Committee Summary for House Science, Technology and Energy (01/20/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1029 00:07:07.840 - 8:31:44 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the definition of excavation under underground utility damage prevention laws.	Labrie, Brian(R)[A-]2025
HB1169 01:05:42.640 - 9:30:19 AM	Public Hearing	relative to notification waiting periods to the underground utility damage prevention laws.	Labrie, Brian(R)[A-]2025
HB1029 01:56:24.159 - 10:21:01 AM	Executive Session	relative to the definition of excavation under underground utility damage prevention laws.	Labrie, Brian(R)[A-]2025
HB1169 02:00:05.599 - 10:24:42 AM	Executive Session	relative to notification waiting periods to the underground utility damage prevention laws.	Labrie, Brian(R)[A-]2025
HB1542 03:35:48.160 - 12:00:25 PM	Public Hearing	relative to renewable energy fund compliance payments.	Notter, Jeanine(R)[A-]2025
HB1721 05:07:01.520 - 1:31:38 PM	Public Hearing	relative to limiting new system enrollment and adjusting compliance payments under the renewable portfolio standard program.	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2025
HB1002 05:58:23.360 - 2:23:00 PM	Public Hearing	repealing the solar energy systems tax exemption.	Turcotte, Len(R)[B]2025

HB1029: Representative John Schneller on behalf of Representative Brian Lee Support00:07:07.840 - 8:31:44 AM; Representative Schneller introduced HB 1029 FN as a housekeeping bill to clarify the definition of excavation in the Dig Safe program. The bill specifies that certain low-risk hand tool activities, such as planting flowers, small shrubs or bushes in pots less than three gallons, and minor shallow irrigation repairs, are not considered major excavation. This aims to reduce unnecessary friction and potential fines for minor activities while still requiring Dig Safe notification for mechanical digging. The FN designation was removed as there is no financial impact. The impetus comes from real-world complaints from contractors and homeowners about overreach by utilities.
HB1029: Paul Finelli, President of Dig Safe System Incorporated Oppose00:13:46.560 - 8:38:23 AM; Paul Finelli opposed HB 1029 FN, arguing that the current law already includes exemptions for landscaping and maintenance activities, making the bill redundant. He noted that the existing definition of excavation is clear and precise, and adding specifics like pot sizes could complicate enforcement by the Department of Energy. Finelli mentioned that even shallow hand digging can damage utilities and that the bill might create confusion, potentially allowing mechanized equipment in some cases. He referenced the sponsor's company having only called Dig Safe nine times in seven years, suggesting their work is not impacted. Finelli emphasized adherence to national dig prevention best practices, which focus on clear rules and shared responsibilities, and offered to answer questions.
HB1029: Representative Lelle Information Only00:18:36.400 - 8:43:13 AM; Representative Lelle inquired about the code requirements for burying underground electrical lines on personal property, noting a minimum depth of 18 inches, and asked if similar legislation mandates minimum depths for utility cables.
HB1029: Unidentified Representative Information Only00:19:32.640 - 8:44:09 AM; The representative questioned whether the proposed bill's added specificity to the definition of excavation aligns with the trend toward more stringent rules, suggesting that it does increase specificity.
HB1029: Unidentified Representative Information Only00:20:25.760 - 8:45:02 AM; The representative asked about exemptions in the statute for landscaping and maintenance on residential property using non-mechanized equipment, specifically inquiring if this exemption applies to commercial or industrial properties.
