Power to the People is a column by Donald M. Kreis, New Hampshire’s Consumer Advocate. Kreis and his staff of four represent the interests of residential utility customers before the NH Public Utilities Commission and elsewhere.
By DONALD M. KREIS, Power to the People
We who care about energy policy in New Hampshire – and, in particular, those of us who fight for the interests of ratepayers – owe a debt of gratitude to Rep. Michael Vose (R-Epping).
As chair of the House Committee on Science, Technology and Energy, Vose is one of the state’s most important thought leaders when it comes to assuring that so essential a public service as electricity is safe, reliable, and affordable. To that task he brings a set of values and policy preferences that are firmly grounded in free-market conservatism.
But the legislative process is complicated and messages often get muddled. As a skilled legislator, Vose knows his job is not to be right – it is to get bills to the Governor’s desk. So Vose will collaborate and compromise, with Democrats and fellow Republicans, as he deems necessary even when the results are imperfect reflections of his conservative philosophy.
However, on January 30 Vose found an opportunity to offer us as clear a vision as I have ever seen for where he would lead New Hampshire when it comes to the future of our electricity grid – which is, as he pointed out, essential to the future of civilization itself. Such clarity is a rare gift in these times.
The occasion was a hearing on House Bill 1623, of which Vose is the prime sponsor. It would completely rewrite the state’s official energy policy as enshrined in RSA 378:37.
Right now, RSA 378:37 is a mélange of mixed messages. There are references there to keeping utilities financially healthy, to protecting the safety and health of our citizens, to maximizing the use of cost-effective energy efficiency, and to meeting the state’s energy needs at “the lowest reasonable cost while providing for the reliability and diversity of energy sources.” Vose wants to wipe that slate clean.
This should be taken seriously. Vose’s cosponsors include nearly all of the other energy policy thought leaders in the Republican caucus of the General Court, including Rep. Doug Thomas of Londonderry (the committee’s vice chair), Rep. Michael Harrington of Strafford (a former member of the Public Utilities Commission — the PUC), Senator Kevin Avard of Nashua (chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources), Senator Howard Pearl of Loudon (Avard’s vice chair), and Senator Timothy Lang of Sanbornton (chair of Senate Ways and Means).
The proposed new energy policy would require the state to promote the development of energy resources “without preference toward technology type, with an emphasis on dispatchable resources.” It is clear from the context that by “dispatchable resources” Vose means nuclear power, gas-fired generation, and other technologies that are not intermittent the way wind turbines and solar panels are.
The Vose bill also states that “New Hampshire shall pursue energy conservation and efficiency according to market principles and without state government subsidies.” In other words, no more NHSaves – utility-provided energy efficiency programs that are funded by state-mandated, non-bypassable charges on everyone’s electricity and natural gas bills.
Some might find that inconsistent with House Bill 549, passed in 2022 with Vose as the prime sponsor. That’s the legislation that overruled the 2021 decision of the PUC to phase out NHSaves, enshrined ratepayer-funded energy efficiency in statute, but subjected the programs to strict budget limitations.
House Bill 549 was an example of the collaboration and compromise referenced above. In 2022, Vose understood that resurrecting NHSaves was a political necessity, particularly in light of pressure from the state homebuilders’ association (which has lots of members that install energy efficiency measures).
Though Vose’s proposed state energy policy calls for New Hampshire to “promote the use of clean energy sources” he made clear in his 2024 testimony where his principles of market reliance, and technology neutrality lead. “Eighty percent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels,” he told his colleagues. “The replacement technology just isn’t up to the task. This is our future until something better comes along.”
But to me, as a lawyer, the most interesting aspects of Vose’s energy policy proposal, and his testimony in support of the bill, invoke themes that go all the way back to Republican opposition to the New Deal and, indeed, perhaps even earlier.
Since at least the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Republican policymakers have sounded a persistent warning about an overzealous federal government. In particular, they took aim back then at independent federal regulatory agencies, including the one known today as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Now, House Bill 1623 includes this proposed finding: “The state has a duty to defend the production and supply of affordable, reliable, dispatchable, and secure energy from external regulatory interference. The state’s sovereign authority with respect to the retirement of an electric generation facility for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the state’s citizens is primary and takes precedence over any attempt from an external regulatory body to mandate, restrict, or influence the early retirement of an electric generation facility in this state.”
In his testimony, Vose made clear the early retirements he worries about involve the 1,200 megawatt Seabrook nuclear power plant, the 745 megawatt gas-fired Granite Ridge plant in Londonderry, and the 75 megawatt wood-fired Burgess Bio-Power facility in Berlin. It appears that Vose and his cosponsors think FERC-approved wholesale market rules could put these deregulated facilities out of business.
It is no coincidence that this attack on the muscular (but at this point hypothetical) exercise of authority by a federal regulator comes just days after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Vose mentioned the case explicitly in his testimony.
In the Loper Bright case, the SCOTUS appears poised to overrule its 1984 decision in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Chevron stands for the proposition that federal courts should generally defer to agencies like FERC when the agencies apply and interpret the statutes that give them their authority.
Defenders of Chevron predict that its demise will wreak havoc with the enforcement and application of all kinds of federal statutes. Vose, in his January 30 testimony, called the Chevron doctrine “a classic example of federal regulatory overreach.”
So, Vose and his cosponsors propose a new state energy policy that would give New Hampshire an explicit basis on which to fight back, at least in the energy realm, against any federal regulations “that are not specifically authorized by Congress,” according to Vose’s testimony. That, potentially, tees up an epic future battle.
The Federal Power Act, FERC’s enabling statute, basically tells the agency to make sure wholesale electricity rates – the ones that keep Seabrook, Granite Ridge, and Burgess in business — are “just and reasonable.” Such a deliberately vague phrase does not offer much in the way of specific congressional authorization.
Do I, as the state’s Consumer Advocate, tasked with representing the interests of residential ratepayers, support House Bill 1623? I do not. But I respect the clarity of Vose’s vision and the forthrightness with which he has presented it to his House colleagues. We could use more of that.