Committee Summary for House Science, Technology and Energy (02/03/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB682 00:00:00.000 - 8:08:17 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the office of offshore wind industry, the offshore and port development commission, and the office of energy innovation.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2024
HCR4 03:52:37.199 - 12:00:54 PM	Public Hearing	relative to rejecting all offshore wind energy projects in the waters off the coast of New Hampshire and the Gulf of Maine.	Thomas, Douglas(R)[A-]2024
HB219 04:37:03.000 - 12:45:20 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the phasing out of the minimum electric renewable portfolio standard.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2024
HB219 04:51:38.120 - 12:59:55 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the phasing out of the minimum electric renewable portfolio standard.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2024
HB567 07:31:52.920 - 3:40:09 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the elimination of useful thermal energy from renewable energy classes.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2024

HB682: Representative Harrington Support00:00:00.000 - 8:08:17 AM; Representative Harrington introduced House Bill 682, which aims to put a hold on the development of an offshore wind industry office in New Hampshire. He argued that offshore wind development is not economically viable without government mandates, referencing the example of Massachusetts where utilities were forced to purchase power from Vineyard One. He also discussed the recent financial difficulties of Orsted, a major wind turbine developer, suggesting these issues reflect broader industry instability. Harrington further explained the technical challenges and costs associated with offshore wind, including the need for expensive backup power due to the intermittent nature of wind generation. He responded to questions about the impact of the CEO's dismissal at Orsted, the specifics of floating wind turbines, and the regional grid implications, maintaining that without private investment, the industry is not worth pursuing at this time.
HB682: Representative McGee Information Only00:05:22.000 - 8:13:39 AM; Representative McGee sought clarification on the regional implications of New Hampshire's participation in offshore wind development. He noted that other states were more eager to develop offshore wind and questioned if New Hampshire's withdrawal from the process would impact electricity rates, given the regional grid. Harrington responded by explaining that other states were proceeding under government mandates, not private enterprise, and that the costs were not justifiable.
HB682: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only00:08:46.000 - 8:17:03 AM; Representative Thomas asked about the impact of tariffs on Canada and the role of offshore wind in energy independence. Harrington clarified that the bill was not related to tariffs and emphasized the bill's focus on pausing the state's involvement in offshore wind development until more data is available. A brief exchange occurred regarding the protocol of speaking during the hearing, resolved by the chair.
HB682: Representative Hunter Information Only00:11:54.519 - 8:20:11 AM; Representative Hunter inquired about the timeline of the bill's filing. Harrington responded that it was filed in November or December, indicating the recent introduction of the legislation.
HB682: Representative Swanson Information Only00:13:05.839 - 8:21:22 AM; Representative Swanson asked for clarification on the operational percentage of offshore wind, to which Harrington explained the ISO New England report's findings on the need for dispatchable power. He clarified that offshore wind's capacity factor is high but intermittent, requiring backup power. Swanson also questioned the prohibition of investment, and Harrington clarified that the bill does not prohibit investment but removes state involvement in development.
HB682: Representative Rand Information Only00:16:48.079 - 8:25:05 AM; Representative Rand discussed the capacity factor and the grid's need for natural gas, questioning if facilitating more renewable generation could preserve natural gas for critical times. Harrington argued that the intermittent nature of wind power necessitates backup, which could lead to less natural gas usage overall but would require expensive capacity market adjustments.
HB682: Representative Abul Khan of Seabrook Support00:21:14.039 - 8:29:31 AM; Representative Khan, representing Seabrook in Rockingham 30, supported House Bill 682. He expressed concerns about the impact of offshore wind on New Hampshire's small coastline, fishing industry, and natural beauty. Khan highlighted the lack of financial benefits to local residents from the proposed wind power and the absence of a decommissioning fund, similar to what exists for nuclear facilities. He emphasized his personal and community commitment to preserving the area as it is.
HB682: Representative Abul Khan of Seabrook Oppose00:21:14.039 - 8:29:31 AM; Representative Khan expressed opposition to HB682, emphasizing his commitment to leaving New Hampshire better than he found it. He argued that windmills would not benefit New Hampshire, as they would disrupt the coastline and the energy generated would be sold elsewhere, not benefiting the state. He highlighted his experience on the Seabrook Board of Selectmen, noting that while the local power plant contributes to the town's taxes, the energy benefits do not stay within New Hampshire. He concluded by urging the committee to vote against the bill.
HB682: Megan Stone, Department of Energy Information Only00:28:23.159 - 8:36:40 AM; Megan Stone from the Department of Energy provided a neutral stance on HB682, stating no concerns with the bill as written. She outlined that the bill would modify the Office of Offshore Wind Industry Development and Energy Innovation, removing offshore wind duties and repealing related committees. The bill also shifts the focus to energy innovation by moving certain advisory councils under the Office of Energy Innovation. Stone confirmed no fiscal impact from the bill and was open to questions about its implications.
HB682: Representative Vice Chair Thomas Information Only00:30:16.919 - 8:38:33 AM; Representative Thomas inquired if there would be any cost changes if HB682 were to pass. Megan Stone from the Department of Energy confirmed that there would be no fiscal impact from the bill.
HB682: Representative McGee Information Only00:31:20.360 - 8:39:37 AM; Representative McGee asked about the potential changes in public engagement if the grid modernization advisory council were moved under the Office of Energy Innovation. Megan Stone responded that she was not sure about specific changes but would look into it.
HB682: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only00:32:19.200 - 8:40:36 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas asked about the impact on employees if the bill were to pass. Megan Stone confirmed that the two employees in the Office of Energy Innovation would remain unaffected.
HB682: Rob Werner, League of Conservation Voters, New Hampshire Oppose00:32:54.480 - 8:41:11 AM; Rob Werner, representing the League of Conservation Voters and New England for Offshore Wind, opposed HB682, arguing that it eliminates important venues for policy discussion on offshore wind development. He highlighted the potential for job creation and economic growth through offshore wind and criticized the bill for removing New Hampshire from these discussions. He also provided updates on offshore wind projects in the Gulf of Maine and Vineyard Wind, emphasizing their significance and the ongoing development.
HB682: Representative McGee Information Only00:37:15.200 - 8:45:32 AM; Representative McGee asked Rob Werner about regional planning for energy storage to address the intermittency of wind power. Werner mentioned the need for more power as the economy electrifies but did not have specific information on the regional planning, deferring to other experts.
HB682: Representative PL Information Only00:38:29.920 - 8:46:46 AM; Representative PL inquired about the offshore wind leases in Maine mentioned by Rob Werner. Werner clarified that these were part of auctions by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and not tied to specific power purchase agreements, emphasizing the private market nature of these developments.
HB682: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only00:40:27.760 - 8:48:44 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas questioned whether the Office of Energy Innovation would still be involved in offshore wind discussions under HB682. Rob Werner acknowledged some level of involvement but stressed the need for a more focused approach on workforce development and other aspects of energy innovation.