HB1029: Meg Stone, Department of Energy Information Only00:21:17.280 - 8:45:54 AM; Meg Stone, with the Department of Energy, along with Mike Susi, Director of Enforcement, stated the department is neutral on the bill. They expressed concerns that the proposed change to the excavation definition could be misleading, potentially allowing mechanized planting of small shrubs and bushes without Dig Safe notification, leading to unmarked buried infrastructure. They noted it is repetitive for residential projects, as current law already excludes hand-digging for small plants and irrigation on residential properties. The ambiguity extends to commercial settings, raising safety risks due to dense underground assets like high-pressure gas lines and high-voltage cables. In 2025, the department investigated 38 cases of damage from excavation without Dig Safe calls, which could have been prevented with proper notification. From 2013-2023, Dig Safe tickets increased from 60,000 to 92,000 annually, while damages decreased by 60%, crediting the current law. They believe the change could reverse this progress. During questioning, Stone clarified that the 38 damages occurred because no Dig Safe tickets were pulled, preventing marking and leading to avoidable harm. She explained that utilities must mark within 72 hours, and increasing tickets might require more staffing but emphasizes prevention. The current exemption is residential-only; the bill's language could exempt commercial planting and repairs, increasing risks where damages range from $2,000 to $70,000, plus potential injuries from hitting high-pressure lines or electrical cables. Excavators bear repair costs. On processing time, excavators must wait 72 hours (excluding weekends/holidays) for marking, advising businesses to plan accordingly. Regarding ambiguity, the bill's wording might imply mechanized digging for small pots is allowed since 'by hand' is specified only for flowers and irrigation, heightening dangers especially on commercial sites with greater impacts like fiber optic disruptions. She reiterated excavators are liable for damages.
HB1169: Representative Schneller Support01:05:42.640 - 9:30:19 AM; Representative Schneller, co-sponsor on behalf of Representative Lee, presented an overview of HB 1169, which aims to modernize New Hampshire's Dig Safe program. The bill proposes reducing the minimum excavation notice period from 72 to 48 hours, aligning with six core holidays instead of 13, and extending the validity of an excavation ticket from 30 days to one year, provided underground conditions remain unchanged. These changes seek to streamline notifications, reduce administrative delays, minimize project downtime for contractors and homeowners, and maintain safety standards by focusing on site conditions rather than calendar dates.
HB1169: Representative Corman Information Only01:08:06.960 - 9:32:43 AM; Representative Corman questioned Representative Schneller about the rationale for extending the ticket validity from 30 days to one year, suggesting it seems like a big leap and asking if there was a specific basis for one year over something like 120 days. Schneller responded that he was unsure of the origins but emphasized that as long as underground conditions don't change, the extension allows continuity, with a one-year cap, and changes would restart the process.
HB1169: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only01:09:15.920 - 9:33:52 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas questioned the reduction from 72 to 48 hours notice, expressing concern that it would increase workload for those reviewing notifications without a fiscal note attached, potentially burdening the department financially. Schneller admitted he was unsure and deferred to the bill sponsor.
HB1169: Representative Randles Information Only01:10:34.400 - 9:35:11 AM; Representative Randles asked about the exclusion of Martin Luther King Day and Juneteenth from the listed holidays, noting they are now state holidays, and how that affects delays and utility responses. Schneller provided a directional response about reducing delays from weekends and holidays to streamline the 72-to-48 hour shift, but deferred deeper discussion to the sponsor.
HB1169: Representative Pogee Information Only01:13:22.080 - 9:37:59 AM; Representative Pogee raised concerns about the one-year ticket extension, questioning how contractors would be notified of changes like overhead lines becoming underground within that period, especially if landscaping obscures marks after nine months. Schneller deferred the question to Dig Safe and the Department of Energy for executive session discussion.
HB1169: Bob Finelli, President of Dig Safe System, Inc. Oppose01:15:35.920 - 9:40:12 AM; Bob Finelli strongly opposed HB 1169 in its entirety, arguing it would diminish safety protections. On reducing notice from 72 to 48 hours, he noted it's consistent across New England states and recent trends favor longer periods for accuracy, managing demand spikes, verification, and emergency preservation. On removing six holidays, he highlighted operational strains, safety hazards from rushed marks, scheduling confusion for multi-state contractors, and inconsistencies. On extending tickets to one year, he warned of faded marks, soil changes, new utility installations, and increased excavator liability, emphasizing that current 30-day renewals ensure safety without stopping work through planning. He stressed the laws should only change if safety is enhanced.
