording on capacity increases, which she says violates FERC definitions, and notes issues like baroptic use violating easements and lack of cost-effective alternatives. Ultimately, she believes the bill fails to address Eversource's profit-driven replacement of infrastructure.
SB518: Art Cunningham, representing Chris Paster, Senator Ruth Ward, and New Hampshire Sierra Club Oppose00:08:10.160 - 8:06:51 AM; Art Cunningham, an attorney from Hopkinton, represents Chris Paster, Senator Ruth Ward, and the New Hampshire Sierra Club in opposition to SB 518. He highlights the massive scale of asset condition projects, involving billions in costs, which are regional and under FERC and ISO New England jurisdiction but unexamined for need, demand, or cost prudence. Cunningham explains how costs automatically pass to ratepayers via formula rates without oversight. He details actions taken, including a PUC docket (declined due to lack of jurisdiction), a dismissed federal lawsuit under the Federal Power Act, and an ongoing FERC challenge questioning project necessity due to condition or demand and cost reasonableness. He references exhibits and a Sierra Club letter to the DOE seeking similar reviews, urging the committee to examine these issues for just and reasonable rates.
SB518: Michael Lata, representing Eversource Energy Oppose00:14:01.360 - 8:12:42 AM; Michael Lata from Eversource Energy opposes SB 518, explaining that asset condition projects fix issues in existing lines, such as rot in old poles dating back to the 1950s-1960s, inspected biennially. He argues that transmission planning and cost recovery are federal (FERC) matters, and the bill would disrupt the state siting process by adding financial and need-based criteria, causing delays, higher costs, and reduced reliability and safety—citing last year's red flag warnings and wildfire risks. Lata notes SEC resource constraints (one vacant position) would worsen delays for all projects. He criticizes the bill's new project classifications, calling the 'qualified transmission asset replacement project' unfeasible as no project avoids permits. The bill would make DOE and Consumer Advocate automatic parties, creating redundancy with the public counsel and removing oversight on their spending, passed to customers. Citing data, he refutes claims of runaway spending, showing inflation-adjusted regional investments have declined and national rate increases track inflation. Eversource recommends finding the bill inexpedient to legislate.
SB518: Michael Lata, Eversource Energy Oppose00:22:26.960 - 8:21:07 AM; Michael Lata continues his testimony, explaining that even routine maintenance requires permits from the Department of Environmental Services and would not fall under the qualified asset transmission replacement project. He highlights the regional review process at ISO New England, including presentations to the planning advisory committee and an upcoming independent review for transparency, allowing challenges at FERC if projects are deemed imprudent. He addresses concerns about emergency repairs, noting the 5% threshold over five years has no exemption for emergencies, potentially requiring a multi-year SEC process for urgent issues like woodpecker damage. He discusses the lack of hard deadlines in SEC reviews, risks of opponents delaying processes, and argues against shifting SEC's role to review project need and costs for interstate lines, citing a recent court decision overturning a state denial. He emphasizes the multi-step ISO process involving state agencies and the burden on transmission owners to prove prudence at FERC.
SB518: Donald Crease, Office of the Consumer Advocate Support00:39:42.880 - 8:38:23 AM; Donald Crease supports SB 518, using the example of the X178 line where Eversource proposed replacing 400 poles costing $400 million due to woodpecker damage on 40 poles, without prudence review under FERC's formula rate. He notes the broader $5 billion issue of unscrutinized asset condition projects in New England. He criticizes the SEC's prior denial of his office's intervention in the X178 proceeding, arguing it misapplied law since ratepayer interests matter. He praises the bill for carving out a party role for the Consumer Advocate, distinct from the Council for the Public's balancing of interests or the Department of Energy's executive role. He stresses the advisory nature of the ISO's planning committee and advocates for PUC scrutiny of prudence, aligning with federal regulators' expectations for states to rigorously review projects. He urges support to ensure utilities make prudent investments protecting ratepayers.
