HB1455

I am opposed to this bill as proposed.

Solar and wind are the least expensive and least destructive sources of energy. It only makes sense that these lower cost sources of electricity generation should be part the portfolio of electric generation capacity in NH.

Given the fact that the cost per kwh from new solar installations (without tax credits) is less expensive than the cost per kwh from new natural gas plants, it’s hard to believe that the sponsors of this bill aren’t receiving incentives from the natural gas industry. A rational human (that isn’t receiving financial benefit from any electricity producing sector) would likely conclude that lower cost solar electricity generation has a place in the portfolio of NH electric generation capacity, even if it is not dispatchable.

I strongly oppose this bill. We can no longer rely solely on fossil fuels. We should develop a mix of energy sources including the clean/free energy from solar and wind.

I strongly oppose this bill. We need a mix of energy sources, clean energy, free energy from wind and solar, in addition to other sources.

SOLAR IS THE WAY TO GO.

I vehemently oppose this bill and I am absolutely astounded that this bill has been introduced! It is incredibly short sighted, and harmful to NH residents and our economy. To best supply NH businesses and residents, we should be open to All forms of energy. Limiting our energy to only fossil fuels is irresponsible. There are so many new efficient options for energy that are better for our environment, and people should have a choice of where their energy comes from. Many NH homes and businesses have installed solar panels for passive energy collection. Will we no longer be allowed to use them? Many of us have net metering, will you disconnect everyone from the grid? This is a bad idea and I say NO!

Do not limit options for NH. Renewable energy is a long game inevitability. By limiting progress in its development you will hurt NH economics, the ability to attract new tech companies, and the desirability for people to live here. Please oppose this bill.

This bill flies in the face of evidence that renewable energy sources ( like solar and wind) are the safest and fastest way to satisfy our energy needs in NH. Fossil fuels need subsidies to even come close to competing. Our home is powered totally by two solar arrays and we are now banking money every month, having paid off our investment in 6 years. And solar is more affordable now than when we purchased. To become more independent of out of state sources of energy (whose prices flucuate dramatically) we NEED to encourage solar, not prohibit it! This bill will make our electric bills higher. I'm sure you don't want that and the average Granite State voter doesn't either.

Legislating requirements that energy sources must contain hydrocarbons ( thereby excluding water, wind and solar power for example ) is short sighted and will force totally unnecessary price increases on NH residents and businesses. Wind, water, solar and battery system are increasingly the cheapest forms of energy and should be available to all in NH.

I like the idea of energy independence/reliability. Renewable energy infrastructure investments are the best way to achieve this. It also allows cities to begin breaking free from monopoly utility companies, which lowers costs for us consumers. (I think a future successful bill for affordability would be to limit how much power companies can charge on the distribution vs the production side of electricity) We have no fossil fuel sources within the state, so we are at the whims of other countries (expensive) and other states (even more expensive). Fossil fuels are a finite resource unlike wind and sunlight. And simple economics says increasing scarcity makes things cost more. I see the need for nuclear as long as it is inspected well so we don’t have more false (or real) alarms in seabrook. But no, hydrocarbons should not be assumed necessary. Cities should be allowed to phase these out if they decide that is in their best interest.

Mandates use of fossil fuel? Really? This is ridiculous, we would save a lot of money with solar and wind. And just to remind you, nuclear does not include any fossil fuels.

This is a step in the wrong direction and a very misguided bill.

We should be moving away from fossil foods towards solar not the other way. Solar and other renewables move control of energy from out of our state into the people of nhs hands.

Solar and other nonagon emitting forms of energy are the future. This bill will leave NH significantly behind other states and the world in energy production and tarnish our image as outdoors living individuals.

Instead of promoting fossil fuels, we should be incentivizing clean energy development. It is the responsibility of elected officials and state agencies to make informed decisions based on facts, not industry marketing.

We need to utilize all possible energy sources not just fossil fuel and nuclear. AI is going to need a hell of a lot of energy so use all the resources.

We are experiencing an extreme weather event this winter due to water held in the warmed atmosphere. then dumped all at once. This bill would continue things as they are, or make them worse, by urging more burning of fossil fuels. More and more businesses realize that renewable energy is the way to go in order to lessen the effects of climate change. I am not opposed to nuclear power, especially the new micro power plants, because they are a renewable energy source.

