[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6340007,"mediaKeyId","2260332-561a042ee3e52c9619f262c72542e6fa","parentId",2260332,"title","Committee weighs SB 228 to expand community solar access for low‑ and moderate‑income residents; utilities warn of billing complexity","audioSeconds",2876,"startMs",4378000,"endMs",7254000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260332-561a042ee3e52c9619f262c72542e6fa&start=4378&end=7254","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260332-561a042ee3e52c9619f262c72542e6fa/thumbnail_4378000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6340007/New-Hampshire/Committee-weighs-SB-228-to-expand-community-solar-access-for-low-and-moderateincome-residents-utilities-warn-of-billing-complexity","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340007-ad0bde79ccef0c208de23c0ea4e2db63/orig.mp4?Expires=1770741216&Signature=log6eydCEJ9MyJEXFnJmnIlCYrbm0Bn0nZETsuF18rl1rydU7VHnkRhl8bdDDpgp7DZ57YTRU7VTl0349VhEkLiFtDKKBxLnY6AN1qKE0nwtUzNZHA0U8OOPu2Qu8UilUccxKHTfte4M2yJCsWvt83zSNFMIwhTBk3p~~2L5JsS7Y1RjfoD8u0~T3US9XNCDhR3bpdFKi98Wo2fJTdUgE3L1paynftc2gZJ7UrYDKtjeqkdj9iwls0hwywE8a~itD04dbt8tOcumRKnJFXuOVW~r4nYtNhk2cmun23r0OHsePiokxYq~eoeTqM5ToG6Mmq~Ik8Zl4u39zwRZiokJKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Senate","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Energy and Natural Resources took public testimony on SB 228, a package of changes to New Hampshire net‑metering and community solar rules intended to expand access for low‑ and moderate‑income customers and public entities.

Sponsor Senator David Waters (District 4) said the bill updates statutory size thresholds and eligibility to attract more investment to community solar. Key changes discussed included raising the definition of small customer generators from the existing threshold to permit systems up to 500 kilowatts, increasing community/low‑income community solar project caps up to 3 megawatts, and allowing group net‑metering members to sign agreements with multiple group hosts.

Supporters — including Lindsey Burgoyne of Revision Energy, Malcolm Bliss of Kearsarge Energy, Jack Ruderman (New Hampshire Housing), and others — said bigger project caps and flexible subscription rules will improve economics and enable more low‑income residents to participate. New Hampshire Housing described plans tied to the federal Solar for All grant (the hearing record cites a $43.5 million federal award to the state, of which New Hampshire Housing expects a $23 million subaward) to develop community arrays that serve low‑income housing, and said larger project caps improve economies of scale.

The Department of Energy indicated neutrality but raised administrative concerns tied to program design, recordkeeping and accounting. DOE counsel Matt Young said changes that would let customer generators become group members could complicate energy accounting and risk “double dipping” unless safeguards and rules are clarified; he also noted ongoing work on new net‑metering rules (referred to as the department’s “900 rules”) that overlap with the bill.

Utilities flagged billing and staffing implications. Griffin Roberge (Eversource) testified that current billing systems are not set up to automatically track simultaneous on‑site exports and multiple off‑site subscriptions; utilities would need manual processes or system upgrades and that would increase administrative costs borne by ratepayers. Revision Energy and other developers urged tailored statutory language and technical rule changes to prevent unintended exclusions (for example, language in the current draft that changes “households” to “homeowners” might exclude renters from low‑income programs).

Why it matters: supporters say modest statutory changes will expand access for low‑ and moderate‑income customers, improve project economics and let Solar for All federal funds go further. Opponents worry about administrative complexity and utility billing impacts unless the statutory changes are paired with clear rules and systems upgrades.

