Can New Hampshire’s HB 672 serve as a model for other states grappling with data center load?

The short answer is no.

Rao Konidena

Sep 30, 2025

Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lyons’ opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal highlighted New Hampshire’s HB 672 as an “elegant solution”. I am not convinced about that because there are serious roadblocks for “off grid providers” in this bill. Specifically, as soon as the off grid provider connects to an utility infrastructure, they fall under the regulation of New Hampshire’s utility regulation.

It is important to address some of the major points in the WSJ op-ed.

First, the op-ed claims that “The electricity sector is in a state of crisis … HB 672 is an elegant solution: let anyone build.” Yes, the electricity sector is indeed in a state of crisis due to large load growth, primarily driven by data centers and large language models. However, whether HB 672 is an elegant solution that allows anyone to build is still up in the air.

As the January 13, 2025 meeting minutes of the Office of Consumer Advocate (OCA) in New Hampshire’s Residential Ratepayers Advisory Board indicate, this “off grid electricity providers” concept is primarily originating from the desire of Mr. Glen Lyons, who is a retired Executive from Exxon Mobil, geared towards large industrials like data center load. If we take the HB 672 text quite literally - 374:3-c defines “off-grid provider” as an entity not connected to any existing grid, and not allowed to cross rights-of-way or state boundaries. This literal interpretation means that HB 672 is geared more towards a narrow segment of load – not anyone who wishes to build – only those who want to build for large industrials like data centers.

Second, the op-ed notes that “Off-grid providers are free from regulation and bureaucracy.” This is not entirely true. HB 672 exempts off-grid providers only from RSA Title XXXIV (utility regulation), but they remain subject to RSA 162-H (siting), zoning, safety, and environmental laws. This means that regulation is reduced but not eliminated. Large projects still need siting and permitting. The NH OCA notes trade-offs: there could be lost revenue for system benefits charges, stranded cost charges, and Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligations.

Third, the op-ed claims “New suppliers can innovate like FedEx, redesigning delivery systems.” This may be true because we don’t know what innovations could emerge from HB 672, but these innovations might be limited to the bilateral supply contracts between large industrials and their suppliers, as OCA acknowledges. The text of HB 672 also explicitly states that Off-grid providers cannot use public rights-of-way or the grid for backup. So, that could act as a barrier if Off-grid providers want to use the existing grid for backup, which most providers do. These large industrial facilities generate on-site to reduce their demand on the existing grid, but they depend on the grid for backup when they have insufficient energy on-site. Additionally, the comparison to FedEx is probably misleading because there is only so much excess energy that can be stored on-site in batteries compared to FedEx, which might have a large warehouse of goods ready to be shipped.

Fourth, the op-ed asserts that “No one knows the electricity business better than existing utilities, and they can step in.” Therein lies the problem with this HB 672. Yes, it’s true that no one knows the electricity business better than the existing utilities but the language of HB 672 explicitly states that once an Off-grid provider connects to the existing utility infrastructure – they fall under the existing utility regulation. So, what is the advantage for an existing utility to spin off a private entity without labeling it as such to serve large industrial loads, such as data centers? Would this private entity take steps to avoid connecting to existing utility infrastructure, given its institutional knowledge of where the poles and wires are buried? That might be a possibility, but how long would that connection last without calling for existing grid backup? There are more questions than answers at this stage. Hence, I am not sure whether this HB 672 will lead to innovation on the part of existing utilities.

Fifth, the op-ed claims that “HB 672 re-creates the fierce competition of Edison and Westinghouse.” But the OCA Advisory minutes don’t claim historical revival; they focus on data centers cutting deals. Per the HB 672 legislation, by definition, no public Right of Way (ROW) crossings or grid connections are allowed. Which shows that the historical analogy is false — the HB 672 legislation bans the very street-by-street wire competition that drove the Edison/Westinghouse era.

Finally, the op-ed states that “Entrepreneurship will benefit all.” Yes, this may be true, but OCA explicitly warns of cost-shifting: loss of system benefit charges, stranded cost recovery, and renewables charges. It may be relevant to note that NH stranded cost statute (RSA 374-F) and PUC Rule 902.24 set up non-bypassable charges to protect cost recovery — HB 672 circumvents these by exempting providers from “public utility” status. This translates to small customers paying more as large loads exit the system and fixed costs are spread over fewer ratepayers.

All in all, HB 672 is not a template other states can easily copy. It doesn’t unleash universal competition; it narrowly exempts large behind-the-fence systems, primarily for data centers, from public utility regulation. In doing so, it risks shifting fixed costs onto residential and small business customers, undermines New Hampshire’s stranded cost recovery rules, and bans the very kind of network competition that Edison and Westinghouse pioneered. Other states grappling with data center load growth should be cautious before holding up HB 672 as a model.

Rao Konidena

@raokonidena

Energy market expert, spent 15 years at MISO, advocates for energy aggregators and distributed energy resources such as energy storage, distributed solar and storage, textbook co-author - https://a.co/d/3jV4bWY, transmission expert. Rakon Energy