[{"_1":2,"_136":-5,"_137":-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",[32,76,88,100,112,124],{"_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",6635141,"mediaKeyId","2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b","parentId",2650917,"title","Committee recommends against study of weatherization initiatives, 9-8","audioSeconds",527,"startMs",7402000,"endMs",7929000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b&start=7402&end=7929","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b/thumbnail_7402000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6635141/New-Hampshire/Committee-recommends-against-study-of-weatherization-initiatives-9-8","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635141-c38bc3f5397ea35a6664bae5f15bbc82/orig.mp4?Expires=1770975652&Signature=e6xej4ljUUtxBkDrB7Dw7AT8ftc4mQcEQk2T1eaffNXucJ7PGgaRsUUVLEc-0LfiPiTk-7bHRt2Y8JQB177ii-uwRck4TVdt2RVBgvIe~uaDV1jajyvDcOs4g~Ys5XE7NvCjeAHXW-lBBPKp3E6rVdR~VBm~9OEcjoySsOysmgoWysqHuyDdZ4FwwRFjjbz1RlP1WtfCWDfa2rASaiR~cfNFmwwMTulSS9x5cb4TI9lwXGE6PmSnLmW8DfgpAW1tXMyw3y0E-P4gTdTutDRKRZ-03qTdVT8RUQuiJHYS6ai166WAV6ALbxQPCNrxQ6fiCrBvH55gsqBgJX6dZf1BDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-03-05T19:01:31.257Z","article","The Science, Technology and Energy Committee voted 9-8 on March 4 to recommend ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on HB 599, a proposal to create a committee to examine weatherization initiatives for New Hampshire homes.

Backers of the bill argued the state lacks a comprehensive, up-to-date assessment of the housing stock and that a small, legislatively authorized convening could gather and synthesize data on needs, workforce and program reach. Representative Kaplan said the state does not yet have a clear statewide understanding of weatherization needs and called the study \"strategic\" for housing affordability and economic development.

Opponents, including committee members who have worked on energy-efficiency programs for years, said the state already has resources and programs (for example, New Hampshire Saves and DOE initiatives) and that repeated studies would be redundant. Representative Wendy Thomas and others opposed the study because they said weatherization benefits and program mechanics are well known and repeatedly studied.

After debate, the committee adopted ITL by a narrow margin. Representative Wendy Thomas will prepare a minority report in support of the study; the majority report will recommend ITL.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Science, Technology and Energy (03/04/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","The committee voted 9-8 to recommend ITL on HB 599, which would have set up a committee to examine statewide weatherization initiatives. Supporters said a small convening could identify gaps; opponents said the topic is already well studied and resources exist.","taxTitle","Science, Technology and Energy, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17762,"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},6635145,"Committee votes to table bill that would limit PUC review of settlement agreements",3329,5507000,8836000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b&start=5507&end=8836","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b/thumbnail_5507000.jpg","/articles/6635145/New-Hampshire/Committee-votes-to-table-bill-that-would-limit-PUC-review-of-settlement-agreements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635145-35660db67a69e803f685084052f940e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770975652&Signature=YWgAWVCVs8lwRx7n6NuQ8bNYgZwR2dz0iMnSvSHt26jrbNlWaoOgQgrydgMX3FxB~bjiSwFHIuXuxr3lzLxXUMeKuyLpH3SpVT3bzyl3ThTXLw~2X7vyF8jJDW1O0HNqm7MLXY1yO94igpM9~WkPvebyBQ5H~NPBxrveMFeKKTZ5qQPBNYCEiw1guwX6~x0KL2T0pATmu~5BEooE13Qj6E2ZAwcHs5Cwih0aCODcjuoinoCJ6ZWVuA202~H4ouWEDRNah~81QB~4WBhClY6jQFuV75BLpRFK88l-jiQpiv92hcISJPyfuvv3xyEz8gGbNWpeen5woaxFtRC6QHjh3g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Science, Technology and Energy Committee voted 9-8 to recommend ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on HB 535, a bill that would have clarified the respective roles of the Department of Energy and the Public Utilities Commission and limited the PUC's ability to alter or reject settlements presented by parties in certain cases.

Supporters of ITL argued the bill would improperly restrict the PUC's adjudicative authority. Representative Bernardi said the PUC must retain the power to examine evidence and ask questions in contested proceedings and should not be forced to accept settlements presented to it without review. Opponents of ITL argued there is existing friction between the Department of Energy and the PUC and that statutory clarification could reduce role confusion.

