All towns · cpcnh

2026 Legislative Preview Webinar | CPCNH Energy Policy & Bill Outlook

Video

Good morning. Welcome everybody and
apology for our delayed start having a
little bit of technical issues on our
end. Um so we'll soon be bringing up the
slides for today. So thank you for
joining CBCNH today for our 2026
legislative preview. Um where you're
going to hear from Andrew Preventure,
CBCNH's consultant um as well as myself.
um about everything you should be
prepared to expect for next year's
legislative session um with a deeper
dive look into many of the energy um
policy issues that are going to be
considered next year and how they may
impact CPC&H
um and and what positions CPCNH may be
taking on those bills.
All right, hopefully everybody can see
the slides. Send us a note in the chat
if you cannot.
Um great. So again, welcome to today's
legislative preview. Um, just as some
brief housekeeping, we will be recording
the session and making it available for
CBC&H members as well as registered
attendees. Um, in terms of the Q&A
protocol, um, we will be opening up a
Q&A session toward the end. Um, you
know, if you have a burning question uh
while while we're talking, feel free to
put that in the chat. Um during the Q&A
session, you can either use the chat
feature or um simply raise your hand and
uh Nick, Jackson, Kaspari or myself will
call on you. Um and then lastly, slides
from this presentation will also be sent
out to members and attendees.
So if we could go to the next slide.
So again, today's speakers, um, myself,
Dina Dennis, I'm director of regulatory
and legislative affairs with CBCNH. I'm
also joined by Andrew Preventure,
principal with Main Street Strategic.
Um, Andrew, I'm going to call him
political strategist extraordinaire and
New Hampshire state house specialist. Um
he serves in the capa dual capacities as
consultant to CPC&H for both our
communications and media as well as our
lobbying and government affairs.
So we could go to the next slide. So for
the agenda today for the next 80 84 and
a half minutes or so um kind of set the
stage in terms of grounding in the
objectives for today. Um, we're going to
hear from Andrew who's going to give us
some updates around the political and
policy landscape and what we can expect
next in next year's session. Um, then
I'll overview some of the key energy
proposals that will be considered next
year um with a deep dive into three
priority bills for CBC&H. Then we'll um
round off the session with Q&A um and a
wrap-up.
So with that we can go to the next
slide.
So, as a reminder, this next year will
really be a pivotal year as we lay the
groundwork for future legislation to
enable CBC&H's New Hampshire Energy
Forward vision um for a local
marketplace for distributed energy. Um,
by the end of today's session, my goal
is for you to better understand the
energy policy landscape for next year,
including some of the key drivers,
identify legislative opportunities to
advance community power and local energy
innovation, and identify key bills of
impact to CBC&H as well as our tenative
positions on them.
If we could go to the next slide.
Great. So, at this time, I'd like to
welcome Andrew Preventure. Um, and
before I turn over to him, Andrew, I
wanted to kind of tee up this
conversation. Um, so as we head into the
session next year, what are some of the
major political dynamics that you see
shaping legislative activity overall and
where does energy fit into that picture?
>> Absolutely. Uh, thank you all. Great to
be here. I always love uh chatting with
the folks at CPC&H. So, um I would say
that um you know in in New Hampshire
with the the two-year bianium, the the
first year is very budget focused and
dollars and cents focused and the second
tends to be a little bit more on the
policy side. Um you know, you have folks
that are going to be heading into uh
potential election year. Um and I think
certain issues, uh you know, appeal to
the general public, uh greater than
others. Uh so I think that you know one
of the one of the pieces that will
really be driving a lot of the
conversations uh in conquered are one
going to be how budget revenues continue
to roll in. Uh first 6 months were
lagging quite a bit. Um last month
started to see a little bit of an
increase in the revenues as um Senator
uh Senator Lang said that he kind of
expected there to be a lag and then it
you know bring it up. Reason why that's
important is because the the less money
the state has available or the more of a
looming deficit or debt that there is um
you know the more of the appetite
changes from um maybe larger policy
goals and more into you know what is the
bare minimum things that we need to
accomplish or do right now. Um, so I
think that energy is going to be one of
those issues where seems like there's a
lot of different um, folks that are kind
of getting into the energy realm that
weren't normally folks who you thought
of right away when it came to energy
policy. Um, and I know we'll kind of go
into that in a little bit, but like one
example I'd give you would be a
Representative Joe Sweeney from Salem.
Uh, that's a community power town
through um, I believe Freedom. and um
and you know he has legislation now
that's kind of talking about uh kind of
larger concepts in regards to energy but
he's he's not necessarily been someone
who's been a you know energy policy
leader uh but I think that uh as
community powers expanded and you know
brought different um interest levels
into different you know uh towns and
communities you're kind of gaining some
different uh legislators who are
interested in it. So I think that the
role that energy could play and energy
policy could play in this session I
think partially falls along the lines of
you have rates that are high that impact
people and you know voters are you know
hoping and having an expectation that
elected leaders are going to do
something about that and what that is
you is kind of to be determined.
>> Great thank you for that Andrew. Um, so
in terms of the governor, um, from your
vantage point, what do you see as the
governor's likely priorities on energy
this year and how might they influence
what ultimately moves forward?
>> Yeah, I think that the the governor
should have an interesting role on
energy. Um, you know, that she's been,
you know, pretty honest that she has a a
true uh all of the- above energy
approach. Um, and I think that, uh, in
some of her public comments, she's
talked about, you know, it really coming
down to what's the what's the cost basis
and and what's the going to be the
return on investment on on what energy
um, you know, the state would move
forward with or incentivize in some way.
Um so you know one of the first kind of
interesting pieces is uh there's a
carryover bill from last session uh
Senate Bill 106 and if that having to do
with net metering um if that bill uh is
you know somehow kind of resurrected in
the house and is sent to the governor's
desk that would be one of the first kind
of interesting uh conundrums that she
would face. Um I think energy policy is
going to be connected to the governor in
a lot of ways because it's just a staple
issue in New Hampshire affects a lot of
people. we are heading into election
season. It could be uh kind of an
interesting role for her to uh expand
some of her priorities of what she's
focused on so far and perhaps you know
lead on some of energy policy as well.
>> Great. Thank you for that. Um so turning
back to the legislature, can you give us
a sense of how leadership in the House
and the Senate is viewing energy policy
going into next year? where where might
we see alignment and where are some of
the friction points?
>> Yeah, I think that the uh some of the
areas I think that energy is definitely
on the mind of of every elected official
and that's certainly true for the
majority office um and the Senate
President's office. I I think that the
New Hampshire Senate has uh typically in
the past been supportive of, you know,
some concepts like expanding net
metering. Um, and I I think that that's
been an area that the House
historically, House majority uh hasn't
necessarily um, you know, felt like the
dollars and cents made made sense there.
Um, it does feel like with some of the
legislation that's been putting together
that the the focus of some members of
the of the House Republican caucus have
been in, you know, perhaps eliminating
um items like the RPS or um eliminating
certain kind of renewable aspects that
are part of state state law. Um the
Senate hasn't necessarily been on board
with some of those wholesale changes.
So, I think that could be some of the
friction point. Uh I do think that there
is an opportunity for uh kind of looking
at the energy landscape in New Hampshire
and there being opportunities within
both chambers. Um and I I give an
example of that would be you know things
along the lines of like battery storage
for instance. Um, and I I do think
there's a compelling argument that CPC&H
has been uh at the forefront of of
trying to ensure that we have a more
competitive marketplace, uh, a more
competitive energy marketplace and that
there might be some, you know,
bureaucratic or red tape items that, you
know, could be tweaked or fixed to help
spur additional competition within New
Hampshire's energy landscape. Um and I
think that's going to be something that
could have um you know an interest on in
both chambers.
