<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to establish a resilience hub pilot program to assist vulnerable communities during emergency situations.</p>
Summary
HB472 creates a two-year pilot program to establish resilience hubs in vulnerable communities. The Department of Energy, working with the Department of Emergency Management and a Phase II utility, would help develop up to three hubs per year in targeted areas with high concentrations of low-income residents, disabled persons, the elderly, and others who may have difficulty evacuating during emergencies. Each hub is defined as a publicly accessible building equipped with solar panels and battery storage to provide continuous power during severe weather or other grid disruptions.
The bill limits the program to planning districts within the exclusive service territory of a Phase II utility and allows no more than one hub per planning district. The utility would own the battery storage at each site and could seek cost recovery from the State Corporation Commission under existing utility ratemaking provisions. The bill also allows the utility to use the battery storage for peak-shaving when the hub is not needed for emergency purposes, and it specifies that this battery storage may count toward the distributed energy resources cap in the state’s virtual power plant pilot program.
Impact
HB472 would add a new state pilot program focused on emergency resilience infrastructure and would affect utility regulation, emergency preparedness, and distributed energy resource policy. It would involve the Department of Energy, the Department of Emergency Management, and Phase II utilities, while also requiring State Corporation Commission oversight for utility cost recovery. The bill would interact with existing statutes governing emergency definitions, Phase II utilities, planning districts, utility cost recovery, and the virtual power plant pilot program.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support in committee. The bill advanced unanimously from subcommittee and then from the House Committee on Public Safety with a strong favorable vote before being referred to Appropriations. No committee testimony is provided, but the unanimous and near-unanimous votes indicate generally positive sentiment toward the concept of resilience hubs and emergency backup power for vulnerable communities.
Contention
The main policy questions appear to be cost, utility ownership, and program scope. Because the Phase II utility would own the battery storage and seek cost recovery, likely points of concern include ratepayer impacts and whether the utility should be allowed to use the equipment for peak-shaving when not serving emergencies. Another possible area of debate is the geographic limitation to Phase II utility territories and the cap of three hubs per year, which may be viewed as either a prudent pilot design or too narrow to address statewide needs.