(New Title) relative to the reconciliation of default electric service rates.
Summary
HB 1733 amends New Hampshire’s restructuring policy principles for electric utilities by limiting how utilities may recover differences between estimated and actual wholesale power supply costs for default electric service. Under the bill, those reconciliation costs generally may not be collected through a non-bypassable charge, which is a charge that customers must pay regardless of their electricity supplier choice. The bill preserves an exception only if the Public Utilities Commission finds, in an adjudicative proceeding, that extraordinary circumstances exist.
The measure is aimed at default electric service rates and the way utilities manage and recover cost swings in competitive electricity markets. It also keeps existing language allowing the commission to approve alternative default-service mechanisms that reduce customer risk, avoid harming competition, and mitigate price volatility, so long as they do not create new deferred costs and are in the public interest.
Impact
The bill would amend RSA 374-F:3, V(e), narrowing utility cost recovery options for default service reconciliation and constraining the use of non-bypassable charges. In practice, this would shift more of the risk of wholesale power cost differences away from captive ratepayers unless the commission makes a specific extraordinary-circumstances finding. The affected parties are electric utilities, default service customers, competitive electricity suppliers, and the Public Utilities Commission, which would gain a formal adjudicative role in any exception.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan alignment in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to reflect a consumer-protection and market-discipline approach, with an emphasis on limiting automatic cost pass-throughs and protecting competitive market development. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided context means the overall sentiment cannot be measured precisely from the record.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether utilities should be allowed to recover default-service reconciliation costs through non-bypassable charges, which spreads costs broadly across customers, or whether those costs should be limited absent extraordinary circumstances. Supporters would likely argue the bill protects customers from open-ended utility cost recovery and preserves competitive market incentives, while opponents would likely contend that restricting recovery could increase utility financial risk, complicate default service procurement, or make rate volatility harder to manage. The bill’s exception for extraordinary circumstances suggests a compromise between strict limits and utility flexibility.