HB682: Sarah Thorne of Holderness Oppose00:43:03.119 - 8:51:20 AM; Sarah Thorne, a retired school teacher from Holderness, opposed HB682, emphasizing the importance of exploring all avenues for clean energy to ensure a sustainable future for young people. She highlighted the subsidies for fossil fuels and the potential of wind energy, despite its current challenges. Thorne urged the committee to consider the long-term environmental impacts of not pursuing wind energy, including rising sea levels and ocean acidification.
HB682: Eric Anderson of Portsmouth Information Only00:45:29.240 - 8:53:46 AM; The transcript ends before Eric Anderson's testimony could be fully captured. No summary or sentiment can be provided for his testimony due to the lack of complete information.
HB682: Eric Anderson, Portsmouth Support00:45:49.480 - 8:54:06 AM; Eric Anderson, a commercial fisherman with over 50 years of experience, expressed support for the Offshore and Port Development Commission. He highlighted his attendance at the commission meetings over the last two years, noting that the agendas were predominantly pro-wind. Anderson mentioned the limited dialogue (40 minutes over two years) concerning the fishing industry, which he found insufficient. However, he appreciated the commission's exploration of various aspects of offshore wind, including a discussion with a representative from a company that repairs cables for offshore wind farms. This representative emphasized the inevitability of cable failures and the significant time and cost involved in repairs, which Anderson found informative and interesting.
HB682: Ward Burn, Portsmouth Oppose00:48:28.040 - 8:56:45 AM; Ward Burn, a commercial fisherman and owner of the fishing vessel 'Sugar Daddy' from Portsmouth, strongly opposed the bill. He shared his experience on the Wind Commission and his research into wind energy, emphasizing the negative environmental impacts. Burn detailed the cooling stations required for wind farms, which use chlorinated seawater, discharging millions of gallons of heated, chlorinated water into the ocean daily, which he described as an 'ocean killer'. He also raised concerns about the death of whales due to wind farms and the toxic effects of windmill blade materials on marine life and human health, asserting that wind energy is not 'green'.
HB682: Julie Porter, Dover Oppose00:55:14.799 - 9:03:31 AM; Julie Porter from Dover opposed the bill, arguing that wind and solar are not steady sources of energy. She cited current energy statistics showing low contributions from wind and solar. Porter raised concerns about the environmental and safety issues associated with offshore wind, including the dangers of electromagnetic pulses from cabling, battery storage hazards, and the impact of wind turbines on wildlife, including bats and whales. She stressed the lack of benefits and the potential harm to New Hampshire's environment and fishing industry.
HB682: Representative Matt Saborin, Seabrook Support01:00:04.680 - 9:08:21 AM; Representative Matt Saborin from Seabrook supported the bill and other offshore wind-related bills, citing concerns over the impact of offshore wind on the 400-year-old fishing industry along New Hampshire's coast. He highlighted the timing of commercial and research leases in the Gulf of Maine, advocating for completing research before commercial leasing. Saborin also mentioned a recent incident in Massachusetts where a wind turbine blade broke, affecting beaches, and warned of similar potential impacts on New Hampshire's coastal towns during peak tourist seasons.
HB682: CIA Kelly, Hooksett Support01:02:26.119 - 9:10:43 AM; CIA Kelly from Hooksett supported the bill, expressing concerns about the environmental impact of offshore wind on marine life, particularly baby fish and other ocean creatures. She highlighted the limitation of fishing and recreational areas due to these structures and raised national security concerns, noting the involvement of foreign companies capable of building underwater tunnels. Kelly, a vegetarian and a Republican, emphasized the need to protect all creatures and maintain food security.
HB682: John Gage, Windham Oppose01:04:51.520 - 9:13:08 AM; John Gage from Windham opposed the bill, expressing worry about global warming and the need for diverse energy sources, including offshore wind. As the New Hampshire State Coordinator of Citizens Climate Lobby, he advocated for the benefits of wind power, including local job creation and the potential for using wind-generated power to produce hydrogen for energy storage. Gage criticized the bill as part of a 'war on wind power' and emphasized the importance of investing in workforce training and preparing for offshore wind deployment.
HB682: Representative Kelly Potenza, Strafford District 19, Rochester Oppose01:08:48.198 - 9:17:05 AM; Representative Kelly Penza expressed strong opposition to offshore wind projects, highlighting the environmental, economic, and national security risks associated with them. She mentioned an executive order temporarily withdrawing areas on the outer continental shelf from offshore wind leasing, suggesting it as a necessary action due to the harms caused by such projects. Penza detailed the negative impacts on marine life, including noise pollution, habitat destruction, and increased vessel traffic, which she claims result in the deaths of whales, dolphins, and other marine species. She also criticized the use of toxic chlorine bleach in offshore wind operations, which she stated was previously mentioned by another speaker. Economically, she argued that offshore wind relies heavily on government subsidies, negatively affects tourism and property values, and harms local fishing industries. On national security, she noted potential interference with military operations and radar systems, especially with the proposed floating wind turbines in the Gulf of Maine. She advocated for alternative energy solutions like nuclear power, geothermal energy, and onshore wind and solar in non-sensitive areas.
HB682: Representative Swanson Information Only01:13:48.199 - 9:22:05 AM; Representative Swanson asked Representative Penza for a source or reference regarding the claim about offshore wind farms dumping chlorine bleach into the ocean, indicating a need for verification of the statement made.
HB682: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only01:15:02.520 - 9:23:19 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas questioned Representative Penza about the penalties outlined in the bill, specifically the $50,000 fines per day and the implications of misdemeanors and felonies. She sought clarification on how these penalties were determined and what specific charges would be applied.
HB682: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only01:16:06.199 - 9:24:23 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas further inquired about the bill's provision that holds violators financially responsible for environmental harm or disruption caused by illegal offshore wind activities. She expressed concerns about enforcement, referencing a similar situation in Marac where cleanup efforts were unsuccessful.
HB682: Representative Bernardi Information Only01:17:14.679 - 9:25:31 AM; Representative Bernardi questioned Representative Penza about the national security risks mentioned, particularly regarding the Coast Guard's ability to assist in emergencies near offshore wind farms and potential restrictions on naval transit and operations due to floating cables.
HB682: Representative R Information Only01:18:32.000 - 9:26:49 AM; Representative R asked Representative Penza if she had visited the Block Island wind farm, to which Penza replied she had not but had seen the impacts of offshore wind projects in Virginia, expressing concerns about the environmental damage caused by dredging and noise.
HB682: Representative McGee Information Only01:19:47.840 - 9:28:04 AM; Representative McGee asked about Representative Penza's awareness of the High Wind project in Scotland, which uses floating wind turbines. Penza responded that she was not familiar with the project in Scotland but emphasized the issues with offshore wind projects in the United States, particularly citing an executive order halting such projects.