>> Great. Thank you for that. Um so turning
to the committee dynamics. So in the
Senate we have the energy and natural
resources committee primary jurisdiction
over energy issues and and areas of of
uh consequence and impact of CBC&H. Um
then in the house you have the science
technology and energy committee. Um and
then of course you have some other
committees where there are times our
interests um overlap but primarily we're
engaging and interfacing regularly with
how Senate Energy and Natural Resources
and House Science Tech and Energy or STE
um so based on the committee makeup um
and some leadership leadership shifts
that we've seen over the past few months
um what should we anticipate from both
those committees in terms of posture and
priorities? Yeah, I think that um I
think that there's been I think you know
historically uh there seems to been you
know quite a bit of legislation that's
gone through you know centered energy
that um wasn't necessarily viewed
favorably about house science and tech
and vice versa. So I think there's
probably maybe a certain degree of like
um philosophical uh difference on energy
polic
that's probably something that's going
to still remain. Um we have seen you
know over this in the last session uh
you know some bills having to do with
energy that that were able to get
through the finish line. So um I think
that's probably a relationship that's
continuing to grow and build. Um, I I do
think that the it I would imagine the
the legislation having to do with energy
policy that has the largest likelihood
to be successful in this session will be
uh you know smaller targeted bills that
are looking to kind of correct or fix um
specific areas in in regulation or law.
um and probably less so on very very
large conceptual pieces that um have a
lot of moving parts to it. Um so I think
that you know energy is energy policy is
obviously one that I think is um you
know can be very complicated for you
know folks and legislators and there's a
lot of uh input and information and uh
different vantage points that that kind
of align with with what you need to know
in order to kind of have a a
philosophical opinion on on some of
these items. Um, so I think that that
that leads to um, you know, sometimes
bills becoming very complex and
complicated and uh, I think that you'll
you'll probably see uh, more more get
done with kind of narrowed approaches
uh, than with kind of larger, you know,
30,000 ft overhaul views.
>> Great. Thank you for for that. Um so
where do you see the most realistic
opportunities for bipartisan agreement
on energy issues this year? And without
um spoiling too much of what we're going
to get into in the next se section, um
we certainly see some different ideas
and approaches in terms of what you know
the utility role or the government role
should be in um you know owning
operating generation assets, procuring
power. Um yeah. So what do you see as
some of the most realistic opportunities
for agreement? You mentioned battery
storage. Do you think we we have a bill
in the House, it has some sponsorship in
the Senate. Do you think that's a
vehicle or are there any other um
vehicles for bipartisan agreement this
year?
>> Yeah, I think that's certainly one of
the vehicles. Um I think that uh you
know storage is something that I think
folks are are interested in. I think
everything related to like the you know
deers are going to be something that's
going to be at the forefront of of you
know how we can you know value these and
and what kind of uh benefit it can be
brought to to the grid. Um, I think that
also, you know, kind of something that
connects to the legislature but is
maybe, you know, a little bit outside of
it is, you know, you have a a PU a new
PUC commissioner who's going to be
appointed by the governor. um you know
you've had you know through uh some of
the you know recent kind of PUC
decisions and kind of uh some of the you
know public uh comments from the
governor's office um towards the PUC
with some of kind of the you know rate
setting items that I know that have been
at the forefront. I think that there's
just kind of a lot of uh movement in the
energy space that I think will
eventually kind of bleed into the
legislature perhaps. um wanting to
course correct items from the PUC or
perhaps um you know make items you know
clearer. So um you know I think we're
kind of getting this uh little bit of a
a scope where the the PUC and some of
those decisions are affecting
legislators and what they want to move
forward with uh in each session. So, I
think there's kind of like a a little
bit of the, you know, tail wagging the
dog on on some of those some of those
pieces. Um, but I I think for when it
comes to this session, things that
actually might be able to get through
the finish line, you know, like we said,
storage is one. I think that items that
are, you know, a narrow focus would be
are helpful. Um, but I I do think that
uh energy one way or the other will be
at the forefront, one of the top three
issues in in the legislature this
session just because it's, you know,
it's connected directly to a lot of
people and voters and it's something
that is um, you know, certainly in the
winter something that definitely is, you
know, front and center of a lot of
people's minds. So, I think they're um
there's been a long time where we
haven't seen necessarily a lot of um uh
movement on the energy space in New
Hampshire and I think that uh the the
public is is looking for some leadership
from folks on it. So, I'd imagine that
the issue will, you know, continue to
be, you know, a hot button top issue.
>> Thank you for that. Um, you know, one of
the things that I've heard and, um, I'll
say some of my hallway conversations is
that, um, the legislature will have
even, um, heightened scrutiny over costs
and if it's not a bill that will reduce
costs for consumer, energy costs for
consumers, it's not going to move
forward. Is that something that you've
also heard? And, you know, is there any
other insight that you could share about
that? Yeah, I think that it's um I think
that's probably got some absolute truth
to it. Um and I think that what can be a
different a difficult argument to make
sometimes is kind of the the long-term
investment aspect that some of these
bills could, you know, yield very large
long-term benefits. Um, but I think that
there is a I think that that the
legislature is feeling that the their
voters, the public are coming to them
and saying we're spending too much on
electricity and they probably feel or at
least some of them feel that uh the
answer back to them can't be well we
just need to raise it a little bit more
and then it's going to be better in the
long run. So um I think that that's you
know not a proposition that they feel
like is a winning one at this moment.
So, I think a lot of the focus is going
to be how can we how can we bring down
rates or what can we do to show that
we're actively working to try to
accomplish that goal.
>> Yeah, I I agree with that. Um, so given
all of that, what should CPCNH and our
our members as well as any others that
may be joining this webinar today that
may be working on the technology
innovation front, um, what should we be
paying close attention to? Um, as we
enter the session next year,
>> I I think it's really important to one
continue to position CPC&H as an
industry leader that is going to bring,
you know, really uh, bright minds and
smart folks to the table. And we want
folks in the legislature to think of
CPC&H when they think of any sort of
energy policy. And I think one way we
can uh potentially position that is as
we continue to meet with elected
officials and offering them, you know,
help, guidance, support, um, and let
them know that, hey, if you have a bill
that's coming on, like, we'd love to
take a look at it and have, you know,
our experts and our communities that are
facing these, you know, every day and
have a connection with them have them
apply input to this process. And I think
if we can be a value ad for legislators,
it'd be very beneficial for the
organization as a whole and all the
member communities. Um, so as kind of as
bills pop up, you know, whether they're
large or or small, I think being able
to, you know, provide comment, uh, when
that's when that's needed and to provide
expertise are all things that will help
to kind of build that value proposition
for legislators when they think about
working with CPCH. Um, so I think that's
one of the ways that, um, we can be very
impactful. uh and also I think sometimes
it's you know getting some of the
incremental change can help uh lay a
path for kind of larger structural
changes in the coming sessions um which
won't won't necessarily you know happen
right away but I think that if you've if
you're building a coalition of folks who
uh know that uh CPC and agents member
communities are are invested in kind of
helping get to get New Hampshire energy
policy right. Uh, I think that that'll
be a kind of a winning combination in
the long run.
>> Thanks, Andrew. And that's a perfect
segue to the next se section. Um,
however, I do want to take a moment to
pause. We are a little bit ahead of
schedule and I want to open it up to any
questions, clarifying questions of
Andrew um, at this time. So again, feel
free to um, put that into the chat um,
or raise your hand and we will call upon
you.
