NH committee hears sharp debate over bill to rebate Renewable Energy Fund to ratepayers

Members of the New Hampshire House Ways and Means Committee heard hours of testimony March 5 on House Bill 224, which would redirect most money in the state's Renewable Energy Fund (REF) to electric ratepayers rather than use it for rebates and grants for renewable-energy projects. Sponsor Representative Jason Nader said the change would return money to consumers.

"We need relief from energy costs now," Representative Nader told the committee, arguing the REF balance could be rebated and that "the money is just sitting there ... it's just piling up. We might as well give it back." He told lawmakers rebates could range "between 2.5 and $7,300,000 a year," a figure he and others repeated under questioning.

Supporters framed the bill as ratepayer relief. Opponents — including Department of Energy staff, renewable-energy advocates, municipal and timber-sector representatives, and several members of the Energy and environmental community — urged the committee to leave the program in place or to clarify how any rebate would work. Meg Stone, legislative liaison for the New Hampshire Department of Energy, said the bill as written is ambiguous and could contradict its stated purpose.

"From the new language in bold, it appears the intention is to have the department still run incentive programs, but the struck out language prevents the department from running any such programs," Stone said. She warned the bill does not clearly define what the sponsor calls "excess" funds and noted the REF is funded by alternative compliance payments (ACPs) and interest, which "fluctuate from year to year." The department told the committee it needs clearer language to know whether it would be allowed to continue grants and rebates under the proposal.

Committee members and witnesses pressed several practical questions: how a rebate would be calculated, whether commercial customers were included among the roughly 540,000 electric accounts cited in some testimony, and what the fiscal notes omit. Representative Kat McGee, ranking member on the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee, told the panel she computed a 16-year average of REF inputs and concluded the per-customer effect would be small.

"If you divide that by 540,000 electric customers, and then divide it again by 12, it comes to less than $10 a year per customer," McGee said, urging the committee to consider the fund's multiplier effect: she said REF grants historically leveraged more private investment than state spending alone.

Witnesses who administer or rely on REF grants described a different ledger. Sam Evans Brown, executive director of Clean Energy New Hampshire, said the program helps municipalities and schools pay for projects that lower local energy costs and that the fiscal note does not account for the savings those projects produce.

"When you rebate the funds from the Renewable Energy Fund as opposed to using them for their intended purpose, you break that feedback loop," Evans Brown said, describing how grants can increase renewable energy credit (REC) supply and reduce future ACPs.

Multiple trade groups and wood/biomass industry witnesses warned the proposal would harm local economic activity. Jason Stock of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association and Charlie Niebling, a professional forester, told the committee REF money supports wood-heating and biomass projects that create local demand for low-grade timber and support sawmills and schools.

Environmental and clean-energy groups including Conservation Law Foundation, The Nature Conservancy and Granite State Hydropower Association urged the committee to vote ITL (inexpedient to legislate). They pointed to the DOE's recent REF report, which shows grant awards that proponents say have leveraged private investment and created jobs for electricians, plumbers and other trades.

Committee members pressed staff and witnesses for numbers. The DOE and several witnesses flagged internal inconsistencies in submitted reports: McGee said the REF had about $10 million on hand in recent months and that HB 2 (an unrelated section the legislature considered) had swept $10 million from REF into the general fund for the current year. Committee members also noted the DOE fiscal note estimated modest state savings, while witnesses described larger, long-term benefits of keeping funding for grant programs.

The hearing produced no committee vote; committee leadership said Ways and Means must now weigh the fiscal trade-offs, the legal status of the dedicated fund and the bill's ambiguous language before any recommendation. The public hearing on HB 224 was closed after a final round of testimony.

Why it matters: The Renewable Energy Fund finances rebates and competitive grants that the Department of Energy and multiple witnesses said have been used for municipal, school and private renewable projects. Proponents of HB 224 say returning REF money to ratepayers will provide immediate but modest bill relief; opponents say refunding the funds would undercut a program that has leveraged private investment and reduced long-term energy costs for communities.

What's next: Committee staff and the Department of Energy said they need clearer definitions in bill text about "excess" funds and what counts as incentive payments. Lawmakers also asked for more precise fiscal notes and broken-out impact estimates for municipal and commercial customers; committee action has not been scheduled.