SB518: Barry Needleman, Attorney at ML Strategies Oppose00:44:18.800 - 8:42:59 AM; Barry Needleman, with extensive SEC experience representing applicants in five transmission projects, opposes the bill due to practical issues. He explains SEC applications are time-consuming (over a year to prepare and process, often extended) and resource-intensive, involving numerous witnesses and high costs, including internal company expenses and non-company reports. He warns that requiring more projects at SEC could overwhelm the committee, doubting more staff would help given the five-member structure dominated by PUC commissioners who must sit on every docket; he cites delays in 2015-2016 with four simultaneous projects. He argues adding interveners like the Consumer Advocate would duplicate efforts, increase inefficiency and costs without required coordination, despite the Council for the Public's effective role in protecting public interests cost-effectively.
SB518: Josh Elliott, Department of Energy Support00:49:08.640 - 8:47:49 AM; Josh Elliott clarifies the current review process: the planning advisory committee is stakeholder-driven and advisory, not ISO New England, lacking power to stop projects; it provides technical input but is not independent. He notes ISO's new review process is interim and over a year from finalization, with projects advancing meanwhile. He corrects that under FERC's formula rate, the burden is on challengers to prove imprudence, not utilities, and states/ratepayers lack a clear path to do so. He states the bill is not solely about X178 (an egregious case involving unnecessary upgrades) but broader projects. He poses a policy question: whether the state should have a mechanism to validate project prudence, need, and cost-effectiveness before implementation.
SB518: N. Grace, Business and Industry Association Oppose00:53:39.200 - 8:52:20 AM; N. Grace opposes the legislation, concerned that added SEC layers would delay replacing or repairing transmission assets, leading to higher energy costs from regulatory burdens and increased outage risks. Delays could hinder timely repairs for weather-damaged lines, harming the economy. She credits utilities for proactive repairs over decades, improving power restoration times, and urges against processes that slow essential maintenance.
SB518: Mark Dolphano, PUC Commissioner and SEC Interim Chair Information Only00:55:37.280 - 8:54:18 AM; Mark Dolphano provides neutral information on implementing the bill via SEC, noting zero dedicated SEC employees (administrator is a vacant PUC position with dual duties). He finds the 180-day timelines for qualified projects aggressive given staffing constraints, making compliance difficult. He explains SEC as a siting board focused on land use and environmental impacts, not economic/rate issues which are FERC's domain; the bill's criteria risk federal lawsuits, as seen in a recent overturned Pennsylvania case. He cautions against adding DOE and Consumer Advocate as automatic parties, increasing 'government' involvement alongside PUC and DOJ's Council for the Public. He emphasizes SEC cannot opine on specific projects and will implement legislative will but highlights litigation and regulatory risks.
SB536: Senator David Roer, Senate District 1 Support01:05:30.319 - 9:04:11 AM; Senator Roer introduces SB 536, which establishes a site evaluation committee for siting new landfills. He notes the recurring issue of solid waste disposal affecting state, local, and regional levels. The bill aims to balance these concerns by including input from various entities. The committee will consist of seven members considering factors for siting, emphasizing brownfield over greenfield sites, while recognizing the need for waste disposal facilities.
SB536: Tom Tower, resident of Whitefield, NH, representing North Country Alliance for Balance Change Support01:10:16.480 - 9:08:57 AM; Tom Tower thanks Senator Roer and highlights the long-standing divisive issue of solid waste facilities. He describes SB 536 as a workable reset that complements DES permitting by addressing broader impacts like noise, odor, traffic, tourism, property values, and economic health at local and regional levels. The bill creates a transparent framework with a balanced site evaluation committee, strong conflict of interest standards, and a preference for brownfields without forcing expansions or overriding local control. It improves decision-making processes for long-term impacts, building trust among stakeholders.
SB536: Katherine Corkery, Chapter Director, New Hampshire Sierra Club Support01:16:16.960 - 9:14:57 AM; Katherine Corkery states that the Sierra Club, with 15,000 members and supporters in the state, supports SB 536. She discusses years of efforts to resolve landfill issues and endorses the bill's fair, democratic decision-making process involving impacted communities, applicants, town officials, and state agencies through the site evaluation committee. She compares it to land-focused community processes needed for such issues.