Any burning questions for Andrew?
I'm not seeing anything at the in the
chat at this time.
>> All right, we'll keep
>> taking a look for hands.
>> Keep holding on to those thoughts and
we'll get back to you um later later in
the session. Um all right, so we're
moving on to um an overview of some of
the key proposals that we're going to
see um next year. Uh before we get into
that, I do want to just briefly comment
on CBCNH's process for how we take a
position on a bill. Um I want to just
alert you to our um bill tracker that's
available on our website. Um the
hyperlink, all of this will be in the
slides. Um all of that's available to
members and the public. We contract with
a service called Fast Democracy. Um, so
they pulse updates I think every second,
seven seconds that get pulsed to our
website. So you can sign up for
individual bill updates. Um, we also
offer um more customized bill updates.
So if it's something you want on a
weekly basis, feel free to reach out to
me and we can put you on that list. Um,
and then lastly, I also want to mention
um CBC&H's legislative platform that was
approved earlier this year um with some
administrative updates uh earlier this
fall by the board and that really lays
out our legislative and policy
priorities um and sets the stage for the
kinds of policies that we will support
um or oppose um in the legislative
session. Um but just to comment on the
process for how CBCNH takes a position.
So we have our our regulatory and
legislative affairs committee also known
as ARLAC. Um and that committee is
comprised of nine regular members and
now two alternate members. Um so we've
had a growing um growing interest in
that committee which is great. So that
committee essentially vets goes through
and vets every single bill of potential
consequence to CPC&H um and they ensure
that it fits within the legislative
platform. And then from there they make
a recommendation uh as to whether CBC&H
will support, oppose or simply monitor
um the bill and that goes to the board
and then the board um you know approves
that position. Um or you know if they
don't agree with that they would send it
back to the Arlac committee for further
review. Um and again the bill tracker is
available. If you go to the homepage and
you go to the top right and you click on
advocacy, it is the button that appears
underneath um bill tracker. Um and we'll
be updating that um with the 2026 bills.
I think most most what you will see
right now are all the bills from this
past year. Um we're in the process of
reviewing and taking positions on the
bills for this year. So I would expect
that tracker to be updated um in early
January.
So in terms of um overall energy
proposals, I would say the session is uh
still a bit of defense around um local
control um and advanced energy
innovation. Um what I did there were
about 40 bills that um Arlac and I have
flagged um as of potential interest or
impact of CBC&H. What I did was I
categorized them into six main areas. Um
so the first category is about community
power and local energy innovation. The
second is about deer market development
and innovation. Third is about utility
structure and oversight. Fourth um
positive market impacts. Five adverse
market impacts. And then sort of a
catchall bucket um which I just in I
labeled as other. So, we can go to the
next slide. Um, I'm going to try to be
brief. Um, and and certainly a lot of
bill language just became available in
the last few days. I know there was some
bill language that came available late
last night that I did not get a chance
to review and work into this
presentation. Um, probably what I'll do
is I'll go ahead and update that um so
that when we send the slides out to you
um next week, you'll have at least the
latest information that we have. So, um
I'm going to try to be brief. I did
reserve a little bit more time for the
three um priority bills for CBC&H at
this time. Um but definitely if I said
something um that you know caught your
attention um you know feel free to flag
that for me later in the Q&A or um put
your question in the chat. Um so in
terms of community power and local
energy innovation um really three bills
that I see as in that category. So,
first one is Senate Bill 440
um relative to the adoption of energy
efficient and clean energy districts by
municipalities
sponsored by Senator Dan Inis um Senate
President uh Sharon Carson as well as uh
Representative Birdsell
um and maybe Senator Bzil. Anyway, um so
this bill modifies the requirements for
um essentially the CPACER program by
municipalities. It gives the town
governing body the authority to adopt
the provision um to create these
districts after holding at least one
public meeting instead of having to do
it via the town meeting which only
happens once a year. Um it also gives
the governing body authority to get rid
of or dissolve the district in the same
manner. So, it helps cut down some of
that bureaucratic red tape. Um, Senate
Bill 590, uh, the title is a bit of a
misnomer. Um, but what the bill intends
to do is to authorize municipalities to
be able to use revolving funds to
support energy services under approved
electric aggregation plans. Um, and it
does this by adding a new subp paragraph
in the revolving fund statute, which is
RSA 3195-H
Roman 1. Um, it inserts a new
subparagraph to do that. Um, and this
this is a pri one of the priority bills
for CBC&H. Um, it came out of interest
by members who were wanting to um, you
know, do more things. um particularly
with discretionary reserves um and
feeling limited in terms of the the
spending vehicles that were available to
them to do that. Um, and I'll just say
that this law has been amended from time
to time to provide for various purposes
um, including most more recently um,
facilitating transactions relative to
municipal group net metering um, and
then financing for energy conservation
and efficiency and clean energy
improvements CPACER um, uh, pursuant to
RSA 53F.
um LSR 2786
um relative to the protection of
customer generators from inadvertent
enrollment and third-party electricity
supply programs. Um this bill addresses
a rather acute issue where there has
been um net meter generators that have
been inadvertently enrolled in community
power programs um largely as a result of
utilities not identifying them um to to
community power providers in advance of
um launching programs. Um, current PUC
rules require utilities to provide this
information um, ahead of launch and and
flag whether customers are net metering
customers. Um, but there have been some
instances where this has not happened.
Um so this bill and at least again the
language isn't available yet but at
least an earlier draft that we had seen
would ensure that once um once notified
of such an enrollment the utility would
have to promptly investigate and restore
the customer to default service within
five business days. Um it also requires
um retroactive compensation for any loss
net metering credits um for up to six
months. Uh I see this bill as helpful to
CBC&H
um and to the market um as we've
encountered a few of these instances. Um
so this bill would provide a fair and
consistent process for addressing it in
the limited instances that that it's
come up.
So we can go to the next slide.
So deer market development and
innovation um just five bills. Uh
certainly there's other bills that might
fit in this category, but you know,
tried to keep it to one slide where I
where I could. Um Senate Bill 449 um
appears to be a verbatim redux of Senate
Bill 106 from this past year. Um that's
the bill Andrew mentioned earlier that
would expand net metering for commercial
and industrial customers up to 5
megawws. Um that bill is supported by
the New Hampshire Business and Industry
Association or the BIA and Clean Energy
New Hampshire. Um but ultimately stalled
in the House due to um Republican
leadership and and folks on the Science
Second Energy Committee having concerns
over costs and cost shifting as well as
some other mechanics with the bill.
Um the House committee earlier this fall
recommended that it be referred for
interim study, which is essentially a
New Hampshire death with dignity um for
a bill. Uh but we'll see because now it
has another life in 2026. Um Senate Bill
540. This is um I think one of the more
exciting ones. It's the plug-in solar
bill designed to enable greater access
to distributed solar at the small scale.
So it limits um up to 1,200 watts. um
allowing this to happen outside of net
metering and be exempted from
interconnection requirements
um and and do so in a way that helps to
offset a portion of a customer's
electric consumption. Um the bo the bill
is mo modeled after a Republicanled bill
that passed in Utah last year. Um
there's bipartisan and biccameal
support. Um, but I'll note that no,
there are no House Republican sponsors
on it yet. Um, I think this is a bill
that CPC&H will be interested in and and
may possibly support. Um, Senate Bill
628 um enabling curbside EV charging. Uh
the bill creates licensing and tracks
for municipalities and the state to
allow um essentially like an adjacent
host that has excess capacity to run
wire under public right rates of ways um
like sidewalks, roads um to power EVs,
EV charging. Um it also affirms that
owners and operators of these curbside
charging stations are not public
utilities.
um LSR2724.