The bill's opponents emphasized that the proposed changes were intended to clarify boundaries after testimony about the PUC stepping into policy-making areas. Supporters of ITL said the adjudicative process is the PUC's primary function and removing its discretion could allow parties to bypass regulatory review.

The committee ultimately agreed to recommend ITL on a 9-8 vote. Representative Bernardi will write the majority report recommending ITL. Representative Korman announced she would prepare a minority report supporting the bill and had until 7 a.m. the next morning to file it, per committee practice.","By a 9-8 vote the committee recommended ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on HB 535, which sought to define and narrow the Public Utilities Commission's authority regarding settlement agreements and adjudicative proceedings.",{"_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},6635151,"Committee clears bill letting utilities sign power'purchase agreements with advanced nuclear resources, with limits",4001,4024000,8025000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b&start=4024&end=8025","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b/thumbnail_4024000.jpg","/articles/6635151/New-Hampshire/Committee-clears-bill-letting-utilities-sign-powerpurchase-agreements-with-advanced-nuclear-resources-with-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635151-aa6494dce3c3c3aac1cf27298b5a46ce/orig.mp4?Expires=1770975652&Signature=ijPry2dR8HFCbj1EYScS2Z5PP~Wy7SrXlRsjcavkssQJaR-HhvvhpouOtBFQ3V~R3Y43cWmBPK5Ktg-T3HJhtZImuYkYx~~mJd0o5L6q8rBEtEbC3tUyZ-cj55VF8Ohih-aEmLyYU0BwgxL9YV7UkjPv0lXcnlBNqDYzXBbksFV305aobVGG8wyM6BL5d~xtw~JnFsqq8l2mEQDaO3qxkIojHD50aGB5ZHRXn3Ntlal6B8rlzXO1vhTnzSDojdFj38zPDXs-ftOQi4jiUGOoTtnPFIK7bhjxgNCqfn5~Y7dLzvasJwmAfPmjKFq6iLYxO3i65FmQO4gNJNChxQCkyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Science, Technology and Energy Committee voted 14-3 on March 4 to recommend House Bill 710 as amended, a measure that would allow investor-owned electric distribution utilities to sign multi-year power-purchase agreements (PPAs) with advanced nuclear resources using the language and limits established in Senate Bill 54.

The amendment removed an earlier draft's provision that would have authorized the Department of Energy to issue requests for proposals, corrected typographical references to RSA citations, hyphenated technical terms (for example, \"sodium-cooled\"), and extended the date window for advanced nuclear proposals. The amendment's sponsor said the bill does not require utilities to own or build nuclear plants; instead it permits PPAs under the existing procurement framework established two years earlier in Senate Bill 54.

Committee members discussed the statutory timeline in SB 54 (including the original June 30, 2025 RFP date and associated one-year procurement window) and confirmed that the bill does not change the 2,000,000 MWh cap and the percentage-of-load limits already in statute. The Department of Energy testified it is \"comfortable with that authority,\" but members raised procedural questions about whether the department or utilities should be the contracting entity for future procurement.

Representative Carmen noted a drafting typo (RSA citation) and members corrected a date-question for consistency. The committee adopted amendment 0716H (15-2) and then voted 14-3 on the motion that HB 710 ought to pass as amended. The committee majority will prepare the report and Representative Kaplan indicated she would write a minority report opposing the measure.","The committee voted to recommend HB 710 as amended, allowing investor-owned distribution utilities to enter power-purchase agreements (PPAs) for advanced nuclear resources under the same statutory mechanism used in Senate Bill 54, while keeping existing caps and adding technical corrections.",{"_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},6635157,"Committee approves bill that allows off'grid electricity providers but keeps other safety and permitting requirements",8145,2599000,10744000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b&start=2599&end=10744","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b/thumbnail_2599000.jpg","/articles/6635157/New-Hampshire/Committee-approves-bill-that-allows-offgrid-electricity-providers-but-keeps-other-safety-and-permitting-requirements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635157-b4fab9ac6d6fc437b298a29fc28d70c6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770975652&Signature=c8cPzWqESmF1eHxODRTYrcMP5vosnGiS89wPu0mCXtEG-cv2wF1tbAgFYxfF0RVA-YMQa8VdHzC8ihxatQ~b7ryqEHapAQPhnfWN8ByPe7D4LiLdfrTIDSKn3lvR1bejMEUKvN8Qa3LBQ88q95eN4hPezkN10OSOAJn9aQITe68cqY8N39WfBadyWJ6TxPRYThzZU3WvBxnpNWpr2FnD4-4kKn~nAiW4jjVCTO8VPr8K32beGW~IMyNBatBPq3IiAfx-bP08E5xebT4ZDCSuXfi1e0m2v~wQXgMMuXtZSCcOC~lmRWOXS4SDbVYk1PoNuLrHNCTXJrKyCmXA0PBovA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Science, Technology and Energy Committee on March 4 voted 12-5 in favor of HB 672 as amended, a bill that establishes \"off-grid electricity providers\" as a category of sellers of electric energy that are not regulated as public utilities under RSA Title 34 but remain subject to other laws and local building codes.

