Committee Summary for Senate Energy and Natural Resources (02/11/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB111 00:01:45.680 - 8:01:11 AM	Public Hearing	authorizing a reliability indexing credit pilot program.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025
SB111 00:25:23.240 - 8:24:49 AM	Executive Session	authorizing a reliability indexing credit pilot program.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025
SB112 00:26:10.360 - 8:25:36 AM	Public Hearing	relative to purchased power agreements for electric distribution utilities.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB228 01:12:12.320 - 9:11:38 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the limitations on community customer generators.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025
SB230 02:00:53.719 - 10:00:19 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to electric utility restructuring and investment in distributed energy resources.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025
SB230 02:23:17.479 - 10:22:43 AM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to electric utility restructuring and investment in distributed energy resources.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025
SB110 02:24:07.399 - 10:23:33 AM	Executive Session	relative to terrain permitting.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025

SB111: Senator David Waters, District 4 Support00:01:45.680 - 8:01:11 AM; Senator Waters introduced Senate Bill 111, which focuses on creating a pilot program for reliability indexing credits to enhance grid resilience and reliability. He highlighted the importance of resilience in the context of potential power outages due to weather conditions in New Hampshire and the need for peak shaving as energy use shifts. The bill aims to facilitate larger scale battery storage projects, suggesting a range from 100 to 200 megawatts, and proposes a mechanism where developers can earn credits for the savings they provide to consumers. Waters mentioned that the Public Utilities Commission would be involved in establishing multi-year agreements for these projects, emphasizing the need for a close examination of the concept before implementation.
SB111: James Andrews, CEO of Grand Shore Power Support00:05:40.319 - 8:05:06 AM; James Andrews, representing Grand Shore Power, supported SB111, explaining the company's role in energy project development and independent power production. He emphasized the necessity of reliable and resilient energy systems, particularly with the transition to behind-the-meter and intermittent resources, which have led to scarcity events in ISO New England. Andrews discussed the role of battery storage in providing dispatchable resources to manage grid disruptions effectively. He outlined how SB111 would enable a pilot program that allows electric distribution companies to enter into long-term contracts with energy storage project owners, with the goal of enhancing reliability and potentially reducing costs for consumers through competitive bidding.
SB111: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only00:13:06.120 - 8:12:32 AM; An unnamed committee member, who previously owned a Radio Shack, asked about the specifics of battery storage, particularly the duration that power can be stored and whether the batteries are charged solely from the grid or other sources. James Andrews responded, clarifying that their project uses lithium-ion batteries with a two to four-hour discharge capacity, charged during off-peak times and discharged during peak demand. He noted that different storage technologies might be used depending on the project but emphasized the utility of short-term storage.
SB111: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only00:14:56.079 - 8:14:22 AM; Another question from an unnamed committee member focused on whether the batteries are charged from the grid or other sources. James Andrews confirmed that while some projects might pair solar with storage, their project at Grand Shore Power is a battery-only project, charged during off-peak times to support grid reliability and discharged during peak times to meet demand.
SB111: Deputy Commissioner Chris Elms, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only00:16:12.199 - 8:15:38 AM; Chris Elms, Deputy Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Energy, testified that the department is neutral on SB111. He expressed concerns about the bill, particularly regarding its cost and administrative aspects. Elms mentioned that he and Regional Policy Director Dan Veen had many conversations with stakeholders about energy issues in New England. They believe more data and information are needed before implementing state-specific mechanisms to incentivize storage resources. Elms criticized the bill's mechanism for decoupling from the market, suggesting it may not effectively incentivize peak shaving. He also noted the bill's sparse requirements, which leave much to the Public Utilities Commission, and the tight timeframe for investigations which might require hiring consultants.
SB111: Dan Veen, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only00:16:58.560 - 8:16:24 AM; Dan Veen, Regional Policy Director of the New Hampshire Department of Energy, added to Chris Elms' concerns about SB111. He highlighted the need for more time to work with stakeholders and bill sponsors to understand how to incentivize peak shaving effectively. Veen expressed concern about the bill's incentive mechanism, which he believes might not encourage the desired behavior of discharging storage at peak times. He also mentioned the administrative burden and the potential need for more time to conduct thorough investigations.
SB111: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only00:25:23.240 - 8:24:49 AM; The committee moved to re-refer SB111, indicating a decision to revisit the bill at a later time. There was no opposition to this motion, and it was passed unanimously.
SB112: Senator Kevin Avar, District 12 Support00:26:10.360 - 8:25:36 AM; Senator Kevin Avar introduced SB112, expressing his support for the bill. He explained that SB112 aims to expand the types of electric generation considered for purchase power agreements under New Hampshire RSA 37411. The bill would allow utilities to enter into agreements with various energy sources, not just existing ones, to address high electric rates in New Hampshire. Avar emphasized the bill's role as another tool to tackle energy challenges and its straightforward nature in opening opportunities for different resources.