This is something that representative
Tony Kaplan um had engaged with us on um
its attempt at creating utility programs
for virtual power plants or distributed
power plants. Um while at least some of
the language we had seen earlier uh
would also open it up for thirdparty
providers like CPC and H to be able to
offer these kind of services. Um, again,
this bill language is not available as
of this writing, but we're seeing more
and more come out every day, so it
probably will be available soon. Um, and
then LSR 3100, I'm just flagging this is
a priority for clean energy New
Hampshire as well. Um, it relates to
thirdparty inspections for solar. It
builds off of um, Senate Bill 188 from
last year. It gives municipalities the
ability to work with thirdparty
providers for rooftop solar arrays.
that's not part of municipal
jurisdiction. Um, Representative Joe
Sweeney from Salem and apparently there
are others that are sponsoring it.
We can go to the next slide.
Okay, so these bills relate to utility
structure and oversight um Senate Bill
518
uh relative to asset condition projects.
Um, I took a look at this and it it
appears to put some parameters around
transmission asset condition and
replacement projects. Um, I would guess
that it has has to do with Eversource's
X178 transmission line that's they're
working on um upgrading in the North
Country um which has been controversial
due to its cost, environmental impact,
stakeholder engagement or lack thereof
and regulatory scrutiny um because these
type of projects are not subject to the
same level of regulatory scrutiny that
new transmission projects are. So, next
we have Senate Bill 537,
uh, repealing the authorization of the
PUC to approve alternative forms of
regulation. Um, also seeing this as a
somewhat knee-jerk response to the PUC
decision and the Eversource distribution
rate case earlier this year. Um, I
personally see this as an unfortunate
development. Um, as I see that the
answer is not to throw the baby out with
the bath water, but to really examine
how our regulatory structure may need to
evolve and adapt to a changing energy
landscape and marketplace. Um, and in
contrast to that, you have Senate Bill
597,
um, which I think at this time only has
Democrat sponsors. Um, and it takes a
different approach by prohibiting the
PUC from approving an energy rate that
exceeds the previous year's rate after
adjusting for inflation. Um, and then it
also does something that is really
interesting, I think, in it that it
directs the PUC to implement performance
incentive metrics for utilities,
including evaluating whether a totex
approach to rate making should be
established. Um, and not to get in the
weeds, but a totex is a form of
regulatory accounting and incentive
framework used in um performance-based
regulation models um such as the one
used in the United Kingdom. It combines
um capital expenditures or capex and
operational expenditures or opex into a
single expenditatory category. So that's
how you have toex um rather than
treating them separately. And why This
is significant. Um while the traditional
cost of service regulation that's the
predominant form in the US um
uh where utilities are they're
financially rewarded for the capital
expenditures that they make. They earn a
rate of return on these rate based
assets. Um, and many argue that this
creates a perverse incentive that causes
utilities to favor those traditional
wires infrastructure over lowerc cost
operational solutions like distributed
energy resources, non-wires alternatives
or advanced software which could help
solve the same problems more
effectively.
Excuse me. Um, LSR 2335.
This is also an interesting one
sponsored by Representative Joe Sweeney
um of Salem. It seeks to create a
statewide quasi public energy authority
for New Hampshire. Um so similar to some
of the power authorities like exist in
New York and Illinois. Um my
understanding is that the intention here
is to strengthen New Hampshire's energy
independence, affordability, and
long-term resilience. um and is uh
attempts to be an outside of the box
solution to address persistent price
volatility um and infrastructure gaps
that uh are a burden to New New
Hampshire rate payers uh especially
during peak winter demand and you know
associated regional fuel constraints.
Um, CBCNH, we met with Representative
Sweeney earlier this fall. Um, he was
very interested to get our feedback on
it. Um, as well as learn more about um,
community power and New Hampshire's
history with utility restructuring and
market competition um, and how this
proposal might impact community power.
Um, again, I think it's an innovative
approach um to address some of the
pressing challenges that face New
Hampshire's energy system, but there's
many questions um that are remain and
details that um have not been addressed,
at least in the earlier version that we
saw. So, we'll wait and see what the
final language is that gets introduced
um and of course share that with
members. Um LSR 2605. Um this bill is
designed to enable the securization um
for storm costs incurred by utilities.
Um, so basically if the PUC approves
recovery of costs associated with storm
recovery, a utility instead of just
putting them into uh their traditional
way of recovering through rates, they
could utilize um a bond vehicle um which
could be more financially advantageous
to rateayers since it could be recovered
over a longer period of time and at a
lower interest rate. Um, I know that
other states have uh tackled some
securization legislation. I'm thinking
Colorado is one in the last few years.
And because I see somebody here from
Colorado who probably knows a bit more
about that, um, it's it's a vehicle
that's been used to help with um the the
transitioning um of uh a lot of like
legacy fossil fuel plants.
Um, LSR 2705,
just trying to make this a little bit
bigger for myself. I realize the font is
very small. Um, requires utilities and
electric grid operators to assess and
report the vulnerability of high voltage
transformers to GMD and EMP disturbances
um, and to recommend mitigation measures
to protect state infrastructure. This is
coming from um some folks on House
Science, Tech, and Energy um
Representatives Matson and and Doug
Thomas as well as um Representative
Keith Ammon who is part of Rep House
House Republican leadership. um
when when ST&E met um to to to consider
the uh retain bills um they had
mentioned Representative Thomas and
Matson had mentioned participation in a
National Council of State Legislators or
NCSL event earlier this year where um
this issue was kind of a focal point. I
think they the organization NCSL adopted
some type of policy resolution that will
drive some of their federal advocacy. So
I think this is in response to what they
see as you know something that New
Hampshire should be uh looking out for
and you know preparing to address.
Um and then next we have LSR 2955
which directs the DOE to study the
portion of electric distribution costs
that are attributable to fixed versus
usage based charges. Um and these
sponsors are all from House Science
Second Energy. Um LSR 3098
um is the House House's version of
Senate Bill 537
um repealing the authority of the PUC to
approve alternative forms of regulation.
Again, bill text is not available. So I
don't have um any more details on on
those bills. So if we go to the next
slide.
Okay. I thought always best to start
with the positive before we talk about
the negative. So what are some of the
bills that I see as having positive
impacts to New Hampshire's energy
market? Um or potential positive
impacts. I would say the first bill is
is maybe a question mark. Um but
certainly worth consideration. Senate
Bill 539 relative to eligible biomass
technology and the renewable portfolio
standard. Um we met with some of the
folks that are um behind this bill. Um
it's it's an attempt to align all
biomass in New Hampshire into class 3
renewable energy certificates or Rex by
making some modifications to class 3. Um
including taking the Burgess biomass
plant out of class one and moving it
into class 3. Um, the bill would result
in an overall slate reduction to the RPS
by 2%, but it also takes away the
Department of Energy's authority to
reduce class 3 requirements, which
they've done in recent years. It is a
priority of the New Hampshire Timberland
Association. Um, we were informed by uh
the folks there that the the version of
this bill um that got put out by OS is
incorrect. um and they're working on an
amendment to replace it. Um Senate Bill
1290, uh this is a redux of House Bill
761 from last year, which provides some
clarification to DOE and PUC authority
over rulemaking and tariff approvals. It
also clarifies that storage is eligible
to participate as part of net metering.
Um I'm just going to note, it's
interesting that um Senator Avard uh
signed on to this one. um he had not
signed on to the bill from last year. Um
but I think that's a positive. Uh LSR
2569
um is also a redux of a bill from this
past year, House Bill 760, which would
prevent utility shifting of default
default service supply costs onto
distribution customers, which would
include customers of community power. um
doing this through non-bypassable rates.
