All towns · cpcnh

CPCNH Office Hours | 2026 Legislative Session Recap (June 18, 2026)

Video

Okay, given that we're uh two past the
hour, [clears throat]
why don't we get into things today? So,
I'm Jack Kaspar, the director of member
services for CPC&H, and I'll be
moderating today's session. Um the
purpose of this office hours is to
provide a recap of the 2026 legislative
session and then there will also be some
time dedicated to discussing some of the
uh pertinent dockets and information
coming out of the regulatory process.
In terms of brief housekeeping, uh there
will be a couple chances uh throughout
the session for attendees to ask
questions certainly as things come up uh
throughout. Please feel free to use the
chat feature. We'll be monitoring that
as well and can take questions when
appropriate through that mechanism or
you know feel free to raise your hand
and we'll call on you at the right time.
Uh so getting into the agenda for what
we'll actually be covering today. Uh
we're going to start with a mini panel
uh discussing with our speakers some of
the key takeaways from the legislative
session. Then Dina Dennis will be
leading a rundown of some of the the
legislation that was of importance to
the coalition. Then we'll be an
opportunity to really look ahead to
what's upcoming in the 2027 2028
bienium.
Then we're going to shift gears uh with
a segment led by our executive director
on the competitive landscape and
regulatory updates and hopefully have
plenty of time at the end for Q&A.
So in terms of today's speakers, we have
Dena Dennis who is our director of
regulatory and legislative affairs for
CPCNH. We're also joined by Andrew
Provener, our principal for Main Street
Strategic, who helps us with our
government affairs and our
communications work. So, you know, he's
he's a key player in terms of our
relationships in the state house and
appreciate him joining us. We have as
well uh Clifton Belo who is our chair of
our regulatory and legislative affairs
committee. He is also the secretary for
the board of directors. And like I
mentioned, Henry will be hopping in
later on who is our executive director.
Okay. So to start with some te key
takeaways from this session, I'm going
to ask our panelists a number of
questions. And for everyone who's on uh
namely I'm looking at you Dina and you
Andrew for now. You know what is your
overall takeaway from the session?
>> Dina, do you want to start off here?
Sure, I'd love to. Well, good afternoon
everybody. Welcome again. Dina Dennis,
director of regulatory and legislative
affairs for the Community Power
Coalition. I'm just chuckling at the
comment made in the chat about Cliff not
aging a bit. Um I don't see him on now,
but hopefully he'll be joining. If not,
um I think Andrew and I will carry the
torch um for him. And uh I'm not sure
what's going on with the little
drawings, but hey, I like it. Um, so
what is something that that surprised me
this legislative session? Um, well,
going into the session, um, I was
prepared for a lot worse. You know, more
frontal assault on energy, clean energy,
local choice, and control. Um, and I
think the outcome was actually a lot
less bad um, going in and and hopefully
Andrew and I can go into that. Um, but
just as a few examples,
um, you may recall there was an attempt
to repeal the local solar tax exemption,
House Bill 10002.
Um, and then, you know, by the grace of
God, um, a rep, one of the Republican
members from, I think, Stratafford
County made a motion to table, um, they
h he had the votes to to table it, um,
and it died on the table. So, that was
kind of a big one. Um, and I think this
all goes back to the Republican
majority's kind of view of energy and
and clean energy as seeing a need to
like cut out green pork. Um, and I'm
paraphrasing by um something that Andrew
had um had referred to it as that in the
past. Um and then you know we we also
had some attempts at um reverting to
monopoly market structures for energy
generation and distributed energy. Um
some of those bills originally were a
lot you know bigger and worse like
letting utilities own like 350 megawatt
small modular nuclear reactors and such
and they ended up getting paired back.
you know, there's still concerns that we
have over um market competition and and
not a level playing field. Um we can get
into those more, but that's really kind
of the surprise for me was I I thought,
you know, could be a lot worse going in
and you know, actually it wasn't as bad
as as I as I thought. So, Andrew, over
to you.
>> Yeah, I would say that um you know, the
second part of the session is always
interesting because you're dealing with
more policy items. Um so, the first half
we had a budget. you know, we saw in the
budget that there were, you know,
certain areas that um were uh I'd say
kind of money was pulled from in regards
to like renewable energy fund dollars
and um I think we weren't really sure
exactly what the posture of the
legislature and the governor's office
was going to be on some of these energy
issues heading into this second session.
Um and I I agree with Dena. I thought in
a lot of cases um you know cooler heads
prevailed on some issues that we
probably aren't aren't very uh you know
fond of u whether it be the the
ownership of some of these utilities and
um and and them kind of almost in some
ways like us reverting back to to uh the
old kind of lineage way of of having our
our investor own utilities um you know
have a more active role in in in
[clears throat]
uh electricity. So, I I think that we've
been happy to see that um you know,
there's been a block in the in the House
of Republicans that have worked with um
the Democratic party on some of these
issues. Um the solar exemption is a good
example. I think there's a a big block
of um Republicans and Democrats in the
Senate who have been pretty proactive on
a lot of energy issues um and have kind
of um I think at at time been at odds
with House leadership. um or the
governor's office in some occasions. Um
but as we saw through the committee of
conference process, uh ultimately they
were able to kind of come to some sort
of agreement on a number of these
issues. Um, I think probably my biggest
takeaway, um, would be, and this kind of
actually goes into, um, you know, kind
of what we what we thought going into
the session to what actually we ended up
getting, um, but seeing a bill like, uh,
1733 and the reconciliation of default
energy services and and making sure that
we're trying to get something in in
statute there to prevent uh, those
utilities from, you know, forcing under
collections onto uh, community our
members and competitive suppliers. Um
just the way that that issue has evolved
in the last few years um from being
something that really wasn't on the uh
mind of any legislator to now being
something that folks are kind of leading
on and a charge that's growing there.
