Lawmakers press Energy Department on proposed $10 million transfer from Renewable Energy Fund to general fund

The New Hampshire Department of Energy told the House Finance Division I that it can carry out statutory programs for fiscal 2026 even after a proposed transfer of $10 million from the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) to the general fund — but multiple lawmakers voiced concerns that moving dedicated revenue into general coffers undermines the fund’s purpose.

Energy Commissioner Jared Chicoine and Deputy Commissioner Chris Sounds outlined how the REF is financed: the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard requires electric suppliers to buy renewable energy certificates (RECs) or, if supplies are scarce or prices high, pay an alternative compliance payment (ACP) that flows into the REF. Sounds said revenues can fluctuate and that recent compliance years produced an unusually large inflow.

Sounds said the fund currently holds roughly $12 million and that “if you subtract this $10,000,000, it would leave about $2,000,000” available for the current fiscal year. He said the department in September had already allocated about $6 million to programs and noted other recent legislative changes that redirected some prior rebate programs into larger municipal and programmatic efforts.

Several representatives expressed policy and legal concerns about sweeping dedicated funds into the general fund. Representative Ebel said such transfers weaken the rationale for dedicated funds and questioned constitutionality; Representative Leishman and others asked whether existing program commitments or pending applications would be affected. Chris Sounds and Commissioner Chicoine said the $6 million already allocated would not be affected and that no currently encumbered contracts would be voided by the transfer, but they acknowledged the transfer would limit any additional new program spending the department could undertake out of the REF.

The department said the $10 million would not immediately disrupt existing, encumbered program commitments but would reduce the available, uncommitted balance that could be used for new allocations. The department also noted the REF had been used historically for a range of programs — from residential solar rebates to municipal projects — and that legislative changes in prior years had repurposed some allocations.

What’s next: Committee members asked for more dedicated-fund detail and the department indicated it would provide the fund balance, encumbrances and the September allocations page for the committee to review during subsequent budget work.

Ending: The conversation underscored a recurring legislative dilemma: whether to use one-time or dedicated fund balances to address near‑term budget pressures, or to preserve them for the programs and statutory purposes for which they were originally collected.