Renewable energy is greatly needed. Fossil fuel and nuclear energy is expensive and dangerous. The health risks alone! Alternative energy should be included in all energies available to the public. Why can’t we have all available instead of outlawing renewable energy indefinitely. We are going backwards. The future of AI will depend on a great deal of energy…why not use all available?

This bill absurdly attempts to re-define common sense understandings of energy sources, while mandating unproven and uneconomic sources of future energy. If enacted, it will lead to more dangerous pollution and higher electric rates - please ITL it ASAP!

We need to focus on all energy sources at the moment but need to start to pull away from fossil fuels. Renewables are cheaper to build and are needed to keep up with demand. Ideally, I would want a buildup of renewables while constructing a safe nuclear plant for a carbon free future. Climate change is real and we need to start addressing the issue.

It seems contradictory, living in a state with the motto "Live free or die" that citizens should have their choices for energy curtailed in this manner. Climate change aside, let the public decide on renewable energy options. Does the hydrocarbon energy industry need any additional supports and props? I think not.

I oppose HB 1455 because it defines words incorrectly to dishonestly and unfairly favor fossil fuels over renewable sources of energy, which, among other things, requires ignoring the real and growing costs of climate change on the people of New Hampshire. I will cite a few examples: 1. “Prioritizing domestic energy sources, minimizing reliance on foreign adversaries.” Yes, the US is a net exporter of fossil fuels so we do not import Iranian or Russian oil but since oil is an internationally traded commodity, the more oil the US consumes, the higher the world price and therefore the more revenue that is available to Iran and Russia to pursue terrorism and conquest. This is increasingly true for natural gas as well as we add LNG export terminals. 2. ““Affordable” means the lowest cost method of providing electricity, accounting for the full lifecycle cost of each generation source.” The “full lifecycle cost” of fossil fuels rightly includes the harms they impose on generations to come through climate change since CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries. Every serious economist understands “negative externalities” such as climate change and most agree that the best way to solve them is through taxing them: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/38-externalities.htm . https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/ 3. “Promoting the use of fuel sources produced primarily within the United States.” Solar energy is actually produced entirely outside the US—93 million miles away—but fortunately can be harvested anywhere. Winds can be produced by weather systems outside the US but likewise can be harvested wherever they blow. Geothermal and hydro can be produced entirely within the US. 4. “Deliver cost savings to residential and commercial customers relative to energy sources listed in 42 U.S.C. section 15852(b), based on the average cost per unit of energy output, excluding any direct or indirect government subsidies over the past 5 years.” Fossil fuels benefit from tax subsidies and, more importantly, from the far larger implicit subsidy of not charging for the harms they cause through both conventional pollution and climate change. Furthermore, renewables can now be cheaper than fossil fuels for additions to our grid, even without considering negative externalities. https://www.imf.org/en/publications/wp/issues/2025/12/20/underpriced-and-overused-fossil-fuel-subsidies-data-2025-update-572729 5. ““Green energy” includes energy generated using sources listed in 42 U.S.C. section 15852(b), or hydrocarbons combusted for electricity generation that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards under the Clean Air Act.” The Clean Air Act was first passed 63 year ago and last amended over 30 years ago and therefore did not consider climate change at all. This is like citing 1880 rules of the road, before the invention of the automobile. 6. “Green energy shall include energy generated by nuclear reactors and energy generated using natural gas.” Agree on nuclear but obviously false regarding natural gas.

Makes no sense - need to encourage multiple ways to provide clean energy. Climate change is read and humans are the reason it has accelerated. We need to take better care of our planet if we want to survive.

Dear Members of the Science, Technology and Energy Committee, HB 1455 seems devised to serve the interests of the petroleum industry, not the interests of the people of NH. Which do you serve? The bill is threatening to me personally. I know that renewable energy works, as I have invested in rooftop solar, heat pumps and and EV. The package saves me about $2,000 a year, about a 5% annual return on my total investment. HB 1455 would skew the free market away from least cost solutions like mine to make citizens like me subject to petroleum payments.