HB682: Representative Swanson Information Only01:20:52.320 - 9:29:09 AM; Representative Swanson sought clarification from Representative Penza on the national security implications of offshore wind projects, questioning whether the federal government would permit projects that could harm defense capabilities. Penza responded affirmatively, citing past administration actions and the lack of due diligence in approving such projects.
HB682: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only01:22:53.719 - 9:31:10 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas asked Representative Penza to clarify a section of the bill that appeared to establish a renewable energy fund, to which Penza clarified that it was an existing statute and not part of her bill.
HB682: Representative Matthew Saor, Seabrook Oppose01:24:15.679 - 9:32:32 AM; Representative Matthew Saor from Seabrook spoke against offshore wind technology, focusing on its impact on the ocean's food chain. He explained that sediment plumes caused by wind turbines could block sunlight necessary for phytoplankton, which is crucial for the marine food chain, thereby undermining food security.
HB682: Representative KH, Seabrook Support01:25:57.880 - 9:34:14 AM; Representative KH expressed support for HB682, highlighting the importance of the bill based on feedback received during campaign door-to-door activities. He mentioned a recent executive order beneficial to the state and stressed the importance of protecting New Hampshire's 17 miles of pristine coastline from out-of-country companies that he believes threaten the state's way of life and future generations. He urged the committee to support the bill to safeguard the state's future.
HB682: Megan Stone, Department of Energy Information Only01:27:46.080 - 9:36:03 AM; Megan Stone from the Department of Energy provided a neutral stance on HB682 but expressed concerns about the bill's language. She noted that the bill would abolish the office of offshore wind industry development and energy innovation, including its funding source, while retaining duties without providing necessary support. The department believes that similar language in another bill, HB682, might be more suitable for safeguarding state interests in offshore wind development in the Gulf of Maine.
HB682: Wendy Thomas, Department of Energy Information Only01:29:30.239 - 9:37:47 AM; Wendy Thomas clarified the fiscal impact of HB682, correcting a previous statement about the savings from eliminating positions. She explained that the savings would be $220,000 due to the removal of an entire office, which was a clarification from earlier testimony regarding the impact of removing specific duties.
HB682: Vice Chair Thomas Information Only01:30:33.400 - 9:38:50 AM; Vice Chair Thomas corrected the record, clarifying that the fiscal savings mentioned earlier should be $220,000, not $220, addressing a previous error in testimony.
HB682: Michael Lata, Eversource Energy Oppose01:31:47.480 - 9:40:04 AM; Michael Lata from Eversource Energy opposed HB682, arguing that a blanket prohibition on offshore wind technology is inconsistent with New Hampshire's technology-neutral and market-based approach to energy. He believes each project should be evaluated on its merits through a thorough permitting review and not face a blanket prohibition.
HB682: McGee Information Only01:32:21.000 - 9:40:38 AM; Representative McGee raised a point about the environmental and operational considerations of offshore wind projects, specifically focusing on the example of existing floating wind turbines. He noted the absence of information on bleach usage and emphasized the importance of having a decommissioning plan and an assessment for wildlife harm. McGee questioned whether it would be better for New Hampshire to be involved in the process to stay informed about offshore developments rather than being unaware and uninvolved.
HB682: Representative (Unnamed) Information Only01:33:39.159 - 9:41:56 AM; The unnamed representative responded to McGee's inquiry by stating that any projects proposed in the Gulf of Maine should undergo rigorous environmental and economic impact assessments. They suggested that if the impacts are deemed unacceptable, the project should not proceed, regardless of the technology used.
HB682: Representative Bernardi Information Only01:35:04.560 - 9:43:21 AM; Representative Bernardi questioned the feasibility of offshore wind due to the need for significant backup power, as mentioned earlier by Representative Harrington. The response was that offshore wind could be a component of a broader resource mix, and each project should be evaluated individually based on its merits and challenges.
HB682: Lisa Lenos, Resident of New Hampshire Support01:36:18.719 - 9:44:35 AM; Lisa Lenos expressed strong support for HB682, highlighting her 20-year experience in evaluating industrial-scale wind energy, with the last five years focused on offshore wind. She proposed three amendments to the bill: 1) If HB 219f fails, add language to prevent offshore wind from being eligible for class one treatment, thus avoiding state subsidies. 2) Prohibit the state from mandating or approving long-term power purchase agreements for offshore wind to protect New Hampshire ratepayers from associated costs. 3) Discourage positive consistency reviews for projects within the state's ocean viewshed if they impact tourism, fishing, and other ocean-dependent industries. Lenos also discussed the potential costs New Hampshire might face if the region opts for more renewable energy, emphasizing the need to not bear costs for projects in other states.
HB682: Representative McGee Information Only01:39:59.440 - 9:48:16 AM; Representative McGee asked Lisa Lenos about protecting New Hampshire from costs associated with regional renewable energy projects if the state opts out. Lenos clarified that while New Hampshire would not directly pay for energy from projects like Vineyard Wind and Revolution Wind, there would be costs related to grid infrastructure to support reliability, which would be socialized across the region. She also mentioned that economic transmission costs should be borne by developers and supportive states, not the entire region.
HB682: Representative Swanson Information Only01:43:53.360 - 9:52:10 AM; Representative Swanson referenced a statement from ISO New England about selecting cost-efficient resources and questioned the cost-effectiveness of wind energy. Lisa Lenos responded by explaining that wind energy, particularly offshore wind, is not driven by market decisions but by state mandates for meeting net zero goals. She emphasized the difference between market-based and state-mandated energy decisions, noting New Hampshire's lack of a net zero mandate.
HB682: Sam Evans Brown, Clean Energy New Hampshire Oppose01:46:56.760 - 9:55:13 AM; Sam Evans Brown from Clean Energy New Hampshire expressed opposition to HB682, highlighting the region's history of rejecting energy projects, including natural gas pipelines, transmission lines, and wind projects. He argued against the notion that offshore wind is inherently expensive and will remain so, pointing out that costs can decrease over time. Brown discussed the impact of rising interest rates on the capital-intensive projects but emphasized that this shouldn't lead to a ban on the technology. He addressed concerns about cost shifting and the ISO New England market design, explaining that while intermittent renewables might increase capacity market costs, savings in the energy markets could offset these increases, potentially lowering overall bills. He also noted that other states economically support these projects, thus not directly affecting New Hampshire ratepayers.
HB682: Rob Werner, League of Conservation Voters in New England, Renewable Energy Coalition Oppose01:54:29.360 - 10:02:46 AM; Rob Werner, representing the League of Conservation Voters in New England and the Renewable Energy Coalition, strongly opposed HB682. He argued that New Hampshire's decision to pursue such legislation would be shortsighted and likened it to picking winners and losers in the industry. Werner emphasized the importance of New Hampshire staying engaged with the offshore wind project, acknowledging the challenges and the need for further research but warning against simply turning away from the issue.
