[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6340043,"mediaKeyId","2260273-0dca3f1ca9b7c2da5b4b53fc8a9f4b65","parentId",2260273,"title","Bill would ban geoengineering and restrict cloud seeding to declared catastrophic droughts; amendment removes costly monitoring provisions","audioSeconds",3350,"startMs",17620000,"endMs",14270000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260273-0dca3f1ca9b7c2da5b4b53fc8a9f4b65&start=17620&end=14270","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260273-0dca3f1ca9b7c2da5b4b53fc8a9f4b65/thumbnail_17620000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6340043/New-Hampshire/Bill-would-ban-geoengineering-and-restrict-cloud-seeding-to-declared-catastrophic-droughts-amendment-removes-costly-monitoring-provisions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340043-f31bf30ea1f5d9c675721cf9cff68bcd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771101691&Signature=AeB-LkgpgAY~fg46fSBbmIFhj6fqiry6my5IkAzwpefZ9GJa8AtVLaEHdPZbf6cyef2-T8K-F5XttzDyXYLbVFl5zUR2R7HTFTMcazEAkkcPGfYW-ynG0nZ8ZSuoqJWxYEP-Elimond9~qNEocVB67CIXF11O7PSWzOSLEPPjdaMKfBboSeE9Cl88cuyj-T15wyvctR7UZ77CL-lTxO6W9mv4Iu4sxx3-f-Veir5vV85W71zMG~dp2Td78Jf9rYo~3kOzHtTeaULFIob69BDhHG~ZBFj~hevu6uXJ8pA6zkpUl~JMDayfB9FrwDt3E9x7kcKKjDgWW3SxzmHxyPSUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","NH House of Representatives Committee","date","2025-02-11T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Kelly Potenza introduced the amended version of HB 764 FN, which would broadly prohibit intentional releases used for geoengineering or weather‑modification activities in New Hampshire, repeal RSA 12‑F (the existing weather modification experimentation statute) and preserve a narrow exception for cloud seeding only under a declared catastrophic drought with prescribed review and oversight steps.

Key changes and scope: the sponsor said she removed earlier fiscal and monitoring mandates that had produced a large fiscal note; with the amendment the bill focuses on a prohibition of geoengineering and solar‑radiation modification (SRM) activity in the state, notification to a specified set of federal and state agencies, and a tightly constrained emergency exception for cloud seeding tied to a declared catastrophic drought and subject to environmental review, monitoring and DES oversight.

Agency perspective: Department of Environmental Services (DES) staff said the department had received the amendment shortly before the hearing; DES said the notice requirement in the amendment is not burdensome and that the resource and enforcement obligations in the original draft were the source of the large fiscal note. DES described its role as limited under the amended language and noted existing gaps in authority for enforcement of high‑altitude releases originating outside New Hampshire.

Public testimony and controversy: the hearing drew many members of the public raising concerns, some offering personal observations of persistent aircraft plumes and alleging metal particulates and other contaminants. A small number of expert witnesses described test results and alleged environmental contamination; DES and DRA representatives cautioned that the department’s authority to investigate aircraft‑borne releases is limited and that some claims in public testimony rely on nonstandard sampling or methods that require independent verification.

Cloud seeding exception and process: under the amendment cloud seeding would be allowed only after a governor‑declared catastrophic drought and only after a specified environmental review that assesses risks and benefits and ensures activities would not harm public health, wildlife or the environment; DES would maintain oversight of cloud seeding operations in such events. The amendment also requires that DES notify a list of federal agencies and other jurisdictions that would be relevant if the prohibition is in effect.

Ending: proponents said the amendment narrows the bill to a defensible, notice‑plus‑prohibition approach and avoids the fiscal impacts previously estimated; opponents raised questions about practicality and enforcement where releases originate out of state or international waters. The committee closed the hearing with no immediate action taken.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Science, Technology and Energy (02/11/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","An amended HB 764 would broadly prohibit geoengineering and solar radiation modification within New Hampshire, repeal RSA 12‑F and permit cloud seeding only under a declared catastrophic drought subject to environmental review and DES oversight.","taxTitle","Science, Technology and Energy, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17762,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6340058,"Committee votes ITL on bill directing state planning for a second area code after NANPA oversight cited",2886,5453000,8339000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260273-0dca3f1ca9b7c2da5b4b53fc8a9f4b65&start=5453&end=8339","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260273-0dca3f1ca9b7c2da5b4b53fc8a9f4b65/thumbnail_5453000.jpg","/articles/6340058/New-Hampshire/Committee-votes-ITL-on-bill-directing-state-planning-for-a-second-area-code-after-NANPA-oversight-cited","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340058-da997b2b4ac16763157b6ba9ae3a4bc8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771101691&Signature=ZK3L52doBCc4D3Wx7pwb9NWpiu6E5MSHKBPF-fabDdbHWKKs2QzV8V51V2UU2yXWqOmpkQArU4YetA6KcrQk5VimtiBWaO4xHxW2EYB46SWrHrle3haWbBlp1vgDCTxMExB9ERDXO2iKqUkKw0NSe01P5WcymgSnNj~AiQG9-HFWqf5t-~Ryv31rkVpyMj1lwBFzAeRcjI64pSydNbKn3x8rqO4ZuHqB4-JrWKfTXn1cA9lBLRktSNJ5l3I6No-JKm11rPeZLeWKyPNhcnVS3udGB8qEJg1Xfi929xxUmfWNsaXu~U447WeMHc0coR2XRVafTF~26U1cizpyLzaHQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Timothy Horrigan introduced House Bill 708, which would direct the Department of Energy to begin planning for the introduction of an overlay area code to supplement New Hampshire’s 603 area code. Horrigan noted the state’s sole area code dates to 1947 and that multiple conservation steps have delayed projected exhaust dates in recent years.