So, I think that these are um a lot of
issues that CPCH has led the charge on
on bringing some of this to the
legislature and we're starting to see
the legislature now um put in place a
law to to kind of um you know really
work within that framework. So, I think
that's a positive thing to see and I
wasn't really sure going into the year
this second half if we would have seen
the outcome that we got out of that
bill. It wasn't everything we wanted. It
wasn't perfect. it didn't go far enough,
but to to to get something out of that
bill where, you know, a year ago um you
know, dead on arrival in the House. So,
I think it's it's you know, that's a
positive sign that there's kind of a
little bit of smoke uh behind the fire
of of of some of these issues in in the
legislature.
>> Great. Yeah, thank you both. And and
expanding upon that, Andrew, I think you
touched on this a bit. So maybe starting
with you, Dina, you know, what issue or
outcome really played out differently
than you may have anticipated this
session?
Yeah, I think um just going back to the
two bills that um you know I think it's
interesting the mostly the Republicans
so the Republican majorities in the
House and the Senate have this view that
because no new no new generation is
getting built in the state um that
you know it's an indicator that you know
the the market is failing and we need to
revert back to utility monopoly owner
ownership of generation. So, um I guess
you know seeing how that debate evolved
and you know CBC&H jumped in um opposing
those bills again because of the what we
perceive as harmful impacts on the
competitive market um and the fact that
the same price signals that are
available to the utilities to justify
investments in these you know
distributed energy up to 5 megawatts
whether it's distributed solar storage
or you know Now, one of the bills, um,
House Bill 1775 that's making its way to
the governor's office, um, would include
nuclear and natural gas up to 5 megawws.
Um, so, you know, we really helped shape
the narrative of, I would say, eloquent
opposition to that. Um I I still don't
think that everybody gets it or sees the
problem in having an asymmetrical market
where only one player the utilities have
access to certain price signals whereas
other competitors like CBC&H does not
have um access to those price signals.
So and that just you know ees out any
any competition. So um while there the
intention of these bills, Senate Bill
591, House Bill 1775 is to spur more
investment and innovation in you know
local homegrown distributed energy
including nukes and natural gas. You
know the impact is you know likely at
least in the next few years not really
to spur any sort of um deployment and
development of these resources. So, you
know, we still believe that our New
Hampshire Energy Forward vision of
enabling a local market within New
Hampshire for distributed energy and
storage resources, virtual power plants
where they can compete on equal footing,
have access to all the the the price
signals um and get paid based on their
performance um is still the right course
for New Hampshire. Um, we think it still
aligns nicely with the New Hampshire
live free or die, the the constitutional
provisions and and a lot of the
overarching policy principles in um New
Hampshire's energy statute.
>> Yeah, thanks thanks so much for that,
Dina. Really insightful. And Andrew, I
don't know if you wanted to add anything
to that question yourself.
>> No problem. The only thing that I would
add is I I think that um you know it was
it was nice to see um you know us you
know us as CPC&H having a number of
bills that uh we were you know very
passionate about from both you know
proactive sense and making legislation
and a reactive sense and maybe you know
being imposed to something else. Um and
then to see um those bills you know make
it through the process and be
successful. Um so whether that be uh you
know Senate Bill 590 with uh the
revolving funds or um whether it's 1718
and energy uh connection with net
metering with storage. I think those are
it's all it's really nice to see um you
know concepts that were important to the
membership get you know moved up and
then to have the uh committee go through
its process and kind of finding sponsors
and then uh to go through then the the
legislative process and for those to be
in a position to you know be signed by
the governor and become law. So, it's
it's nice to get some wins and continue
to kind of build uh credibility as a new
organization, build credibility within
the departments and also building
credibility within the elected officials
as CPC and H being someone who um you
know should be at the table and when
they're talking about energy, they're
going to want to hear um from you know,
Dena or or Cliff and they're you know
Henry, they're going to want to hear
from from folks at CPC&H and and
understand how it's impacting them. So
that's that's a really great step
forward and I think we're on a good
trajectory there.
>> Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Um and
connected to some of what you were
saying, Cliff, maybe I'll look to you. I
see that you're on. Um you know, what do
you see looking back as the most
significant energy policy development
from the session?
Um well, I think that the bill um to
very explicitly
enable storage in conjunction with net
metering uh is actually quite important
and not just perhaps even more so than
just for net metering. It clarifies the
statute on energy storage 374H
more
and sets
uh should provide direction to DOE and
the PUC that they not only need to allow
storage in conjunction with net metering
but they need to enable net storage
independently of net metering in in in
sort of the broader limited the producer
concept in a way that also needs to uh
acknowledge its value in terms of
avoided capacity cost and avoided
transmission costs uh which are part of
the value stack that is key uh to yeah
Paul Beis is noting and sets the stage
for virtual power plants. Exactly. Um
it's it's a fundamental building block
and a policy direction that we want um
uh to enable independently of net
[clears throat] metering for other
thirdparty players to bring storage
online that can capture the same value
stack that each of the utilities in
different PU filings have claimed that
they can realize themselves.
In [clears throat] particular, avoided
transmission is a huge piece that makes
battery storage and demand response make
sense. And also uh to get the avoided
capacity cost because a a little known
feature of that is a megawatt reduction
on the demand side means that there's
between 1.3 and 1.4 four megawatts of
combat capacity that you don't have to
buy from the wholesale market when you
function as a load reducer at coincident
times. So it's that that's what I think
is the biggest one and the fact that we
ended up getting that bill out of
committee uh into you know on a
unanimous vote and I think it even
passed on the consent calendar in in the
house. Uh that that that was uh
important.
>> Awesome. Yeah. And and you know, does
that really indicate, Cliff or Dina,
that we're seeing a renewed interest in
distributed energy resources and battery
storage within New Hampshire? Do you
think that's indicative of, you know,
further progress in those areas to come?
>> I I'll jump in first. Um yes, I do. And
I think one of the silver linings in the
session was the bipartisan
uh support for the
>> Oops, you muted, Dina.