HB682: Jerry Leman, New England Fisherman's Stewardship Association, South Portland, Maine Oppose01:55:37.360 - 10:03:54 AM; Jerry Leman, CEO of the New England Fisherman's Stewardship Association, opposed offshore wind development, citing environmental concerns. He discussed the negative impacts on marine life, including the discharge of chlorinated heated water, which leads to 100% mortality of plankton, and the potential effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on juvenile fish and lobster populations. Leman also raised concerns about the noise pollution from pile driving and the lack of baseline data in the Gulf of Maine, arguing that the development could harm the fishing industry and marine ecosystems without sufficient research.
HB682: Ward Burn, New Hampshire Commercial Fisherman Association Support02:04:10.960 - 10:12:27 AM; Ward Burn from the New Hampshire Commercial Fisherman Association supported HB575, which aims to prevent the construction of offshore wind projects in the Gulf of Maine. He argued that such development would harm marine life, agriculture, and the commercial fishing industry, citing the disruption of marine ecosystems, noise pollution affecting marine mammals, and potential negative impacts on water quality and shellfish farms. Burn emphasized the economic and cultural importance of the Gulf of Maine to coastal communities and urged the committee to consider the long-term consequences of offshore wind development.
HB682: Eric Anderson, Portsmouth Oppose02:09:52.199 - 10:18:09 AM; Eric Anderson, a commercial fisherman from Portsmouth with over 50 years of experience, opposed offshore wind development. He highlighted the environmental concerns raised by many fishermen and criticized the lack of response from federal agencies to these concerns. Anderson noted that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has continued with lease offerings despite opposition, and he warned about the potential negative impacts on the Gulf of Maine's ecosystem and the lack of economic benefits for New Hampshire ratepayers.
HB682: Nate Graves, Business and Industry Association Oppose02:13:08.599 - 10:21:25 AM; Nate Graves, representing the Business and Industry Association, opposed the legislation, advocating for an all-of-the-above approach to energy. He argued that foreclosing on any energy type, such as offshore wind, could limit future job growth and investment opportunities. Graves mentioned the potential for technological advances to make offshore wind more competitive and environmentally friendly, and he offered to provide more specific data on the economic impact to industry and jobs if requested.
HB682: Nate Graves, Business and Industry Association Information Only02:13:08.599 - 10:21:25 AM; Nate Graves from the Business and Industry Association discussed the potential economic impact of HB682 on businesses, focusing on the cost of energy and its effect on manufacturing competitiveness. He highlighted that New Hampshire's high energy costs could deter manufacturers from expanding in the state and stressed the importance of maintaining a competitive edge through an all-of-the-above energy approach.
HB682: Tara Federov, Keene, NH Oppose02:18:19.760 - 10:26:36 AM; Tara Federov from Keene, NH, expressed opposition to HB682, viewing it as an attack on clean energy. She praised the state's community and self-reliance, arguing that wind power aligns with these values by providing local, reliable, and affordable energy. She emphasized the environmental benefits of wind power, including its role in mitigating climate change impacts and enhancing economic prosperity.
HB682: Julie Porter, Newburyport, NH Oppose02:21:27.479 - 10:29:44 AM; Julie Porter from Newburyport, NH, opposed HB682, sharing her observations and concerns about wind energy. She cited a recent incident at Newburyport where a windmill caused a hydraulic fluid spill, highlighting the environmental risks and inefficiencies of wind power. She criticized the economic benefits claimed by wind projects, noting that foreign companies often do not hire local labor and suggested nuclear power as a cleaner alternative.
HB682: Nick Coff, Conservation Law Foundation Oppose02:24:44.439 - 10:33:01 AM; Nick Coff from the Conservation Law Foundation opposed HB682, arguing that it would cause New Hampshire to miss out on the economic benefits of offshore wind. He mentioned a report estimating significant job creation and economic benefits from a single offshore wind project. He also noted that the bill could overstep state authority, potentially leading to legal issues with federal jurisdiction.
HB682: Cia Kelly Support02:28:47.359 - 10:37:04 AM; Cia Kelly supported HB682, expressing concerns about national security and economic dependency on foreign technology, particularly from China. She referenced the 'modern-day Silk Road' strategy by the Chinese government and warned about the potential risks of relying on offshore wind energy, including the vulnerability of undersea cables and the impact on local industries and jobs.
HB682: Meredith Hatfield, The Nature Conservancy Oppose02:32:23.000 - 10:40:40 AM; Meredith Hatfield from The Nature Conservancy opposed HB682, emphasizing the importance of a thoughtful approach to offshore wind development. She highlighted the organization's global work on ocean issues and stressed the need for New Hampshire to participate in regional wind energy discussions to protect local interests and benefit from mitigation funds. She also mentioned resources available for understanding offshore wind impacts.
HB682: John Gage Oppose02:37:15.680 - 10:45:32 AM; John Gage opposed HB682, citing the urgent need to address climate change, evidenced by record temperatures and changing marine ecosystems. He criticized the bill for not being market-based or technology neutral and suggested that it was influenced by the fossil fuel industry. He advocated for a diverse energy supply and a future carbon price to account for the external costs of fossil fuels.
HCR4: Doug Thomas, Rockingham County 16, Londonderry Support03:52:37.199 - 12:00:54 PM; Representative Doug Thomas, the prime sponsor of HCR 4, introduced the legislation. He emphasized that his comments were based on local sources and his experience on the Offshore Wind and Port Development Commission, not on external organizations like ALEC. Thomas highlighted the concerns of New Hampshire fishermen regarding offshore wind projects in the Gulf of Maine, focusing on potential ecosystem disruption and the impact on fishing areas. He noted that the resolution aims to call attention to these issues and support a position against offshore wind until unanswered questions are addressed to the satisfaction of the fishing community. Thomas also mentioned the impact on neighboring states and encouraged them to consider similar actions.
HCR4: Abul Khan, Seabrook Support03:59:48.840 - 12:08:05 PM; Representative Abul Khan expressed strong support for the resolution, emphasizing Seabrook's long-standing fishing heritage and the potential devastating impact of offshore wind on this industry. He mentioned plans to introduce a citizen petition in the next election cycle to prevent transmission lines from passing through Seabrook, highlighting local control and opposition to foreign companies' influence on New Hampshire's unique environment.
HCR4: Matt Sabourin, Seabrook Support04:02:05.439 - 12:10:22 PM; Representative Matt Sabourin supported the resolution, focusing on the negative impacts of offshore wind transmission lines on Seabrook. He criticized the involvement of foreign-owned companies in bidding for leases in the Gulf of Maine, arguing that it displaces the American fishing industry. Sabourin also expressed concerns about the potential loss of cod stocks due to the vibrations from wind towers attracting cod to areas where they cannot be fished.