SB112: Michelle Gardner, Nextera Energy Resources Support00:28:24.320 - 8:27:50 AM; Michelle Gardner, Executive Director of Nextera Energy Resources for the Northeast, testified in support of SB112. She highlighted the importance of Seabrook Station, a nuclear power plant in New Hampshire, and its role in providing reliable and cost-effective energy. Gardner emphasized the complexity of the energy industry and the need for states to address high electric bills. She supported the bill as it would allow New Hampshire to participate in multi-state solicitations for power purchase agreements, particularly with nuclear resources. Gardner also addressed market volatility and the benefits of long-term contracts for ratepayers.
SB112: Bruce Berky, Sheinfiny Capital Group Support00:32:18.760 - 8:31:44 AM; Bruce Berky, representing Sheinfiny Capital Group and Nextera Energy Resources, testified in support of SB112. He proposed amendments to RSA 37411 to include the Department of Energy in the development process of RFPs and to remove specific dates and caps on megawatt hours. Berky argued that these changes would provide flexibility and align with the objectives of SB112. He emphasized the need for a flexible approach to energy procurement to meet the state's needs.
SB112: Chris Elms, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only00:48:35.839 - 8:48:01 AM; Chris Elms testified that the New Hampshire Department of Energy is neutral on SB112. He expressed concerns about the bill's expansion of authority for utilities to enter into power purchase agreements, particularly without a decarbonization goal in New Hampshire. Elms highlighted past experiences with PPAs, such as the costly deal with Millstone in Connecticut. He discussed the potential risks and market distortions caused by long-term contracts and emphasized the need for a holistic approach to energy policy. Elms noted that the department's involvement in the RFP process could help address some concerns.
SB112: Dan Veen, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only00:55:32.079 - 8:54:58 AM; Dan Veen added to Chris Elms' testimony on SB112, emphasizing the need for the department's involvement in the RFP process if the bill were to become a long-term strategy. He noted that the department currently has the authority to hire consultants to assess utilities, which could be applied to this process. Veen discussed the complexities of energy policy and the need for a comprehensive approach to address reliability and affordability.
SB112: Michael Aata, Eversource Energy Oppose01:02:46.200 - 9:02:12 AM; Michael Aata, representing Eversource Energy, expressed concerns about SB112. He noted that the original intent of the law was to incentivize new resources, not preserve existing ones. Aata highlighted the potential negative financial impact on utilities due to the removal of the 2 million megawatt-hour cap, as it could tie up the utility's balance sheet and affect their credit rating. He emphasized the need to understand the driving force behind the bill and its alignment with the state's energy goals.
SB228: Senator David Waters, District Ford Support01:12:12.320 - 9:11:38 AM; Senator David Waters introduced SB228, which aims to adjust the size and eligibility of community solar projects to attract more investment. The bill increases the size of solar arrays for moderate-income community solar projects and allows more flexibility for group net metering members to sign agreements with multiple group hosts. Waters noted potential issues with the bill's language, such as the change from 'households' to 'homeowners,' which might exclude renters from participating. He suggested working with stakeholders to refine the bill.
SB228: Matt Young, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only01:16:51.000 - 9:16:17 AM; Matt Young, an attorney at the New Hampshire Department of Energy, testified that the department is neutral on SB228 but has concerns. He noted that removing certain qualifications could be administratively burdensome and lead to increased costs for ratepayers. Young highlighted potential complications in energy usage accounting and the possibility of 'double dipping' in net metering. He also mentioned that some sections of the bill might be redundant due to other ongoing legislative efforts. Young expressed willingness to work with the committee to address these concerns.
SB228: Lindsay Beroy, Revision Energy Support01:23:02.880 - 9:22:28 AM; Lindsay Beroy, Director of Policy and Government Affairs for Revision Energy, testified in support of SB228. She emphasized that the bill would foster self-generation and increase access to net metering for low to moderate-income residents and public entities. Beroy supported the bill's provisions allowing customer generators to participate in net metering and enabling multiple group net metering agreements. She addressed concerns about 'double dipping' by explaining existing protections. Beroy also suggested amendments to ensure the bill's effectiveness, particularly for low-income households.
SB228: Griffin Roberts, Eversource Energy Oppose01:33:19.960 - 9:32:45 AM; Griffin Roberts of Eversource Energy testified against sections one and two of SB228, citing potential administrative and billing challenges. He explained that the current billing systems are not equipped to handle the complexities introduced by allowing customer generators to participate in group net metering arrangements. Roberts highlighted the manual processes and potential for human error, which could increase staffing costs borne by ratepayers. He also expressed concerns about the complexity of tracking multiple group net metering arrangements.
