[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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],{"_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",6581750,"mediaKeyId","3055112-0cce427fcd664017ed248b8ce6f0f24b","parentId",3055112,"title","Senate panel questions HB2 sweep of renewable energy fund, asks how lower REC targets affect revenues and programs","audioSeconds",1017,"startMs",291000,"endMs",1308000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3055112-0cce427fcd664017ed248b8ce6f0f24b&start=291&end=1308","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3055112-0cce427fcd664017ed248b8ce6f0f24b/thumbnail_291000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6581750/New-Hampshire/Senate-panel-questions-HB2-sweep-of-renewable-energy-fund-asks-how-lower-REC-targets-affect-revenues-and-programs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6581750-415af9d038874d9b2a47dc1bd742cf22/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166572&Signature=SDCJBUaADJRM-69fTIO9xzCbTt70vPIk29QinERUWC3AoO0z3DAsF4tO4pedz2ptI~B51YdD61WZbNZpvdqAZE9hNNnFoHI~loEPwbwtU4TjaItd0JmIOsCtRadGQswJh83yiucq63mEo2tKZ3YrTW2dVucbMG6ShzcC4QdfHqqleDP7cFXTFHPjPzoUgAc02pqOZmv11~qdGs5dgRH1AcDjk3Yh8~tyRDbLbRP0saNRvG5zuoQlmn30Xlsp1qcE6Ix6gEU5mn589XrcBujCTlJNt6XJNOQXW1I3x1h~FA1f1m5K~4VVF7G1uztpAaOf~9ibTyKq2yiD5wgpYJhm0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-04-18T19:53:39.887Z","article","Jared Chicoine, commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Energy, told the Senate Finance Committee that most of the department’s budget is from non‑general‑fund sources and that the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) is the target of language in the House version of HB 2 that would move uncommitted REF balance to the general fund.

\"Approximately 75% of our budget comes from federal funds,\" Chicoine said, adding that about 70% of the department's budgeted appropriations are pass‑through grants. He and Deputy Commissioner Chris Elms described the HB 2 language (page 70, section 185) as allowing a sweep of uncommitted REF money, and Elms said the House’s change would “take all uncommitted money” rather than a set dollar amount.

Committee members raised two linked concerns: (1) how much uncommitted money is in the REF now, and (2) whether reductions in renewable energy credit (REC) compliance rates (the House amendment to HB 2 19) will cut receipts into the fund and create a shortfall if the House’s fiscal calculations assume a particular sweep amount. Elms said the governor’s original proposal listed a $10 million set sweep; the House language does not specify a fixed dollar figure and could therefore move all uncommitted funds.

Elms explained why REF balances built up: programs operate on a reimbursement basis and during the pandemic many projects were awarded funds but not yet completed, creating carryover. The department “made allocations in September of about $6,000,000 with another million or so in carryover funding” and currently runs open programs, he said. He also told the committee the REF has at times failed to spend all allocated funds because some open grant rounds did not attract enough or high‑quality applicants to responsibly award all money.

On the potential revenue effects of lowering thermal REC requirements, the Department said forecasting the alternative compliance payment (ACP) market is difficult: \"a lot is dependent on what we have come in from those funds, you know, things like state policy, things like the availability of renewable credits in other states, even the weather,\" Elms told senators. He said Class 3 ACPs can vary year to year and that reductions in one class can raise activity in another.

Senators also pressed the department about the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Chicoine said LIHEAP grants typically range \"anywhere from 25,000,000 up to maybe just under 35,000,000\" annually and that carryover can blunt year‑to‑year shocks. He added that roughly \"26,000 households\" received fuel assistance this year and that a significant federal cut would have a notable impact; the department would look to the governor and legislature to decide state mitigation if federal funds were lost.

Why it matters: HB 2’s budget language and related statutory changes would reshape how REF dollars flow in fiscal 2026–27 and limit the department’s ability to allocate new incentive funds while leaving staffing and existing allocations intact, according to department officials. Committee members asked the department to work with legislative staff to better quantify a likely sweep number and the interplay between REC compliance rates and ACP revenue.