SB536: Unknown Speaker Support01:18:17.920 - 9:16:58 AM; The speaker urges the committee to take responsibility and pass the bill with wisdom to resolve the solid waste problem. They note the existence of another different bill, emphasize the need for collaboration over division, and offer support in finding solutions.
SB536: Rich Southwell, Bethlehem, NH resident Support01:19:50.560 - 9:18:31 AM; Rich Southwell strongly supports the bill, highlighting the evolution and increased risks in the solid waste industry. He advocates for including an actuary or insurance expert on the committee due to heightened risks from modern waste like PFAS and electronics compared to historical biodegradable dumps. He reads from a publicly traded waste company's 2024 10K report on risk factors, including environmental liabilities and insurance inadequacies, stressing the need for state monitoring of insurance and financial stability of operators.
SB536: Nate Grace, Business and Industry Association (BIA), Statewide Chamber of Commerce Oppose01:24:06.080 - 9:22:47 AM; Nate Grace opposes the bill, citing concerns over tightening disposal capacity in New Hampshire, potential out-of-state waste transport increasing costs for businesses and individuals. He argues that DES already provides comprehensive safeguards in permitting, and the bill adds subjective complexity, delays in expansions or new landfills, and relies on a committee's net public benefit assessment that could be biased by appointees. During questioning, he discusses capacity projections to 2037, market changes, and the time needed to build landfills (estimated 6-7 years).
SB536: Mark Delano, PUC Commissioner and Interim Chair Information Only01:29:48.320 - 9:28:29 AM; Mark Delano provides neutral information, noting no PUC position on the bill but sharing his past solid waste operator certification and the long history of legislative discussions since 2005. He expresses concern about assigning a PUC employee as administrator for the proposed solid waste site evaluation committee, given the vacancy, the agency's focus on energy, and lack of solid waste expertise for training. He suggests a better fit in another agency like DES.
SB536: Amy Mansali, Attorney at BCM Environmental and Land Law, representing North Country Alliance for Balance Change Support01:32:53.840 - 9:31:34 AM; Amy Mansali supports the bill on behalf of the North Country Alliance for Balance Change, viewing it as a sensible step toward siting solid waste facilities by borrowing from the established RSA 162-H process for energy facilities, which has successfully handled numerous projects over decades. She highlights key attributes of that process as beneficial for solid waste siting.
SB536: Unidentified Speaker (Attorney) Support01:34:14.480 - 9:32:55 AM; The speaker explains the benefits of the Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) process for the solid waste industry, noting it captures known adverse impacts not required in other permitting. It provides one-stop shopping for permits, making the process more efficient by allowing concurrent hearings for applications like wetlands, alteration of terrain, and shoreland. This streamlines large project siting without doubling work. The speaker addresses concerns about the PUC's involvement, agreeing it's more DES-oriented but speculates the sponsor included PUC due to similarities with the energy SEC. She suggests the sponsor might be amendable to changes. Regarding committee composition, she discusses evolution of the energy SEC, noting additions of public members and size reduction for practicality. She acknowledges potential overweighting towards waste industry interests but supports balance with scientific and public representation for fairness.
SB536: Mike Whimsat, Director of Waste Management Division, NH DES (with Leam McKenna) Support01:42:19.760 - 9:41:00 AM; Mike Whimsat thanks the committee for the opportunity to testify and states that the Department of Environmental Services supports SB 536. He notes that siting, construction, and operation of major solid waste facilities impact local and regional communities beyond DES's traditional permitting factors. The bill establishes a site evaluation committee to consider additional impacts like land use, visual impacts, property values, human health, tourism, outdoor recreation, wildlife, traffic, noise, odor, and economic benefits—areas outside DES's expertise. This provides a platform for full public participation and comprehensive evaluation of impacts and benefits.
