Competing visions for New Hampshire’s energy future were the centerpiece of several legislative hearings in Concord this week.
From the way electric vehicles will be able to move around to whether the state should support existing power generators or spur renewable energy innovation, lawmakers waded through the complexities of the energy transition.
But the backdrop for the state’s energy future – climate change, which continues to make the state warmer and wetter, and spur more intense storms and flooding – rarely came up in testimony, except from advocates.
In the New Hampshire House’s Science, Technology and Energy committee, legislators discussed a major change to the state’s energy policy during a hearing on a proposal from the committee’s top Republican.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Michael Vose of Epping, said it’s an effort to safeguard the health of New Hampshire citizens and protect the state’s sovereignty over energy issues.
“Electricity today is the lifeblood of modern civilization,” he said. “To protect our way of life, we have to safeguard our electrical grid.”
The bill would repeal the state’s current energy policy and replace it with one focused on supporting “affordable, reliable, dispatchable and secure energy resources.”
Vose said the bill is meant to protect power plants from shutting down based on new federal regulations or executive orders, and puts “important concepts” into statute, like promoting minimal government intervention in energy issues.
Griffin Roberge, with the state’s Department of Energy, says the agency is neutral on the bill, but pointed out that it may be in conflict with the policy goals of the state’s renewable portfolio standard.
“The state's policy of promoting renewable energy resources has led to a regional market where renewable energy certificates are sold. But that market would not exist without government intervention,” he said.
Roberge also said the bill could interfere with New Hampshire’s main energy efficiency program, New Hampshire Saves.
The bill says the state will emphasize dispatchable resources – which mainly refers to fossil fuels, as well as some renewable sources of energy, or renewable systems that include energy storage. But as Roberge pointed out, that provision conflicts with another line that directs the state to promote clean energy sources.
And, Roberge said, some of the responsibilities laid out in the bill are already managed by the regional grid operator, ISO-New England.
Nick Krakoff, with the Conservation Law Foundation, told lawmakers that the bill’s concern about reliability was misplaced, given the grid operator’s mandate to ensure reliability – and fossil fuel use was a greater health issue.
“Fossil fuel use is negatively damaging our climate and is causing negative health impacts with all the particulate matter from many power plants causing asthma, health, heart disease, other negative health impacts,” he said, “This bill completely ignores ignores those impacts by placing a thumb on the scale in favor of fossil fuels.”
EVs, and where Granite Staters can park them
One of the main purposes of electric vehicles is to help clean up transportation, the state’s main source of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. They’ve also been one of the many climate-solutions-turned-pawn in the American culture war.
Lawmakers in the transportation committee spent much of their day Tuesday discussing where EV owners should be able to park their cars.
Rep. Barry Faulkner, a Democrat from Swanzey, and Rep. Dick Thackston, a Republican from Troy, introduced a bill that would create a $100 fine for owners of non-electric vehicles for parking in spaces designated for electric vehicle charging.
They argued that when gas-powered vehicles park in spots designated for EV charging, the facilities that offer chargers may lose out on potential revenue from people coming there to charge.
“Who does this bill hurt? Well, rude people,” Thackston said. “Who does it help? As a small business owner, it helps me.”
Thackston says he’s considered installing a charging station at his laundromat on a route between Boston and Keene – a big investment that he would want his customers to be able to use. He said “anti-electric car activists” have used EV chargers in Keene to make statements by parking gas-powered cars in those spots, or using bolt cutters to damage the equipment.
(Keene PD said the last year of calls about criminal mischief did not include anything about damage, but in April the Department got a call about people unplugging EVs from chargers).
“Electric cars are here to stay,” Thackston said.
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services didn’t take a position on the bill, but said it would be a valid concept.
The other EV parking bill, which would prohibit EVs from parking in garages in New Hampshire and make their owners subject to a fine if their car was discovered in one, seemed to receive less of a positive review from the Department.
Rep. Mark Proulx, a Republican from Manchester, is the bill’s prime sponsor. He told the committee he’s concerned about the damage EVs could cause to garage structures.
“If you want to own one, knock your socks off,” he said. “But I'm here on the safety aspect.”
Proulx told lawmakers the weight of electric vehicles, which can be heavier than their gas-powered counterparts, could cause structural damage to garages.
Proulx also said he had concerns about EVs catching on fire in the garages.
An initiative sponsored by the Australian Government's Department of Defense says EVs that catch on fire, but the battery pack isn’t affected, it’s like any other car fire. But if the battery goes into “thermal runaway,” the fire can create a toxic vapor cloud of flammable gasses, produce “jet-like flames” up to 1000 degrees celsius, and the fire can be more difficult to extinguish.
The resource also says EVs seem to be less likely to catch on fire than other cars.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has gone out of their way to correct myths about EVs, including claims that they are less safe than gas cars. That agency says EVs must meet the same safety standards as other vehicles.
The Department of Environmental Services did not support or oppose the bill, but said data shows New Hampshire has only had two EV battery fires, and all cars, not just EVs, are getting heavier. The agency said the issue should be studied further using data, instead of just anecdotal information.
‘ESG’ investing
Investing money based on environmental, social and governance criteria, or “ESG,” has also become a flashpoint in the U.S., with Republicans across the country seeking to restrict the use of those criteria.
On Tuesday, the House’s Executive Departments and Administration committee considered — but ultimately rejected — an effort to make using ESG criteria when investing state or taxpayer money a felony, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
Rep. Mike Belcher, a Republican from Wakefield, the bill’s prime sponsor, said the effort was based on Governor Chris Sununu’s 2023 executive order that discouraged ESG investing, but would make that policy enforceable.
The proposal received pushback from a variety of speakers, including Marty Karlon with the New Hampshire Retirement System. He said the organization’s board hadn’t yet voted on whether to oppose the legislation, but the legislative committee of the board is unanimously recommending that the organization oppose.
“The opposition isn’t about ESG in a vacuum,” Karlon said. “Generally any legislative changes, mandates to the investment program could potentially limit or in some cases run counter to our fiduciary duty to act solely in the best interests of the membership.”
ESG investing has been taken up by some who seek out socially responsible investments to align them with personal values. Experts say taking ESG factors into account when investing can minimize risk, because it takes into account risks and opportunities – like how prepared a company is for climate change and our transitioning energy system – that traditional financial models don’t.
ESG has also become a target for Republicans across the country, and other states including Florida and Arizona have enacted policies limiting ESG investing.
Jim Monahan, a lobbyist representing the non-profit group Ceres, which focuses on supporting sustainability through “global collaborations of investors, companies and nonprofits,” said some people are concerned that anti-ESG laws could cause state pension plans to lose money.
In Indiana, he noted, a legislative commission said an anti-ESG bill could cause a $6.7 billion cut in returns from the public pension system over 10 years.
“What the bill is doing is asking the state government to interfere with the financial professionals’ judgment and fiduciary responsibility,” Monahan said.
A fiscal note attached to Belcher’s legislation says the exclusion of financial institutions “might raise costs or miss earning opportunities,” but the impact on revenue and expenditures was undeterminable.
The committee voted unanimously to kill the bill.
