Affordable Energy vs. Environmental Protection

By Matt Leahy

During its 2023 session, the New Hampshire Legislature will consider legislation, House Bill 609, that aims to revamp the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee, the state authority that reviews and approves the siting of energy facilities in our state. Similarly, the United States Congress will likely consider the federal rules covering energy permitting for natural gas pipelines and power transmission projects The backdrop for both of these efforts is the cost of energy

However, the issues they raise go beyond just the challenge of providing affordable energy As we have seen here in New Hampshire and other regions of the country, these siting decisions are highly contentious. Finding consensus support for energy facilities, whether it is a transmission line, a wind farm, or a natural gas pipeline, has historically been nearly impossible to achieve

Therefore, before establishing any new protocols for siting new energy facilities, policy makers should dig deeper into the impacts, benefits, and drawbacks of redoing the laws and rules that determine the outcome of proposed energy projects. Here are some of the questions they need to consider:

1) Given climate change’s impacts, should the process promote renewable and green energy or should it encourage an “all-of-the-above” strategy?

2) Related to that point, should the process foster the production of in-state energy sources? Would the availability of more local energy resources lessen the price fluctuations the country has experienced in the past?

3) Should the regulatory process incentivize the use of already disturbed land to site projects, such as Brownfields properties

(parcels of land that were previously used for industrial purposes and is contaminated by low concentrations of hazardous chemicals) or along transportation corridors?

4) Should siting policies call for the inclusion of energy efficiency steps? After all, energy consumption is what drives the need for energy production.

In order to avoid these costly battles, policy makers should keep in mind one overarching purpose when considering whether to amend the rules and laws for energy projects Actually, the Declaration of Purpose in New Hampshire’s energy siting law RSA 162-H strikes the right tone and should ser ve as a guide It reads, in part, “The legislature recognizes that the

5) How high a priority will any new rules place on avoiding and minimizing impacts to protected conservation lands? Many of these protected areas have conser vation easements because of their significant and unique conser vation or historic values These lands therefore constitute charitable trusts that exist for public benefit Permitting agencies should not establish and follow a process that breaks this public trust.

6) Would speeding up the permitting process in order to advance energy development result in less input and engagement by local communities and groups affected by new projects?

Of course, ever yone needs and uses energy. It is also true that wildly fluctuating energy costs and availability create economic uncertainty selection of sites for energy facilities may have significant impacts on and benefits to the following: the welfare of the population, private property, the location and growth of industry, the overall economic growth of the state, the environment of the state, historic sites, aesthetics, air and water quality, the use of natural resources, and public health and safety Accordingly, the legislature finds that it is in the public interest to maintain a balance among those potential significant impacts and benefits in decisions about the siting, construction, and operation of energy facilities in New Hampshire ”

And

hardship Nevertheless, clean air and clean water are also fundamental human needs Those are precisely the kinds of natural services open space provides society.

Unfortunately, projects too often become antagonistic with the decision seemingly boiling down to energy versus community and environmental protection.

Are changes needed in New Hampshire’s siting law or with the federal siting process? Perhaps, as there are always ways to make regulations more efficient. However, the words in RSA 162-H continue to be relevant, even in the face of high energy costs and controversies o v e r s i t i n g d e c i s i o n s . T h e y s h o u l d continue to guide the process here in New Hampshire

Matt Leahy is public policy director for the Forest Society.