Contentious hearing on HB 14‑55: sponsors say prioritizing dispatchable domestic sources protects reliability; opponents call the bill unworkable and favor ITL
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
HB 14‑55 would define state energy policy to prioritize affordable, reliable, dispatchable and domestic sources; sponsors argued it would bring clarity and security, while energy advocates, utilities, and environmental groups said the statutory tests (including an 80% performance standard) are unworkable in New England’s market and could raise costs or exclude renewables.
Representative Janine Nader introduced HB 14‑55 as a policy statement to prioritize affordable, reliable energy and to call attention to dispatchable, domestic generation. She told the committee that the bill is intended to protect businesses and households during peak demand and extreme weather, and argued for inclusion of all reliable options (including hydrocarbons, per the bill language).
The Department of Energy said it is neutral but raised substantial implementation and authority concerns: DOE staff observed the draft appears written for a vertically integrated utility model and that many provisions exceed DOE jurisdiction in New Hampshire’s regional market structure. DOE also questioned how the bill’s "full life‑cycle cost" and references to federal definitions would be calculated and enforced.
Utilities and regional market participants strongly opposed the bill as written. Griffin Roberge (Eversource) said the bill’s requirements (including an 80% performance standard) would be administratively challenging, could impede default‑service procurements, and risk higher costs for customers because New England’s supply mix and ISO‑NE market rules do not map cleanly to statutorily mandated characteristics.
Environmental and clean‑energy organizations urged the committee not to advance the bill. The Conservation Law Foundation, Clean Energy New Hampshire, hydropower interests and multiple citizens described the proposal as duplicative (similar policy language was adopted in 2025), inconsistent with the regional market, and likely to exclude or disadvantage renewables and many existing generation resources. Critics also said defining fossil fuels as 'green' or prioritizing hydrocarbons undercuts long‑term climate policy and ignores life‑cycle greenhouse‑gas impacts.
Some out‑of‑state groups (testimony included an advocate from Heartland Impact) supported the bill as a policy signal to encourage dispatchable domestic sources. Witnesses on both sides urged technical edits and better definitions if the committee wishes to pursue the sponsor’s objectives.
What happens next: The committee closed the public hearing on Jan. 29 after extensive testimony. Members asked multiple technical questions; the transcript does not record a committee vote that day. Several organizations urged ITL or a substantial rewrite.