What to watch: bill language about whether low‑income eligibility refers to homeowners versus households, whether special‑purpose districts and public housing authorities remain eligible as municipal hosts, and whether the Department of Energy’s pending net‑metering rules (the “900 rules”) address the same issues. No committee vote was reported at the hearing; sponsors and DOE said they would continue to work on fix‑it amendments.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Energy and Natural Resources (02/11/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Energy and Natural Resources heard SB 228, a proposal from Senator David Waters to expand community solar and net‑metering access by changing size caps and eligibility rules for low‑ and moderate‑income projects.","taxTitle","Energy and Natural Resources, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29507,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6340012,"Senate debate over expanding purchase‑power agreement authority includes Seabrook and nuclear procurement; DOE warns of ratepayer risks",1736,1557000,3293000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260332-561a042ee3e52c9619f262c72542e6fa&start=1557&end=3293","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260332-561a042ee3e52c9619f262c72542e6fa/thumbnail_1557000.jpg","/articles/6340012/New-Hampshire/Senate-debate-over-expanding-purchasepower-agreement-authority-includes-Seabrook-and-nuclear-procurement-DOE-warns-of-ratepayer-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340012-d85ed199571442b0252178781fdae2c1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770741216&Signature=ouwjQdPikoPd8Cc0Jrd5FnlBt3-rXOcTxifOAoU9QVhrMpzgeUDPuN-FJmyTGJ4ym922SC-SNizFCj5~KnuGlBLuto71W~fDslKMSVcACCpsDw7in5fRBSOf8txgResaGV3NaZCsPo8TemZ4L1Pg82Tcy1nF35~5PIjuosiPG7WqYc2hnof7mDXTc6ZOJ-5yLIzwrZJ9KYWCUJ2WtZqnvZRjzdRBpHSEwZ4qm0q2ytszCxqRxL3l1d-QmCEH6vKqozmVX8gSHZckhgR5apixN84AOrBJGK1mXdxB3iDRhFHQACEYJzO9R2mmQOD009WAss-uYwqZW5TxuKgw~~HHMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee members heard SB 112, introduced by Senator Kevin Avard (District 12). The bill would expand the state law authorizing purchase‑power agreements under New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA) 374:11 to permit utilities and state actors to consider a wider range of electric generation resources when pursuing long‑term contracts.

Supporters — including Michelle Gardner, executive director for NextEra Energy Resources in the Northeast, and Bruce Birkin (Ginfini Capital Group) representing Exeter Energy Resources — said the change would let New Hampshire participate in regional solicitations and potentially secure long‑term contracts for low‑cost, low‑carbon baseload generation such as Seabrook Station, a 1,250‑megawatt nuclear plant in New Hampshire. Gardner told the committee that regional procurements in Massachusetts and Connecticut have already moved to enable contracting with nuclear resources and that “New Hampshire should not be left out” of multistate solicitations.

Opponents and cautious voices included the New Hampshire Department of Energy, which testified it was neutral but warned that expanding PPA authority can expose ratepayers to long‑term costs and market distortions. Deputy Commissioner Chris Elms and Dan Phelan emphasized that PPAs have in some neighboring states produced substantial costs: witnesses referenced Connecticut’s Millstone procurement as an example of significant post‑contract costs and credit impacts. The department also pointed to legal constraints under the Federal Power Act and cited the U.S. Supreme Court case Hughes v. Talen (2016) as a caution when states craft out‑of‑market supports tied to wholesale prices.

Eversource said it shared concerns about removing the 2,000,000 megawatt‑hour cap and warned that PPAs can tie up a utility balance sheet and create credit and financing consequences that ultimately affect customers. Private sector witnesses said PPAs can lock in price stability and reduce exposure to global commodity shocks; supporters noted modeling that showed the magnitude of upside protection can exceed downside risk in extreme price events.

Why it matters: supporters argue the authority is a practical tool to secure price stability and avoid exposure to volatile natural gas markets; critics say PPAs can lock ratepayers into costly contracts and distort competitive markets.

What the committee heard: testimony covered technical details including possible contract terms (10–20 years were referenced as typical), the difference between new‑resource versus preservation motivations, and the potential need to add the Department of Energy formally to the RFP development process. Witnesses recommended drafting amendments to clarify participation rules, adjust caps and dates in existing statute, and add the department to the RFP process; some stakeholders suggested removing or modifying a 2,000,000 MWh cap in RSA language to allow flexibility.

