Urging New Hampshire's congressional representatives to advocate for a change in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's policy.
Impact
If enacted, HR15 could significantly influence state-level discussions about energy costs and regulatory practices. By pushing for changes at the federal level, the resolution seeks to address the responsibilities of FERC in determining the legitimacy of costs related to transmission projects. This could lead to more stringent oversight of such projects, potentially benefiting both the state and its residents by ensuring fairer rates and reducing unjustified charges.
Summary
House Resolution 15 (HR15) urges New Hampshire's congressional representatives to advocate for changes in the policies of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding electric utility transmission projects. Specifically, it emphasizes the disparity in cost assessments between distribution and transmission projects, where the former is rigorously reviewed by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (PUC) while the latter is presupposed to be justifiable under FERC's current policies. This resolution calls for a shift towards ensuring that only those costs deemed just and reasonable are passed on to ratepayers.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HR15 appears to be supportive among legislators concerned with consumer protection and fair energy pricing. Proponents view the resolution as a necessary measure to advocate for local interests at the federal level. However, there may also be concerns or resistance from entities that benefit from the current FERC policies, highlighting a divide between consumer advocacy and utility interests.
Contention
The main point of contention revolves around the assessment of transmission project costs under FERC's current operational policies. Opponents of the existing regulations may argue that the current assumptions about cost justification lead to increased financial burdens on ratepayers. By urging congressional action, the resolution highlights an ongoing debate about the role of federal regulation in state energy policy and the financial implications for consumers.
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.