Warning: Bill numbers and names are based on text-to-speech transcript which may have errors due to transcription issues or ad hoc/incomplete language use by committee.
The sponsor explains that high electricity prices in New Hampshire result from shutting down reliable power plants like nuclear, coal, and oil, restricting access to pipeline gas, and subsidizing unreliable renewables. The bill focuses on micro-nuclear and gas production at the distributed energy level under 5 megawatts to address peak demand during tough winters. New England power producers are uninterested due to lack of ROI and are focusing elsewhere. The bill authorizes utilities to produce up to 10% of their distribution capacity, connecting to local poles and wires without tapping transmission lines. This avoids issues with ISO New England's increased day-ahead contracting costs due to renewable unreliability. During questioning, the sponsor notes that costs would be evaluated by the PUC for ratepayer benefit, emphasizes reliable sources like gas and nuclear, and acknowledges batteries and renewables with storage as potentially reliable.
HB1775
Oppose00:11:13.564 - 9:09:49 AM
John Gage opposes the bill, arguing that the state wisely separated energy distribution from production and should maintain this separation. He shares a story about Eversource refusing to endorse a bipartisan carbon dividend policy because it delivers gas in Connecticut and views correcting the energy market as harmful to their fossil fuel business. He urges focus on grid 2.0 technologies for distributed energy resources rather than utilities producing electricity.
HB1775
Oppose00:13:05.087 - 9:11:41 AM
Nick Krakoff opposes HB 1775, noting improvements from the original House version but arguing it significantly departs from the state's utility restructuring law aimed at reducing costs through competitive markets. Utilities sold off generation assets, with only narrow exceptions currently. The bill would allow ownership up to 10% of peak load, nearly 200 MW for Eversource, potentially adding costs to ratepayers via rate base recovery, especially risky with nuclear cost overruns. CLF is not categorically opposed to nuclear but urges ITL due to financial risks.
HB1775
Oppose00:16:10.967 - 9:14:46 AM
Clifton Below opposes the bill in its current form, though improved, and supports promoting small-scale micro- or nano-reactors like those under development by Westinghouse and others, seeing potential for New Hampshire in the under-5 MW niche. However, allowing utilities to own generation requires enabling a competitive market to capture the same value stack. He references 1994 restructuring principles allowing distribution companies to own small-scale DG to minimize T&D costs but stresses separating monopoly distribution from generation. Suggests recovering avoided costs through transmission and default service charges to foster competition.
HB1775
Oppose00:19:33.559 - 9:18:09 AM
Molly Connors opposes HB 1775 on policy grounds despite appreciating the sponsor's intent to incentivize generation and amendments incorporating feedback. It sets a bad precedent by returning to failed policies of utility-owned rate-based generation, discouraging private investment. It won't speed construction or lower costs but shifts unlimited risk to captive customers without addressing permitting, siting, interconnection, or supply chain issues. Utilities are experts in transmission/distribution, not generation like her members. The bill signals New England prefers picking technologies over market-based resources, deterring non-utility investment. During questioning, she emphasizes competition drives down costs, as her nuclear-owning members (Dominion, Seabrook, Constellation) operate successfully in markets without utility ownership or guaranteed returns. Small projects lack economies of scale compared to large generators.
HB1775
Oppose00:26:57.972 - 9:25:33 AM
Molly discusses the lack of economies of scale in distributed energy and argues that the bill favors utilities over merchant power plants. She notes that flat demand in New England due to distributed energy and efficiency has discouraged investment in new power plants. With demand now increasing, the bill signals to private investors that utilities will handle the load, potentially driving investment away to states with more favorable conditions. She emphasizes that merchant plants are more efficient and cost-effective than utilities.
HB1775
Oppose00:29:07.112 - 9:27:43 AM
Susan opposes HB 1775, citing vulnerabilities for ratepayers as the bill walks back emissions and efficiency standards, repeals limitations on utility investments, and opens doors to future construction with costs passed to ratepayers. She references the fiscal note's zero state cost but highlights stranded costs and potential rate increases. She argues the bill won't lower rates and that cleaner, cheaper renewables like solar, wind, and battery storage are more reliable and affordable alternatives to the expensive energy proposed.