SB228: Malcolm Bliss, Kirar Energy Support01:37:14.719 - 9:36:40 AM; Malcolm Bliss, Senior Director at Kirar Energy, testified in support of SB228, particularly for its relief to low and moderate-income residents. He cited examples of projects in Bethlehem, Nashua, and Rochester that would benefit from the bill. Bliss emphasized that the current program offers modest relief, but SB228 would provide much-needed additional support to low-income families, veterans, and people with disabilities. He highlighted the bill's potential to open up future development opportunities in the energy sector.
SB228: Jack Rudderman, New Hampshire Housing Support01:40:29.239 - 9:39:55 AM; Jack Rudderman from New Hampshire Housing spoke in support of SB228, emphasizing the importance of increasing the net metering cap from one to three megawatts as outlined in Section 6 of the bill. He explained that New Hampshire Housing, along with the New Hampshire Department of Energy and the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund, received a $43.5 million EPA Solar For All grant. New Hampshire Housing's $23 million sub-award will be used to incentivize solar installations at multifamily buildings serving low-income residents and to create up to five 1-megawatt community solar installations for low-income residents. Rudderman highlighted that increasing the cap would improve the economics of solar projects due to economies of scale, allowing more savings for low-income residents. He also noted that the current one-megawatt limit is arbitrary and restricts the potential benefits for low-income communities. Rudderman expressed hope that the bill would enable the Solar For All funding to go further and improve the likelihood of a low-income community solar industry in New Hampshire.
SB228: Chad Whitaker, Lifelong New Hampshire Resident Support01:46:04.400 - 9:45:30 AM; Chad Whitaker, a lifelong New Hampshire resident and graduate of the Massachusetts School of Law, supported SB228 but highlighted potential unintended consequences. He assists public housing authorities in procuring HUD-compliant community solar agreements across several states, including New York, Maine, and Massachusetts. Whitaker expressed concern about Section 8 of the bill, which removes the eligibility of public housing authorities to participate as municipal hosts, potentially eliminating them from larger projects. He also noted issues with the definitions in Section 6, suggesting the 3-megawatt limit is arbitrary and should match the municipal host limit. Whitaker pointed out the term 'directly benefit' in Section 9 could exclude housing authorities from participating if they pay electricity bills on behalf of tenants. He suggested changing it to 'financial benefit' to allow housing authorities to extend solar benefits to tenants. Lastly, he raised concerns about the definition of non-residential end-use customers, which could affect public housing authorities and low-income tax credit properties. Despite these concerns, Whitaker expressed overall support for the bill and offered to work on refining it.
SB228: Sam Evans Brown, Clean Energy New Hampshire Support01:52:24.560 - 9:51:50 AM; Sam Evans Brown, Executive Director of Clean Energy New Hampshire, supported SB228 and provided context on the efforts to establish a community solar market in New Hampshire over the past five years. He noted that there are over 500 megawatts of solar projects in the interconnection queue, and without legislative changes, low-income communities would be limited to one-megawatt projects. Brown agreed with the question about the arbitrary 3-megawatt cap in the bill, suggesting it could be increased to 5 megawatts to align with municipal limits. He also addressed concerns about typos in the bill and offered to assist in refining it. Brown clarified the issue of 'double dipping,' stating that existing regulations prevent it by limiting credits to actual consumption. He emphasized the importance of working closely with Eversource to manage billing complexities and expressed readiness to address these issues with the committee.
SB228: Jim Monahan, Dubun Group Support01:57:47.599 - 9:57:13 AM; Jim Monahan from the Dubun Group submitted written testimony from various customers in support of SB228, including Stonyfield Organic, Nashua YMCA, Keene Housing Authority, and Progenics. He highlighted that Stonyfield Organic, located near the airport in Londonderry, needs off-site solar expansion due to space constraints. Monahan emphasized the importance of Section 5 of the bill, which addresses the 'doughnut hole' issue for customers who are neither small enough to be classified as residential nor large enough to be considered manufacturing customers, thus unable to fully benefit from net metering credits. He mentioned that thousands of similar entities in New Hampshire could benefit from this change. Monahan offered to work with the committee and the Department of Energy to refine the bill and get it to the floor.
SB230: Senator David Waters, District 4 Information Only02:00:53.719 - 10:00:19 AM; Senator David Waters introduced Senate Bill 230, which aims to allow microgrids that serve the public interest. He referenced Maine's successful legislation as a model and explained that the bill defines microgrids as localized grids that can send power across property lines to power critical infrastructure like hospitals and manufacturing facilities. The bill includes safeguards such as zoning compliance, reliability guarantees, and utility sign-off to ensure no duplication or conflict with existing utility transmission. Waters highlighted the inclusion of small modular reactors (SMRs) as an energy source, aligning with federal definitions and noting their potential use for data centers and critical infrastructure. He detailed the bill's structure, including the authorization by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) under specified conditions, consumer protections, and the reporting requirements to evaluate the impact of microgrids. Waters stressed the importance of defining SMRs in statute to attract investors and ensure regulatory clarity.
