A sprawling budget bill working its way through the New Hampshire legislature includes under-the-radar provisions that could gut an important state renewable energy program.

The 183-page bill, already approved by the House, includes measures that would redirect millions of dollars from a state renewable energy fund to the general budget and to rebates for utility customers.

Advocates say the changes would endanger renewable energy development in New Hampshire and do not belong in this bill, which is intended to lay out policy changes needed to implement the state budget.

“Major policy changes do not belong buried in a bill with no chance for significant scrutiny,” said Nick Paul, director of legislative affairs for nonprofit advocacy group Clean Energy New Hampshire. ​“It’s undemocratic, and it’s irresponsible.”

Supporters of the measures, however, say they are sensible approaches to saving consumers money at a time when energy bills have been soaring.

“You can’t keep piling costs on the backs of ratepayers indefinitely because eventually they’re going to rebel,” said Rep. Michael Vose, a Republican and the chair of the House Science, Technology, and Energy Committee. ​“We’re not against clean energy at all, but we are for cost savings and efficiency.”

The provisions in question relate to the state’s Renewable Energy Fund, which utilities pay into when they are unable to meet state requirements for procuring renewable energy. The fund supports programs including competitive grants for non-residential renewable energy projects, rebates for solar installations, and funding for community solar projects benefiting low- to moderate-income residents.

The pending bill would transfer all of the fund’s uncommitted dollars to the general fund, as the state deals with ongoing budget shortfalls. Then, from 2027 on, most of the money that flows into the renewable energy fund would be returned to residents as a rebate on their electric bill. The fund would only retain enough money to cover administrative costs and the budget of the state’s offshore wind and energy innovation office — a total of $660,000 in fiscal year 2024 — as well as incentive programs at the discretion of the New Hampshire Energy Department.

“It would effectively eliminate the fund,” said Nick Krakoff, senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation.

The fund’s annual revenue has ranged from less than $1.4 million to more than $19 million since it was launched in 2007. In 2023, the last year for which numbers are available, the fund took in $5.9 million and disbursed about $4.5 million. The awards included a $140,000 grant expected to cover most of the cost for a solar installation on housing for older adults in Portsmouth, and a $400,000 grant to support a biomass-burning system to provide heat and air conditioning to an assisted living community.

Projects like these would be at risk if the proposal to return renewable energy fund money to utility customers becomes a reality, Krakoff said. ​“They’re unlikely to be able to make up that money elsewhere,” he said.

Vose acknowledged that the plan for the fund would deprive some proposed projects of access to money, but said tackling high energy bills is more important right now. In addition, the renewable energy market has developed to a point at which it might not need as much support from state incentives anymore, he said.

“A vast majority of the legislative caucus in the House thought it was more important to save ratepayers some money at this particular point in time,” Vose said. ​“It’s time to start rethinking what kind of money we’re spending on these projects.”

The bill is now under consideration in the Senate. Supporters and opponents alike expect the Senate to remove the provision that funnels money out of the renewable energy fund, though that does not mean it will be completely off the table. It is possible the measure could be restored when the two chambers conference to resolve the differences in their versions of the bill, Vose said.

Otherwise, it is probable the idea will return as a standalone bill at the beginning of next year, he said. It would likely be joined by another measure adjusting some of the requirements for renewable energy procurement by utilities and lowering the payments they make into the fund for noncompliance.

That, said Paul, is where these ideas belong: In their own bills, facing public scrutiny, rather than deep within a budget implementation bill. 

“I don’t think these are proposals that would pass on their own,” he said. ​“They are deeply unpopular, and they don’t make any sense.”