HCR4: Jim Tatone, Seabrook, Yankee Fisherman's Cooperative Support04:04:05.120 - 12:12:22 PM; Jim Tatone, speaking as a fisherman and member of the Yankee Fisherman's Cooperative, strongly supported the resolution. He detailed the ecological importance of the Gulf of Maine, particularly the Cash's Ledge area, and the potential harm from offshore wind projects. Tatone discussed the high costs and environmental impacts of such projects, including the disturbance of ocean currents and sediment, and the economic impracticality of the proposed wind farms. He urged the committee to support the resolution to protect the Gulf of Maine's ecosystem and the fishing industry.
HCR4: Lisa Lenos Support04:14:17.080 - 12:22:34 PM; Lisa Lenos spoke in support of HCR 4, emphasizing New Hampshire's authority to stop onshore transmission lines through the site evaluation committee. She highlighted the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)'s statements regarding the negligible to major impact of offshore wind projects on commercial fishing, referencing projects like Vineyard Wind, Revolution Wind, and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind. Lenos noted that BOEM requires developers to provide compensatory mitigation for revenue losses to fishermen, which she believes could lead to the decline of the fishing industry. She also mentioned potential tourism revenue losses due to offshore wind development and questioned the effectiveness of these projects in reducing global emissions and climate change, suggesting they are mainly built to meet state mandates.
HCR4: Ward Burn, Portsmouth, NH Oppose04:19:34.439 - 12:27:51 PM; Ward Burn, a captain and owner of the fishing vessel Sugar Daddy based out of Portsmouth, NH, opposed HCR 4. He pointed out the absence of Senator Waters from the Wind Commission and criticized the testimony of groups like the Nature Conservancy and Conservation Law Foundation, which receive funding from wind companies. Burn stressed the unity among fishermen from Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts against offshore wind, describing it as an 'ocean killer' due to its potential environmental impact. He raised concerns about the health of the ocean and the sustainability of the fishing industry, which he views as essential for feeding people.
HCR4: Jeremy Lieman, NEFSA Support04:26:38.319 - 12:34:55 PM; Jeremy Lieman from the New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association (NEFSA) supported the amendment to HCR 4. With extensive experience in the fishing industry across Maine, Massachusetts, and New Bedford, he discussed the potential disruption of fishing patterns due to offshore wind development and the lack of sufficient research on its impact on marine ecosystems. Lieman highlighted the experimental nature of floating wind farms and the need for more field studies to understand their effects on fish and lobster populations. He stressed the importance of New Hampshire taking a leadership role in this issue.
HCR4: Cao Kelly Support04:30:57.680 - 12:39:14 PM; Cao Kelly supported the resolution, drawing from her experience in Vietnam to illustrate the potential impact of losing the local fishing industry. She expressed concerns about the quality of imported seafood and the health risks posed by chemicals used in foreign fish farms, particularly from China. Kelly emphasized the need to protect consumer health and highlighted the rising grocery bills, urging support for the resolution to safeguard the future.
HCR4: Meredith Hatfield, The Nature Conservancy Information Only04:33:11.759 - 12:41:28 PM; Meredith Hatfield from The Nature Conservancy clarified that her organization does not receive funding from the offshore wind industry, contrary to earlier statements made during the hearing. She did not provide further testimony on the bill itself.
HCR4: John Gage, Windham, NH Oppose04:33:11.759 - 12:41:28 PM; John Gage opposed HCR 4, citing the need to consider public online testimony on the matter. He argued that fishermen understand their business well but questioned whether they consider global warming in their practices. Gage referenced the National Climate Assessment, discussing the impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems and the migration of fish species due to warming waters. He advocated for energy diversity in New Hampshire as a way to ensure resilience and independence, urging opposition to the bill.
HB219: Michael Harrington, Representative, Strafford District 18 Support04:37:03.000 - 12:45:20 PM; Representative Michael Harrington introduced HB 219, which he referred to as the 'New Hampshire Ratepayers Are Not Stupid Act.' He argued that the bill aims to phase out subsidies for renewable energy over five years, reinstating a provision allowing utilities to provide renewable energy to those willing to pay for it. Harrington highlighted that previous attempts to offer renewable energy options resulted in minimal uptake, suggesting that ratepayers should have the freedom to choose their energy sources without mandatory subsidies. He emphasized that the bill would not stop renewable energy production but would level the playing field for all energy producers, allowing consumer choice based on cost and preference.
HB219: Wendy Thomas, Representative Information Only04:51:38.120 - 12:59:55 PM; Representative Wendy Thomas discussed the complexity of energy issues and the role of government in providing guidance and incentives. She questioned whether the public is adequately informed about energy choices, citing the long-standing information on the environmental impact of fossil fuels versus renewable energy sources. She emphasized that the bill would allow individuals to choose their level of renewable energy contribution, suggesting that the public has enough information to make these decisions independently.
HB219: McGee, Representative Information Only04:53:10.878 - 1:01:27 PM; Representative McGee raised concerns about the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program's role in setting and measuring state energy goals. He questioned the impact of removing the RPS, arguing that it could disrupt investments in renewable energy due to the lack of consistency and incentives. He drew an analogy to a coal plant to illustrate the challenges of changing regulations and their impact on long-term investments.
HB219: Lori Coren, Representative, Coos County District 7, Berlin Oppose04:57:24.680 - 1:05:41 PM; Representative Lori Coren from Berlin opposed HB219, arguing that the RPS has been successful in promoting local power generation, creating jobs, and generating tax revenue. She highlighted the potential negative impact of the bill on Berlin's biomass plant and wind projects in Dixville and Cambridge, which are crucial for employment and local revenue. She urged the committee to vote 'inexpedient to legislate' on the bill.
HB219: Melina Mano, Chief Operating Officer, Essex Power Services, Board Member, Granite State Hydropower Association Oppose04:59:57.320 - 1:08:14 PM; Melina Mano, representing Essex Power Services and the Granite State Hydropower Association, opposed HB219. She emphasized the importance of the RPS in maintaining fuel diversity and protecting ratepayers from price volatility. She detailed the modest goals and compliance costs of the RPS, and the significant role of small hydro projects in maintaining reliable power generation. She warned that removing the RPS could lead to the closure of these projects, resulting in job losses and increased public liability.
HB219: Melina Mano, Chief Operating Officer, Essex Power Services, Board Member, Granite State Hydropower Association Oppose04:59:57.320 - 1:08:14 PM; Melina Mano continued her testimony, focusing on the operational aspects of hydroelectric facilities, highlighting the employment of local contractors and the economic impact of purchasing supplies locally. She responded to a question about the feasibility of ratepayers directly purchasing renewable energy, explaining that individual residential customers lack access to the necessary markets and understanding of electricity sourcing. She argued that the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) operates within a competitive market, and that hydroelectric generators compete for the best deals for ratepayers, emphasizing the market dynamics and the modest nature of New Hampshire's RPS.
