Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb 529 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lumber preference bill draws industry testimony and questions on enforceability and cost
Summary
SB 529, which would give preference to lumber harvested in the United States on state‑funded building projects, drew extensive industry testimony on grading, inventory and price differences; the committee postponed action to gather more data and consider narrowing the preference to New Hampshire lumber.
Representative Davis introduced Senate Bill 529, saying the measure ‘‘gives preference to lumber sourced in the United States on all state‑funded building projects’’ and is intended to return value to the region’s timber industry.
Widespread testimony during the public hearing focused on lumber grading rules and market impacts. Industry witnesses explained the practical differences between the grading designations SPF (spruce‑pine‑fir, the Canadian designation commonly used by engineers) and SPFs (the U.S. designation used by many New England mills), and described inventory, specification and price effects when engineers specify SPF rather than SPFs. Wesley Robisho of the New Hampshire Retail Lumber Association traced the 1991 testing and grading changes that created the SPF/SPFs split and said that cross‑border milling and grading practices have given Canadian producers a market advantage in some specifications.
Sarah Beltate of Beltates Lumber Company described logistical problems when state or federally specified plans call for one stamp while retail inventories carry another; she said that in her experience a common board size "is probably 30 cents more coming from Canada than New Hampshire," and that mismatched stamps have forced rework in some projects.
Jason Stock (executive director, New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association) and other witnesses urged that the state should send a market signal in favor of local industry; they described the bill as non‑mandating awareness legislation rather than a strict procurement ban.
Committee members pressed on enforceability and scale: several representatives asked whether the bill should specify "New Hampshire" lumber rather than all U.S. lumber to better support in‑state mills and whether the preference would be verifiable at procurement and plan stages. Representative Brown and others raised cost‑impact and constitutional questions for municipal or school procurement.
The committee took no final vote on SB 529 and instead opted to hold further consideration. Members asked staff to produce additional information (including potential amendments narrowing the preference to New Hampshire lumber and analysis of price differentials) before executive action next week.
Next steps: the committee will reconvene to consider a possible amendment and receive additional cost and enforceability analysis before voting.