HB1169: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only01:24:11.679 - 9:48:48 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas asked Finelli if severe flooding removing topsoil would be a concern with a one-year ticket extension. Finelli confirmed yes.
HB1169: Representative Corman Information Only01:25:14.320 - 9:49:51 AM; Representative Corman asked Finelli about soil movement making marks inaccurate, inquiring how much things could shift relative to marks. Finelli cited flooding examples where utilities can shift due to erosion and mud, without specifying exact measurements.
HB1169: Meg Stone, Department of Energy Information Only01:26:47.199 - 9:51:24 AM; Meg Stone, joined by Mike Susi, stated the Department of Energy is neutral on HB 1169 but believes the status quo since 1996 is effective for safety. Section one reduces notice to 48 hours and removes holidays, conflicting with statutes giving utilities 72 hours to mark, potentially allowing unsafe early excavation during peak seasons or holidays when staffing is low. Section two extends tickets to 365 days, but markings fade, and renewals ensure checks; data shows 6% of damages from unmaintained marks over five years. She noted education helps compliance but opposed major changes.
HB1169: Representative Corman Information Only01:29:50.239 - 9:54:27 AM; Representative Corman expressed surprise at the department's neutrality given the testimony's emphasis on risks.
HB1169: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only01:30:35.520 - 9:55:12 AM; Representative Wendy Thomas asked if there is anything positive in the bill justifying neutrality. Stone said utilities could adjust but it's not better than the current system.
HB1169: Senator McGee Information Only01:31:44.159 - 9:56:21 AM; Senator McGee asked about consistency with other New England states' rules and potential confusion from differing holidays or periods. Stone noted states have similar but varying rules, with trends toward longer notices, and New Hampshire's changes could add confusion, though education mitigates issues. She mentioned brief discussions with the sponsor and hoped for more collaboration.
HB1169: Representative Matson Information Only01:33:56.800 - 9:58:33 AM; Representative Matson asked if any states have ticket validity beyond 30 days, like 60. Stone deferred to Finelli, believing not.
HB1169: Mara Weston, representing NECA (New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association) Oppose01:34:58.960 - 9:59:35 AM; Mara Weston, on behalf of NECA (members including Comcast, Breezeline, Charter serving 695,000 locations in 185 NH communities), echoed Dig Safe's concerns and urged inexpedient to legislate. As both infrastructure owners and excavator hirers, they view the process as working well, aligned with other states, with no benefits from the proposed changes.
HB1169: Representative Randles Information Only01:36:14.000 - 10:00:51 AM; Representative Randles noted that contractors damaging infrastructure are responsible for repair costs, assuming that includes physical restoration of electrical or communications connections.
HB1169: Miss Weston Oppose01:37:00.480 - 10:01:37 AM; Miss Weston responds to questions about liability for consequential damages from utility strikes, noting she will follow up with clients. She explains that shortening the marking period to 48 hours could increase utility line strikes due to less reliable coordination, especially with construction and weather issues. She affirms that a utility strike by a neighbor could affect access to utilities for others, emphasizing the importance of the current process for safety and protection of utility access.
HB1169: Griffin Robarge, Eversource Energy Oppose01:39:17.199 - 10:03:54 AM; Griffin Robarge from Eversource opposes HB 1169, highlighting the high volume of Dig Safe tickets processed annually (over 86,000 last year), which continue even in winter. He stresses the need for adequate time to mark underground infrastructure for safety, noting that strikes can affect multiple customers. He opposes extending ticket validity to one year, as markouts fade due to weather, leading to digging blind and reliability issues. He praises the unchanged Dig Safe statute for its success in preventing injuries and disruptions.