HB219: Brandon Kibby, Vice President of External Affairs, Great River Hydro Oppose05:12:45.360 - 1:21:02 PM; Brandon Kibby testified against HB219, emphasizing Great River Hydro's role as a significant renewable energy provider in New Hampshire. He detailed the company's operations, including the generation of 1.6 million megawatt hours annually and the economic benefits such as employment and tax contributions. Kibby highlighted the importance of the RPS for justifying major capital investments, such as a $20 million project at their Moore facility. He also discussed the competitive nature of the RPS market and the impact of regulatory changes on their operations, including the long-term financial commitments required for hydroelectric infrastructure.
HB219: Charlie Nebling, Boscawn, New Hampshire Support05:31:40.558 - 1:39:57 PM; Charlie Nebling, a self-employed forester from Boscawen, New Hampshire, spoke in support of the bill, emphasizing the economic benefits of using local renewable energy resources over imported fossil fuels. He highlighted his 15-year career advocating for the responsible use of wood for energy, primarily for heating and combined heat and power, in areas of the state without access to pipeline natural gas. Nebling discussed his firsthand experience with the financial and feasibility analyses of modern wood technology and the significant capital costs involved. He argued for reducing the state's dependence on imported energy, which he stated costs billions of dollars annually, and supported the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) as a means to achieve this goal. He suggested that the RPS could be studied further to evaluate comprehensive policy aimed at retaining wealth within the state and reducing dependency on external energy sources.
HB219: Sheila Connelly, Holderness, Resource Management Inc (RMI) Support05:38:12.040 - 1:46:29 PM; Sheila Connelly from Holderness, representing Resource Management Inc, supported the bill by discussing the broader benefits of the biomass industry, particularly its impact on local agriculture. She explained how her company, born out of the biomass industry, helps recycle wood ash into fertilizer, which is crucial for New Hampshire farmers. Connelly highlighted the importance of the RPS in maintaining the viability of biomass plants and emphasized the overlooked benefits of biomass, such as providing essential nutrients to crops, reducing the state's reliance on imported potash, and supporting local economies. She brought samples of wood ash to demonstrate its value as a fertilizer.
HB219: Jody Grimas, Bridgewater Power Company Oppose05:42:11.680 - 1:50:28 PM; Jody Grimas, representing Bridgewater Power Company, spoke in opposition to the bill. She introduced a study commissioned by the legislature that highlighted the importance of the biomass industry and the RPS in New Hampshire. Grimas argued that the RPS supports the low-grade timber industry and is vital for the state's economy. She passed out the study to the committee, emphasizing the need to support biomass power and the RPS.
HB219: Michael Oier, Bridgewater Power Company Oppose05:44:06.240 - 1:52:23 PM; Michael Oier, the asset manager of Bridgewater Power Company, also spoke in opposition to the bill, urging the committee to vote it as inexpedient to legislate. He detailed the operations of their 15-megawatt biomass plant in Bridgewater, emphasizing the employment and economic benefits it brings to the state. Oier explained the importance of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) generated through the RPS for the viability of their facility and warned that eliminating the RPS would force their plant out of business. He highlighted the negligible cost to ratepayers and the broader benefits of the RPS, including grid stability and lower energy costs. Oier also discussed the potential increase in capacity costs if biomass plants were to close, using data from ISO New England's capacity auctions to support his argument.
HB219: Representative Wendy Thomas, New Hampshire Information Only05:52:36.638 - 2:00:53 PM; Representative Wendy Thomas clarified that the report mentioned by Jody was the result of House Bill 115 by Representative Doug Thomas, co-sponsored by Chairman V, Senate President Carson, and former Senate President Jeff Bradley. She also discussed the relationship between restructuring the electric market and the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), suggesting that they are complementary rather than conflicting. She explained that restructuring aimed at lowering wholesale energy prices through competition, while RPS promotes diversity in energy sources, preventing over-reliance on natural gas and thus mitigating price spikes.
HB219: Jody, New Hampshire Information Only05:53:42.520 - 2:01:59 PM; Jody clarified that the report mentioned was the result of House Bill 115 by Representative Doug Thomas. They further explained that RPS and market restructuring are complementary. Restructuring focuses on lowering wholesale energy prices through competition, while RPS ensures energy source diversity, reducing reliance on natural gas and mitigating price volatility. They also discussed the impact of subsidies across various energy types and how they affect energy prices.
HB219: Representative Swanson, New Hampshire Information Only05:54:43.878 - 2:03:00 PM; Representative Swanson discussed the potential impact of scaling down the RPS, as proposed by the bill, which might result in savings of $1.98 per month per ratepayer. They questioned whether this saving could be distinguished if gas market prices fluctuated significantly. They noted that during times when biomass plants were not producing power, residential rates did not decrease, illustrating the complexities of the energy marketplace.
HB219: Representative Doug, New Hampshire Information Only05:56:25.718 - 2:04:42 PM; Representative Doug clarified the sources of subsidies mentioned by the previous speaker, confirming that renewable energy credits are directed by New Hampshire, while all other mentioned subsidies are federal.
HB219: Eric Wormy, Sutton, New Hampshire Information Only05:57:34.320 - 2:05:51 PM; Eric Wormy, from Sutton, provided unique testimony unrelated to specific bills but focused on the broader implications of energy productivity on the standard of living. He expressed concerns about the high costs and subsidies associated with wind and solar power, questioning their effectiveness in addressing climate change given the rise in emissions in countries like China and India. He emphasized the importance of a diverse power supply but admitted he had no specific recommendations for New Hampshire's energy policy.
HB219: Tom PL, New Hampshire Information Only06:01:02.360 - 2:09:19 PM; Tom PL questioned Eric Wormy about the impact of renewable energy projects on productivity and standard of living in New Hampshire. He specifically asked about the productivity of biomass and hydroelectric projects, to which Wormy responded positively, citing the efficiency of hydroelectric systems compared to wind power.
HB219: Dennis McKinny, Bennington, New Hampshire Oppose06:04:43.958 - 2:13:00 PM; Dennis McKinny, from Bennington, spoke in opposition to HB219. He emphasized the importance of biomass as a renewable, homegrown fuel source for energy independence. As a landowner and consulting forester, he highlighted biomass's role in managing timber, wildlife, recreation, and water quality projects. He also mentioned the subsidies he benefited from for installing heat pumps and cooling systems in his home.
HB219: Jim Van Valkenberg, Froling Energy, Peterborough, New Hampshire Support06:07:14.958 - 2:15:31 PM; Jim Van Valkenberg, from Froling Energy in Peterborough, supported the biomass side of the RPS. He explained how their company uses a combined heat and power system to generate heat for drying wood chips, creating a cost-effective fuel known as PDCs. This fuel, sourced locally, helps offset significant amounts of fuel oil and supports businesses in areas without access to natural gas. He stressed the importance of the RPS in providing incentives for such systems.