>> Um uh yes. So I see one of the silver
linings was the the broad bipartisan
support for that bill Cliff mentioned,
House Bill 1718. And you know before the
session there were some conversations
with some of the legislators and
stakeholders around even you know
looking a step further at VPPs virtual
power plants. Um and there was a
separate bill on that and initially it
sounded like there was some Republican
support for it. you know, it didn't
quite work out that way, but I do think
that looking ahead to next year, you
know, building building off of the
bipartisan ship that we were able to
help forge on that bill um is going to
be helpful to advancing um more of our
priorities and in terms of this energy
forward market vision next year.
>> Great. Do you have anything to add on
that?
>> And I would say, you know, one one
thing, you know, there's [clears throat]
a fair amount of turnover coming up with
science, technology, and energy,
particularly on the Republican side with
the chair and vice chair retiring uh and
not running again. Uh but even without
them there there was some you know
they're more aware of the load reducer
concept and which is kind of why they
focused on enabling uh utility to dabble
in this in the under five megawatt um
realm. Um so um that that you know they
are sort of thinking of maybe
micronuclear as a distributed energy
resource. So there's a real I think
opportunity to sort of try to bridge uh
uh partisan lines uh you know assuming
only you know some change in in in in
what the composition at the state house
uh in a way that um even if um Governor
Ayat um is elected to another term um
that there that there is the possibility
of getting bipartisan support for
developing or unleashing a state
jurisdictional market actual market for
distributed energy resources where um uh
entities other than the utility can be
the offtakers of exports to the grid.
that that's sort of our core um
potential value proposition that we
could, you know, communities could help
develop distributed energy resources
that can actually be used to satisfy the
local community load and and get credit
for the fact that you can do this
without having to rely upon transmission
capacity uh from power plants in other
states. and um and and in doing so we
free up capacity for other beneficial
electrical growth um ac across the
region uh and do it at lower co cost
than having to just build more capacity
to meet peak demand without you know
providing price signals to distributed
energy resources to help do that at
lower costs than than building more
transmission.
>> Yeah, a lot of opportunities to be had.
Absolutely. And and playing off of those
opportunities, I'll I'll start with you,
Cliff, and then maybe go to you, Andrew,
to to wrap up this portion of things.
But looking ahead to next year, you
know, what's one of the key energy
issues that CBCNH and its members should
be paying close attention to in your
mind?
>> Um, well, just what I said.
>> Yeah.
>> Um,
yeah. I I mean I think I mean the good
news is on the regulatory front,
you know, key part of our strategy for a
while has been uh to get um to to peel
off one or more of the utilities from
Eversource because Eversource is the one
that has thrown its weight around to
block these initiatives for the past
four or five years. Um, and we succeeded
in doing that with Unatil because as
part of a settlement in their
distribution rate case, they agreed uh
to to move forward. I mean, they're
already well way ahead of the other
utilities on AMI and they're updating
their AMI systems and what they want to
do is move towards using individual
customer uh actual interval data for
daily load settlement. Um, which creates
huge opportunities for for folks like us
to help you know add value to customers
by improving their load shapes with
behind the meter battery storage for
instance. Um but moreover they're also
uh in that process of looking at updated
load settlement vendor uh they also
agreed that they would include in that a
provision that they account for exports
to the grid as as offsets to the
wholesale load requirements for each
supplier. Um and that would be the huge
change that we need. So, you know,
legislatively,
uh, the the fact that one utility is
saying, "Yeah, we think this is possible
and we're going to go down this road, it
sets the stage to push the other
utilities, Liberty, would already like
to go down that road, but Eversource is
the one that's most resistant." And that
creates an opportunity when they're not
all uh singing from the same song sheet
uh to to make progress to realize that
these are not crazy ideas we're talking
about. They're they're common sense
ideas and they're ones that should
appeal across the political spectrum.
>> Yeah, I'd say that I think um kind of I
agree with everything Cliff just said. I
think from like a a further 30,000 foot
view, I think when I when I look at it,
you know, everyone every elected
official from every party is very
concerned about electricity and
electricity rates and that's that's
something that is uh you know goes
through any sort of partisan you know
piece and they hear it a lot from their
constituents. Um and like any um
difficult issue, it's very complicated
and there's not a single like single
bullet approach that is going to be a
perfect fit. And that makes this issue
even more complicated and difficult in a
lot of ways. Um, and I think that
sometimes, as we've seen when it comes
to like utility ownership and, you know,
going back to monopoly days, it I think
that ends up being what some legislators
see as a um a simple solution to a a
complex issue. Um, but as as the case
was made years ago and is still being
made now, um, that that doesn't
necessarily go uh equate to uh better
results. And uh I think that what one of
the benefits that we have is that our
our posture and our positioning is one
of competition. Um which is something
that makes a lot of sense in New
Hampshire. Um which is a very purple
state and regardless of how election
results move one way or the other um you
know we we have elections every couple
years and and you you have a lot of
people return or come back. Um so you
know kind of investments you make on
messaging with people is is important
and impactful for a long period of time.
Um I think what's been interesting and
what will be interesting in the next
session too is that there is a growing
number of um you know Republicans who
are engaging on energy issues in a way
they haven't in the past and for them
you know it involves um you know nuclear
energy or the or the small modulars. So
I think that sometimes there's advantage
in like meeting people where they are
and finding ways to you know if if we're
going to find different ways for deers
to bring investment or better battery
storage bring investment how do we how
do we work with them to build a
framework that would allow for some of
these advancements but also make sure
that it's taking you know it's fixing a
structural system that's putting us in a
better competitive uh place moving
forward. So, um, having people being
interested in the issue, even if they
don't, you know, even if folks on either
party aren't, you know, purely aligned
with everything we want, you know,
finding ways that we can work with
people and finding ways for us to, um,
help rebuild, uh, a more competitive New
Hampshire electricity grid and, energy
supply and energy marketplace um, is
critical to CPC&H really being able to
to optimize its work for it membership.
So I think that um you know it's when I
look at it there's just a ton of
opportunity to work with a lot of folks
folks we haven't always necessarily been
able to work with or um and I think in
that there's uh you know a lot of
opportunity next session for for you
know continue advancements to to build
that kind of competitive place that we
want to be operating in.