HB1169: Alec Omera, UNATIL Oppose01:44:44.080 - 10:09:21 AM; Alec Omera from UNATIL, accompanied by Tim Patterson and Chuck Lloyd, opposes HB 1169 due to public safety concerns. He emphasizes the importance of calling Dig Safe for safety of workers, residents, and the public. Reducing the response time to 48 hours would increase logistical challenges and resource demands, potentially affecting rates. He aligns with points from prior testimonies on the tightness of the 48-hour window.
HB1029: Representative McGee Vote01:56:24.159 - 10:21:01 AM; Representative McGee moves for ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on HB 1029 FN.
HB1029: Vice Chair Thomas Vote01:56:24.159 - 10:21:01 AM; Vice Chair Thomas seconds the motion for ITL on HB 1029 FN.
HB1029: Representative Reynolds Support01:57:15.599 - 10:21:52 AM; Representative Reynolds supports ITL, citing testimony that changes should only be made if they clearly increase safety, which this bill does not.
HB1029: Representative Thomas Support01:57:15.599 - 10:21:52 AM; Representative Thomas supports ITL, agreeing that the current process works well and the bill does not improve safety or accuracy.
HB1029: Committee Vote Vote01:58:36.400 - 10:23:13 AM; The committee votes 14-0 in favor of ITL on HB 1029 FN, placing it on consent. The bill is sent to Representative McGee for the committee report.
HB1169: Representative Corman Vote02:00:05.599 - 10:24:42 AM; Moves for ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on HB 1169.
HB1169: Representative Plogeier Vote02:00:05.599 - 10:24:42 AM; Seconds the motion for ITL on HB 1169.
HB1169: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only02:00:05.599 - 10:24:42 AM; Reminds the committee of UNATIL's statement that rates would increase if the policy is implemented.
HB1169: Representative Reynolds Oppose02:01:23.679 - 10:26:00 AM; Notes that testimony from the previous bill applies here; questions Representative Lee's involvement as a contractor and potential conflict of interest; argues the bill benefits contractors by reducing planning and safety measures, finding it offensive.
HB1169: Representative Swanson Oppose02:02:43.040 - 10:27:20 AM; Acknowledges positive aspects for consumers waiting for Dig Safe but concurs with negative assessments overall.
HB1169: Committee Vote Vote02:03:30.639 - 10:28:07 AM; Roll call vote on ITL for HB 1169 results in 14 yes votes, 0 no; bill placed on consent calendar.
HB1169: Representative Wendy Thomas Information Only02:04:34.960 - 10:29:11 AM; Verifies awareness of fiscal note for HB 1029 and placement on consent calendar due to no fiscal impact.
HB1542: Representative Janine Nutter, Hillsboro 12 Support03:35:48.160 - 12:00:25 PM; Introduces HB 1542 to end penalties for non-compliance with RPS, lowering costs for competitive generation and electric bills; provides quick relief amid affordability crisis; estimates $6.7 million annual savings; defers to supporters.
HB1542: Meg Stone, NH Department of Energy Information Only03:38:05.840 - 12:02:42 PM; Department neutral; bill sets ACPs to zero from 2027, impacting REC trading and REF revenues; equates to repealing RPS without removing structure; discusses HB2 changes remitting funds to general fund; administers grants and positions; fiscal note indicates need to eliminate positions or find funding; responds to questions on impacts, RPS collapse, economic effects, and mission alignment.
HB1542: Jason Stock, NH Timberland Owners Association Oppose03:51:38.239 - 12:16:15 PM; Opposes bill as it would repeal RPS by zeroing ACPs, harming biomass market vital for low-grade timber management; details economic impact ($254 million from biomass plants); emphasizes base-load renewable, job support (931 jobs), and forest preservation; responds to questions on subsidies, plant viability, jobs, and cost-benefit metrics.