Um LSR2577
um my knowledge is somewhat limited. I'm
sure our um fearless friend Cliff Belo
is on and maybe during the Q&A can
provide some more uh commentary, but my
understanding is that this is a request
from the city of Lebanon related to
their landfill gas generator and and
qualifying under the RPS.
And then LSR 3131.
Uh this is one of the bills that um
Andrew had mentioned earlier on. It's uh
sponsored by Representative Bose, uh
Senator Waters, also Representative Doug
Thomas who's vice chair of the science
techny committee. Um this is relative to
authorizing storage in connection with
net metering. Um, and it's a bill that
CPC&H had been very engaged with and
somewhat comes out of the legislative
proposals that we put forward this last
year that did not um advance forward and
more on that later as as that one will
be one of the three that will have a
deeper dive.
Okay, we'll go to the next slide.
Okay. So, what are some of the bills
that we see that I see as having a
potential adverse market impact? So,
Senate Bill 447
um is also somewhat of a redux of m
multiple bills that were considered this
past session. Um it would allow
utilities to own, operate, and and offer
advanced nuclear resources. It would
also allow the Department of Energy, the
electric utilities, or both to issue
RFPs for multi-year agreements for
energy supply from these um type of
generators. It would modify the scope
and capacity limits for community solar
projects, including expanding the annual
cap for low and moderate income projects
from 6 to 18 megawws. It would allow
group net metering customer members to
sign agreements with multiple group
hosts as long as their combined load
does not exceed the total load. Um it
would expand the definition of political
subdivision to include public housing
authorities and more. Um, so where the
concern is for CBC&H is to and what
Senate Bill 591 gets more directly at is
to reverse 30 years of 30 years of
policy that decided monopoly utilities
should get out of the business of owning
power generation. Um, and that it should
be done competitively and generation
should be owned by um, investors that
are willing to take that risk. um and
then let customers have the freedom and
choice to decide how, who, where, and
what terms they wish to receive um
energy supply. So 591 um would repeal
portions of New Hampshire's 1996 utility
restructuring act. Um it would allow
limited exceptions for utilities to
construct their own generation
facilities um up to 400 megawws. Um so
this would go beyond uh advanced nuclear
resources. Um if passed, the bill would
destroy New Hampshire's competitive
market um and you know significantly and
negatively impact CPC&H and our ability
to compete um in this market. It's a
bill that um we likely will oppose um
and certainly will work with partners
and allied forces and competitors to uh
defeat.
Um House Bill 1002
um
repealing the solar energy systems tax
exemption. Um that is also something
that we're very concerned about as it
would um essentially repeal a policy
that has given municipalities the option
to exempt solar systems inclusive of
storage uh from property taxes for I
think since 1975 so 50 years. Again
we'll go into a little bit of a deeper
dive on that in the next section. And
then LSR 2700
relative to utility ownership of natural
gas and nuclear power generation
facilities. Um again the text is not
available but grouping this into the
category with Senate bills 447 and 591.
Okay. So let's maybe more quickly kind
of run down. There are a number of other
bills in the other section. Um, Senate
Bill 598, uh, this multi- agency report
addressing a number of areas including
transmission quarters, interstate
trucking, charging terminals, port
electrification, authorizing a pilot
program for micro grid development,
requiring guidelines for cyber security
of deers, a number of areas that um are
of potential interest and concern. So
um, as we as we learn more, we'll
probably be monitoring this one. Um,
House Bill 1028 relative to the
definition of renewable generation
facility. Um, my understanding is that
it adds one word. Uh, it inserts the
word exclusive before the part of the
statute that talks about as a primary
energy source of um, it's not clear what
the author's intent is with this. Um, so
it's definitely one that we'll be
monitoring for now. Uh, House Bill 1180.
It updates the definition of the state
building code to include the
International Energy Conservation Code,
the 2024 edition, sponsored by Rep.
Wendy Thomas. Um, this is kind of an
ongoing effort to get New Hampshire's
building code um, more up to date and
aligned with the the more recent model
code editions. Um, I don't see this as
moving forward, but it's it's it's a
positive. Um, you know, unfortunately
the political dynamics around building
codes in the past few years have not
been uh, you know, very positive to uh,
energy efficiency and advancement. Um,
House Bill 1285
establishes an inter agency task force
to determine if New Hampshire may
implement an RP pacer, that's a
residential pacer program. Um, I learned
a little bit more about this bill from
CNH yesterday. Um I think the idea is
that they want to do a little bit of you
know study some analysis before moving
forward with um expanding to have an our
pacer program since the cpacer the
commercial pacer program just got
approved and through legislation this
past year and I think they want to see
that get off the ground first um you
know before uh tackling the residential
sector. House Bill 1455
uh relative to the criteria for reliable
energy sources.
Um I don't know much about this but I
think it's something that we want to at
least monitor for now and ARLAC it's
meeting next week so they'll be
reviewing more of these bills. um LSR
2606
relative to electric utility rate
classification and cost allocation for
condominium associations. This is um
somewhat of a redux possibly with some
um changes modifications from a bill
that was considered this past session.
Um LSR 2643
relative to rateayer benefits from the
regional greenhouse gas initiative or
reggie.
Um, again, I don't know much more about
that, but it's something that we'll be
monitoring for now.
Okay, next slide. Uh, LSR 2682,
relative to consumer protections and
energy classifications for large
electric facilities.
Um, I think this one is a Democrat
sponsored only, so not quite sure what
they're trying to accomplish. And um I'm
guessing the political pro the prospects
are not quite as favorable just given
the sponsorship LSR2699
relative to energy infrastructure
economic development workforce training
for large-scale data facilities. Again,
New Hampshire has has in the last few
years a strong interest in the whole
data center um opportunity boondoggle um
and trying to bring more of that
economic development to the state um and
looking at policies and how to cut
regulatory and bureaucratic red tape to
make it more attractive. Um you I just
think that's something that we'll at
minimum want to monitor for now. LSR2766
relative to renewable energy fund
compliance payments. Um again the REF is
not totally um totally within CPC&H's
Bailey Wick but you know because of the
effort to draw down significantly from
that fund um to support the budget
earlier this year. It is something that
we want to just keep an eye on and at
minimum monitor for now. um LSR2774
relative to default electric service
procurement and the recovery of
competitive market supply. Um this is
not a bill that we requested
um but it is something that um I'm sure
we'll be interested in and at least want
to monitor LSR 2895 relative to the
criteria for reliable energy sources.
Um and maybe that's a duplicate from the
last slide. Again, that's probably just
one that we'll want to monitor for now.
Uh, LSR 2960, relative to limiting new
system enrollment and adjusting
compliance payments under the RPS
program. Again, something that we'll at
least want to monitor for now. LSR 2981,
requiring capacity planning in the
state's 10-year energy strategy. Um,
this does have bipartisan and biccameal
support. Um, I think it's definitely
something that we'll at least want to
monitor and possibly even support.
Okay,
so I'm going to take a pause and maybe
before we do the deep dive because I've
been talking for a long time and my
voice is getting coarse. I want to open
it up for some some questions. So, I
don't know if we have anything in the
chat, Nick or Jackson.
Yeah. So there was a uh few comments
related to defining deers which are
distributed energy resources and some
examples about that. Um we did have a
question from Paul Beimis who is asking
if you reviewed LSR 2735.
Um, I don't think that one was on my
list, but I would be happy to
add that one in. Um, Paul, I don't know
if you want to come on or just put in
the chat what you know about that one or
what that bill is about. I can also try
to look into that in real time.
