HB1542

i oppose this bill because I think it would would effectively end the Renewable Energy Fund and associated grant/rebate programs such as solar for low/moderate income families. This is a time that calls for more renewable energy, not less.

I oppose HB 1542 because it eliminates the Renewable Energy Fund by setting ACP rates to zero and redirecting all remaining funds away from renewable-energy programs. According to the fiscal note, this would collapse the REC market, end low-moderate income solar initiatives, halt community and non-residential renewable-energy grants, and eliminate the positions that administer these programs. This bill dismantles New Hampshire’s renewable-energy infrastructure rather than strengthening transparency or ratepayer fairness.

The rest of the world is eyeing us as we dismantle the safeguards to try and save our planet. It is ignorant and shortsighted and will cost us more and more as we refuse to deal with Climate Change.

I oppose this bill which would effectively end the Renewable Energy Credit market in NH. Utilities would no longer face financial penalties if they don't meet renewable standards.

This is a terrible bill. Do people in the house not believe in climate change. We need to have avenues to allow people to access grants for solar and also the utilities need to meet renewable standards which they migtht ignore if there weren't financial penalties.

This bill would effectively kill the Renewable Energy Fund. We need to encourage renewable energy and help low-income people reduce their utilities bills.

Let's not discourage energy independence. Solar is free if you have the collector for it. It pays back if you collect more than you can use to the grid. What's not to like!

Do not end the renewable energy fund. It will collapse the Renewable Energy Credits market in New Hampshire.

Strangling the deployment of the most cost-effective source of power generation. Because I guess our electric rates weren't going up *fast* enough?

Please OPPOSE this bill. The Renewable Energy Fund revenue flowing from Renewable Energy Certificates are important to many NH ratepayers. This bill would end all REF-funded programs, including grants for non-residential projects and low/moderate income solar initiatives. We need more Renewable Energy.

Another shortsighted attempt to ignore the climate crisis and eliminate the REF.

I believe this bill will remove any incentives for renewable energy production and make us more dependent on fossil fuels. In a time when energy demand is high this will negatively affect NH.

The setting of ACP to $0.00 for all RPS classes is a terrible idea. Such action would devalue all renewable energy sources and would keep us addicted to costlier fossil fuels., These types of fuels have prices that vary dramatically and by season, are not renewable and not in-state energy sources. We should do everything possible to support local energy sources including biomass.

This bill provides the dying fossil fuel industry a bigger subsidy than before and harms our environment and economy.

I am opposed to bill HB1542 which sets ACP to $0 and does away with the NH RPS Program.

As a small Hydro owner operator my son and I are reliant on the RPS program to supplement, revenue and offset the hard work of keeping a hydro operational. We pay considerable taxes in the small town of Milton, and we are also burdened by the state utilities tax. We provide jobs both directly and in directly in a town where this really makes a difference. I would expect we are among the top customers just at the local hardware store for example. Hydro is a key part of the grid in NH and it is, in our view the cleanest of the clean energy. respectfully submitted Steve French

This legislation would harm the renewable energy industry in NH. Eagle Creek owns and operates seven hydroelectric facilities across the state; this legislation would negatively impact our operations and the customers we generate electricity for.

don't dis-incentivize renewable and green power!

This bill is short-sighted, costly to NH citizens and businesses, and moves the state backwards in the effort to become less reliant on polluting, predictably more costly over time, fossil fuels. Carbon pricing is spreading worldwide, prices are rising, and CBAMS are here. The EU CBAM started this year, and now US exporters must pay the EU carbon price in trade because the US does not have a matching carbon price. Other countries' rising carbon prices and the spreading adoption of CBAMS should be a red flag to NH state leaders that the free pollution stance of the US will not last. The UK CBAM starts next year. Canada, Australia, and others are close to starting their CBAMS. Last year, 28% of global fossil fuels were under a carbon price, up from 24% the year before. The trend of carbon pricing is clear. See carboncashback.org/carbon-price-gap for details. The state of New Hampshire should recognize this trend and anticipate a future US carbon price. Responsible risk management calls for taking steps now to reduce carbon emissions, given the likelihood of an eventual global carbon price. The transition to clean energy production and energy-efficient homes and businesses takes time. Waiting until Congress puts a price on pollution before investing in the strategies and technologies that reduce dependence on fossil fuels will result in stranded costs and missed opportunities for our state. The citizens and businesses of NH deserve leaders willing to take steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not leaders who represent the fossil fuel industry's interests above all else.

I oppose HB1542 because I believe this legislation will take us backwards in the effort to create more renewable energy. The language of this bill appears to favor big-energy and fossil fuel companies and is clearly biased. Big-energy and fossil fuel companies should absolutely have to pay into the fund and share a responsibility in supporting renewables in NH. I urge ITL of HB1542.

Dams need the rec money. Much of the infrastructure dates back to the 1800s or early 1900s and they provide great resources for New Hampshire; like lakes for recreation, water storage for droughts, water storage to prevent floods during storms, local clean renewable energy, impoundments for fish and aquatic life to survive during droughts, and employment of workers and tradesmen to keep them running. Dams also allow great spots for dredging which help clean our waterways that help keep a healthy fish population which is excellent for sport fisherman. RECs are a vital resource for dams to help them pay for maintenance and to keep them operational. Please reconsider this bill especially for Hydro Dams -Travis

I own and operate the small hydroelectric at Spaulding Ave Industrial Complex in Rochester, NH. The small 300kw capacity hydro generates about 4 megawatts a day or 1,500megawatts per year, and we use all of it to power our factory building. It would take 1.2 megawatts solar PV array to replace the hydroelectric production. That would cost over $1 million dollars to install and could not provide power 24 hours a day like the hydro can. Without the REC.s income there is no way we can meet all the maintenance and repairs and safety requirements that are required by FERC and still have it make economic sense. Reducing or eliminating the REC.s is verry likely to doom the operation of this hydro after 125 years.

As a small Hydropower owner, this would be extremely detrimental to our business

The renewable energy credits help keep small non polluting power producers in business. With ever mounting regulatory compliance issues, it is ever more costly to be current. Any measures to cut revenue sources hurts small energy producers.

Dear Legislators, I strongly oppose this HB 1542. I believe we should be encouraging investment in green, renewable, energy; it is inexpensive, good for the environment and therefore good for our tourist economy. This bill would destabilize existing renewable enerergy markets. Please oppose this bill. Ellen farnum Tamworth