>> Great. Thank you all so much for your
insights. I think it's really important
dialogue and uh now I'll turn it over to
Dena to get more into the bills um and
the results of those bills from this
past session. Go ahead Dina.
>> Great. Thanks so much Jackson. Thank you
Andrew and Cliff for sharing your
insights today. Um and I know you'll be
staying on with us for a bit. Um Andrew
may have to drop off in the next 15
minutes or so. Um so let's take a a big
a big picture look at what we were
engaged on this year. So CBC&H monitored
or engaged in some capacity on about 60
bills this session. Um there were 15
bills that we supported. There were six
bills that we opposed. There were a
number of bills that we didn't support
or or opposed but maybe we were
supportive of or opposed certain
provisions of them. So we had a separate
category this year of bills that we
engaged in. I think there were about 10
of those bills and then a number of
bills that we just were monitoring
because um didn't directly impact us um
or align with our legislative platform
but um you know we wanted to stay a
breast of the developments. So in terms
of um what the results are um so of
those 15 bills that we supported um more
than half of them eight of them have uh
gone to the governor's office. Um I know
that she's signed at least one of them
so far. Um another two um were referred
to interim study. Um so that's not a bad
thing um as it means that the concepts
could come back be introduced um next in
next year's session. And then there were
a number um mainly in house science tech
and energy committee that were sponsored
by Democrats that um just you know there
wasn't the political desire and will to
move them forward. this year. Um, but I
think there's, you know, some of them
had some worthy concepts that, um, you
know, may come back, uh, in in next
year's session. Um, and then turning to
the bills that we opposed, um, again,
two of them were the, uh, the bills that
would allow utilities to get back into
the business of owning, generation,
storage, distributed energy, again, for
market impact reasons, and we oppose
them. Um,
uh, there were a couple of other bills
like House Bill 10002 that would have
repealed the local tax solar tax
exemption. Um, and a few others. So, all
in all, not bad that, you know, two of
them died, one of them there was
non-concurred and, you know, three of
them are looking like they're making
their way to the governor. So, if we go
to the next slide, um I'm going to try
to do this in the next 10 minutes or so,
but I want to kind of run down um our
priority bills um which ones are still
in play, still moving, making their way
through the enrollment pro process with
through SOS, Secretary of State um or
they're awaiting um action by the
governor. Um, and then I want to open um
for some feedback and input from you all
uh at the end of this section before we
turn over to our regulatory and market
um update section. Um so one of our top
priority bills this year, House Bill
1718, as Cliff mentioned, would enable
battery storage and net metering. Wide
bipartisan support in both House and
Senate. It's um it made it through
enrollment um just earlier this week and
it's now headed to the governor's
office. Um, we have not received
indications that the governor won't sign
it. Um, I think and if Andrew can jump
in if he has any um, more immediate uh,
intel to share.
>> Nothing uh, nothing immediate other than
that. Um, you know, I've I've reached
out to the governor's office with both
these bills. They haven't expressed to
me any particular concern they have. So,
they were either still in the process of
reviewing um, or they or I imagine we
should be fine. But um I'm uh on my list
to check back in again and hopefully we
can have these things get signed.
>> Great. Thanks, Andrew. Yeah. So, that
brings us to the next bill, Senate Bill
590. Um it allows u municipalities to
utilize revolving funds to support their
electric aggregation plans um like a
number of these communities have uh
started or want to do in the future,
discretionary reserve outers so they can
uh acrew some funds to then support
local energy projects in their
communities. That bill also had wide
bipartisan support in both chambers.
It's headed to the governor's office. As
Andrew mentioned, we are uh we've
requested a some sort of a bill signing
ceremony um with the governor, you know,
if she's going to be signing those into
law. So, we'll keep folks posted um if
there's an opportunity to engage there.
Um next, we have House Bill 1535.
that is the infamous semicolon bill um
that I think was brought to the
attention of legislators in the upper
valley um by our own Clifton Bo uh makes
an important clarification for landfill
gas that it is eligible under New
Hampshire RPS as a class one resource
that also received bipartisan support
and it's headed to the governor's
office. Senate Bill 538, it extends the
eligibility term for municipal host um
net metering uh gener customer
generators to 20 years. Um this bill,
there was some pingpong. It was in
another bill, Senate Bill 449, that that
was ITL in the House. It then got put
into I think uh Senate Bill 221, which
was a bill we were just monitoring from
last year that came back, went to
committee conference, and the governor
vetoed it. So, the concept of the
20-year eligibility term um has moved
around in several vehicles. Now, it's um
back preserved in its original bill. Um
and I just want to share in terms of how
this would impact uh CBC&H
um for instance, poverty planes would be
able to net meter for 20 years instead
of 14 and a half years. So it just gives
that much assurity that those type of
generators between one and five megawws
um get to participate in the net
metering program. Let's go to the next
slide please. Um so next we have the
plug-in solar bill which is seems to be
everybody's favorite bill. Um there was
a lot of uh back and forth about um the
safety requirements and how to regulate
all of that. Um it was amended um in the
house uh to require compliance with
national safety standards and um it's
now on its way to the governor's office.
Uh House Bill 1742.
This is a bill that would protect uh net
metered customers um that get
inadvertently enrollled in community
power aggregation programs. Um it
provides protections by ensuring that
they get restored back to utility
default service within I think like five
days. Um and then they're also able to
receive retroactive credits for their
exports for up to four months. That bill
um also had pretty bipartisan support
and is on its way to the governor's
office. And then a a bill that wasn't a
top priority, but um you know, we like
to support things where they're aligned
and Senate Bill 440. It's a CPACER, so
it's commercial property assess clean
energy and resilience. Um this would
kind of streamline or fasttrack the
ability of municipalities to um adopt
clean energy and efficiency districts to
have these programs um instead of having
to wait uh to do it, you know, annually
at the town meeting. So that bill has
made it through and is on its way to the
governor's office. We'll go to the next
slide.