>> Yeah, this is one that uh worked on with
Wendy Thomas. It's being uh put in by
Wendy Thomas and it deals with
um utilization of distribution.
It's a it's a bill that
requires the utilities to report uh
utilization factor of their distribution
system.
uh so that we can begin to put
incentives in place to encourage them to
increase the percentage utilization of
the distribution network.
>> Um thank you for that. Uh I'm adding
that one to the list. It's definitely
something that we'll probably want to
pay attention to and monitor at least in
the interim. So thank you for that.
We'll add that to the slides and then um
so that way you all have it in the
slides that get shared.
>> Yeah, agreed. Thanks Paul. That's very
helpful. And I do see Andrew added some
information about that LSR into the chat
as well for folks to read.
>> Yeah, and I appreciate like you know
there's so many more of you than than me
and Andrew and you know Andrew and I
we've got some great tools like fast
democracy and some some good brains. Uh,
so we can capture a lot of these bills,
but you know, I think there's Andrew,
don't get me, correct me if I'm wrong,
but there's some odd like 2,000 bills
that were filed for this year. And
>> I know a little over a thousand. Yeah,
it's a lot. Yeah,
>> it's a lot of bills. So, you know,
please, if you see something that you
think we should be paying attention to
or you think would impact CBCH and its
members, um, please flag it for us. Um,
we're happy to track that and look into
it further to see if it's something that
we should be engaging on.
>> Yeah, very good point, Dina. And we'll
get into some some themes later on, but
that was one of the notes I made. It's
just like, wow, there is a lot to keep
track of and definitely appreciate all
the work of the RLA team, including
yourself, Andrew, and Cliff, and others.
So, keep it up. And yes, please members
and and others that are listening, uh,
alert us to anything that you catch that
you think is of interest. Um, I'm not
seeing any additional questions or hands
at this point, so I'll pause for a
moment. If anyone has anything burning,
please feel free to go ahead and ask it.
And if not, there'll be plenty of time
for Q&A at the end.
I know that uh I'm sorry I didn't put my
hand up but this is Paul. I I know that
there's been a lot of uh sensitivity on
the part of CPCNH on the issue of load
settlement and you may have already
touched it because I had to step out for
another meeting but um load settlement
the ability for CPCNH to handle net
metering and battery storage and so
forth must be a priority for you and
must be somewhere in this legislation.
Right.
So, thank you Paul. It's a great
question. Um, yes, the issue of load
settlement and specifically we need the
utilities to change or modernize load
settlement because right now we don't
get credit for exports to the
distribution grid. So if you're a net
metered customer or you have some local
storage um and you're exporting to the
grid and you want to get credit for
that, we have no way of crediting you
that you know one because we don't get
the export data from the utilities or
mostly we don't and then two we don't
get that um that offset reflected in our
load settlement. So, if we can't see
that full financial benefit, it's hard
for us to be able to offer a competitive
credit for you all that would entice you
to want to switch and have your net
metering come through CBC&H without
those changes. And that's sort of part
of the overarching New Hampshire energy
forward vision that um includes a number
of different market reforms that we see
as necessary to you know cutting through
the bureaucratic red tape and really uh
enabling more unbridled innovation um
and competition for distributed energy.
So not explicitly in legislation this
year. Um, and I'll get into that a
little bit more as I talk about LSR 3131
because it was something that we were um
working on through a stakeholder group
and trying to advance different ways to
get at that that were maybe more
palatable to certain stakeholders. Um,
uh, but unfort unfortunately for this
year we were not successful at getting
that into legislation, but it is
something that we need to continue the
drum beat. um and and engaging CBC&H
members and community leaders and those
that you know are net metering customers
or they might be interested in doing
something with distributed energy and
being able to have the choice of
supplier of who they get credits for for
those type of innovative um generating
resources.
So, let's
>> if I might add, it it was part of our
legislative push the last three years,
but it became clear that the majority
party in the House um did not have any
appetite for trying to address that this
year. Um we we've also had bipartisan
support in the Senate in the past on
that issue. uh but without um some some
bipartisan house support um we just
determined it wasn't sort of worth it
again this year. We're still trying to
pursue uh some progress on that in the
regulatory sphere because there's
already good law that supports uh
changing load settlement. Um but uh for
now that's kind of a central focus of
our push for 2027.
>> Yeah, thank you Cliff for um yeah giving
some additional background and context
and yeah certainly we're still pursuing
avenues um on the regulatory side. there
are a couple of dockets active well I
wouldn't say active but adjudicatory
dockets that are still open where we're
pursuing that um as well as in the net
metering and distributed generation
investigation. So we're still pursuing
all avenues. Um we're looking at you
know this sort of strategy reset to help
um you know educate members, customers,
other allies, other stakeholders,
elected leaders so they can better
understand um the challenge and the
opportunity that exists for doing this
and how um you know opening up the
market could allow for more uh cost
savings that would benefit all New
Hampshire customers. So, something that
CBCNH is going to be doing early next
year in partnership with one of our
contractors is to do some analysis as to
what the, you know, potential um benefit
and and cost savings could be by having
more of these distributed resources um
come on through a competitive market
system. Um, so we're hopeful that having
some analysis with some more, you know,
specific figures to point to will will
be helpful in um, convincing folks that,
you know, we really need to be making
some of these reforms and, you know,
reforms that are also standard market
design in in other markets like in Texas
and California and in other places
around the world. So, it's not like
we're asking for something that is
totally unique and out of the realm.
This is something that is common in
other competitive and restructured
markets.
>> And I might just add Representative Vos
had indicated some openness to try and
if we if we could draft something that
just provides voluntary incentive
incentives to the utilities to change
load settlement, not not a mandate. and
and we did draft that and then when he
ran it past
Eversource and Unatil, they just said
absolutely no way. We'll fight this. And
so he he basically backed off and said,
"Well, I'm I'm not going to go forward
if if they're so strongly opposed to
even a voluntary incentive uh to move
forward." So, so you know, very very
frustrating, but that's the situation.
>> Thank you for that, Cliff. Okay, so
let's move on to we're gonna try
>> Sorry, real quick. Dana, I think this is
sort of a tag on um Paul's asking about
time varying rates as well, like time
use rates. I don't know if you might
want to make a quick comment about that
or maybe save it for later.
I mean, that would be part of the idea
behind New Hampshire Energy Forward is
that you're enabling a market that would
allow for this type of innovation to
occur, not just through monopoly
utilities, but through other competitive
providers such as community power
aggregators in the state. And I might
add, you know, we anticipated at least
for Unatil and Liberty where they have
meaningful three-part time of use rates
uh to be able to potentially offer that.
Uh but it turns out neither of those
utilities
um set up their data sharing system even
though way back in 1999
you know the PUC said they should do
this uh to share t time of use data um
so that we can't even get the data and
much less uh are they're not capable of
of supporting consolidated billing where
they would bill for us using the same
time of use rates uh structure that they
use for their own customers. Um so that
that's frustrating.
You know, Eversource uh meters don't
support three-part time of use. So they
have the you know the two-part time of
use that dates back to the 50s and 60s
and which all day is on peak which which
there's you can't just there's not much
meaningful you can do with that. Um and
and they do share the two-part time of
use rate, but but again, they won't let
us uh bill uh on even on that two-part
time of use rate. We we can't offer a
supply option that would uh work with
their time of use periods.