SB536: Senator Ear, District 12 (Prime Sponsor) Support01:46:41.199 - 9:45:22 AM; Senator Ear introduces SB 593, which strengthens New Hampshire's waste system by prioritizing cost-effective capacity. It addresses state interests in maintaining adequate, reasonable-priced disposal for municipalities and businesses, avoiding higher costs and out-of-state hauling. The bill prefers expanding existing permitted landfills over new greenfield sites, as existing ones are already studied, permitted, and monitored, reducing environmental disturbance. It promotes expansions with restrictions on groundwater flow, a five-year travel time requirement, and evaluations of impacts like land use, visual, property values within one mile, economic, infrastructure, noise, odor, and traffic. It allows for proposed mitigations.
SB536: Wayne Morrison, North Country Alliance for Balanced Change Oppose01:52:19.679 - 9:51:00 AM; Wayne Morrison acknowledges the contentious issues surrounding solid waste but encourages seeking common ground. He opposes the bill due to a provision that prioritizes landfill expansions and voids local ordinances, bylaws, and agreements, specifically targeting Bethlehem's zoning and 2011/2018 settlements with NCES/Casella. He argues this undermines local control, sets a bad precedent, creates mistrust, and may violate constitutions. He urges voting ITL, advocating for more local voice and regional engagement instead.
SB536: Amy Manzelli, BCM Environmental and Land Law Oppose01:56:19.760 - 9:55:00 AM; Amy Manzelli elaborates on the constitutionality issues, focusing on the bill's language voiding municipal agreements. She explains that both US and NH constitutions protect contracts via the contracts clause, and states cannot substantially impair them without reasonable and necessary police power for public purpose. She argues there's no solid waste crisis based on state data, making impairment unconstitutional. She details the 2011 settlement preventing expansions and notes available capacity statewide, concluding the bill would eviscerate the agreement and be unconstitutional.
SB536: Wayne Morrison (follow-up) Oppose02:01:20.159 - 10:00:01 AM; In follow-up, Wayne addresses capacity concerns, referencing the 2037 date from reports assuming no Rochester expansion, but notes Waste Management's intent to expand, pushing needs to 2070s. He argues the bill affects only Bethlehem's closing landfill, whose capacity can be absorbed elsewhere. He criticizes shifting from local input to overriding it, notes excess capacity encourages out-of-state waste, and supports honoring agreements without state vs. local conflict.
SB536: Amy Manzelli (follow-up) Information Only02:01:20.159 - 10:00:01 AM; Amy responds to questions on the 2018 settlement, which ratifies the 2011 agreement, and commits to emailing details on any termination date. She clarifies no known termination and emphasizes the agreement binds successors like Casella.
SB536: Nate Grace, Business and Industry Association (BIA) Support02:22:55.680 - 10:21:36 AM; Nate Grace supports the bill for streamlining processes by having one government regulate, avoiding conflicts. He appreciates addressing groundwater setbacks with a five-year workable solution, avoiding PUC involvement issues. The bill prioritizes expansions over new landfills with reasonable considerations. On constitutionality, he questions standing for private companies against state actions, citing precedents where state overrides local jurisdiction.
SB536: Rich, Town of Bethlehem Oppose02:25:27.600 - 10:24:08 AM; Rich opposes the bill for subverting local control and benefiting Casella, who settled $1.9M for leach violations in Bethlehem. The bill voids the 2011 contract preventing expansions post-2027 capacity, ignoring $1.3M taxpayer costs. It manipulates tipping fees, forces expansion risks like pollution and property decline on the town without compensation. Recent violations, including liner puncture, show Casella's unreliability; fines went to state, not town. The bill sets a precedent to end local control statewide on various issues; urges killing it.
SB536: Heidi Tmarco, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) Oppose02:31:10.560 - 10:29:51 AM; Heidi opposes the bill for removing local voice in permitting, already limited but vital per 2004 NH Supreme Court ruling. Communities know local impacts like road and school safety best. She counters frustration claims, noting Bethlehem's stage six expansion took three years (2020-2023) despite litigation, and Turnkey was similar. No capacity crisis exists; focus on recycling and composting per state plans. Urges ITL vote.