Next steps: no final committee vote was reported during the hearing. Sponsors and department representatives signaled a willingness to continue working on amendment language addressing caps, term lengths and protections for ratepayers.","SB 112 would broaden RSA 374:11 to allow purchase power agreements (PPAs) with a wider set of generation, including the possibility of contracting with Seabrook Station; NextEra and nuclear advocates supported the flexibility, while the Department of Energy and utilities warned about long‑term costs and market distortions.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6340017,"Senate committee hears bill for reliability‑indexing credits to spur large battery storage; bill re‑referred",1448,106000,1554000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260332-561a042ee3e52c9619f262c72542e6fa&start=106&end=1554","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260332-561a042ee3e52c9619f262c72542e6fa/thumbnail_106000.jpg","/articles/6340017/New-Hampshire/Senate-committee-hears-bill-for-reliabilityindexing-credits-to-spur-large-battery-storage-bill-rereferred","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340017-8792be257b68e7f50242eb1bc5e81138/orig.mp4?Expires=1770741216&Signature=NZW8sRhvoWbURsVOrT12ZCqI73976PZ0eYs1rMaqMfADfXNIfKy9sHumljnii1LXSpWXvsQuB5e35j-iGlw4DaXR3WfIum1D1AmegObG6ZxuVAZlbIXby0fEZ1-oZ7uSk2ZJZQwKAQNPdYVb8PDj07LYwWBosi0Qlp4hc~gObBM8HQHsBZvUOao2HYSypRnEeqzSSnw~ZO0ttm4Y4ZkIWNFsf6FOk6m68F880JQDYNDv2WoeBM6sJBuMQkAUb~h~H7akMHbqB3SWVlycSfqWa15TbdEmvmAYk~QeoXY8jzML8GhH1pCuCyeLdyBYq9niZB5UtKGBZugZabeEkkVTFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee members heard testimony on SB 111, introduced by Senator David Waters (District 4), a bill to authorize a reliability‑indexing credit pilot program to support large, grid‑scale battery storage in New Hampshire.

Supporters told the committee the bill is intended to encourage developers to build multi‑megawatt battery projects in the state by allowing electric distribution companies to enter multi‑year contracts that pay a dynamic “reliability indexing” credit offset by revenues those projects earn in the ISO New England wholesale markets. James Andrews, chief executive officer of Granite Shore Power, told the committee SB 111 “is part of that solution set, not the only solution,” and described how market revenues would be offset against a contractor’s strike price so ratepayers only fund a remaining deficiency.

The bill would create a pilot under Public Utilities Commission oversight that authorizes long‑term agreements for up to 200 megawatts of battery storage. Hearing testimony described the kinds of projects the bill aims at — developers cited 100–200 MW utility‑scale batteries — and typical battery durations discussed were roughly two hours today with the option to build to four‑hour durations when appropriate.

Why it matters: proponents said large batteries provide second‑by‑second dispatchability, help shave system peaks and reduce exposure to high wholesale prices during scarcity events. Opponents and the Department of Energy urged more time to get details right, saying the pilot’s payment mechanics could unintentionally incentivize discharging at the wrong times and could carry cost and administrative risks if implemented without further study.

Balance of views and committee action: Deputy Commissioner Chris Elms (New Hampshire Department of Energy), joined by regional policy director Dan Phelan, said the department is neutral but raised ratepayer and administrative concerns. They asked for more time to analyze whether the bill’s mechanism would actually incent peak‑shaving behavior rather than simply pay for energy produced at any hour. Granite Shore Power and other developers argued the sharing mechanism — wholesale revenues offset the strike price and either surplus or deficiency is allocated — reduces risk to ratepayers.

The committee took two formal steps on SB 111. Members voted by voice to send the bill to executive session, then voted by voice to re‑refer the bill for further consideration. The committee did not adopt final terms of a pilot at the hearing.

Provisions to watch: the bill as discussed would (a) create a reliability‑indexing credit and a strike price to be compared with wholesale market revenues, (b) authorize the PUC to approve multi‑year contracts for up to 200 MW, and (c) require an investigation and recommended pilot terms as it is implemented.