So there's some other bills still moving
as mentioned the two utility ownership
of generation. Senate bill 591 177 House
Bill 1775. They're both well the
governor did sign Senate Bill 591 um a
couple of weeks ago. 1775 is headed to
her desk. Um House Bill 1738. Um this
was also subject of some pingpong in um
some other committees of conference. The
the original language is now back intact
in the bill and it's important because
it ensures that New Hampshire doesn't
lose the benefits from participating in
the regional greenhouse gas initiative
or Reggie um program. Um and this was
one that had broad bipartisan support
and particular support from from Rep
Republicans. And you know, the bottom
line is New Hampshire would lose out on
money if they did not continue with the
program. So I think everybody thought,
well, if we're going to prioritize
affordability and lowering costs, we
need to be prepared to eat our cake,
too. So this was one that um they decide
they took for the team. And then Senate
Bill 599, it's a bill we were
monitoring. It it it fixes the renewable
energy fund raid. If you recall last
year through I believe it was the budget
trailer bill, House Bill 2, um they had
attempted to raid what was in the
renewable energy fund to transfer it to
the general fund. Um but apparently they
goofed when that happened. So this bill
actually fixes an error in last year's
bill and um it it does allow the raid of
the renewable energy fund, but it leaves
certain money for Department of Energy
administrative costs. It leaves up to a
million dollars in the fund to support,
you know, clean energy projects. Um, and
then the rest goes to the general fund.
That bill is going to the governor's
office. We'll go to the next slide. I
think there's two more. Um, so these are
just some of the bills that died in the
house. You all probably remember House
Bill 10002's solar tax exemption repeal.
Um, strong opposition by the BIA. I
think some of the businesses that
weighed in um before it went to the
floor really helped push it over the
edge. Clean Energy New Hampshire, NHMA
there, and us. Of course, there was a a
big coalition of folks that were um
opposing this bill and it died on the
floor on the House floor. Um House Bill
1542. Um this bill evolved from zeroing
out the renewable energy fund compliance
payments to becoming a study committee.
Um the Senate amended it that way, but
ultimately the House did not concur with
the Senate's version. um House Bill
1721. That bill would have um sunsetted
the RPS. Um it was amended and sort of
watered down in the House ST committee
to leave class three, classes three and
four intact. Those are the biomass and
small hydro uh resources. Um but it did
ultimately die on the House floor. Um
and then House Bill 1736, it repeals
alternative rate making. Um and that was
a bill that we engaged in and we um you
know helped educate the committee so
they could see that you know there there
is potential value in exploring
alternative regulatory and ratem options
and you know there the commission
shouldn't be that tool shouldn't be
taken away from the commission and uh us
and others also made similar arguments
and um we're pleased to see the
committee recommended that ITL which is
good that was a bill that was supported
by department of energy
And then the last bill on the slide,
1748. You all might remember it's the
White Mountain Power Authority. Um, this
was kind of a a way to take over energy
efficiency New Hampshire saves and um do
nuclear like long-term contracting by
creating this like not governmental but
sort of governmental agency to
administer that. Um there was a lot of
push back um by the energy efficiency
community. Um it was strongly supported
by DOE. Apparently DOE wrote um the bill
but um this house IC and energy
recommended interim study. Um they came
back earlier this month to deal with it.
Um and they ultimately recommended ITL
as the final recommendation.
>> To be clear, it wasn't actually ITL in
in the second year of the bienium.
uh uh bills that are referred to interim
study get a recommendation of either
recommended for future legislation
[clears throat] or not recommended for
future legislation. So they voted this
one unanimously not recommended for
future legislation. It doesn't prevent
somebody from bringing it back um in the
next session because it's not a really
it's just a recommendation. It doesn't
really carry any weight or finality.
>> Thank you for that clarification. That
is an error on my part and we will um
fix the slides before we share.
>> It's a little confusing what there is
some nuance to it. But yeah, Cliff's
right. The recommendation was not
recommending for future legislation.
Again, that doesn't stop anybody from
bringing back the bill as is as written
or you know some of the similar concepts
into legislation next year. All right,
we have one last slide to go on our bill
rundown. So, bills that died in the
Senate. Uh, I mentioned earlier Senate
Bill 449, that was the net metering
expansion bill up to 5 megawws for
commercial and industrial customers. It
also included that 20-year eligibility
term. Um, not surprisingly, you know,
when I got to the House, the House just
it that was the second attempt for that
bill to come before them. And earlier in
the session, I think they did some
maneuver that was like really judged it
as ITL, meaning that if it ever came
back again, you know, it was almost
guaranteed to get that recommendation.
Um, also a bill that died was Senate
Bill 597,
um, which was an interesting bill. We
didn't we didn't oppose or support, but
we did engage in it um around
performance-based ratemaking. It had
some interesting concepts. It was
referred to interim study. I don't
believe the Senate has come back to deal
with it yet. Um but there's some
worthwhile concepts and um hopefully
there will be vehicles for it to come
back and for CBC&H to engage. Um Senate
Bill 537 that's similar to the House
Bill 1736 would have repealed
alternative rate making um that was also
um ITL in the Senate. And then another
small bill that we supported was Senate
Bill 628 that would have enabled um more
streamlined EV curbside charging and
that was recommended for interim study.
So with that we'll go to the next slide
and uh I will mention that um one bill
that was signed into law earlier this
week even though it doesn't appear on
the bill docket to to have been signed
um is Sen is House Bill 1733. Um I know
Andrew mentioned it at the top, but this
was the default service um reform bill
that we had um introduced
last year session. Um and that bill died
on the table and you know we worked to
get it back there and we got some other
stakeholders and suppliers and
legislators to get behind it. The
version that came out of the House was
really good, was really strong, and then
it got to the Senate and the DOE and the
PUC had done some behind the scenes um
advocacy to undermine it and uh impress
upon the Senate that this bill wasn't
really needed and should be watered down
if if it was going to pass at all. Um so
sort of a compromise approach was they
would retain the cost shift general
prohibition but they would allow this
this opt um in the event of
extraordinary circumstances um that the
commission could make a determination
through an adjudicated proceeding. So,
it was a bill that ultimately we're
supportive of because it does the way
it's structured in the statute, it helps
to reinforce these other um policy
principles around default service um and
how default service should be
administered. Um but we are very, you
know, remain vigilant and concerned
about the bill's implementation in
particular with um the current situation
with liberties uh under collection and
its default service. We'll get to that a
little bit later. So we'll go next.