All right. So, I think we can move on
and I'm going to actually try to
abbreviate this deeper dive, but I'm
happy to talk offline if there's any um
you know, burning or further questions
about this. But just to revisit Senate
Bill 590, um this is the bill sponsored
by Senator Senator Fenton, Avard, and
Waters. Um, it would allow New Hampshire
municipalities to use revolving funds to
support energy services that are part of
their electric aggregation plans um
without the use of taxes. Um, you know,
in other words, towns and cities that
participate in community power would be
able to establish these type of funds to
operate uh these local energy programs.
Um the idea rose from some of our
members who were challenged by the
limitations and what vehicles are
available to put a funds that they had
acrewed through discretionary reserves
to support local energy projects and
programs for instance Peter Bough's
planned resilience project and Nasha's
city of NSHA's energy coaching program.
So these type of local uh innovation
energy innovation programs. Um so it
would clarify a purpose in the revolving
fund statute that would give
municipalities more flexibility. Um
because once they establish a revolving
fund, they can continue to use it. They
can roll over funds or they can use it
to fund different you know different and
multiple projects and programs. Um,
I'm just looking at my notes to make
sure I'm not missing. Um,
so how does it align with CBC&H goals?
Um, you know, again, certainly this is
designed to enable um
energy local innovation. Um, and you
know, for communities that are wanting
to do like demand response, efficiency,
weatherization, these resilience things,
it would just give them more uh
flexibility to do that. Um, Cliff, I'm
going to invite you on if you have any
other comments you want to make on that.
>> Okay. Yeah, there's a question in in
chat um which is whether funds could
come from other sources and um only if
they came from non- tax uh payer sources
um be because um energy service programs
which can include things like energy
efficiency and demand response um uh and
and new sources of generation like like
renewables um uh can only uh be funded
with non- taxpayer dollars. Uh so I
think the construct uh
of the bill um which if you look at the
fiscal note there's it's misleading
because it suggests that you could put
uh taxpayer funds into this uh account
but that that's not the intent. I don't
think that could legally happen under
the prohibition of using taxpayer funds
to fund uh programs as part of um
municipal aggregation or electric
aggregation plans. uh but if if they
were like you know donations or grant
funds they could go in and and there are
revolving funds for similar purposes uh
that can get revenue from other sources.
Um uh such such as the revenue from from
uh net metering. Um so um so the answer
is partially yes. Uh it could be sources
as long as they're not taxpayer funds.
>> Yep. Thank you, Cliff. Um, all right.
So, let's move on to LSR 3131, which we
did talk a little bit about. Um, this is
kind of a culmination of an effort that
Representative Michael Bose had
initiated um out of last year's session.
Um, and a number of our bills, part of
the New Hampshire Energy Forward that
did not get advanced out of his
committee, Science, Tech, and Energy
this year. He was really interested in
working with us and other stakeholders
to see if there were any any ways to
find consensus on at least some elements
of our proposals. Um and that he thought
that you know we had merit in our
proposals. Um, as Cliff mentioned, uh,
you we we had tried to get take a
different approach to, um, address the
load settlement issue and and some other
issues to allow for more competition
um, for storage and and other deers. um
we were not able to get support um from
some of those stakeholders and
ultimately you know Representative O you
know was not willing to you know push a
bill that went beyond what he could get
the consensus on. Um but it is an
important step forward. Uh it is
recognizing the that there's value in
storage and pairing it with net
metering. Um, so this is a it's a
positive it's a positive step even
though it does not directly get at you
know what we see as the barriers to um a
competitive energy marketplace. Cliff,
any other comments about that one?
>> No, just you know we we helped them
draft it. Um there was some back and
forth um after the utilities had their
input but but I think ultimately the
bill uh ended up we haven't seen the
final language but from what we see and
understand and what Representative V
said he was doing for the final draft um
it looks like it's a pretty u u it'll be
a good step forward um that that uh we
should be able to support very strongly.
So um it is a important step forward for
New Hampshire to enable storage. It you
know it's weird because
um each of the utilities have recognized
some value to storage but um they all
you know at least Eversource kept saying
that we don't think it's allowed as part
of net metering and this this would make
it clear that you can put in storage in
conjunction with net metering. It's just
that normally it'll need to be charged
from your renewable net metered
generation source. Uh but but does allow
potential exceptions approved by the
commission. Uh which is actually
necessary for instance in Liberty's
pilot uh ju just to explain that real
quickly. If Li Liberty uses your your
battery uh that you know to to shave a
peak and and um they can they will
recharge it from the grid to return it
to you uh you know fully charged like
overnight um so so that it is there for
your backup power needs if you know if
uh if that might be needed. So um so
ultimately represent agreed that there
should be uh the flexibility to
potentially with the PUC's approval
allow even the batteries to be charged
from the grid. you know, ultimately
think that there's shouldn't be a
problem with charging batteries from the
grid if if we had more of a um
market-based approach uh uh that that um
that you know that that allowed uh as
the New Hampshire Electric Co-op does um
allows a large battery system to uh uh
charge when uh rates are low, cost
actual costs are low and to discharge
when costs are high. And that ultimately
benefits everyone because it it does
shave high-cost periods. Um and and when
you you know shift load from high-cost
periods to lowcost periods, um it it it
ends up saving saving money for
everyone. But but that's
>> and in some ways this bill actually, you
know, lays more groundwork to enable
that in the future. But, you know, we're
not quite there yet, but someday
hopefully.
that that again has to do with changing
load settlement and enabling us to be
able to um set terms and conditions for
uh the output and the charging of of
batteries.
>> Yeah. So I see um a question in the chat
from Gabrielle Watson about is there a
concern that New Hampshire will go the
way of California in terms of basically
requiring residents to have batteries in
order to get net metering benefits? Um
the answer is uh no. Although that
requirement was considered and
contemplated in an earlier draft, um we
were able to um engage the bill sponsor
and and some others were too. Um and you
know help convince that that is really
premature right now. And you know
already the market for storage is
somewhat challenged. uh by putting up
some additional barriers would just you
know really throw the whole industry um
you know down. So thankfully that is not
included in at least the last draft of
the LSR that we saw. Um again we're
still waiting to see the final bill
language um for that. Good question.
Um all right, let's move on. basic just
on that and just basically there's no
point in it right now because all the
net metering with the exception of
Liberty's battery pilot um you know has
a flat rate so there's no value to
charging it um or discharging it at any
particular time because regardless of
when you put power on the grid it's all
valued the same. So that that's part of
the problem is if people put in
batteries, they they wouldn't be able to
get use of it except except as backup
power.
>> Yep.
>> Thanks, Cliff. Okay, quickly, we'll just
revisit House Bill 1002, which would
repeal the solar energy system tax
exemption. Um, again, this is something
that New Hampshire state law has allowed
municipalities to do and have this
option for the last 50 years. Um this
bill is regressive because it would
repeal the provisions in statute um and
impact those who were previously
exempted. Um, we're it's contrary to
several goals in CBC&H's legislative
platform, um, including the three that
I've highlighted, which, you know, allow
communities to promote renewable and
deer development and other programs
through local control and autonomy,
expand competitive behind-the-ter deer
programs to lower cost to customers, and
enable municipalities to enact measures
that promote local energy and land use
systems that um, are both economically
and environmentally sustainable. Um, so
that one we are really concerned about.
