This story was originally produced by the New Hampshire Bulletin, an independent local newsroom that allows NHPR and other outlets to republish its reporting.
Gov. Kelly Ayotte kicked off 2026 with a call to open New Hampshire to advancement and expansion of nuclear power.
Legislators shared her enthusiasm, filing a flurry of nuclear-related bills, three of which ultimately emerged from both chambers this spring. Yet Ayotte vetoed the first to cross her desk, citing concerns about how portions of its language would affect ratepayers.
Now, lawmakers behind a different bill say they have collaborated with the governor to draft a compromise: nuclear-forward language within a bill some have called a “must-pass” for its importance in helping the state secure millions of dollars in energy-related funding.
As lawmakers on both sides of the aisle wait to learn the fate of the multi-pronged House Bill 1738, also headed to Ayotte’s desk is House Bill 1775, a bill aimed at expanding gas and nuclear generation in the state, which generated division among members of the House Committee on Science, Technology, and Energy.
Here’s a look at where things stand with the nuclear proposals the Legislature weighed this session.
Bills cast aside
Two nuclear-related bills failed to move ahead, including Senate Bill 447, from Nashua Republican Sen. Kevin Avard, which passed the Senate but met its end in the House in April.
The bill was geared toward “advanced” nuclear reactors, an emerging form of nuclear generator projected to be smaller than existing nuclear power plants. Also called “small modular reactors,” the technology is not yet approved or available for use in the U.S. The International Energy Agency projects that the first SMRs will come online in the 2030s.
SB 447 would have allowed electric utilities to own such advanced reactors, of a capacity up to one-quarter of that of New Hampshire’s only active nuclear reactor, Seabrook Station. The bill also contained provisions to expand electricity generation through other sources, including by expanding New Hampshire’s annual statewide cap on certain low-moderate income solar projects.
Later, another nuclear bill, House Bill 221, made it further, passing both chambers before Ayotte blocked it in late May. The bill sought to create a path for utilities to enter power purchase agreements with advanced nuclear reactors. It also added nuclear power incentive programs and outreach to the duties of New Hampshire’s coordinator of nuclear development and regulatory activities.
The bill also contained some changes to net metering laws, raising the amount of capacity customers could install without upgrading from a simple net meter from 100 to 250 kilowatts, and extending net metering eligibility for certain low-moderate income and government solar projects that had already submitted interconnection applications.
In her veto message, Ayotte said she had “questions about the impact of this legislation.” She added that she would work with lawmakers to reach a compromise on similar language attached to another bill.
A compromise in a 'Christmas tree' energy bill
That bill was HB 1738, which legislators said in June they had worked on in consultation with Ayotte’s office during the “committee of conference” process, where representatives of the House and Senate worked on the bill together.
As it was introduced earlier this year by Rep. Michael Harrington, a Strafford Republican, HB 1738 contained updates to New Hampshire’s laws for participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program through which participating Eastern states track carbon emissions from businesses, participate in emissions allowance auctions, and, in turn, receive incentive funding from the program.
Updating the terms of New Hampshire’s participation in the auctions is crucial to ensure the state can continue to receive funding through the program, said Harrington, who added in committee and floor debate that the state could lose upward of $100 million by ending its participation.
In recent years, that total has been “more like $65 million,” said Rep. Kat McGhee, a Hollis Democrat and a co-sponsor of HB 1738. “That’s significant money,” she said. New Hampshire has consistently returned that funding to ratepayers in the form of a rebate, she added.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative statute updates are crucial to New Hampshire’s continued participation in the program, including by keeping the state in line with other participants, McGhee said. That makes HB 1738 a “must pass,” she said.
Other elements added to the bill in the Senate and after have broadened the bill’s focus, however, including by adding sections on nuclear energy.
A Senate amendment initially broadened the bill’s focus to encompass nuclear energy, net metering, and expanding the eligibility window for multi-year power purchase agreements between utilities and generators.
But the measured expansions to net metering were ultimately removed as part of the “committee of conference” process, as part of a “compromise with the Governor’s office,” committee member McGhee said.
During the committee proceedings, Rep. Michael Vose, an Epping Republican, said one of the sections would be moved to another bill: an extension to net metering eligibility for municipal projects, which was moved to Senate Bill 538.
Another portion of the bill, which sought to expand the amount of capacity customers could install behind a standard meter, was struck.
“We have received information from the governor’s office that that is an acceptable compromise,” Vose said during the meeting.
Ayotte’s office did not respond to a request for more information about her involvement in the process of amending HB 1738.
McGhee said the inclusion of the nuclear terms alongside the updates to Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative law raised the stakes of the bill’s prospective passage.
Participation in the initiative “brings, you know, tens of millions of dollars back to the state,” she said. “… It’s a good bill. I mean, 1738 needs to go through.”
Controversy among committee members
Another nuclear-related bill on the way to Ayotte’s desk is House Bill 1775, a step toward expanding nuclear and gas power generation in New Hampshire.
The bill would allow utilities to invest in natural gas or nuclear generation units below 5 megawatts in capacity — in practice, that would exclude nuclear plants, which do not exist at capacities of that scale. The bill also removes some emissions requirements for fossil-fuel powered plants, and requirements regarding the proportion of renewable versus nonrenewable distributed energy installed by utilities.
By proposing rolling back the prohibition, in place since the late 1990s, on utility ownership of power generation, HB 1775 generated debate among detractors who said it would be a step toward restoring a vertically integrated monopoly to investor-owned utilities.
During floor debate on the bill last Thursday, that idea emerged once again.
Harrington said the passage of 1738, by paving the way for investments in nuclear, had made HB 1775’s allowances for additional investments excessive and unnecessary, in addition to allowing utilities to take on financial risks that could come back to affect ratepayers.
“This is another step in going back to the way it used to be, the way it was when Seabrook was in effect,” said Harrington.
Millions of dollars in budget overruns during Seabrook Station’s construction preceded the push to ban vertical integration of New Hampshire’s utilities in the 1990s.
But Vose said someone would have to finance New Hampshire’s future power plants, and HB 1775 would help encourage utilities to do so. He argued that renewable and clean energy incentives had distorted the regional power market. HB 1775, he said, would be a step toward lowering costs for ratepayers.
In the Northeast, eyes are on nuclear power
The Legislature’s renewed attention on nuclear power generation is part of a regional push to explore expanding the technology to address high power prices and a projected hike in demand from uses like data centers and the electrification of transportation.
In March, Ayotte joined the governors of other New England states in a joint letter calling for states to explore a path to more nuclear generation, and continuing operations at the region’s two plants in New Hampshire and Connecticut.
Ayotte also issued an executive order in March directing the New Hampshire Department of Energy to craft a “nuclear roadmap” for the state, and in April, sent a letter to the federal government indicating interest in a potential federal-state nuclear partnership.
Nuclear skeptics have shared concerns about the climate resilience of seaside Seabrook Station, plans for the disposition of nuclear waste, and worries about the potential health impacts of living near a station. Some also worry the focus on the technology is diverting resources and attention from more immediately available forms of clean energy, such as solar and wind, advocates like Seacoast Anti Pollution League president Doug Bogen said earlier this year.
Proponents say, however, that nuclear energy is a greenhouse-gas-emission free way to boost New Hampshire’s generation.