Megan Stone, legislative liaison for the Department of Energy, told the committee the department is neutral but flaggd jurisdictional limits: the state cannot reserve area codes — the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) has authority to initiate planning and assign codes. Stone summarized recent conservation actions: after the department asked carriers to return under‑used number blocks and pursue rate center consolidation, NANPA’s projected exhaust date moved from 2024 to the third quarter of 2029. Stone said further conservation could push that date out further but that NANPA, not the state, controls the official planning timeline.

Vote and committee action: during an executive session later in the meeting the committee voted to recommend “Inexpedient to Legislate” (ITL) on HB 708. Representative Harrington moved the ITL motion and Representative McGee seconded; a roll call produced a 14–1 result in favor of ITL. Committee members said they were persuaded by DOE testimony that the department lacks authority to reserve or unilaterally plan area codes and that existing conservation activity has extended the exhaust timeline.

Ending: the committee chair placed the bill on the consent calendar following the ITL vote and assigned a committee reporter to prepare the committee report.","House Bill 708 would have directed the Department of Energy to begin planning for an overlay area code to supplement New Hampshire’s 603 area code. DOE told the committee that the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) controls exhaust projections and code assignments, and that conservation steps the state directed in 2024 pushed the projected exhaustion date out to 2029.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6340063,"House bill would reclassify power plants as manufacturers, shifting tax treatment and touching Education Trust Fund",5182,234000,5416000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260273-0dca3f1ca9b7c2da5b4b53fc8a9f4b65&start=234&end=5416","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260273-0dca3f1ca9b7c2da5b4b53fc8a9f4b65/thumbnail_234000.jpg","/articles/6340063/New-Hampshire/House-bill-would-reclassify-power-plants-as-manufacturers-shifting-tax-treatment-and-touching-Education-Trust-Fund","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340063-641d65fae17a64fa6b446c351fd33aa3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771101691&Signature=fTS1FsCy5ucmG~G3pLqKpDLzqaWf95UxTtYv-TflAmPesttdza5elKGAV5IUJvEgY3ohKaUa-Zhg2VV2N1cSwTlaUxyCdf~eSq6gtdE9Wvxf9rtAHGE5ksbKivFezGuAlEk82NR4y38zzLbjW3SGzZWNpCbOIPr7MjIZRczcDr6OZ43gefMjp~DOUJ0O6IjZd0un2dtr57EJXnzAvjd8D9~J8RZSXHzv9aEuhveBp2FAZKq1qtmN-A04EWUuVUBMY7acVt-Y7Xv6Fdk41gcUjL7sBEE8hognC6YJDEqKPlrH722KF5RXaeDMCtrbeKPWgomcsUaEyKSKMXtP5rm0HQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Michael Vose introduced House Bill 696 FN on Feb. 11, asking the Science, Technology and Energy Committee to exempt electricity generation facilities from the utility property tax and include them under the statewide education property tax (SWEP), effective Jan. 1, 2027. The bill follows recommendations from a multi‑year property tax commission that recommended treating non‑utility generators as manufacturers for tax purposes.

The bill’s supporters said the change would reduce duplicate assessments and litigation. Representative Vose told the committee the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) currently assesses generators for utility property tax (UPT) while municipalities separately assess the same facilities for local property tax; those assessments can vary dramatically (he cited Seabrook as an example) and trigger lawsuits that drive costs for municipalities, ratepayers and taxpayers. Pat Abrami and representatives of generator groups said three study commissions reached a consensus that many generators are no longer regulated utilities and should be taxed like other commercial businesses.

