Committee hears economic and environmental arguments on bills to scale back New Hampshire's renewable portfolio standard

Representative Michael Harrington told the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee that House Bill 219 would let consumer choice replace mandatory support for renewable generation. “We started out some years ago with the idea that we had to subsidize renewable energy to get it up on its feet and running,” Harrington said, arguing the statute should be phased out so households are not compelled to fund programs they do not use.

Opponents across the north country and the forestry and hydropower sectors urged the committee to retain the RPS in its current form, saying it supports local jobs, municipal revenue and infrastructure. Michael O’Leary, asset manager for Bridgewater Power Company, told members that his small biomass facility requires sales of renewable energy certificates (RECs) to remain solvent. “We will be out of business without the ability to sell RECs into a viable New Hampshire Class 3 market,” he said.

Why it matters: The RPS is a state tool that requires utilities to buy a rising share of electricity as certified renewable — and it creates a REC market that supports a mix of technologies, including small hydropower, biomass thermal and distributed solar. Changes to the RPS would reallocate incentives and could shift where new renewable investment occurs.

What speakers said: Supporters of the RPS argued changes would damage long-standing New Hampshire industries. Speakers told the panel that biomass and small hydro projects sustain logging jobs, help manage forest health, and provide tax revenue to towns; municipal water suppliers said chip markets fund important watershed management activities. Madeleine Monod of Essex Power Services explained that small hydro projects often rely on New Hampshire Class 4 and Class 1 REC revenue to stay economically viable and that their average cost to ratepayers has historically been small relative to system-wide bills.

Conservation groups and energy advocates urged caution about wholesale rollbacks. Sam Evans Brown of Clean Energy New Hampshire and Nick Krakoff of the Conservation Law Foundation urged retaining the RPS to support a diverse resource mix and to avoid shifting costs back to consumers through greater reliance on fossil fuels.

Technical and fiscal points: Department of Energy staff told the committee the department is neutral on the bill but noted that removing classes and altering REC markets could make it difficult for the state to protect its interests in regional energy markets. Witnesses pointed to the complicated interplay between wholesale energy markets, capacity payments and out‑of‑market procurement, and said unintended consequences are possible if REC demand is changed quickly.

Process and next steps: No committee votes were taken. Several industry representatives and municipal officials asked the committee to consider the downstream effects for towns that depend on taxable infrastructure such as biomass plants and hydropower stations. The department agreed to provide additional analysis if the committee requests it.

Ending: Committee members did not set a date for further action. Testimony showed broad local concern about changes to the RPS, and multiple municipal officials urged the committee to weigh the fiscal effects on town budgets and local employers.