Committee context and next steps: Elms and Chicoine told the committee the department could help refine forecasts if the committee wants to keep a sweep in the budget and requested direction on whether to treat the House language as final or to craft a more precise figure. Senators suggested the committee ask the department and LBA for an updated projection of uncommitted REF balances and of expected ACP receipts under the revised REC percentages before finalizing votes on HB 2.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Finance (04/18/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Jared Chicoine, commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Energy, told the Senate Finance Committee that most of the department’s budget is from non‑general‑fund sources and that the House version of HB 2 would send any uncommitted Renewable Energy Fund balance to the general fund.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29511,"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},6581748,"Environmental Services warns of program cuts after House trims general funds; PFAS settlement and solid‑waste fee draw attention",2280,1809000,4089000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3055112-0cce427fcd664017ed248b8ce6f0f24b&start=1809&end=4089","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3055112-0cce427fcd664017ed248b8ce6f0f24b/thumbnail_1809000.jpg","/articles/6581748/New-Hampshire/Environmental-Services-warns-of-program-cuts-after-House-trims-general-funds-PFAS-settlement-and-solidwaste-fee-draw-attention","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6581748-78e4cfcd3ef8bc2f18904a9f31435d06/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166572&Signature=SB6N7hUvuNcFTI~vAsoYW59p0qMin2~xeSiD4AnSCRPqHUuib0Isi3szYtyOWnH4YE-dYMGDlnhfjZiBodgrTOwkBM8RS4ycY35gapgDcBzSZVy1uXFzvnmLGHQCoH4SUQLEQS14LmZoELfnpa5lF9Z~O7x86CJmqTI4u1RNr7FzG6VVT4MgFcf1LkiLpMN1hDBmlU09Fak8gP0Q6p16gfsr4CjzEbmw7PG32NdDavNu2FGvlpwQKmLOB~hqTwLGQnmlMmFrPUpWbAFRtV16Dn4y8yp6d54IuGvuLyceQufsNCT2PQUIjvKchnxBjoeZOmrvy5VH4TzLmzt3GBhM3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Bob Scott, commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES), told the Senate Finance Committee the agency faces sizable biennial general‑fund reductions in the House phase of HB 2 and urged careful handling of several policy changes the House inserted into the budget.

Scott said DES has about \"94 full time permanent staff\" (testimony transcribed as \"9 4 93\"), runs unusual state services such as operating some wastewater facilities, and relies heavily on non‑general funds: he summarized that roughly \"94% of our operating budgets [are] from outside sources,\" with fees and federal funds comprising most of the balance. Susan Carlson, DES budget staff, provided line‑item figures showing the agency’s base budget falling from about $387 million in FY25 to $336.9 million in FY26, with a governor’s‑phase addition of $55 million tied to an anticipated PFAS settlement that the agency expects to flow through a drinking water trust fund.

Scott and staff asked the committee to exempt certain dedicated funds from a proposed 5% administrative assessment the House added to dedicated funds. The DES presentation identified several funds—title‑V federal funds and the drinking water groundwater trust fund among them—that the department believes are either legally barred from an administrative assessment or would be legally and practically harmed by it.

On PFAS, Carlson said the agency included a $55 million placeholder in FY26 as expected settlement money from litigation involving 3M and DuPont; DES is seeking statutory language that would allow reimbursing water systems consistent with an evolving court interpretation, which broadened eligibility to systems with any detectable PFAS levels. Carlson said the fund currently distributes reimbursements \"proportionally\" to impacted systems once money is received.

The House also added a new $3.50 per‑ton solid‑waste surcharge, DES testified, an item meant to replace general‑fund support of the solid‑waste program and to raise \"between $6 and $7,000,000 per year\" for departmental operations and grants for diversion. DES said it generally supports a sustainable revenue source for cyanobacteria work through a lake license plate and is working with stakeholders on boathouse guidance aimed at restricting over‑water boathouse uses to boating activities and limiting vertical size.

A highly contested policy insertion in HB 2 would eliminate the state motor‑vehicle emissions (inspection) program. DES officials told the committee that dropping the program without following federal Clean Air Act processes could expose the state to citizen suits and potentially jeopardize federal highway funds. DES recommended language making any program changes contingent on following federal requirements and obtaining federal concurrence.

