Bill would refocus offshore wind office into broader Office of Energy Innovation amid fisheries and cost concerns

House Bill 682 would change the Department of Energy office name and mission from the Office of Offshore Wind Industry Development and Energy Innovation to the Office of Energy Innovation and move certain advisory bodies into that office; the change deemphasizes an exclusive focus on offshore wind and expands the office's remit to other emerging technologies.

Representative JD Mori (Rockingham 36) introduced the bill on behalf of Representative Harrington and said the goal is to broaden the office's work to include solar, hydrogen, nuclear and battery technologies as well as wind. "This bill refocuses the Department of Energy's Office of Wind, Offshore Wind Industry and Energy Innovation to be just the DOE's Office of Energy Innovation," Mori said.

Sponsors and several witnesses raised technical, environmental and economic concerns about large-scale offshore wind development in the Gulf of Maine: high per‑megawatt-hour costs for floating offshore wind, intermittency and capacity-factor questions, potential harms to fisheries from chilled, chlorinated cooling water associated with electrical conversion equipment, and coating flakes from turbine blades. Representative Mori cited ISO New England analyses about load growth and resource retirements and said floating platforms for the Gulf of Maine would be costlier than fixed platforms.

The Department of Energy (Josh Elliott) said the department is neutral and framed the bill as preserving New Hampshire's ability to participate in regional discussions while relocating related advisory groups (for example, grid modernization and hydrogen advisory bodies) into a single office for coordination.

The Nature Conservancy and other conservation witnesses urged keeping an active state role and a seat at the table on offshore wind planning because even if New Hampshire does not procure offshore wind, onshore infrastructure (ports, export cables, supply chain, workforce) and environmental mitigation questions could have local effects. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services assistant director Ted Diers said the state's coastal consistency work and enforceable policies are the mechanism by which New Hampshire can protect fisheries and coastal resources in federal waters and that retaining state authority to seek studies and mitigation remains important.

Opponents — including local representatives and some fishing-industry-aligned witnesses — urged stronger limits, including proposals to prohibit cable landings in New Hampshire and to repeal offshore-wind development support structures. Testimony highlighted recent industry setbacks, research-lease holds, and concerns about impacts to commercial fishing and shorefront recreation.

Ending

The hearing closed with committee members and staff agreeing not to take executive action that day and to continue discussions with agencies and stakeholders regarding statutory cross-references, funding language, and the coastal program's authority to request studies and mitigation.