Testimony and data: witnesses and the updated fiscal note presented to the committee said the measure would reduce UPT revenues now going into the Education Trust Fund. Representative Vose and witnesses cited an updated fiscal estimate stating Education Trust Fund revenue would decrease by about $5.36 million in fiscal 2028 and by $12.72 million in fiscal 2029 and thereafter. Committee witnesses also noted the Education Trust Fund currently has a large surplus and said the change could be mitigated by raising the SWEP statutory cap (current statutory cap cited in testimony: $363,000,000). Supporters noted the bill keeps the SWEP nominal cap intact but adds generation value to the equalized valuation that determines the SWEP rate; some witnesses said that may lower the SWEP rate while broadening the tax base.

Local pilots and transition: the bill includes a transition for existing payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑tax (PILOT) agreements, preserving those agreements until their contractual end or until January 1, 2031 (whichever comes first). Hydropower representatives told the committee that PILOT transitions matter for facilities already subject to negotiated municipal agreements.

Concerns and clarifications: municipal assessors and the New Hampshire Municipal Association testified they are neutral but urged that municipal assessors receive any information necessary to make accurate assessments, noting DRA currently collects nonpublic data that municipalities do not always have. DRA staff described that their appraisal process involves nonpublic filings and that municipalities have the option to use DRA appraisals but frequently hire their own assessors; DRA staff warned that shifting generators into the SWEP calculation will include their valuations in statewide equalized valuation and could change rates and adequacy calculations.

Who would pay what: witnesses repeatedly emphasized the complexity of projecting the tax bill for any single generator because municipal assessments may be higher than DRA values, while the SWEP rate is lower than the historical UPT rate. Presenters said the net tax change for an individual facility could be higher or lower depending on local assessments and the ultimate SWEP cap/structure decided by subsequent committees.

Next steps: supporters said the bill is likely to go to Ways & Means for the fiscal issues; the commission report and minutes (distributed to lawmakers) formed the main evidentiary record for the measure.

Ending: the committee heard multiple stakeholders (generators, municipal association, DRA, DOE representatives and others) and closed the public hearing for HB 696 after extended testimony and questions. The bill remains under committee consideration.","Representative Michael Vose introduced House Bill 696 FN, which would reclassify electricity generators as manufacturers for tax purposes, moving generation property out of the utility property tax and into the statewide education property tax (SWEP) beginning Jan. 1, 2027.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6340048,"Bill would allow utilities to own advanced nuclear resources; DOE, generators and utilities warn of cost and regulatory risks",2625,14597000,17222000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260273-0dca3f1ca9b7c2da5b4b53fc8a9f4b65&start=14597&end=17222","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260273-0dca3f1ca9b7c2da5b4b53fc8a9f4b65/thumbnail_14597000.jpg","/articles/6340048/New-Hampshire/Bill-would-allow-utilities-to-own-advanced-nuclear-resources-DOE-generators-and-utilities-warn-of-cost-and-regulatory-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340048-0523767055731d2b6ddcecce5083af82/orig.mp4?Expires=1771101691&Signature=hXTzxIRbCBDtEF-MMKtPi08Kk0WJvfbJ-KhJqNVKkl7v63uKYMTaHZyCO-RXi43MG49-L9NJal1at9Q-vE-7Fs7xW8VMoAVcHCN2HlSAF6yPuDLxxDGVVEKvgz5RJVoS0le~ioaM4MauyxOnHPmjJye5KC~yjoPd3bfDlSt~4h1Nr9Q4F8p~OYPTIpriPUvb66fX~8e9dFgHaL3G3wrvOcWW0sPNa2wNco0T9ot7Nmjig6b7zGPEbAZPpbKqcqfl4birM055C981NOr2F5hIBpans4assfUVGgkftO8H~o~~xF5Jm1Z~IAakhd90-AjXi93HVkwaMQMhWFFIZsWtGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Michael Vose introduced House Bill 710 FN, a statutory change modeled on existing distributed energy resource (DER) authority that would allow investor‑owned electric utilities to own, operate or offer advanced nuclear resources (ANRs). The bill defines advanced nuclear resources for the committee’s deliberation as reactors with generating capacity between 1 and 90 megawatts (sponsors said the upper limit is a discussable starting point).

Scope and approach: the bill uses the RSA 374‑G model (the existing statute authorizing certain utility ownership of distributed energy resources) to create an authorization framework. It proposes percentage limits (examples discussed in testimony were 15% of a utility’s distribution peak for ANR resources, and an 8% cumulative ceiling for projects owned by a single utility), and assigns additional duties to the state’s coordinator for nuclear development and regulatory activities. The sponsor said he intends to remove some policy text by amendment and treat the bill as enabling legislation.