Why it matters: The House adjustments shift program costs from general funds to fees and dedicated funds and put policy changes (motor‑vehicle emissions, landfill permitting language) into a budget bill rather than a standalone policy bill. DES asked senators to allow more substantive committee review in policy committees and to exempt several federal and trust funds from the House’s proposed 5% dedicated‑fund administrative assessment.

Committee context: Senators asked DES for more detail about how many new projects the state aid grant program could fund under the House phase (DES said only a small buffer remained). DES also cautioned the committee that taking 5% from a court settlement routed to the drinking water trust fund would be problematic and asked LBA consultation to draft precise exemptions.","Bob Scott, commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, told the Senate Finance Committee that House cuts and policy insertions in HB 2 would shrink general‑fund support, shift costs to fees, and raise legal and programmatic questions about PFAS reimbursements, a proposed 5% dedicated‑fund administrative assessment, and elimination of the motor‑vehicle emissions program.",{"_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},6581740,"Judicial Council urges more public defender funding to avoid costlier assigned counsel",350,6720000,7070000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3055112-0cce427fcd664017ed248b8ce6f0f24b&start=6720&end=7070","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3055112-0cce427fcd664017ed248b8ce6f0f24b/thumbnail_6720000.jpg","/articles/6581740/New-Hampshire/Judicial-Council-urges-more-public-defender-funding-to-avoid-costlier-assigned-counsel","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6581740-febcc6301511214f565c47e649f1257d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166572&Signature=PoBnfDSeY9~H08PHA5xKqQ60sRhJvkbzBGT3HUTK6zmhp7sTOThPXpzKziaolbmcK96sNg5R22b4mpMvnl7oKoMi63YWIw3fhsWBKiWGimnPPGD6Bj55z8r3j0RXHVkY9-XwTt0mN8m4FGm9E3aNbYn9X-eTf9e3OVSfXkeENMFn6~qhXrqsm4eGu0DjzlT1tJhaci2XLwjmZ16kmOTglxwFfibb0-5TfOBKjS0Baf2YiH5DuaPQ7jgx0u1iNi5QDqi7HKiugD3cGYRQzDx-BuD03LbDKvaA8BGiOWlAHVGxPY3PC3xG8MSAZICTZNKGooxPnw0PsXSGAG5Uwas98w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jay Buggy, executive director of the Judicial Council, told the Senate Finance Committee the state’s current public‑defender funding level is inadequate given rising caseloads and the end of temporary federal supports that previously bolstered indigent defense funding.

Buggy said the governor’s recommended budget mistakenly listed $27 million for the public defender when it intended $28.8 million; the House restored the missing funds. The Judicial Council recommended additional funding to reach $32.6 million per year in the next biennium; the council also discussed a higher figure ($37 million) it previously voted to recommend to reduce caseloads further.

Buggy told senators that in seven of ten public defender offices attorneys are already above contractual caseload limits. He said that when the public defender cannot accept cases the state must pay assigned counsel—private attorneys who take individual appointments—which is more costly. As an example, Buggy said it cost about $900,000 in 2024 to staff the public defender office that covers Littleton and surrounding courts; he estimated covering the same workload with assigned counsel would cost about \"$3,000,000 or more than 3 times as much.\" He said the public defender had planned to hire 19 attorneys to lower caseloads but has begun rescinding offers because funding remains uncertain.

Why it matters: Indigent defense is constitutionally required; underfunding the public defender network shifts cases to assigned counsel and raises per‑case cost. The Judicial Council said higher base funding now would reduce assigned‑counsel spending over the biennium.