The amendment spells out that off-grid providers \"are not public utilities,\" explicitly references \"RSA title 34\" for the statutory chapters from which the providers are exempt, and adds language to clarify that providers are still subject to other applicable laws and regulations \"such as municipal and state highway safety regulations.\" The amendment also references RSA 162-H, the State site evaluation statute, in response to questions about transmission lines crossing highways or government land.

Supporters said the bill is enabling legislation designed to allow contract-based sales of electricity between a private generator and a buyer (for example, a producer on one parcel and a high-demand facility next door). Representative Vos's amendment sponsor said the arrangement would be governed primarily by contract law; if a party disputed contract terms, the courts would provide oversight. Committee members repeatedly emphasized that the exemption applies to state utility regulatory chapters and does not remove obligations under federal regulation (for example, NRC oversight of nuclear plants) or environmental and local permitting.

Opponents raised safety and consumer-protection concerns. Representative Korman said she would vote against the bill despite having cosponsored it, citing worries about \"someone really just unregulated running their own power plant\" and the potential for fires that ignore property lines. Representative Wendy Thomas and Representative Swanson also said the proposal risked creating a \"wild west\" if safety boundaries and enforcement were not clear.

Committee debate noted specific safeguards: local building permits and inspections, DES and EPA permitting (for discharges or ground disturbance), and requirements triggered if a distribution or transmission line crosses public roadways. The sponsor said many terms would be defined in private contracts and that disputes would go to courts. The committee adopted amendment 0627H and then voted 12-5 in favor of the bill as amended; the committee majority will file a report supporting the bill and Representative Wendy Thomas filed a minority report opposing the measure.

The bill establishes a statutory posture for off-grid electricity sales and leaves oversight of safety, environmental permits and local building codes in place while exempting participants from RSA Title 34 utility regulation. The committee record and votes are part of the official minutes and will be included in the committee report.","The Science, Technology and Energy Committee voted 12-5 to recommend HB 672 as amended, a bill creating a statutory framework to allow off-grid electricity providers while explicitly exempting them from certain utility regulation but leaving health, safety, environmental and siting laws in place.",{"_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},6635161,"Committee debates changing how system benefits charge programs are reviewed; no final committee vote recorded",9638,646000,10284000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b&start=646&end=10284","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b/thumbnail_646000.jpg","/articles/6635161/New-Hampshire/Committee-debates-changing-how-system-benefits-charge-programs-are-reviewed-no-final-committee-vote-recorded","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635161-085692105a706afbbad80b6d44678e94/orig.mp4?Expires=1770975653&Signature=nVjPpF7pGpvx8HPyO3EVXssGRliOwspxsbjzum~cRzteB~tqYRCfnpe61ldOPVVVxo-7KZkTSxvPaPxhjEIhR-GGHXxKtH8Nn6OzlL9j8Ki-lbK7gIWvHme8nMh9WrJwhjBe~mE3N7KLVRHb7KR~2pSfMu5CTwrdrWVIM6e7pRILgLgyHEsWBeRg9OhUG~SVMSePS~IjCM7b-pzMEbZr5jBRmV90GF2JBrVBd5mSEFompVbvq4Cfbz~iwett2RPSeK9oSeb6uawPkNDfmj4-QP9fiLP75DLaDlkDlby5AqExRPvgLJGeHp67mBuFc1w9ctMeDqisSQL2sAgbLezodw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 221 prompted a lengthy committee debate about which cost-effectiveness tests should govern the state's energy efficiency triennial plans and how much discretion to give the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).

Representative McGee, who explained the amendment during the March 4 work session, told the committee that the bill and amendment would allow the PUC flexibility to consider additional tests through an adjudicative process and to approve any new test by order \"prior to commencement of any triennial order, period beginning with the program year 2027.\" Members referenced HB 541 (passed in 2022), which they said inadvertently limited the PUC to reviewing only changes between triennia rather than the full triennial plan.