Um so looking ahead to the next bianium,
we can go to the next slide. I just
wanted to maybe um not now but I want to
um just open it up to any feedback. Um
you know what kind of opportunities do
you see for progress in the next
bienium? What priorities would you like
to see CBC and work on? Is there
anything you'd like to see us do more
of, less of, or differently? Um
definitely you can use the chat or feel
free to email any of us, Cliff, Jackson,
Andrew, myself. Um we can set up time to
chat. Um you could also think about
attending the Arlac uh summer planning
retreat coming up July 24th. Um but I do
want to pause before we segue into the
market and regulatory update section for
any um questions about the legislation,
anything that we've discussed so far.
Dana, what um this is Paul, I hope you
can hear me. What how much money did
they end up getting from the RAF? How
much did they take from it? 20 mil.
>> I don't know that. I'd have to come back
unless somebody on the call knows. It
was whatever was in there from last year
plus now this current year.
>> I would have to double check the number.
Um I'd say substantial, but I I'll
>> in the millions.
My recollection is perhaps on the order
of 3 to 5 million or something.
>> Oh, 3 to five. Oh, 3 to five. It's not
20, but that money is used for uh you
know, New Hampshire saves, isn't it?
>> No, it was used for um different
incentive programs to develop new um
renewable or distributed generation. Um
uh
>> so solar for example.
>> Yeah. Well, and they also had a a
competitive program
uh for proposals other than just PV and
you know some of the uh wood wood um
energy you know pal pallet boilers for
schools and public buildings and stuff
like that uh got funded uh through that
those competitive solicitations but all
that's kind of gone. They just use some
now for administrative support and all
the rest on an annual basis getting
redirected. The the the lump sum that
was transferred might have been
considerably bigger. U I I'm I was
probably thinking in terms of what goes
there in there perhaps annually um from
alternative compliance payments but
because DOE had not been spending the
money uh they let it build up so that
the the one time sweep might have might
have been larger.
>> Great. Thank you. Um, I don't see any
other questions at this time, so maybe
we can move to the next slide. And, um,
I think Henry H. Hearnden is up.
>> Henry, welcome.
The floor is yours.
>> Dina.
>> Uh, good afternoon everyone.
Um, I'm just going to briefly describe
competitive landscape and regulatory
updates. And really, I'll focus on the
expert witness testimony that Clifton
and myself filed in the Eversource
Energy Supply docket earlier this week.
And also noting on the uh testimony that
Dena and Clifton filed in the Liberty
case. Um, and
I think we'll maybe move to the next
slide.
Uh so folks uh likely received the
statement we put out on this sort of
summarizing the issue. They're sort of
come to light in recent months the
persistent and significant divergence
between utilities advertised rates and
the actual costs associated with their
power supply um resulting in these large
underreoveries um approximately 50
million as of the end of April across
the three utilities. uh and some of the
important questions this raises uh for
market design, competitive market
design, um and New Hampshire's energy
policy objectives, our legislative
energy policy objectives.
And actually before going to this slide,
if the whoever's controlling slides
could go back to that 1733 slide, uh I
just want to ground this in that uh yes,
right here. So really the focus of our
testimony on the Eversource case was um
unpacking whether or not the Eversource
default service rate is consistent with
state law uh and specifically the law
establishing default energy service as a
stable backs stop that does not defer
costs or unduly harm the competitive
market and whether that rate that is
said is just unreasonable. So I think we
focus on the amended language here in
the bl in the bold italics but what is
already in state law is this top part
which is important and [clears throat]
relevant. Uh this is where the policy
principles for design of utility default
supply are outlined. Um noting that as
competitive markets develop uh the
commission may approve these means of
providing transition or default service
that should be designed to minimize
customer risk not unduly harm the
development of competitive markets
mitigate against price volatility
without creating new deferred costs. So
that is the framework and that's some of
the questions that are raised and then
presented in these um current dockets
and some upgoing upcoming dockets. Um so
again sort of the broader question are
these rates just and reasonable? Do they
comply with law? Is it just and
reasonable for a distribution utility to
persistently and significantly set an
energy service right a non rate a non-
monopoly service uh beneath the cost of
that service um when this is really a
competitive market function. So
um some of the other questions that are
sort of pending and that are provoked in
these cases are uh how to recover these
large undercollections. In the ever
source instance um for the past three
periods or 18 months they have uh
underolcted each of those three periods
the running total balance is about 38
million. that may be slightly defayed by
some uh gains for the current and final
three periods of this rate period. Um
and then there's discussion of
recovering a portion of that moving
forward. Um and then another important
question is you know does the the method
in which the the regulators are setting
these utility supply rates if it uh if
it appears to structurally underpric the
market are there adjustments to that
methodology or are there alternatives to
providing default service that are
better aligned with state law and fair
market competition? So our testimony
addresses a lot of these questions. uh
we summarize the outcomes, the market
effects, uh the competitive implications
of this in conjunction with the state
policy objectives. Um and there are
competing objectives, right? There's an
objective to reduce costs, but also
written into New Hampshire law is the
objective to promote a free and very
competitive market, to promote customer
choice, to enable local control and
innovative local solutions to local
needs, to empower things like municipal
aggregation and community power. Um and
of course the law makes clear that
electric generation is not a competitive
service but it is or is a competitive
service. It is not a monopoly service.