HB1775
Support00:31:26.714 - 9:30:02 AM
Alec supports HB 1775 and its companion SB 591, explaining that distributed energy resources (DER) on the distribution system benefit all customers by offsetting transmission load and improving system efficiency. Unitil's Kingston Solar Array exemplifies this, approved through a rigorous PUC process. He prefers SB 591's fuel-neutral language but notes DER can be fuel-agnostic, providing regional benefits.
HB1775
Support00:34:25.014 - 9:33:01 AM
Michael supports the bill for enabling utilities to propose DER projects to the PUC, aiding cost management amid regional supply challenges. He notes similarities to SB 591 and potential for synergies. The PUC's nine-factor test ensures rigor, with only one project approved to date. Projects are small (up to 10% of peak, e.g., 183 MW for Eversource in 5 MW increments). He clarifies utilities earn up to a rate of return cap, not guaranteed. During questions, he discusses funding via capital projects (half borrowed, half from rates), the unfeasibility of small nuclear, competitive bidding, and offers to provide interest rate details.
HB1775
Information Only00:40:46.912 - 9:39:22 AM
Josh states the Department is neutral on HB 1775. He flags potential conflicts with SB 591, both allowing 10% DER but this bill specifies natural gas and nuclear, potentially totaling 20%. He suggests clarifying RSA 374-G:5 II(b) language regarding renewable portfolio standards impact, as these technologies don't qualify under RPS.
HB1775
Oppose00:44:02.955 - 9:42:38 AM
Catherine opposes the bill for picking winners with risky, unproven technologies, walking back divestiture policies that protect ratepayers from cost overruns. It supports expensive, volatile nuclear and natural gas over cheaper, faster, cleaner renewables. It risks higher bills for residential customers and allows utilities to automatically charge ratepayers, repeating past New Hampshire experiences.
HB1542
Support00:46:28.435 - 9:45:04 AM
Representative Naughton explains that HB 1542 aims to rebate compliance payments from the Renewable Energy Fund back to ratepayers, similar to previous practices. She describes the current use of the fund as a backdoor tax for projects and wealth redistribution. She notes that in the last budget cycle, the fund was raided for the general fund, denying subsidies to beneficiaries without causing companies to fail. She highlights that $6.7 million is not insignificant, with a quarter going to overhead, and emphasizes that savings benefit constituents.
HB1542
Oppose00:49:44.945 - 9:48:20 AM
Krakoff argues that the bill would eliminate the Renewable Energy Fund, providing only a trivial 48 cents per month rebate to average residential ratepayers. He stresses the energy diversity benefits of the fund under the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which reduces exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices, especially amid Middle East conflicts. He cites the fund's leveraging of over $460 million in private investments, job creation for electricians and plumbers, and $16.4 million funding for 56 renewable projects for schools, towns, and small businesses. Eliminating the fund would jeopardize economic and job benefits and prevent vital energy cost-reducing projects.
HB1542
Oppose00:52:41.508 - 9:51:17 AM
Evans-Brown opposes the bill, explaining the RPS policy design where utilities buy renewable energy credits (RECs) or pay alternative compliance payments into the Renewable Energy Fund to generate more RECs, creating a self-balancing system. The bill and fund raiding break this policy, leading to escalating costs rebated in a shell game. He recommends following the Department of Energy's 2025 RPS review recommendations instead. He highlights fuel diversity to hedge against market shortcomings, public health benefits from reducing fossil fuel pollution externalities costing over $400 million annually in health issues, and the RPS's role in correcting unpriced externalities.