HB1542: Greg Moore, Americans for Prosperity Support04:06:12.399 - 12:30:49 PM; Supports HB 1542 for rate relief and quick impact; highlights business competitiveness, trajectory of cost reduction; criticizes REF as backdoor tax due to diversions to general fund; notes high administrative costs (25%+); references study on future energy costs; responds to questions on inefficiencies, RPS goals, and opportunity costs.
HB1542: Maline Manow and Heidi Kroll, Granite State Hydropower Association Oppose04:20:17.040 - 12:44:54 PM; Oppose bill as it zeros ACPs, devaluing RECs and tanking demand; RPS supports small hydro for fuel diversity; cites DOE report on $1:$9 leverage, low compliance costs (0.0054/kWh), and program success; highlights grants improving efficiency/safety; discusses revenue loss for small projects, dam maintenance avoiding taxpayer burden; responds to questions on jobs, economic benefits, and program effectiveness.
HB1542: Nick Paul, Clean Energy New Hampshire Oppose04:33:52.000 - 12:58:29 PM; Nick Paul testified against HB 1542 and HB 1721, explaining that these bills would eliminate the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and the renewable energy fund (REF) by setting alternative compliance payments (ACP) to zero or gradually reducing them. He highlighted the REF's achievements, including over 10,000 rebates totaling $41 million, leveraging $393 million in investments, $16.4 million in grants for 56 projects, and $5 million for 22 low-income community solar projects benefiting 788 households. Paul noted the minimal rate impact of 0.006 cents per kWh and argued that the bills would risk nine full-time REF-funded positions and dismantle effective state policy without addressing affordability.
HB1542: Dina Dennis, Community Power Coalition of New Hampshire Oppose04:41:08.798 - 1:05:45 PM; Dina Dennis opposed HB 1542 and HB 1721, stating they disrupt the market, weaken signals for fuel diversity, in-state energy production, and long-term price stability. She emphasized that energy diversity and domestic production are crucial for national security, economic competitiveness, and affordability amid rising electricity demand from AI, data centers, and manufacturing. The bills would narrow energy options, increase reliance on out-of-state fossil fuels, and expose customers to price volatility and geopolitical risks. She noted potential impacts on community power, including fewer economic options for local clean energy and effects on power purchase agreements with renewable generators.
HB1542: Brooks Peterson, Rolling Energy, Keene NH Oppose04:45:49.360 - 1:10:26 PM; Brooks Peterson opposed HB 1542, explaining it sets ACP to zero, collapsing the REC market and removing incentives for utilities to buy RECs or pay penalties. This would affect existing biomass systems in rural communities that relied on stable rules for financing, increasing financial risk and impacting local jobs in fuel production, trucking, installation, and maintenance. He stressed the REF's role in grants that reduce upfront costs for schools, businesses, farms, and municipalities, enabling long-term savings. Peterson cited a grant application for a wood waste-fueled facility in Tilton, NH, which supports jobs in rural areas, and urged opposition as the bill disables the RPS enforcement.
HB1542: Nick Krakoff, Conservation Law Foundation Oppose04:52:15.200 - 1:16:52 PM; Nick Krakoff opposed HB 1542, noting the DOE's recent report did not recommend changes to the ACP mechanism, yet the bill sets it to zero, dismantling the RPS and REF. He highlighted economic benefits: 3,500 jobs in renewables, nearly $1 billion invested in solar, and tens of millions in REF grants to schools, municipalities, and businesses. Eliminating RPS/REF would jeopardize jobs and clean energy projects that reduce bills. RPS promotes fuel diversity, hedging against volatile fossil fuel prices, lowering wholesale costs, and improving reliability, as per ISO New England on offshore wind. The bill would increase vulnerability to fossil fuel price hikes and higher costs for families and businesses.