Um so uh some interesting notes on this
as well. Uh a year ago CBC&H and another
one of our expert witnesses did provide
testimony and analysis essentially uh
looking at the method for setting these
utility proxy rates and demonstrating
that they were more likely to
undercover. Now we have the data and
that analysis is sort of proven out to
have occurred as was predicted by CBC&H
um about a year ago. Um and now the
question of how to how to uh recover
those costs um we're we're dealing with
that now. On the right just the graph
here is showing the proxy rate in the
light dotted line. So this is the rate
that was advertised by Eversource over
the last three periods. And then in the
dark blue you can see what the actual
cost of service rate would have been. Um
so for the middle and to the right
periods you know it's about a cent if
you average those out um in difference
between the actual cost and what the
advertised rate was. Um so of course uh
you know this is a problem for
competitive market development. If you
have these large and persistent
differences between the utilities
advertised rate and the actual cost
underlying that rate uh customers are
are still going to make decisions based
on those rates. Customers and
communities are going to make those
decisions. Um but those prices are not
an accurate reflection of the actual
underlying cost. So this is you know
colonists might call this a market
distortion.
Um, and it distorts the ability of
customers to make accurate and informed
decisions on rates that are accurate
reflections of those costs.
And we see this playing out in real time
in the state when you have perhaps a
media outlet or a TV station uh
presenting published rates in comparison
and you have customers or communities
making decisions based upon those when
again the rates are not accurate
reflections of costs. Um, I like the
term you used earlier Dina in terms of
asymmetrical market. Um I think that
applies in this case where again if
you're a regulated entity with certain
regulatory uh advantages um what does
that mean for the the fair development
of a marketplace? Um so there are
recommendations in the testimony um in
terms of some options to mitigate some
of these effects on the competitive
market. Um, we are recommending the
commission call for more frequent
reporting on uh actual costs and
revenues associated with utility default
supply service. Uh, so we can better
track and and more accurately reconcile
those under collections. Uh, and of
course, we're going to be working hard
to ensure these significant losses are
not, you know, shifted on to to
customers in the marketplace or
customers with local city and town
community power program. Um the final
thing I'll note is the while in the
short term there will be some rulings on
next period rates in the sort of summer
fall period. What we expect what CBC&H
is requesting is additional proceedings
to resolve some of these unanswered
questions. Does this fit with our state
legislative frameworks? Is this the uh
appropriate methodology for pricing
utility supply? How to recover these
under collections? some of those uh
topics are likely to unfold in the
coming fall. Um so uh I I don't know if
we have content on the Liberty one. Um
but I'll just speak we do. Perfect. So I
guess I'll pause there and then hand it
off to Dean. Are you going to cover this
one?
>> Yeah, I think um Cliff and I can chat
about this one.
>> Yes, please.
>> Um and I think Henry, there's a couple
of questions in the chat. Um, Eversource
again recently put out to its customers
that rates just come from regulators.
So, they're already pointing the finger
at the PUC ahead of the expected PR from
this topic. Okay, more a comment than a
question.
>> And just just to respond to that if I
can, it's it is an interesting conundrum
that comes from this regulatory compact,
right? We have this regulatory compact.
We've done this agreement where we said,
"Okay, uh we can have a monopoly service
for electricity distribution
[clears throat] because it only makes
sense to have one company running the
poles and wires. In exchange for that,
you'll subject yourself to state
regulation. So, we can have overset over
your rate setting. You can't abuse that
monopoly power to extort profit from
your captive customers. Uh but it
creates this dynamic where uh there's a
a constant sort of diffusion of
responsibility or fingerpointing as was
noted here. It's it's not the utilities
fault, it's the regulator's fault. Or
well, it's not the regular's fault, it's
the utility's fault. So, it is an
interesting dynamic that rises from, you
know, heavily regulated markets like
this one.
>> Yeah, thank you, Henry. That's helpful.
Um, so Liberty, um, and Liberty
represents a somewhat unusual
circumstance because of where it's come
from in the last year or so. Um so you
might recall last summer when they came
for the rate proposal to the commission
um they reported about an $8 million
under collection and part of that was
exacerbated because of their
forecasting. Um and so it kind of put
the commission on guard in terms of well
we're not if you're not quite clear why
this is such a big swing you know we
don't necessarily feel comfortable in
approving recovery for this we want to
adjudicate it further. So they said um
put half of it into a deferral account
and then put the other half into your
rates. The commission also said you know
assume that the town of Salem is not
launching its community aggregation
program and at that point it was kind of
somewhat understood within the utility
and the town of Salem, you know,
evidently um that there was plans for
Salem to launch last fall. Um so anyway,
the commission kind of asked them to
take the higher forecast um and then
because of Salem's launch uh and because
of the proxy price um that was directed
uh that was underpricing the actual cost
of service, it really exacerbated their
undercollection. So they were
essentially treading water over this
past year and that's what we learned
through discovery and then through their
subsequent proposal here in the last
week or so. Um and so the rest of the
case was um adjudicated earlier in April
and at that point there was some
agreement um by the OCA, CBC&H, the
Department of Energy and even Liberty um
for a path forward that would you know
readjust and start to collect some of
the outstanding balance starting May
one. So adjust their rates up to start
collecting um you know recognizing that
they had two other community aggregation
programs launching in May and June and
it would be far better to start
collecting some of that now than
pressing it off and then continuing to
grow that balance. Commission didn't act
until a few days ago right before
Liberty filed its um proposal um and
they basically kicked the can down the
road again. So now this is like the
third time that the commission has said
nope, you know, no recovery yet. We're
still not sure. And meanwhile, Liberty's
load has shrunk significantly. It, you
know, its load was already more or less
pretty small after our main launches in
2023. Um, and then there were some other
communities that launched in that in
that interim. Um, but in the last six
months, they've lost like a huge chunk
of their remaining load. So the
confluence of factors now creates this
uh situation perhaps untenable situation
where now in order to start recurring um
that balance they had to propose a rate
of over 21 cents and to you know I think
almost everybody that kind of
represented like a rate shock like oh
wait a minute like this is you know I
think a 50% more than a 50% increase
from their supply rate this year and
like an a 25% overall increase on the
bill. Um, so Cliff and I um submitted
testimony covering a lot of the same
issues that Henry um just laid out in in
the Eversource testimony. Um, and we
were a bit nimble because the situation
was evolving and fluid. Um so what ended
up happening was at the hearing we
proposed this sort of middle pathway um
that ended up being supported by the
OCA, the DOE and largely Liberty to
avoid this kind of rate shock but still
allow you know high enough level for
Liberty to start making meaningful
recovery of its undercollection balance.
