HB1721

Please OPPOSE this bill. These changes would undermine investment certainty, eliminate incentives, and drain the Fund.

We need more, not less renewable energy.

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 changes in this bill would undermine investment certainty, eliminate incentives for new renewable development, and drain the Renewable Energy Fund over time. The Department of Energy has warned that these reductions would directly impact programs and staffing that support RPS compliance, net metering administration, and low- and moderate-income initiatives. These programs are very popular and save NH residents money for heating and cooling. There is no good reason to eliminate them.

I am Chairman of Essex Hydro Associates (EHA) and a multiyear past president of Granite state Hydropower Association. I have been involved in the hydroelectric business since 1980, well before enactment of the RPS program. I actively participated in the legislative process that led to enactment of the existing RPS program. The RPS program has been particularly important to NH's small hydroelectric projects by adding a revenue source that enables these projects to meet extensive state and federal regulatory requirements not faced by other renewable energy sources. Enactment of HB 1721 will essentially terminate the RPS program. GSHA projects are located throughout NH, primarily at the site of old mills with many in densely populated areas. They provide local employment, purchase local services and pay local and state taxes. A loss of revenue from the sale of Class IV Renewable Energy Credits will have a significant negative effect on many GSHA projects, potentially threatening their ongoing viability.

I am opposed to bill HB1721 which closes RPS to new projects, phases out the RPS for existing projects and ramps down RPS prices.

As a small hydro operator in the very small town of Milton NH, we are reliant on the current RPS programs to make the numbers work and continue to contribute green energy to the grid in NH. We provide jobs both directly and indirectly as well as considerable property tax and the utilities tax to NH. The small hydros in NH (under 1.5 MGW) contribute 50 MGW to the gird reliably often in the extreme cold when the grid is under a lot of pressure. This power is base load dispatchable power that I believe we cannot easily do with out in these times respectfully 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!

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

It is clear that this bill undermines the REC (Renewable Energy Certificate) system currently in place, thereby discouraging solar energy implementation in NH. Discouragement of renewable energy is short-sided and inefficient long term. Our future energy needs will require an “all of the above” approach to energy rather than ignoring the capabilities of renewables, such as solar. Solar energy minimizes our dependence on foreign assets and should be encouraged, not discouraged. I urge you to look back to 9 years ago when NH was a leader in renewable energy (headed in the right direction), and return to that wiser, and more sustainable mindset. Vote this one as ITL.

I am strongly opposed to HB 1721. We need renewable energy as part of our energy portfolio. This bill would undermine long standing investment expectations for existing projects. It would also cut staff needed to offer energy initiatives for citizens in low and moderate incomes, and staff needed to support net metering administration. Ellen Farnum, Tamworth

HB1721 would be detrimental to our burgeoning renewable energy businesses, and to the entities -- residents, municipalities, businesses, nonprofits -- that view renewable energy sources as a way to reduce their cost of electricity.

I oppose New Hampshire House Bill 1721 (HB1721). It is clear that the bill is specifically designed to gut the Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) system. If passed, new solar energy generation systems would be prevented from being enrolled in the program six months after the bill takes effect (e.g., the end of calendar 2026). This creates a disincentive for new solar generation installations. Furthermore, the bill is designed to “annually reduce Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) requirements as eligible REC-producing systems decline.” The net effect of this will be more pollution from fossil fuel powered generation plants. This bill will also negatively impact Renewable Energy Fund revenues. This is because “the Department [ of Energy] states that limiting REC eligibility and mandating annual ACP reductions will likely decrease REF revenue over time.” The real goal of course is to eliminate funding for renewable energy-related positions and programs within state agencies. Please do not let this bill advance.

The Department of Energy has warned that these reductions would directly impact programs and staffing that support RPS compliance, net metering administration, and low- and moderate-income initiatives. These funds are used to help offset the cost to retrofit NH homes and businesses for improved energy efficiency. It is estimated that 40% of total energy consumed in NH is for heating and cooling buildings. It works. Keep it.

New Hampshire’s market-driven approach to renewable energy is a modest but effective tool to combat climate change -which is real. This bill would eliminate any meaningful effort to encourage renewable energy and harm New Hampshire businesses’ ability to provide jobs as well as cost-effective energy to residents.

Just checked my Eversource bill. We are being charged 26.6 cents/kilowatt hour. I read recently that the NH Public Utility Committee determined that the renewable portfolio standard costs 0.5 cents/kilowatt hour. So that's less than 2 %. And the portfolio standard helps drive local jobs and local energy generation, keeping energy dollars in state. Why would you want to upend this program for a measly 2%?

why would we not fund the RPS and limit state staffing or programs that support energy efficiency and compliance? WE DON"T! We need to do everything we can to increase awareness and lower energy costs for ALL. WE ARE WATCHING AND WE CARE!!!! thank you

My name is Karen and I live and vote in Bristol. I am OPPOSED to this bill which would effectively close NHs Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to new renewable projects, and require ongoing reductions in compliance payments as eligible systems decline. Almost 40% of the total energy consumed in NH is for heating and cooling buildings. The RPS system is a method for helping building owners move towards a more sustainable future while lowering their operating costs. Win/Win! Please don't break a program that is currently working. Please OPPOSE this bill.

Alternative regulatory frameworks give regulators flexibility to align utility incentives with customer outcomes like affordability, reliability and system efficiency.

We need to remain committed to our path toward renewable energy!!