Um, Cliff, I know you've done some
analysis and the board yesterday
approved a position for CBC&H to oppose
this bill. Um, and I I expect this will
be one of the priority bills that we
will be engaging on and um, you know,
asking our members to get engaged on as
well. Cliff, is there any other comments
you want to make about this bill? Just
just to be to try to make this simple,
um
solar energy PVs um have zero fuel cost
and they have very low maintenance and
operating cost. They're all capital
cost. And when you compare that to what
it displaces on the margin, meaning when
PV is putting power on the grid, uh what
kind of generation scales back or would
replace it if it wasn't there? And it's
almost entirely natural gas combined
cycle generation. And much of the cost
of that is fuel and u maintenance
operating cost. and we don't assess
property taxes on those and most of that
is out of state. So, as it works out,
when you look at on a per kilowatt hour
basis, if you subject PV to the same
kind of property tax in the same way of
valuing property as natural gas
generators, we'd be paying uh five, six,
seven times as much per kilowatt hour in
property taxes. And that's actually in
cents. You know, it's it's well under a
half a cent in property taxes for
natural gas generation per kilowatt
hour, but it's on the order of six five
six seven cents per kilowatt hour for
solar. So you can just imagine if you
add a burden a tax burden to solar
that's five, six, seven times that of
the alternative um uh you know it it it
makes it much harder for it to make
economic sense. And it essentially says
as a matter of tax policy we favor
outofstate generation instead of local
instate generation and as a matter of
policy we favor uh fuel intensive
generation and fossil fuel in particular
rather than you know clean renewable
resources. So, it's really bad policy
and I think the sponsors just think
we're trying to level the playing field
because we tax, you know, conventional
generation, but it's it's simply not the
same because we don't tax the most of
the costs that go into conventional
generation
fuel and operating costs.
>> Thank you for that additional detail and
commentary, Cliff. Um, okay. So, that
wraps up the um the content section, the
dense content section of this program.
Um,
so I want to open it up to questions.
And I see one in the chat from Kelly
Crandal. Um, I don't recall seeing House
Bill 723 on the data platform on the
list. Do you think that still has legs?
Yes. So, the program for today was
focused on the 2026 session. Um, House
Bill 723 was from the 2025 session. Um,
yes, that bill has
it went to the Senate. It passed the
House earlier this year. It went to the
Senate. Um, and the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, I believe,
unanimously approved it. Um, so I think
>> No, no, no, no. They they they retained
it unanimously. Uh so so or we
refreerred it so it carried over into
the fall. Uh but when they met in the
fall uh they didn't it was very
abbreviated and the majority on the
committee it was a 3 to2 vote. Uh the
majority on the committee said oh well
we you know this has been years on the
books and nothing's happened. Well, the
fact of the matter is we myself and the
utilities and the consumer advocate and
clean energy New Hampshire uh have been
collaborating very closely with
basically weekly meetings for the past
four years and we're right at the end of
the process where this afternoon we
expect to finalize a recommendation for
a vendor to build the system and we've
completed a benefit analysis and it's
pretty clear that that will show that
the costs are small compared to the
benefits. Um so but unfortunately that
is not all out in the public domain at
the moment but should be uh by early by
the end of this month or early January.
Uh so we're going to try to ask uh you
know the majority we we we need to get
through to Senator Avard on this.
Senator Waters advis advised me
yesterday um to you know to try to hold
off on passing that until they have a
chance to review the actual results of
four years of very positive
collaborative work. Um and and and that
that's working on a consensus basis.
I've been part of this data platform
governance council for four years now
and we've made all of our decisions on
consensus. Um, and the only frustrating
thing is that
the Department of Energy has not been,
you know, perhaps as supportive as
everyone else. Um, and it, you know,
just just seems to be doing things that
are delaying us making this all public
so that the senators can realize that it
it's actually on the cusp of being able
to be uh to actually happen. Uh, and the
PUC in any case has discretion to defer
it if they think that the costs are too
great. And so we do need to make a push
uh to, you know, uh try to get the
senators to not uh uh send it to the
governor uh because they they didn't
amend it at all. So if they if they pass
it in early January, it'll go straight
to the governor's desk. And um it would
be very sad because in mid January, we
we have a status conference to lay this
all out to the PUC. Uh so it is a bill
that we uh uh took an official position
to oppose. Um, so, um, you know, we hope
that, uh, we we can maybe mobilize folks
to to help, um, uh, get get the senators
to at least put it on the table and give
a chance for all this information to
come out and and be reviewed before they
make a final decision on uh, totally
getting rid of all this years of effort.
Even even the utilities are feeling
frustrated that they've put in all this
effort uh to get to this point and and
it's you know on the brink of being uh a
huge waste of all of our times if if if
this passes.
>> Yep. Thanks. And um Kelly, happy to
connect if you want to chat about any of
that further. Um so I think you have my
contact info, so definitely feel free to
reach out.
>> I just want to do a quick time check. We
are at um 11:27 and there has been a lot
of great uh discussion and Q&A
throughout the presentation which has
been super helpful and Cliff you have
provided some really great depth in your
responses per usual. Um, I just want to
highlight this is really the beginning
of the discussion, right? And and this
preview session we're hoping will spark
a lot more engagement from you all uh
going forward and we're certainly
looking for ways to keep you engaged and
informed and member services will will
play a role in that effort. Um, I'm
thinking maybe time for one more
question and then uh we'll need to move
to some closing remarks and sort of next
steps.
So, I'm not seeing anything in the chat
at the moment, but if you want to go
ahead and and either do something there
or raise your hand and unmute, you're
welcome to do either.
>> No, thank you, Dina, Jackson, Andrew,
um, Nick, for for pulling this together
and presenting it.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Cliff, for your for
your active participation. All right,
I'm not seeing anything else. So, I just
wanted to uh briefly uh recap some main
takeaways that I heard uh during the the
session today. You know, some things
that Andrew highlighted earlier on that
there's, you know, a certain degree of
philosophical differences between the
House and the Senate. Um but that energy
is despite that a top three issue coming
into this session. uh that we see cost
cutting as a priority um for the
legislative arena, but that most likely,
you know, smaller bills uh will have the
best chance of making it through this
time around. That storage is something
that has a lot of interest and and there
was some further discussion about that
during Dena's portion of the talk. Um,
another thing I picked up on is with
there being a new incoming PUC
commissioner yet to be announced, uh,
that could have a shakeup as the PUC has
a lot of impact on decisions. It
certainly has in the past. And that, you
know, another thing uh we're going to
need to leverage our membership for is
to continue to position CPC&H as an
industry leader so that we're staying
top of mind for elected officials who
are developing energy policy. And one of
the ways we can do that is by providing
comments and expertise when bills pop
up. And I think um our RLE team is doing
an excellent job of staying engaged as
you saw today. Um but we definitely want
to leverage uh our members as part of
that dialogue
and we're hoping that you know some
incremental change this time will lay
the pathway for larger structural
changes possibly through the New
Hampshire Energy Forward Act that could
solve some of the things that you know
Paul Beis was mentioning. Um, so you all
heard about, you know, some positive
bills, three bills and an LSR, or excuse
me, two positive bills and three LSRs.
Uh, as well as three bills and one LSR
that could have adverse market impacts.
Um, and you know, we will be moving into
engaging you with things like an
upcoming advocacy toolkit that will help
prepare you for taking action uh related
to those if it's required.
We also have a January office hours
legislative boot camp session uh which
pairs nicely with that toolkit that
we'll distribute and that's really going
to focus on on uh January 23rd how to
engage in the New Hampshire legislature.
So we're going to walk through
strategies and tools for engagement um
from writing testimony to attending
hearing hearings.
And want to note that the recording of
this session will be made available and
in we'll include the slides as well in a
follow-up email next week. I think Dina
mentioned that earlier. But uh once
again, I really want to thank everyone
for joining. I want to thank uh Andrew
Roenture uh for his time. All right,
take care and happy Friday.
Thank you so much, Jackson, Andrew,
Cliff.