HB1542: John Gage, Windham NH Oppose04:55:21.760 - 1:19:58 PM; John Gage opposed HB 1542, framing it as addressing market failure from unpriced fossil fuel externalities like pollution. He argued RPS internalizes these costs via penalties funding clean energy, preparing for global carbon pricing trends (e.g., EU CBAM charging imports). The bill undoes policies promoting clean energy and efficiency, risking stranded assets and volatility. RPS acts as a mild carbon tax, collecting small fees to support renewables without significantly burdening ratepayers. He urged viewing RPS as a conservative price signal for decarbonization, noting minimal bill impacts and benefits like less pollution and energy diversity.
HB1721: Representative Michael Harrington, Sponsor Support05:07:01.520 - 1:31:38 PM; Representative Harrington supported HB 1721, arguing it's not a mandate but removes government forcing ratepayers to subsidize renewables they may not want, as evidenced by low voluntary uptake (<1%) of past 100% renewable options. NH produces excess electricity, and much REF money goes to the general fund, acting as a tax. In-state renewables can sell RECs elsewhere (90% of market), especially to MA/CT with higher mandates. The bill phases out RPS over 20+ years: closes new enrollments after 6 months, caps REC eligibility at 20 years (or 5 more if >15 years), and reduces ACP proportionally. It protects existing investments while ending permanent subsidies, allowing market choice without extra costs.
HB1721: Josh Elliott, NH Department of Energy Information Only05:23:44.080 - 1:48:21 PM; Josh Elliott provided neutral testimony on HB 1721, which sunsets RPS over 20.5 years by closing new REC eligibility after 6 months, capping at 20 years (extra 5 for >15-year systems), and authorizing ACP reductions as facilities decline. He noted policy changes require updating RPS statute sections, administrative burden reviewing 8,200 facilities (95% Class II solar), and risks to nine REF-funded positions handling RPS compliance, net metering, and renewables. Statutory programs tied to REF need clarity on reduction/rollback. The department seeks guidance on ACP adjustments to avoid arbitrary changes.
HB1721: Jason Stock, Timberland Owners Association Oppose05:30:35.760 - 1:55:12 PM; Jason Stock opposed HB 1721, stating it eliminates RPS efficacy over time, with impacts on biomass (Class III). Not all classes qualify across states; CT is phasing out biomass, MA requires specific technology excluding NH's legacy stoker grate plants. NH's Class III already adjusts requirements annually due to out-of-state sales, but reliance on NH RPS increases as other markets close. With only 5-6 qualifying plants, neutering NH RPS threatens viability without viable alternatives.
HB1721: Meline Mano and Heidi Kroll, Granite State Hydropower Association Oppose05:34:48.958 - 1:59:25 PM; Meline Mano and Heidi Kroll opposed HB 1721, noting the 5-year warning still ends policy for small hydro producers relying on Class IV RPS revenue to cover rising costs for 100+ year-old projects. Lifespans exceed 20 years; value of existing small hydro has no expiration. Cross-state qualification varies (e.g., MA requires low-impact certification); shifting NH supply elsewhere floods markets, dropping REC values. Maintaining existing resources is key amid building challenges and rising demand—no new generation without preserving current ones. Under-1MW dams heavily depend on NH Class IV RECs; loss risks facility closures.
HB1721: Brooks Peterson, Rolling Energy, Keene NH Oppose05:39:52.878 - 2:04:29 PM; Brooks Peterson opposed HB 1721, disputing claims that NH thermal RECs (Class I) can easily sell to other states like MA, which requires post-2015 operation dates, delivery to MA facilities, and specific technologies—excluding many NH biomass systems. This bill's phase-out still collapses the market over time, affecting rural biomass investments, jobs, and REF grants for local projects, without viable regional alternatives for thermal RECs.
