Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Portfolio Standard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee votes not to recommend phasing out New Hampshire renewable portfolio standard
Summary
The Science, Technology and Energy Committee voted in executive session to not recommend HB 509, a bill proposing a five‑year phase‑out of the state's renewable portfolio standard (RPS). Lawmakers split over economic impacts on ratepayers, biomass facilities and market distortions.
The Science, Technology and Energy Committee voted in executive session on Oct. 7 to not recommend House Bill 509, which would phase out the state’s minimum renewable portfolio standard over five years.
Supporters of the bill argued the public should be free to choose electricity sources and that subsidies for renewable generation should not be perpetual. “We recognize you’re intelligent enough to make a decision for yourself,” Representative Harrington said during debate, arguing that current subsidies distort markets and citing a biomass plant bankruptcy he said cost ratepayers about $160,000,000.
Opponents urged caution and further study. “The renewable portfolio standard … provides price signals in the market and there are a number of impacts that would happen from this phase out to the economics of clean energy sources,” Representative McGee said, urging analysis of effects on businesses and people who have planned around the RPS. Representative Reynolds said the RPS is prudent public policy that diversifies the state’s energy mix.
During the work session members took a nonbinding straw vote (10–4) preferring to not recommend the bill. In executive session the committee considered a motion to recommend additional legislation, which failed on a roll call (motion failed 7–10). The committee therefore recorded the formal recommendation as not recommended for future legislation (10–7). Representative McWilliams volunteered to write the calendar report.
Why it matters: The RPS shapes incentives for solar, hydro, biomass and other clean energy projects in New Hampshire. Members who opposed the bill said phasing out the RPS without a market and infrastructure analysis risks harming in‑state projects and businesses; proponents said the program’s costs — reported during the meeting as roughly $55–60 million per year — warrant reconsideration.
Next steps: The committee’s nonbinding recommendation and the calendar report will be published; legislators may still file bills addressing the RPS in future sessions regardless of the committee’s recommendation.