Testimony and concerns: Department of Energy staff said the department is neutral but urged caution because expanding utility ownership of generation departs from the original restructuring intent to divest utilities from generation and may expose ratepayers to stranded costs. DOE recommended a more methodical study or a phased approach (department investigation or study committee) to protect ratepayers.

Generators and market perspective: the New England Power Generators Association said private investors — not captive ratepayers — should bear the risks for early deployment of novel reactors. NEPGA warned that allowing utility ownership could discourage private developers and expose customers to cost overruns.

Utility view: Eversource testified that it has no current plans to develop nuclear generation, emphasized the early commercial stage of small modular reactors and noted that any utility project would require Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approval under RSA 374‑G (a two‑phase approval and later prudence review for cost recovery).

Alternative recommended approaches: the Conservation Law Foundation suggested using existing procurement authorities (requests for proposals under RSA 374‑F:11) rather than utility ownership; procurement would allow utilities to contract for firm capacity without making utilities the long‑term owner or putting ratepayers directly at risk for construction overrun.

Ending: the committee heard extensive testimony on technical, financial and regulatory issues; no immediate committee vote was taken. Members asked for amendments, clarifications of percentage limits and additional analysis of procurement versus ownership models.","House Bill 710 FN would authorize electric utilities to own, operate or offer advanced nuclear resources, modeled on the state’s distributed energy resource statute; the bill defines ANRs and sets percentage limits as a starting point for committee discussion.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6340053,"House concurrent resolution urges support for advanced nuclear technology, workforce and NRC action",1394,6566000,7960000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260273-0dca3f1ca9b7c2da5b4b53fc8a9f4b65&start=6566&end=7960","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260273-0dca3f1ca9b7c2da5b4b53fc8a9f4b65/thumbnail_6566000.jpg","/articles/6340053/New-Hampshire/House-concurrent-resolution-urges-support-for-advanced-nuclear-technology-workforce-and-NRC-action","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6340053-44f93c434a8800a8470159e20f04355f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771101691&Signature=H0pPGFYSNFaOWGEE2AMAddLOh7Nkgt2EG6z1bq3dMKsXB~2m5nhPPQVNbSgMleEefwOKNdzlzYxQtLRwoVFKMCTXoXNeE64GcqqvPLhINxTGjqwEYpB2r-ZomCDIi4K7nl5gNuZovmpqkOIyD84iqch9EBj7SHUihBmgnWy2OZIIgP2YBVsjmpLtSxlkXi84tCO0lFP-sXsit6mx7bPCuya6NM2XwutjDnAoeFfzYm0EmafbwudWfRUOazD98uxXnkUfyiO0lMn5xuFt9iT-ryLhN5UqrkVbXKFFSRitzIHzfeDzAanhxl8zfKEz2x73xdb5BSwELJndN3n-ZF302w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Keith Ammon introduced HCR 2, a concurrent resolution declaring the development of advanced nuclear energy technology to be in the best interest of New Hampshire and the United States and urging steps to support deployment and workforce development.

The resolution lists findings about nuclear’s role in New Hampshire’s current in‑state generation mix, the potential for economic growth and jobs, and national security concerns tied to global supply chains for energy technology. The resolution asks the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to prioritize and expedite rule‑making relevant to advanced reactors (testimony cited Part 54 rulemaking), and urges state entities and higher‑education institutions to prepare workforce training and research support.

Sponsors and members discussed the resolution as symbolic — it carries no force of law but is intended to send a signal to industry and federal regulators about New Hampshire’s openness to advanced nuclear investment and related workforce development. Representative Ammon noted Senate cosponsors and said the resolution would be sent to federal and state officials, including the president and congressional leadership.

Questions from committee members focused on workforce development pathways, the role of national laboratories and data centers as anchor customers for firm low‑carbon capacity, and whether the resolution would materially advance licensing timelines. Supporters said it would add credibility for investors and open doors to federal coordination; several members urged close work with state universities and federal lab programs.

Ending: the committee closed the public hearing; no formal committee action was taken at that time on the nonbinding resolution.","HCR 2 declares advanced nuclear energy to be in the best interest of New Hampshire and the United States, urges workforce development and asks the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to prioritize advanced reactor rules. Sponsors described the resolution as symbolic and intended to signal state openness to advanced nuclear investment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill would ban geoengineering and restrict cloud seeding to declared catastrophic droughts; amendment removes costly monitoring provisions

Committee votes ITL on bill directing state planning for a second area code after NANPA oversight cited

House bill would reclassify power plants as manufacturers, shifting tax treatment and touching Education Trust Fund

Bill would allow utilities to own advanced nuclear resources; DOE, generators and utilities warn of cost and regulatory risks

House concurrent resolution urges support for advanced nuclear technology, workforce and NRC action