HB1721: Brooks Peterson, Rolling Energy, Keene NH Oppose05:41:00.958 - 2:05:37 PM; Brooks Peterson continues his testimony opposing HB 1721, emphasizing that without New Hampshire's RPS, his clients cannot sell thermal RECs out of state due to restrictions in other New England states like Massachusetts requiring useful thermal load. He argues that biomass incentives level the playing field against oil and propane, which benefit from tax policies and unpriced costs. If the bill passes, facilities may stick with fossil fuels, increasing emissions and fuel price volatility. He urges opposition as the bill sunsets RPS by attrition, harming decarbonization pathways for rural and institutional facilities.
HB1721: Nick Krakoff, Conservation Law Foundation Oppose05:47:07.520 - 2:11:44 PM; Nick Krakoff opposes HB 1721, noting it phases out RPS unlike HB 1542's immediate elimination. He references the DOE's 2025 RPS review recommending future reviews in 2030, 2035, and 2040 for transitions, which the bill ignores by capping REC eligibility at 20 years and excluding new systems after 2026. This would phase out RPS and RF funding, jeopardizing renewable jobs, investments, and fuel diversity, making NH vulnerable to fossil fuel prices. He urges ITL on the bill. During questions, he discusses RPS costs in other states, policy concerns over legal ones (except past REF transfers potentially unconstitutional), future electrification needs, alignment with 'all of the above' energy strategy, benefits of renewables in reducing costs, and fiscal impacts like eliminating DOE positions.
HB1002: Representative Lynn Turkot, Barrington and Strafford Support05:58:23.360 - 2:23:00 PM; Representative Lynn Turkot introduces HB 1002 to repeal the solar property tax exemption, arguing it unfairly redistributes tax burdens from the majority to a minority who install solar. He shares examples from Barrington (2.5% tax savings if repealed) and other towns (up to 5%), noting many citizens and even selectmen misunderstand the economics. He counters arguments like local control (not absolute for tax fairness), environmental benefits (subjective), and fossil fuel subsidies (federal issue). Emphasizes fairness: solar is a choice for few, subsidized by many, and repealing ensures equitable taxation without added state costs.
HB1002: Representative Cat McGee, representing Juliana Roland, Hollis NH Oppose06:29:58.638 - 2:54:35 PM; Representative Cat McGee reads a letter from constituent Juliana Roland opposing HB 1002. Roland highlights how the local-option exemption helps families and businesses manage energy costs, supports local installers, and builds resilient energy systems. As a Hollis resident with recent solar installation, she notes reduced electricity use and grid benefits. Repealing it negates voter-approved local decisions under RSA 72:27, introduces uncertainty, and discourages community investments. She urges preserving local authority for such priorities.
HB1002: Jim Misho, Chief Assessor, Town of Hudson Oppose06:33:50.558 - 2:58:27 PM; Jim Misho, on behalf of Hudson's Board of Selectmen (4-0 vote), opposes HB 1002. Hudson has had unlimited solar exemptions since 2015, with 251 properties exempting $2.2 million in value (0.21 cents on tax rate in a $5.1B base). Statewide, 153 municipalities (64%) have adopted it, per DRA data. Communities can opt in/out or cap it, as Hudson is considering ($20K cap). No property owners have complained about costs. He notes subsidies are common (e.g., veterans credits) and 36 states offer solar exemptions; power lies in local decisions.
HB1002: David Trumbull, Town of Ware Oppose06:43:35.280 - 3:08:12 PM; David Trumbull opposes HB 1002, arguing that the claimed tax savings from removing solar exemptions are overstated. He calculates that solar panels add minimal tax burden, about $4 per year per neighbor over their lifespan, and emphasizes solar's broader economic benefits, including falling prices, energy cost savings for all users, and climate change mitigation. He notes that two-thirds of towns have adopted exemptions because solar benefits the community.
HB1002: Pential Alto, Pembroke Oppose06:46:47.120 - 3:11:24 PM; Pential Alto opposes the bill as inopportune, highlighting dramatic drops in solar and battery costs that enable widespread adoption. He stresses systemic benefits like reduced generation needs and increased grid capacity, arguing for societal benefits from solar. He discusses stranded utility costs but suggests subsidies if needed, and cautions against taxing solar prematurely without knowing its market value, which should emerge naturally. During questioning, he elaborates on stranded costs from efficiency improvements and potential subsidies, noting increasing loads from EVs and heat pumps may offset reductions.