So that number is 17.7 cents. Um so that
we put that out there. You know,
basically everybody kind of supported
that. Um the DOE at the beginning of the
hearing, you know, asked the commission
to take administrative notice of the
fact that House Bill 1733 had been
signed into law that morning, but I
guess hadn't been publicized yet by the
governor's office. Um so I think there
is some speculation and concern that
that was intended. Um because if we go
back to that slide, the provision for
enactment, it was originally 60 days
after passage, but when it went to the
Senate Finance Committee, they amended
it to um be go into effect upon passage.
So now that law is in effect now. So
there is concern that the commission uh
may take that provision um and again
they'd have to you know notice that
separately because that extraordinary
circumstance was not part of you know
this instant docket this proceeding. Um
so there is concern that they may kick
the can down the road yet again on
Liberty's um reconciliation. um it's
called ESAF, energy service adjustment
factor. Um so that could again distort
the rate at least initially for this
period. So we will continue to fight um
efforts to kick the can down the road
further and to try to shift recovery
into non-bypassable wires charges which
would be you know include our customers
and harm our customers and harm the
market. Um I'll stop there because I
know we're after two but Cliff you may
also have some additional insights.
Yeah, it seems maybe like he's okay.
Yeah, I was just going to note uh we are
we are over time. Uh maybe folks can
stay on for a little bit longer as we as
we wrap up, but we want to be cognizant
of that. We will have a recording if you
aren't able to uh uh hang out uh any
further with us this afternoon. Um but
why don't we keep moving through?
>> Yeah, we'll we'll be really quick the
next one. So we are expecting a decision
from the PUC in this case on Friday. Um
and then UNATIL it's a little bit less
nuanced. Um they came in with an
undercollection balance for this last
period which means this last year at
about 3 million. Um some of that is a
little bit offset because they I think
overcollected on the RPS. So it's not
it's a little bit wonkier than the other
two utilities. So they originally came
forward with a proposal of 14.47 47
cents um for the small customer group
including residential um and that was
based on the commission's December order
that said uh yes make changes to the
proxy price method um so instead of
doing it the way they had been doing it
before which you know really resulted in
um underpricing of actual cost across
the board more times than not just like
the testimony and analysis of Samuel
Golding um that he conducted for CBCH
last year um and moving to a six-month
reconciliation cycle instead of once a
year. Uh they said the day before UNETL
filed its proposal, we order you to go
back to the old method of forecasting
the proxy rates and going back to the
normal 12-month reconciliation period.
So, of course, you know, Unatil, they're
not able to change all of that a day in
advance. So, they filed this proposal.
um we got to the hearing and um you know
they said we can file another one
tomorrow. Um it just takes more than 24
hours to do all of this. So basically
their updated proposal it's a slight
decrease um in the in the rate for the
residential class. So it went from 4.47
to 4.269.
Um
it doesn't seem like there's much
controversy in that. Um so expect the
PUC to decide on that also by this
Friday. You know I would just warn
though that again because we know the
way they set they forecast the proxy
rates tends to undercolct because it's
not accurately pricing the true cost of
of supply service. Um this risks um this
risks putting units in a situation where
they have a greater underolction um or
possibly they're not able to recoup the
full $3 million balance um that they
will be recruiting starting acrewing
recouping starting August 1. So that's
that. Um I think the next slide is just
a couple of other regulatory updates
things that we're following. The DOE has
two rulemakings uh net metering and
interconnection. Net metering ones were
adopted by the JL card. It's the joint
legislative committee on administrative
rulemakings. Um the interconnection
rules, the CN 1000 rules received
conditional approval. Um however,
there's another hearing this Friday,
tomorrow, um on them. And then there's
two investigations that we're monitoring
and participating in. Um, one is the
nuclear generation investigation. Um,
and that's per the governor's executive
order from March which directs the
department of energy to do this
investigation and then ultimately come
up with a roadmap um for uh how New
Hampshire can incorporate nuclear, you
know, into its into its picture in a way
that's safe, uh, compliant,
cost-effective, um, and has stakeholder
alignment. So, they're having a
three-day public session next week. Um,
Cliff and I will be attending um parts
of that. Um, there is a public comment
se session scheduled for Thursday all
day or between 9 and 3:30. So, any
communities that may be interested in
attending and expressing their, you
know, interests, concerns, voice about
those matters, um, definitely you can
find that on the Department of Energy's
website. um and just use this INV
2026-00001
to get the um the information.
All right, last slide I think is just
upcoming events. Um so we have a member
rate setting workshop coming up next
Wednesday. Um all members are invited so
we'll have even more updates on the
utility default service cases because we
should have orders for UNIL and Liberty
by then. Um and we will have a proposal
from Eversource. Um actually later today
we should have that and then of course
Arlac is having its summer planning
retreat. It's going to be July 24th all
day at Primes. So thank you all for
joining. Um I'm happy to stay on a few
extra minutes if there's any burning
questions but feel free to follow up
with any of us. Thank you so much for
your time and attention.
>> Yeah, thank you Dina. Thank you Cliff. I
believe Andrew hopped off but thank you
to Andrew as well and Henry. appreciate
all of your active participation in this
session. Um, looking at the chat, you
know, Bruce Tucker had a question about
if HB1 1733 goes into immediate effect,
does it impact the current rate dockets?
I think you did speak to that, Dina,
that there is a potential that that
language, you know, could be utilized um
as part of these dockets. Of course,
we're we're hoping that, you know, it's
implemented in a just and reasonable
way.
And then I'm not seeing really there
were some other comments in the chat um
but no
questions necessarily but if folks have
any questions feel free to speak up or
raise your hand otherwise we can close
out.
Okay. Hearing none. Seeing none,
[clears throat] everyone have a great
rest of your day. Take care.
>> Thanks everybody. Have a good day.