HB1542
Oppose00:56:58.674 - 9:55:34 AM
Neibling, a licensed professional forester and tree farmer, urges consideration of the Renewable Energy Fund's benefits, which have been overlooked in efforts to undermine renewable policies. He notes the costs to ratepayers via compliance payments but emphasizes the long-term investments with significant paybacks enabled by stable policy. The fund creates REC-generating projects to meet RPS obligations. He reminds the committee of the Senate's longstanding support for RPS since 2007 legislation and SB 218 in 2012.
HB1542
Oppose00:58:49.614 - 9:57:25 AM
Froehling, owner of Proling Energy, a wood energy company, opposes the bill as the fund has benefited his company and clients, primarily public schools, universities, hospitals, and nursing homes, for 14-15 years. Nearly all projects since the fund's inception have received grants, vital for starting initiatives that provide long-term savings. The incentive leverages large projects, offering heating 50% cheaper than oil, lowering taxpayer burdens. Examples include projects with Whalen Engineering, stabilizing fuel prices amid rising oil costs. The fund supports public entities and manufacturers, reducing energy costs statewide.
HB1542
Oppose01:03:29.914 - 10:02:05 AM
Richman opposes HB 1542, building on prior testimony about the fund's leverage beyond a small rebate, lowering energy costs for taxpayers and businesses. In Durham, it supports economy-wide benefits, not just niche interests. She questions potential legal issues from violating the HB2 compromise reached last June and urges finding the bill inexpedient to legislate.
HB1542
Oppose01:05:07.263 - 10:03:43 AM
Gage discusses external costs of fossil fuel pollution as the largest market failure, advocating for federal carbon pricing rebated to households. The U.S. lags globally, with 28% worldwide emissions now priced. States should prepare by using the Renewable Energy Fund as a small carbon price to accelerate fossil fuel independence. The bill benefits the fossil fuel industry by withdrawing clean energy investments, increasing dependence and costs. He urges opposition to promote affordable, reliable, safe energy.
HB1542
Oppose01:08:21.096 - 10:06:57 AM
Campbell testifies on behalf of Mises, a modern wood heating company, opposing HB 1542. Eliminating rebates and grants would undermine wood pellet and chip heating projects since 2012, promoting local renewables like New Hampshire-made wood pellets. Nearly 60% of households rely on imported fossil fuels; the fund provides alternatives to volatile markets. It supported business expansion in NH, sustains biomass markets for low-grade timber amid lost pulp mills, supports sustainable forestry, and offers stable local fuel less vulnerable to disruptions. Removing incentives limits options uncharacteristically for Granite Staters. The company invested since 2009, leveraging rebates for stable costs and using waste wood that would otherwise landfill, with environmental benefits over methane from rotting.
HB1542
Information Only01:12:36.005 - 10:11:12 AM
Elliott states the department is neutral on the bill. He notes prior testimony on program functions and costs. There is a potential conflict with SB 599 passed by the committee; suggests replacing section 1 with SB 599 language to avoid issues. This would lapse an additional $1 million to the general fund in the biennium's second year, reducing program funds. The fiscal note is outdated; administrative costs were addressed in amendments but include RPS administration, net metering, and Office of Energy Innovation funding. One employee position is affected, but hiring would depend on legislative action; other staff support related functions.
HB1542
Oppose01:17:06.135 - 10:15:42 AM
Stock opposes the bill, agreeing with Evans-Brown on RPS mechanics benefiting forestry via low-grade wood markets. He highlights grant leveraging at 1:9 ratios, where $1 from the fund matches $9 private investment. Cites Britain Lumber's biomass boiler as an example fostering business and landowner benefits for low-grade timber.
HB1622
Support01:24:21.625 - 10:22:57 AM
As the prime sponsor, Linda Haskins introduced HB 1622-FN as a simple, bipartisan bill that prioritizes expansions of existing permitted landfills over greenfield sites to ensure capacity without harming natural resources. She clarified that a previous $4 million fiscal note was a misunderstanding with DES and has been revised to zero. The bill aligns with positions from the Senate, Governor, and DES, providing developers flexibility while requiring justification for greenfield choices. It uses existing DES data and addresses capacity needs through ongoing expansion plans, projecting sufficiency through 2035. During questioning by Senator Waters on lines 11-19 regarding capacity calculations (half the years for shortfall), Haskins explained it provides leeway for permitting while allowing adjustments if needed. She noted expansion plans are underway and deferred detailed fungibility questions to others.