Opponents warned the change could undermine stability in the New Hampshire Saves programs and small businesses that serve weatherization markets. Representative Harrington and others argued the Granite State Test historically produced strong returns: one member said a past three-year report showed \"$3.8 for every dollar spent.\" Supporters, including representatives who worked with the PUC, said the agency sought authority to conduct a full, adjudicated review of triennial plans because the existing statutory language restricts its ability to examine entire plans.

Committee members suggested alternative approaches during the discussion, such as directing the PUC to open a docket to develop a new test and requiring the legislature to approve any replacement test. No final committee vote on HB 221 was recorded in the meeting transcript excerpted for this work session; the item was placed on the executive session agenda earlier in the day but the transcript does not include a subsequent roll-call outcome for the bill.

Because the discussion raised questions about statutory language added in 2022, members emphasized clarifying whether the intent was to limit review to changes between triennia or to allow a full review. The PUC and the Department of Energy were referenced frequently; several members requested more detailed justification from the PUC about why it believes the existing Granite State Test is insufficient before changing statute.","Lawmakers discussed HB 221, which would give the Public Utilities Commission more latitude to consider alternative cost-effectiveness tests for energy efficiency programs. Members were divided over whether to preserve the Granite State Test and program stability.",{"_33":125,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":126,"_41":127,"_43":128,"_45":129,"_47":130,"_49":131,"_51":132,"_53":133,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":134,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":135,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6635165,"State committee urges congressional review of FERC's \"presumption of prudence\" for transmission costs",5127,416000,5543000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b&start=416&end=5543","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2650917-54a0c9f0cfcb75b20e7c0f6ace44a38b/thumbnail_416000.jpg","/articles/6635165/New-Hampshire/State-committee-urges-congressional-review-of-FERCs-presumption-of-prudence-for-transmission-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6635165-11ed1a991436300e2d1d97e9c4361da6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770975653&Signature=WE05Pl11y4QYiTVII-B1J0iQdtzH2wCsrsfIZ5k5gGBOCyOZpwL4DfOdqsfUOAfK9EjHpSeUjKQ3ee7VoIbw-KnXEMQhRuDDnpMZefZI647q5JoBh9qjczvICKpQecfv9Nbh4QxtkdRNECesSaAvfXpIDSlNw~e9EpTdkxZnYUsNzLUJk4CafCQBKL6qFfxz9JPPEn8aHUExWi3x0TtebD7ZTLD-KAGWViIqu5T-7gaX1f9~n9H~JVjMo69XKQJcw7m3lJoDmQPwQNAty~9PR057pgu2CICRnFVH5bnUdb05YWtYF-~K4zGf7V-Mizx6vS9~DgcKe4dr6MQ1J1SzkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Science, Technology and Energy Committee on March 4 adopted HR 15, a resolution asking the state's U.S. congressional delegation to advocate for changes at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding how transmission project costs are reviewed.

Representative McGee, the amendment sponsor, said the change adds context to the resolution by noting \"whereas it is Federal Energy Regulatory Commission practice to accept new and upgraded transmission costs via a presumption of prudence without a detailed revenue of individual project costs and whereas consumer utility costs are increasingly burdensome and warrant detailed scrutiny of large scale utility systems investments to protect consumers.\" The amendment also replaced the phrase \"justified\" with the statutory phrase \"just and reasonable\" in the bill text, she said.

The amendment drew support in committee as clarifying the resolution's intent. Representative Wendy Thomas asked about an archival distribution line in the draft; McGee said it is customary boilerplate to ensure legislative documents are preserved. No member offered substantive edits to the policy language during the work session.

The committee adopted amendment 0679H by voice and later voted 17-0 to adopt the resolution as amended. Representative Harrington said he did not want HR 15 placed on the consent calendar so he could speak to it on the House floor.

The resolution does not change state law; it is a formal request that New Hampshire's congressional delegation press federal regulators to alter FERC practice. The amendment text added to the resolution and the vote count are part of the committee record.

The committee indicated the sponsor will write the committee report; the resolution will be carried forward to the House with the sponsor's request that it not be placed on the consent calendar so members may debate it on the floor.","The Science, Technology and Energy Committee adopted a resolution asking New Hampshire's congressional delegation to seek changes at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would require more detailed review of transmission project costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee recommends against study of weatherization initiatives, 9-8

Committee votes to table bill that would limit PUC review of settlement agreements

Committee clears bill letting utilities sign power'purchase agreements with advanced nuclear resources, with limits

Committee approves bill that allows off'grid electricity providers but keeps other safety and permitting requirements

Committee debates changing how system benefits charge programs are reviewed; no final committee vote recorded

State committee urges congressional review of FERC's "presumption of prudence" for transmission costs