SB230: Rosal Information Only02:12:41.559 - 10:12:07 AM; Rosal expressed confusion about section 3F of the bill, which includes nuclear energy in the definition of renewable energy. Rosal questioned the appropriateness of categorizing nuclear energy, generated primarily through uranium, as renewable since new elements cannot be created. This led to a discussion on evolving definitions and how some states consider nuclear energy as a non-carbon emitting source, akin to renewable energy.
SB230: Unknown (presumably a committee member or staff) Information Only02:13:32.159 - 10:12:58 AM; The speaker responded to Rosal's question, explaining the context of evolving definitions in energy classifications. They mentioned that some states south of New Hampshire consider nuclear energy as part of their non-carbon emitting sources. They noted the challenge of integrating nuclear into the portfolio of renewable sources and the intention behind the bill to include nuclear under the rubric of non-carbon emitting sources. The speaker also mentioned considering a change to the term 'non-carbon' to address the concern raised.
SB230: Michael Latafers, Source Energy Oppose02:16:11.320 - 10:15:37 AM; Michael Latafers from Source Energy expressed concerns about the bill's impact on microgrid development. He highlighted issues with the definition of small modular nuclear reactors and the cap on microgrid sizes, suggesting that the language could be refined. He also expressed worries about the potential for duplicative infrastructure and safety issues due to third-party constructions, which might not adhere to public utility standards. Latafers also mentioned the ongoing study under HB 558, suggesting that it might be beneficial to wait for its conclusion before moving forward with the legislation.
SB230: Matt Young, Attorney with the Department of Energy Information Only02:20:51.520 - 10:20:17 AM; Matt Young from the Department of Energy stated their neutral stance on SB230. He echoed concerns about redundancy and safety issues, referencing the ongoing investigation under HP 558, which is due to report later in the year. Young suggested that allowing this investigation to complete could inform better policy decisions and potentially avoid issues raised by the previous speaker. The department expressed willingness to work with legislators on the bill if it moves forward.
SB230: Committee Members Information Only02:23:17.479 - 10:22:43 AM; The committee members discussed the next steps after the public hearing, considering moving into an executive session to deliberate on the bill. They closed the public hearing on SB230 and prepared to discuss further actions.
SB110: Senator David Waters Information Only02:24:07.399 - 10:23:33 AM; Senator Waters discussed an amendment related to SB110, suggesting it should be a committee amendment. He mentioned extensive hearings on related bills and the need to clarify and right-size fee structures. He highlighted the inclusion of potential fee increases and specific environmental regulations related to stormwater discharge within a quarter mile of certain water bodies.
SB110: Senator Ros Information Only02:28:03.120 - 10:27:29 AM; Senator Ros expressed concerns about the proposed amendment to SB110, particularly regarding the fiscal committee's role in approving fee increases. He suggested a potential conflict between the automatic fee increase based on the CPI and the fiscal committee's oversight, proposing either a proposal and approval process or a notification process.
SB110: Phil Trowbridge, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Information Only02:30:25.479 - 10:29:51 AM; Phil Trowbridge from the Department of Environmental Services addressed the committee's concerns about fee increases. He explained the department's intention to have legislative control over fee adjustments due to the volatility of CPI changes. He suggested that the department would be open to removing the automatic fee increase provision if it caused conflict.
SB110: Senator McCoy Information Only02:35:09.319 - 10:34:35 AM; Senator McCoy expressed discomfort with the proposed rewrite of SB110, particularly concerning permit by notification and fee structures. He questioned the quarter-mile setback for stormwater discharge, suggesting it might be too broad, and proposed an eighth of a mile instead. He also discussed the fee adjustments, seeking assurance that they would not result in revenue loss for the department.
SB110: Phil Trowbridge, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Information Only02:38:16.960 - 10:37:42 AM; Phil Trowbridge responded to Senator McCoy's concerns, explaining the rationale behind the quarter-mile setback and the department's flexibility to consider an eighth of a mile if it meets water quality standards. He also clarified the fee structure adjustments, emphasizing the need to maintain revenue and staff positions.
SB110: Senator Pearl Information Only02:43:05.880 - 10:42:31 AM; Senator Pearl sought clarification from Phil Trowbridge on the impact of the fee changes, confirming that they were intended to keep the department's revenue neutral and allow for staffing adjustments. He also inquired about the distribution of project sizes and the department's ability to hire temporary staff.
SB110: Committee Members Information Only02:46:16.399 - 10:45:42 AM; The committee members decided to hold off on the vote for SB110, allowing time for further review and potential amendments. They discussed other bills, including SB65, SB108, and SB107, and planned to address these in subsequent meetings.

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