HB1622
Support01:31:07.635 - 10:29:43 AM
Nick Tremanna testified in favor of HB 1622 as amended, highlighting its reflection of Senate policy from HB 2 last year, preferring brownfields and expansions over greenfields. Section 3 directs DES to prioritize expansions. Addressing Senator Waters' concerns on lines 11-19, he explained the half-year capacity requirement as a compromise following a 2023 New Hampshire Supreme Court ruling on defining 'need' for permitting (neither one day nor full 20 years, but at least half). At lines 18-19, DES cannot allow waste acceptance until the first year of shortfall. He noted minor changes in section 3 to use existing DES resources, reducing fiscal impact, and offered to answer questions.
HB1622
Support01:35:58.526 - 10:34:34 AM
Representative Kelly Potenza supported HB 1622, emphasizing its origins in Senate language promoting expansions of existing landfills over greenfields due to prior vetting by DES and consistency with land use objectives. She addressed the Supreme Court ruling requiring legislative definition of capacity shortfall, noting current law's ambiguities allowed extreme interpretations (one day vs. full operating life). The bill compromises by requiring demonstrated need for at least half the facility's life. She mentioned collaboration with Waste Management and wished their lobbyist was present to elaborate.
HB1622
Support01:39:29.870 - 10:38:05 AM
Susan Richmond expresses support for HB 1622, highlighting the work of the Solid Waste Working Group to reduce waste as a better solution than landfills. She notes Governor Ayotte's campaign promise to resolve landfill issues and describes the bill as a bipartisan, reasonable first step to develop additional solid waste capacity by creating an inventory of existing sites using readily available public records. Referencing Dr. Adam Finkel's testimony, she states that the required information on sites' names, addresses, acreage, and setbacks is accessible on the DES website or easily computed, estimating only 50 hours of work rather than the initially projected two staff positions over seven years. She urges the committee to find the bill ought to pass.
HB1622
Information Only01:41:10.390 - 10:39:46 AM
Mike Winsett provides neutral observations on HB 1622, noting the bill has been significantly revised from its original form, reducing the scope of DES's tasks to collecting information on existing landfills using existing resources, thus eliminating the large fiscal note. He raises concerns about Section 2 (lines 9-19), which modifies the public benefit requirement for existing facility expansions to show a capacity shortfall for at least half the proposed years of operation. This could force landfills to close temporarily to meet the threshold, potentially disrupting the market and undermining the bill's preference for expansions over new sites. He suggests this might be fixable by adjusting the quantitative standard or applying uniform criteria. Regarding Section 3 (line 24), he points out confusion in preferences: first for existing expansions, second for brownfields, but the DES list for greenfield developers won't include brownfields due to amendments, making it a short list of existing and possibly closed municipal sites, which may not achieve the intended effect. He clarifies that the bill allows greenfield applications even with pending expansions or brownfields but prioritizes approvals. During questioning, he discusses potential timing issues for new landfills under paragraph F, where operations can't start until a shortfall exists, possibly discouraging development or causing delays. He agrees the bill is a good idea but cautions against unintended consequences.
HB1478
Support01:58:08.660 - 10:56:44 AM
Representative Kelly Potenza introduces HB 1478 as the prime sponsor, noting that the bill has come before the committee previously and that they have been working on rules to improve the legislative process.
