Lumber grading bill divides timber industry and engineers; lawmakers weigh local economic benefits against code uniformity

Senate Bill 5 03 would permit New Hampshire-grown spruce-pine-fir-south (SPFS) lumber to be used where SPF is specified in building plans, a change proponents said would level the playing field for state sawmills and support local timber economies.

Sponsor Senator David Rochered said the bill recognizes that trees grown just south of the Canadian border are grown in substantially similar climates and that the current commodity distinction penalizes New Hampshire mills. He told the committee the bill preserves existing safety standards by requiring building inspectors to rely on published design values and allows architects and engineers to require higher-strength materials where needed.

Industry witnesses (New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association and local lumber representatives) supported the bill as a latitude-based correction that expands options for local products. Jason Stock of the timberland owners association said the measure would not mandate use of SPFS but would allow architects and builders to choose locally milled material when appropriate.

Code and standards organizations urged caution. David Kretchman of the American Lumber Standard Committee said SPF and SPFS are "different commercial groupings" with distinct species mixes and design values; he warned that legislative changes that equate the grades could create enforcement and safety confusion for code officials. Structural engineers (SENH) and the state building code review board similarly recommended that any change be implemented through the building code or by promoting mechanically graded or engineered products rather than by statutory reclassification.

Philip Sherman, chair of the Building Code Review Board, suggested adding explicit code amendment language so the state building code could be updated "as applicable" to reflect the statutory change and avoid a discontinuity between statute and code tables.

The testimony highlighted a split: proponents emphasized economic and procurement benefits for local mills and potential modest improvements in housing affordability if local lumber is easier to use; opponents emphasized uniform standards, engineer liability, and the difficulty for code officials to determine origin or grading by visual inspection alone. The committee did not vote on the bill during the hearing and requested further technical review and possible drafting adjustments.