Relative to assessment of cost effectiveness of the systems benefit charge.
Impact
If enacted, HB 1036 will specifically adjust the regulatory procedures under RSA 374-F:3, impacting the wider framework of utility regulation in New Hampshire. By redefining how cost effectiveness is calculated, the bill could lead to significant shifts in energy savings projections and program offerings from utilities. This may ultimately affect consumers through changes in energy charges, aimed at promoting more efficient energy use across the state, while complying with the latest studies and practical evaluations.
Summary
House Bill 1036 aims to modify the assessment of cost effectiveness for the systems benefit charge within the energy sector in New Hampshire. The primary changes involve how utilities evaluate their energy savings programs. Specifically, the bill mandates that the commission's review of cost effectiveness incorporates the latest Avoided Energy Supply Cost Study and other relevant evaluations. It emphasizes the 'Granite State Test' as the primary assessment tool while allowing the 'Total Resource Cost Test' to serve as a secondary evaluation metric. This restructuring is intended to enhance the regulatory framework governing energy supplies and utilities in the state.
Sentiment
The sentiment around HB 1036 appeared to be cautiously optimistic among energy regulators and utility companies, who view the updates as a necessary evolution toward better efficiency and accountability. However, concerns have been raised by some stakeholders regarding the potential impact of increased regulatory scrutiny on utility operations and cost implications for consumers. The debate on this bill underscores a broader conversation surrounding energy sustainability and economic viability in the state.
Contention
Among the notable points of contention, critics argue that the bill could impose overly stringent regulations that do not adequately account for the unique circumstances and operational challenges faced by different utilities. Some advocates have expressed concern about how this might complicate their ability to offer innovative energy solutions. Additionally, discussions focus on the balance between ensuring accountability for utilities and allowing them flexibility to administer effective energy-saving programs.
Relative to a report by the department of energy on the effectiveness of the system benefits charge and relative to surface water setbacks for landfills and relative to water quality.
Relative to least cost integrated resource plans of utilities; municipal hosts for purposes of limited electrical energy producers; the cost of compliance with disclosure of electric renewable portfolio standards; repealing the energy efficiency and sustainable energy board; and procedures for energy facility siting by the site evaluation committee.