What’s next: the committee re‑referred the bill for additional work; sponsors and the Department of Energy signaled a desire to continue negotiating the payment mechanics and the pilot’s guardrails before advancing a final proposal.","Senators heard testimony on SB 111, a proposal to create a pilot allowing long‑term agreements and a reliability‑indexing credit for large battery storage projects; developers and the Department of Energy urged more study. The committee voted to send SB 111 to executive session and then re‑refer it for further work.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6339997,"Committee considers AOT permit‑by‑notification, fee increases and water‑setback guardrails for large solar projects",1405,8580000,9985000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260332-561a042ee3e52c9619f262c72542e6fa&start=8580&end=9985","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260332-561a042ee3e52c9619f262c72542e6fa/thumbnail_8580000.jpg","/articles/6339997/New-Hampshire/Committee-considers-AOT-permitbynotification-fee-increases-and-watersetback-guardrails-for-large-solar-projects","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339997-17b7edbdf31cb28ca77abe5c15e9ffd7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770741216&Signature=d2qMHwTYwXh5WyBN0CVqFQMjrAnijNKpTIuMN4gwo9a8IyEhn7TYvVg5J3yuAVNLPn~FxRiMfQ~FCaCWcszXNb9~DovMq4OY-2ZBfR9p3goWXErXnXDrc7G2M1VevioBdjhQeHCrG2tL4bHk0xce7dhSud0Ccz8W1zZos3q30IhS1XRLkYXKlWjvg3JNInBgkd~0WlDfiSzaqdvhK~2Z2yku2rM3JJX27hWJwOelapfQNqU80Nzh3O915sf4C0d9pcBJTOuh6fLsHK70dhwAjYXq13p65t3~GEFjb1SHHJB81iCOtB8EicV3f51y7OBYdsiaLetd2H9Sd99v9B~V9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members and Department of Environmental Services (DES) staff discussed a proposal (filed as SB 110 committee amendment in the hearing) to revise Alteration of Terrain (AOT) permitting for certain solar projects. Testimony focused on three interrelated areas: a permit‑by‑notification pathway for smaller installations, an adjusted fee schedule designed to fund DES staffing and faster reviews, and water‑quality guardrails for projects near sensitive waters.

What the proposal would change: DES described a permit‑by‑notification option intended to simplify approvals for smaller projects (an administrative path rather than a full AOT review). The draft fee revisions presented at the hearing would increase several fees — for example, a previously cited charge of $3,125 for projects around 150,000 square feet was discussed in the hearing as moving to a $5,000 fee in the draft; a separate line in the draft suggested a $6,250 step for 200,000 square feet projects. Committee discussion also described a multiplier or per‑unit addendum that had previously been $12.50 and in the draft was portrayed by a senator as effectively increasing by a larger amount; department staff said the new schedule was meant to hold DES revenue roughly neutral while enabling staffing to speed reviews.

Water quality and setbacks: sponsors proposed language that would disqualify or create additional requirements for projects that would discharge stormwater within one quarter‑mile of Class A waters or certain natural resource waters. DES said the quarter‑mile standard reflects existing AOT rule practice intended to protect water quality; several senators asked whether a shorter setback (for example an eighth‑mile) might be more appropriate to avoid unduly excluding buildable sites.

Fees, CPI indexing and fiscal oversight: the committee discussed draft language that would let DES increase fees annually consistent with the Consumer Price Index. Some members proposed removing an automatic CPI mechanism and instead requiring fiscal committee approval of fee changes; DES staff said the committee‑approval provision was intended as a check on sudden large adjustments and to allay stakeholder concerns about unpredictable fee spikes. Several senators said the combination of automatic CPI indexing plus fiscal‑committee veto created a tension and suggested the committee adopt one approach or the other.

Why it matters: the proposed changes are intended to speed permitting for permitted solar development while maintaining water‑quality protections. Stakeholders raised tradeoffs between faster permitting timelines and the need to preserve environmental safeguards and to avoid placing additional cost burdens on developers and ratepayers.