HB219: Representative Thomas, New Hampshire Information Only06:10:14.360 - 2:18:31 PM; Representative Thomas asked Jim Van Valkenberg about the reasons for drying wood chips, to which he explained that dry chips burn more efficiently, weigh less, and are easier to transport and store, particularly in cold weather.
HB219: Representative Rollds, New Hampshire Information Only06:12:39.920 - 2:20:56 PM; Representative Rollds asked Jim Van Valkenberg about the number of municipalities, school districts, and county facilities where Froling Energy has installed biomass heating systems. Van Valkenberg responded that they have installed systems in about 20 to 25 school districts, as well as in various county and municipal facilities, often in partnership with energy performance contractors.
HB219: Brooks Peterson, Froling Energy, Keene, New Hampshire Oppose06:15:50.040 - 2:24:07 PM; Brooks Peterson from Froling Energy in Keene testified against HB219, stating that it threatens the future of renewable energy in New Hampshire. He highlighted the economic, environmental, and energy security impacts of phasing out the RPS, including job losses, higher long-term energy costs, increased carbon emissions, and reduced energy independence. He urged the committee to vote no on the bill.
HB219: Ben Croll, Durgen and Croll Lumber, New London, New Hampshire Oppose06:19:12.320 - 2:27:29 PM; Ben Croll from Durgen and Croll Lumber in New London opposed HB219. He explained their company's operations and the importance of the RPS for their new wood boiler and turbine project, which aims to offset significant propane use. He stressed that the RPS is vital for the wood industry and local economy, as it keeps money within New Hampshire.
HB219: Ben Croll, Durgen and Croll Lumber, New London, New Hampshire Information Only06:19:12.320 - 2:27:29 PM; Ben Croll discussed the fluctuation in wood costs from various timber suppliers. He explained that the cost of pine remains relatively stable, while the hardwood and softwood markets are more volatile, with wood costs varying between 2 to 5% annually.
HB219: John Moses, Britain Lumber, Bath, New Hampshire Oppose06:25:30.200 - 2:33:47 PM; John Moses, representing Britain Lumber, expressed opposition to the bill. He highlighted a recent $7 million investment in a combined heat and power plant, which was partly justified by the generation of thermal RECs. He argued that the removal of these RECs could affect the economic viability of such projects, impacting job creation and local economies. He emphasized the sustainability and local benefits of their operations and invited committee members to visit their mill to continue the discussion.
HB219: John O'Neal, Manchester Waterworks, Manchester, New Hampshire Oppose06:28:21.080 - 2:36:38 PM; John O'Neal, representing Manchester Waterworks, opposed House Bill 219. He explained that the bill could negatively impact their ability to manage the forested buffer around Lake Massabesic, which is critical for maintaining water quality for over 150,000 residents across 13 cities and towns. He stressed the importance of a healthy biomass market for effective forest management, which helps in preventing fire hazards and nutrient loading into the water supply that could lead to toxic algae growth.
HB219: Representative Rols Information Only06:32:11.160 - 2:40:28 PM; Representative Rols asked John O'Neal from Manchester Waterworks about the reliance of other municipalities in New Hampshire on the biomass market for watershed management. He specifically mentioned Portsmouth's dependence on the Bellamy Reservoir and Durham, inquiring if the situation is similar across the state. O'Neal responded that any municipality with a forested watershed utilizes biomass markets for best forest practices, citing Keene and the White Mountain National Forest as examples.
HB219: John O'Neal, Manchester Waterworks, Manchester, New Hampshire Information Only06:33:30.280 - 2:41:47 PM; John O'Neal continued to elaborate on the importance of the biomass market for watershed management, stating that it helps offset costs and makes it feasible to perform necessary harvests. He also mentioned that operations in Forest Service lands contribute to watershed management across the state.
HB219: Representative McGee Information Only06:35:02.520 - 2:43:19 PM; Representative McGee questioned John O'Neal about the value of watershed management services supported by the RPS, specifically if it's worth $1.98 per month to New Hampshire households. O'Neal explained that managing the watershed helps maintain high water quality, which could otherwise increase treatment costs for customers.
HB219: Representative Reynolds Information Only06:36:13.798 - 2:44:30 PM; Representative Reynolds discussed how small businesses in New Hampshire contribute to both the energy and environmental economies, citing the example of Mr. Moses's family business. He asked about the impact on small landowners if markets for sawmills and other production were to disappear. O'Neal responded that it could affect small landowners' ability to manage their properties economically, potentially leading to unmanaged forests and increased fire hazards.
HB219: Robert Birdie, Rumney, New Hampshire Oppose06:39:32.080 - 2:47:49 PM; Robert Birdie from Rumney, a licensed New Hampshire Forester and selectman, opposed HB219. He stressed the importance of the low-grade market for managing timberland and mentioned the significant increase in the quality of New Hampshire's forest resources since the mid-1980s. Birdie highlighted that the biomass market is crucial for proper forest management and also helps reduce fire hazards, referencing past fires in New Hampshire and California.
HB219: Barry Kelly, Berlin, New Hampshire Oppose06:46:01.200 - 2:54:18 PM; Barry Kelly from Berlin, owner of White Mountain Lumber Company, opposed HB219 and HB257. He explained how the biomass market is essential for their sawmill's profitability and the local economy, emphasizing the importance of good forestry practices and low-grade markets. Kelly also mentioned the benefits of biomass plants in terms of energy production, reliability, and self-sufficiency.
HB219: Nick Cof, Conservation Law Foundation Oppose06:49:27.080 - 2:57:44 PM; Nick Cof from the Conservation Law Foundation opposed HB219, stating that the RPS provides significant economic and job benefits to New Hampshire. He mentioned the employment of 3,500 people in the renewable sector and $800 million invested in the state's solar industry. Cof argued that eliminating the RPS would make New Hampshire more vulnerable to energy price spikes and could increase health problems due to increased fossil fuel use.
HB219: Meredith Hatfield, The Nature Conservancy Oppose06:53:17.120 - 3:01:34 PM; Meredith Hatfield from The Nature Conservancy opposed HB219 and HB567, emphasizing the RPS's role in promoting local energy sources and protecting health and the environment. She noted that locally produced energy reduces reliance on the regional grid and increases resilience. Hatfield also mentioned the upcoming review of the RPS law by the Department of Energy and suggested retaining the bill until the review is complete.
HB219: Matt Ley, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests Oppose06:55:36.558 - 3:03:53 PM; Matt Ley, representing the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, emphasized the importance of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in incentivizing local renewable energy sources, particularly biomass energy facilities. He expressed concern over the potential weakening of markets that are already under stress if the bill passes. Ley highlighted the significance of biomass for managing low-grade wood, which is crucial for the forest economy. He stated that his organization opposes HB219 as well as the next bill on the agenda.