SB536: Unidentified Expert (NHDES) Oppose02:35:56.720 - 10:34:37 AM; The speaker explains remediation technologies for polluted groundwater, including interception trenches and pump-and-treat systems. They argue that current rules are stringent and protective, with robust design, construction, and siting requirements that prevent contaminants from reaching surface waters. They state that the proposed provision is unnecessary as existing rules address potential threats effectively.
SB540 0450: Senator Waters Support02:42:58.080 - 10:41:39 AM; Senator Waters introduces the amendment and discusses changes made after consultations with stakeholders, including the Department of Energy and utilities. Key updates include adopting new UL 3700 standards for safety, requiring owners to inform utilities about device wattage for grid impact monitoring, adding references to relevant standards bodies, and providing consumer notifications about potential transmission charges for excess energy. He emphasizes that these changes resolve all issues raised.
SB540 0450: Senator Pearl Information Only02:47:36.880 - 10:46:17 AM; Senator Pearl questions the timeline for the state building code review board to amend the code by January 1, 2027, expressing doubt about feasibility.
SB540 0450: Senator Waters (response) Support02:47:36.880 - 10:46:17 AM; Senator Waters confirms that the language and timeline were requested by the code board, and the effective date was extended to accommodate the process.
SB540 0450: Senator Ros Information Only02:47:36.880 - 10:46:17 AM; Senator Ros notes the increase in maximum power output from 800 to 1,200 watts and seeks confirmation.
SB540 0450: Senator Waters (response) Support02:47:36.880 - 10:46:17 AM; Senator Waters explains the adjustment back to 1,200 watts after discussions, stating that it is acceptable with the other provisions in place.
SB589 0461s: Senator Waters Support02:49:21.120 - 10:48:02 AM; Senator Waters introduces the amendment, highlighting changes based on hearing feedback: removal of highway and transportation elements, addition of port authority provisions for marine technology studies including vessel charging, a definition and phase two investigation for microgrids covering financing, siting, regulatory sandboxes, cybersecurity standards, and pilot project criteria. It also includes guidelines for cybersecurity in distributed energy resource interconnections, developed in consultation with key stakeholders, and maintains public water system provisions.
SB589 0461s: Senator Rosen Support02:52:59.840 - 10:51:40 AM; Senator Rosen thanks Senator Waters for the work and highlights the new funded cybersecurity unit in the DOJ, noting available resources for implementation.
SB592 0469s: Senator Waters Support02:54:18.399 - 10:52:59 AM; Senator Waters explains the amendment: it limits the inventory of habitat strongholds to informational purposes for regional planning commissions without basis for municipal zoning, addressing concerns from timberland owners and Senator Maki. It connects conservation commission work to transportation and communication projects only, without expanding RPC purview to broader habitat issues. It also includes provisions for the Winnipesaukee River Basin program to study ownership transfer and resolution of property issues.
SB592 0469s: Senator Lang Support02:58:05.040 - 10:56:46 AM; Senator Lang expresses appreciation for Senator Waters' crafting of the amendment and notes ongoing concerns about the word 'sole' on page one, line 23, regarding potential impacts on property owners' rights, especially legacy landowners with large tracts.
SB592 0469s: Committee Members Information Only02:59:29.600 - 10:58:10 AM; The committee discusses and approves amendments to the amendment, including removing the word 'soul' (likely a transcription error for 'sale') from the text regarding land, making it clearer. They also change 'shall' to 'may' on page three, line 15, to address concerns from Fish and Game about consulting with regional planning commissions. After approving these changes via voice votes with no opposition, they proceed to vote on the committee amendment as amended, all in favor with no opposition. The bill as amended passes unanimously on consent. A motion to move out of executive session is made and approved, followed by dismissal.

Avard, Kevin(Chairman)(R)[B]2025	Pearl, Howard (V Chairman)(R)[B]2025	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025
Rosenwald, Cindy(D)[F]2025	McConkey, Mark(R)[B]2025