Citizen in a RepublicNH House Testimony

HB1775

House · 2026 sessionRepublicanSigned into law

Utility ownership of gas and nuclear plants

AI-generated

Expands the purpose of RSA 374-G to authorize electric utilities to invest in or own natural gas, hydrogen, and nuclear generation resources up to 10 percent of peak load, with rate recovery eligibility, while repealing certain existing investment limitations.

relative to utility ownership of natural gas and nuclear power generation facilities.Official record

Energy and UtilitiesBusiness and IndustryAI-generated

Division of testimonyComputed by this site

10 submissions

All 2 written submissions were individually written — no organized campaign detected.

Status

Signed into law · July 20, 2026
  1. Introduced
  2. House
  3. Senate
  4. Governor
  5. Law
Sponsors, hearings & roll-call votes

The record · every submission as filed

10 submissions
Expand
Hannah Meiselman
for Myself
Manchester

I oppose HB 1775 because allowing utilities to own natural gas or nuclear generation would undermine competitive markets and shift long-term financial risk onto ratepayers. New Hampshire’s deregulated structure protects consumers, and reintroducing utility-owned generation would raise costs without improving reliability.

Oppose
Doug Bogen
for Seacoast Anti-Pollution League
Barrington

On behalf of the Board of Directors and 335 members of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League throughout the Seacoast NH region, I would like to offer the following comments regarding HB 1775-FN. This legislation goes against the long-time state policy of a “technology neutral” and a market-based approach to energy, as well as previous policy of utility divestment from power generation. By favoring and providing rate recovery for nuclear and natural gas plants, you would be holding a thumb on the scale for weighing future energy choices by both consumers and utilities. More immediately, power source "disclosure labels" for most NH utilities show that they are in recent years purchasing practically ZERO nuclear energy from Seabrook or any other plant, while at the same time they are over-reliant on unsustainable and expensive natural gas, so would we want to encourage more unnecessary power from these sources? In the current world of energy development, there is no hard evidence that future nuclear plants will be cost-effective compared to other alternatives, even with existing generous subsidies and incentives on the federal level. In fact recent events such as the NuScale fiasco as well as the long-standing principle of economy of scale provide strong evidence that these new technologies will be more expensive per megawatt-hour than existing ones. So at the very least, it appears highly premature for the State to be providing further incentives when it comes to specific new or existing energy technologies. More importantly, allowing utilities to get rate recovery for nuclear investments will likely lead to higher electric rates, as it clearly has in other states pursuing new nuclear development. For these reasons, and in the interest of developing safe, affordable and sustainable future power sources for the Granite State, I urge you to vote Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on this bill.

Oppose
Clifton Below
for Community Power Coalition of NH
Lebanon

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Stephanie Vazzano
for Myself
Concord

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Tami Lanzillo Zeimetz
for Myself
Gilford

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Suzanna Derynioski
for Myself
Laconia

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Zach Urrutia
for Myself
Somersworth

Position recorded without written comment.

Neutral
Amber Kehoe
for Myself
Northfield

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Alex de Geofroy
for Myself
Rochester

Position recorded without written comment.

Oppose
Daniel Richardson
for Myself
Nashua

Position recorded without written comment.

Support