HB219: Jared Muller, Maine Renewable Energy Association (MaineSIS) Oppose06:56:46.280 - 3:05:03 PM; Jared Muller, representing MaineSIS from Auburn, Maine, testified against HB219, stressing the essential role of the RPS in New Hampshire's renewable energy development. He argued that the RPS supports local sustainable energy resources, particularly wood, which is crucial for the forest economy and job creation. Muller warned that eliminating the RPS would lead to economic hardship for wood energy producers, job losses, and increased reliance on fossil fuels, putting New Hampshire at a competitive disadvantage and slowing clean energy progress.
HB219: Jason Stock, New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association Oppose07:00:09.440 - 3:08:26 PM; Jason Stock, from the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, opposed HB219, highlighting the intersection of utility policy and natural resource management. He provided data from a USDA Forest Service analysis showing New Hampshire's robust forest economy and the importance of biomass as a tool for managing low-grade wood. Stock emphasized the economic activity generated by biomass harvesting across 174 towns in the state, totaling $32 million. He warned that removing the RPS would lead to a contraction in logging capacity and saw log delivery, adversely affecting the state's forest economy.
HB219: Lynn Sweet, Sweet's Logging and Land Clearing, Strafford Oppose07:10:28.958 - 3:18:45 PM; Lynn Sweet, co-owner of Sweet's Logging and Land Clearing based in Strafford, New Hampshire, opposed HB219 and HB567. She detailed her company's operations and the economic contributions to local communities, including payroll, operating costs, stumpage payments, and timber taxes. Sweet argued that amending the RPS could devastate the logging industry and related sectors, emphasizing the importance of biomass for managing timberlands and the power grid. She stressed the need to support the industry to maintain economic benefits for New Hampshire.
HB219: Chris Elms, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only07:14:38.080 - 3:22:55 PM; Chris Elms, Deputy Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Energy, did not testify on HB219 but was available for questions. He responded to inquiries about the potential impact of removing certain classes from the RPS, indicating that a detailed analysis would be challenging but possible. Elms highlighted the complexity of assessing the costs and benefits of the RPS, mentioning factors like federal and state subsidies, tax credits, and regional market dynamics. He noted the difficulty in quantifying the impact on businesses, municipalities, and school districts that rely on renewable energy certificate (REC) income.
HB219: Chris Elms, New Hampshire Department of Energy Information Only07:14:38.080 - 3:22:55 PM; Chris Elms from the New Hampshire Department of Energy continued to provide information on the potential market changes due to the bill, emphasizing New Hampshire's role in the New England market. He responded to a question from Representative McGee about the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), specifically discussing the value of demand-side resources and distributed energy resources. Elms clarified that the department remains neutral on the bill and focuses on implementing legislative goals. He also discussed the economic benefits and costs to ratepayers related to solar adoption and the RPS, mentioning ongoing proceedings and the department's stance on net metering compensation levels.
HB219: John Gage Oppose07:27:33.638 - 3:35:50 PM; John Gage opposed HB219, emphasizing the importance of energy diversity for energy independence. He argued that markets require government intervention, citing examples from surrounding states that are increasing their RPS percentages. Gage expressed concern about the signal the bill sends to the market, potentially destabilizing energy businesses in New Hampshire. He criticized the notion that ratepayers can simply choose renewables, highlighting the market failure and the hidden subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Gage stressed his personal commitment to addressing climate change and supported maintaining the RPS for diverse energy sources and local job creation.
HB567: JD Bernardi, Rockingham 36 Information Only07:31:52.920 - 3:40:09 PM; JD Bernardi, representing Rockingham 36, introduced HB567 on behalf of Representative Harrington. He explained that the bill aims to remove thermal RECs from the RPS system, focusing solely on electricity production. Bernardi also mentioned the proposed changes to the REC values for different classes starting in 2025, but clarified that he is not a co-sponsor and would not be taking questions on the bill.
HB567: Lori Coren, Coos County 7 Oppose07:33:43.718 - 3:42:00 PM; Lori Coren, representing Coos County 7 which includes Berlin, Whitefield, Jefferson, Kilkenny, and Twin Mountain, opposed HB567. She highlighted the potential negative impact on the local economy, including job losses and reduced tax revenue, and urged the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate.
HB567: Lenos, no specific town or organization mentioned Information Only07:34:36.398 - 3:42:53 PM; Lenos provided statistical information regarding the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in New Hampshire. They highlighted that the current RPS is set at 25% of the state's energy consumption, which translates to 2.6 million megawatt hours annually. They discussed the distribution across different classes, noting that Class 1 is the largest at 15%. Lenos emphasized that many facilities listed as qualified under New Hampshire's RPS are small-scale solar and that many wind projects were built due to RPS requirements in other states, not New Hampshire. They also pointed out the underperformance of Class 1 thermal energy since its introduction in 2013, noting it has consistently failed to meet its mandate. Lenos discussed the implications of biomass, distinguishing between Class 1 and Class 3, and questioned the viability of maintaining old technology. They mentioned that removing Class 1 could impact facilities like Berlin Power and Schiller.
HB567: Robert Conan, Mayor of Berlin, New Hampshire Oppose07:39:34.318 - 3:47:51 PM; Mayor Robert Conan of Berlin, New Hampshire, spoke in opposition to House Bill 567, which aims to eliminate useful thermal energy from renewable energy classes. He highlighted the potential negative impact on Berlin's economy, particularly the biomass industry and the low-grade timber sector. Conan stressed the importance of Burgess Biopower to Berlin's economy, noting its significant contribution to property taxes and the local water and sewer departments. He warned that the passage of HB567 could lead to the closure of Burgess Biopower, which is currently emerging from bankruptcy, and result in increased tax burdens and water/sewer rates for Berlin residents. Additionally, he mentioned the city's ongoing projects, such as the snow melt system funded by a USDA grant, and emphasized the dire economic situation that could result from the bill's passage.

Vose, Michael(Chairman)(R)[A]2024	Bernardy, JD(Clerk)(R)[A-]2024	Thomas, Douglas(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2024
Notter, Jeanine(R)[A]2024	Schneller, John(R)	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2024
McGhee, Kat(D)[CT]2024	Ploszaj, Tom(R)[A-]2024	Mattson, Rita(R)
Raynolds, Ned(D)[CT]2024	Thomas, Wendy(D)[CT]2024	Parshall, Lucius(D)[CT]2024
Berezhny, Lex(R)[A+]2024	Caplan, Tony(D)[F]2024	Summers, James(R)[B+]2024
Cormen, Thomas(D)[CT]2024	Swanson, Dale(D)	Larochelle, John(D)