HB1478
Support01:59:53.271 - 10:58:29 AM
The representative explains the background of HB 1478, noting her involvement in the House committee that reviewed DES rules over several months. She describes how JLCAR initially found the ENV-SW 800 rules contrary to public interest but later reversed without changes, leading to legislative action. The bill addresses critical issues in DES rules for new greenfield landfills, particularly allowing sites in inappropriate hydrogeological areas, which are weaker than standards in other states. She highlights removals of costly provisions like 24/7 guards and adjustments to storm standards to eliminate fiscal notes. The core focus is on a five-year groundwater travel time standard, rebutting DES claims by arguing it provides a clear, enforceable rule stronger than vague current assurances. She defends the 'ample margin of safety' language as established in federal environmental law, not vague but accountable. In Q&A, she confirms leachate contains pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, endocrine disruptors, PFAS, and more, emphasizing long-term generation post-closure and risks to water, advocating for proper siting and New Hampshire trash first. She agrees on public health concerns like high childhood cancer and asthma rates, stressing clean water as essential to the New Hampshire advantage and criticizing low recycling rates.
HB1478
Support02:13:41.000 - 11:12:17 AM
The representative expresses respect for DES work but provides background on the need for HB 1478. The House Environment and Agriculture oversight subcommittee met regularly with DES, expressing concerns about rules, especially setback distances based on time of travel for pollutants to protected waters rather than fixed distance. Despite input and use of similar standards in neighboring states, DES retained past standards. JLCAR initially objected for insufficient protection but later approved without changes, deferring policy to committees like this one. Given constituent concerns and comparisons showing New Hampshire's rules less protective, the legislature must set stricter standards to safeguard the New Hampshire advantage.
HB1478
Support02:17:42.821 - 11:16:18 AM
As part of the bipartisan 'trash trio' in the Environment and Agriculture Committee, the representative notes extensive work on trash issues. Colleagues have outlined the efforts, including oversight and productive DES collaboration. JLCAR's reversed objection was dispiriting, necessitating statutory clarity for rules. The five-year travel time is key for definite safety against toxic leachate with long lifespan. The group hopes for support and continued DES work on modifications.
HB1478
Support02:19:46.317 - 11:18:22 AM
Representing public opinion, the speaker expresses concern about microplastics in leachate affecting underground water in conductive soils. HB 1478 improves on past one-size-fits-all setbacks by using site-specific geological knowledge for safe distances based on soil conductivity. It also ensures compliance with safety standards, relieving fears from recent news of landfill violations, protecting citizens from unsafe practices.
HB1478
Information Only02:21:39.248 - 11:20:15 AM
DES takes no position on HB 1478 but shares observations. Section 3's five-year groundwater travel time setback from wells and waters, based only on on-site testing by an independent hydrogeologist, is inadequate as off-site formation characteristics more influence travel; current rules are more protective by requiring detection, investigation, and remediation before the property line, using comprehensive site data on groundwater and soils. Questions exemption of existing facilities, as communities deserve equal protection, and current rules apply to expansions. On 'ample margin of safety' in rulemaking, notes it's unclear without definition, differing from its use in drinking water standards with built-in factors; applying to all landfill rules lacks clarity. Page 2's 20-foot in-situ soils hydraulic conductivity analysis may be exclusionary if based on single non-representative measurement, potentially barring suitable sites given NH geology. In Q&A, supports 'may' language for felony convictions in permits for discretion, notes liners can leak despite double-liner requirements and quality controls, but monitoring detects and repairs them effectively without significant groundwater impacts; explains ensuring no spill reaches surface water via property line protections using site-specific data on velocities and remediation capabilities.
HB1478
Information Only02:33:40.681 - 11:32:16 AM
The speaker discusses the process for evaluating soil conditions underlying a landfill, including assessments of in-situ soils and constructed elements above them. They explain how this information is used to estimate groundwater travel times and hydrogeological characteristics to determine potential release speeds to the property line. In permit decisions, factors like distance from the property line, liner systems, and formation knowledge are considered. Sentry wells are required around the landfill for ongoing monitoring, sampled multiple times a year, with reports reviewed by DES. Any contaminants detected trigger investigations, intensive monitoring, and repairs by the operator until water quality standards are restored.