HB1002: Deborah Putnham, Hudson, New Hampshire Oppose06:52:39.040 - 3:17:16 PM; Deborah Putnham, a solar owner since 2015, opposes the bill, crediting Hudson's exemption for making her investment feasible. She argues it erodes local control, penalizes good-faith investors, and shifts costs without lowering overall taxes, discouraging clean energy. She notes some buyers undervalue solar-equipped homes. In questions, she clarifies leasing vs. owning differences, notes no direct listing of exemptions on tax bills, and affirms solar doesn't guarantee property value increase. She shares her motivation from energy reliability concerns and notes solar's depreciating output unlike appreciating land.
HB1002: Jeff Mclashen, Hopkinton, Revision Energy Oppose07:02:16.958 - 3:26:53 PM; Jeff Mclashen, a solar installer, opposes the bill, valuing local control that enabled his 2016 installation via Hopkinton's exemption, eliminating his electric bills. He explains complications in his work due to varying town policies but supports towns' rights. He notes solar's value depends on community preferences. In questions, he agrees the bill targets solar unfairly compared to other improvements, burdens financed systems, and highlights depreciation and maintenance costs. As a HAREY member, he affirms towns' informed adoption of exemptions and solar's environmental benefits like carbon reduction and grid support, plus emerging storage value.
HB1002: Nate Graves, Business and Industry Association Oppose07:11:46.160 - 3:36:23 PM; Nate Graves opposes HB 1002, noting the exemption's long history since 1975 and adoption by many municipalities. He compares it to RSA 79E for property improvements and argues minimal overall tax impact but significant increases for individual businesses, citing a $14,000 annual hit for one member. In questions, he notes affected businesses are major employers like manufacturers and large energy users.
HB1002: Nick Paul, Clean Energy New Hampshire Oppose07:15:25.440 - 3:40:02 PM; Nick Paul opposes the bill on local control, scale, and fairness grounds. He argues HB 1002 ends towns' option to exempt solar, used by 139 municipalities across all counties for practical benefits like local energy investment and cost management, not ideology. Repeal creates unfairness for past investors and discourages future ones by pulling the rug out. He questions repealing all exemptions if the issue is tax breaks and rejects claims of uninformed towns. In questions, he explains repeal shifts taxes without reducing revenue, just changing who pays.
HB1002: Clifton Below, Community Power Coalition of New Hampshire Oppose07:19:26.478 - 3:44:03 PM; Clifton Below opposes the bill, arguing it favors out-of-state fossil fuels over local renewables by removing exemptions. He presents analysis showing PV systems face 7-10 times higher property taxes per kWh than gas generation due to capital-intensive nature and lack of fuel taxes. Without exemptions, new PV could incur 4-6 cents/kWh in taxes vs. 0.5 cents for gas, discouraging local investment. He offers to share data and notes use in Lebanon to promote local over out-of-state energy.

Vose, Michael(Chairman)(R)[A-]2025	Bernardy, JD(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	Thomas, Douglas(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2025
Notter, Jeanine(R)[A-]2025	Schneller, John(R)[B+]2025	Harrington, Michael(R)[A]2025
McGhee, Kat(D)[CT]2025	Ploszaj, Tom(R)[A-]2025	Mattson, Rita(R)[B+]2025
Raynolds, Ned(D)[D-]2025	Thomas, Wendy(D)[CT]2025	Parshall, Lucius(D)[F]2025
Caplan, Tony(D)[D-]2025	Summers, James(R)[B]2025	Cormen, Thomas(D)[F]2025
Swanson, Dale(D)[D-]2025	Larochelle, John(D)[F]2025	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025