Committee context: Buggy said the council will continue to work with the Office of the Public Defender and the Finance Committee to refine exact staffing and salary proposals; he urged the committee to consider the council’s recommended funding increases to avoid layoffs and higher downstream costs.","The Judicial Council told the Senate Finance Committee that a higher public defender appropriation would keep caseloads within contractual limits and save the state money because assigned counsel is substantially more expensive per case than the public defender system.",{"_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},6581745,"Judiciary warns House cuts could close courthouses and delay cases; asks for security and YDC case funding",3070,3300000,6370000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3055112-0cce427fcd664017ed248b8ce6f0f24b&start=3300&end=6370","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3055112-0cce427fcd664017ed248b8ce6f0f24b/thumbnail_3300000.jpg","/articles/6581745/New-Hampshire/Judiciary-warns-House-cuts-could-close-courthouses-and-delay-cases-asks-for-security-and-YDC-case-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6581745-e942997a95992bd2590ca19ebcc1749f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166572&Signature=ZX-iQ2TxtEveJCqxaUAn672~BDpLvupUuTU698EuDP~sW8xm1AbNfQwFfOH~bYAAoPf0LPq8JImCxtItAjfsmQpAXMX5Rn~z4Pldu~dGlQmItfZZsqK9Nf2QDhIDzMKsxQxrgEh5-gDikcxYeH9ShP0o76vihgY1a0e9JEV0bdkbo282VAcT0itunwGMIX39Vp4UmROQ81HeyVbeah~lVnIkgbyc7Uba~t9124~2Jd0TPq~eTYCeSep~61I3X9bIQz202GvmUWobPbSxOUwZ8lwo5WSxxuGiX2dO83iHNu5MhpIViH-tF49PhhJmcCV2JvFJq60nQYm1PSJEVoLeYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chief Justice Mark Howard and administrative leaders of the Judicial Branch told the Senate Finance Committee that the branch’s efficiency budget and the House phase of HB 2 together create resource shortfalls that would slow court operations, reduce security coverage and potentially force courthouse closures.

The Judicial Branch submitted an efficiency budget that the presentation described as roughly $118 million for FY26 (the branch called it 3.8% over FY25 adjusted authorized). The House reduced the branch’s request; presenters said the House figure is about $114 million for FY26, producing a biennial back‑of‑the‑budget reduction that will require program and staffing tradeoffs.

The branch highlighted three immediate operational consequences if those funded levels hold: reduced sheriff and court‑security staffing reimbursements, potential closure of two circuit courthouses (Hooksett and Goffstown), and unfilled positions (the testimony estimated 15–20 layoffs could follow if two new superior court judges are appointed without corresponding funding). Judicial leaders said roughly 75% of the branch’s expenses are personnel and about 92% of funding is general fund, limiting options for internal offsets.

Judicial officials also flagged the YDC (youth development center) litigation and claims workload as a new and large demand on superior‑court resources. The branch said about \"1,389\" YDC‑related cases exist; roughly 550 of those involve private contractors and are not eligible for the state claims process, leaving roughly 600 cases where the State is the primary defendant and which will remain in superior court unless otherwise resolved. The Judicial Branch asked for resources to staff and process those complex cases.

To help offset cuts, the branch said it plans court‑rule adjustments to raise some filing and records fees; those changes, officials said, could bring roughly $5.1 million into the general fund over the biennium. The Supreme Court also created an internal efficiency commission and instituted a hiring freeze for non‑critical external hires while the branch assesses workload and service impacts.

Why it matters: The judiciary cautioned senators that the House budget would cause delays across civil and criminal calendars and specifically warned that circuit court matters—divorce and parenting, small claims, landlord‑tenant, domestic violence—could face years‑long docket delays and statutory deadlines might need statutory extensions.

Committee context: Judiciary leaders asked senators to consider restoring targeted funding for security and YDC case processing and to weigh the branch’s proposed fee adjustments and efficiency measures before final budget decisions.","Judicial Branch leaders told the Senate Finance Committee the House phase of HB 2 reduces their operating budget and risks courthouse closures, layoffs and multi‑year delays for many circuit‑court matters; the branch asked for funds for security, sheriff reimbursements, and to handle a large backlog of YDC‑related cases.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate panel questions HB2 sweep of renewable energy fund, asks how lower REC targets affect revenues and programs

Environmental Services warns of program cuts after House trims general funds; PFAS settlement and solid‑waste fee draw attention

Judicial Council urges more public defender funding to avoid costlier assigned counsel

Judiciary warns House cuts could close courthouses and delay cases; asks for security and YDC case funding