Next steps: the committee asked DES to provide additional engineering rationale for the quarter‑mile guardrail and to clarify fee calculations; senators proposed continued drafting changes and amendments. The committee did not adopt final language in the hearing and will continue work on a committee amendment.","Members discussed proposed AOT (Alteration of Terrain) changes including a permit‑by‑notification option for smaller solar projects, fee schedule increases intended to support staffing and faster reviews, and a quarter‑mile watershed setback; legislators debated CPI‑linked fee adjustments and fiscal committee oversight.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6340003,"Senate hears SB 230 to authorize microgrids, including small modular reactors; utilities and DOE urge study before action",1527,7250000,8777000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260332-561a042ee3e52c9619f262c72542e6fa&start=7250&end=8777","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260332-561a042ee3e52c9619f262c72542e6fa/thumbnail_7250000.jpg","/articles/6340003/New-Hampshire/Senate-hears-SB-230-to-authorize-microgrids-including-small-modular-reactors-utilities-and-DOE-urge-study-before-action","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340003-f9afa9f41802a5e090033e353fd8cd51/orig.mp4?Expires=1770741216&Signature=lQ0N42fB-o0BkupP-X8-sVgTeNYfZYJaFExI6aLAFMD6QzX96o2-UldJ-EbYqlvvQ7gtOOUJUOP58ACfidlIbXBwvMfVbhrrvs0o4n5Ltf2UxlZfQqay-wYtbPKeyF1qkcddAx1IlN6QV0Nm96W1ppnvOb~sU7cwg9R9KDzmWqqII7RSFLBRVtK~P3pBgGZRmBIDLFbE~4BR7dav4DCg2yeUaWBMxjHRh0Kf9U62UijZYitHlpzWumFq9Vp8USUmHgobLPM33nZFkyFMOzIQvdOEREm5UeOihfA1QBBP6Q~JJrf5p32QB6MUAnWiI6Vr8CuYbJkoA9wYlGvjnLl-RA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator David Waters (District 4) introduced SB 230, legislation to authorize certain localized electric microgrids and to define small modular reactors (SMRs) within state law for microgrid applications. The bill would allow non‑utility entities that meet statutory guardrails to construct, operate and interconnect microgrids that serve multiple loads — up to 10 megawatts for renewable‑powered microgrids and up to 300 megawatts for SMR‑powered systems — subject to Public Utilities Commission review and conditions.

Sponsor’s intent: Waters told the committee the bill is designed to provide a clear statutory definition and approval pathway for microgrids so communities, critical infrastructure operators and private investors understand requirements and limits. The bill includes a list of public interest priorities — reliability for hospitals, nursing homes, wastewater treatment, public safety facilities, military installations and data centers — and directs the PUC to approve petitions that meet public‑interest criteria and consumer protections. The SMR definition in the bill used a 300‑megawatt maximum per unit; sponsor testimony said this mirrors definitions used by federal nuclear laboratories and recent industry proposals.

Concerns raised: Eversource told the committee it supports microgrid development in principle but urged caution. The company warned the bill’s current language could allow duplicative infrastructure in public rights‑of‑way, raise safety and emergency‑response issues if third parties operate energized lines, and create questions about cost recovery if a utility’s reliability upgrade would otherwise be the least‑cost solution. Department of Energy staff urged delaying statutory changes until the department completes a legislatively mandated microgrid investigation (HB 558) and issues recommendations later this year. DOE said several of the technical issues the bill tries to settle are already under active departmental review.

Consumer protections and cost allocation: SB 230 would require microgrid petitioners to demonstrate benefits (resilience, economic development, support for critical infrastructure), to assume costs for any system upgrades that would otherwise be borne by the distribution system, and to follow zoning and permitting requirements. The bill also directs the PUC to evaluate public‑interest factors and included reporting requirements so the legislature can monitor outcomes.

What’s next: the committee heard extensive technical and policy evidence but did not adopt final language. DOE and the utility recommended the committee wait for the department’s report and use it to inform statutory language. Sponsor said that even if the committee waits, having a statutory definition of SMR and an approval path would be helpful for investors evaluating New Hampshire projects.","SB 230 would authorize microgrids for critical infrastructure and permit small modular reactors (SMRs) to power microgrids up to 300 MW under PUC approval. The Department of Energy and Eversource asked the committee to await a DOE microgrid study; sponsors said statutory clarity is needed so investors can evaluate projects.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee weighs SB 228 to expand community solar access for low‑ and moderate‑income residents; utilities warn of billing complexity

Senate debate over expanding purchase‑power agreement authority includes Seabrook and nuclear procurement; DOE warns of ratepayer risks

Senate committee hears bill for reliability‑indexing credits to spur large battery storage; bill re‑referred

Committee considers AOT permit‑by‑notification, fee increases and water‑setback guardrails for large solar projects

Senate hears SB 230 to authorize microgrids, including small modular reactors; utilities and DOE urge study before action