What is HB 682 / Chapter 286
Title: “An Act relative to the office of offshore wind industry, the offshore and port development commission, and the office of energy innovation.”
This article explains House Bill 682 (Chapter 286, 2025)—what it does, what it means for New Hampshire, and where things go from here.
Sponsor(s):
- Rep. Michael Harrington (R), Rep. J.D. Bernardy (R), Rep. Jeanine Notter (R), Rep. Douglas Thomas (R), Rep. Kelley Potenza (R), Rep. Matt Sabourin (R), Rep. Aboul Khan (R), Rep. Linda McGrath (R)
Legislative status:
- Passed both chambers
- Signed by Governor Kelly Ayotte on August 1, 2025
- Became Chapter 286
- Effective date: September 30, 2025
Key Provisions of the Bill
HB 682 does several things to restructure, reduce, or eliminate state government entities related to offshore wind in New Hampshire. The main changes are:
- Rename / Refocus the Office
- The Office of Offshore Wind Industry Development and Energy Innovation will be renamed simply the Office of Energy Innovation. The “offshore wind development” part is removed from its title and mission.
- Correspondingly, language in the statutes (“responsibilities,” “duties,” etc.) that required that office to support and coordinate offshore wind development, port assessment, supply chain analysis, workforce development specific to offshore wind, is removed.
- Repeal of Commissions and Committees
- Repeals the Offshore Wind Industry Workforce Training Center Committee (RSA 12-O:51-a).
- Repeals the Offshore and Port Development Commission (RSA 374-F:10).
- Moving Advisory Councils
- The Grid Modernization Advisory Group (GMAG) and the Hydrogen Advisory Committee are moved under the renamed Office of Energy Innovation.
- Adjustments to Renewable Energy / Workforce / Funds
- The Renewable Energy Fund statute is modified: the law removes language that said that funds should be used for “offshore wind initiatives” (and related mandates) within the Office of Offshore Wind Industry Development.
- The Workforce Development & Innovation Fund is cut of certain committees’ oversight (i.e. that: statements about the workforce training center committee being part of it are removed).
- Statutory Repeals
- Specific statutes are entirely repealed: • RSA 12-O:51-a (offshore wind workforce training center committee) • RSA 374-F:10 (offshore and port development commission) • Other provisions related to required studies, mitigation, and agreements for offshore wind development in the Gulf of Maine are modified or removed.
- Effective date & implementation
- The changes go into effect September 30, 2025.
- Some of the provisions already begin altering planning, committee structures, and state office scope following the signing.
Implications: What This Means for New Hampshire
Here are the major implications of HB 682, both in the short term and longer term.
Short-Term Effects
- Disbanded Structures The two major entities specifically focused on offshore wind—port & development commission, and workforce training committee—will no longer exist. That means state‐led efforts to plan or prepare infrastructure, workforce pipelines, and economic impact studies are paused or shut down.
- Reallocated Focus The renamed Office of Energy Innovation is explicitly not driven by offshore wind development. It gains a more general renewable/clean energy remit. Areas like hydrogen, grid modernization, possibly solar, storage, etc., may receive more attention or at least be less constrained by offshore wind requirements.
- Regulatory & Planning Uncertainty Without dedicated state capacity, many tasks—such as assessing port readiness, supply chain mapping, workforce training for offshore wind—lose a defined lead agency. That may delay or derail readiness if offshore wind initiatives resume.
- Symbolic Message HB 682 sends a clear political message: New Hampshire is deprioritizing offshore wind for now. It may signal to developers, investors, regional entities, and federal agencies that NH is stepping back from serious commitment.
Medium & Long-Term Consequences
- Missed Economic Opportunity Should offshore wind again become feasible (due to federal policy changes, cost reductions, or demand), NH may be behind in terms of workforce, port infrastructure, economic development. Neighboring states will likely be more prepared to capture jobs, investment, and associated benefits.
- Loss of Negotiating Power With less institutional structure, NH may have less sway in interstate/regional energy planning (grid interconnections, long transmission lines, siting decisions) especially if other states push forward with offshore wind projects that may connect to or pass through or near NH’s areas.
- Legislative / Regulatory Rebuild Required If future administrations want to revisit offshore wind, they will have to rebuild legal authority, re-establish or recreate committees or commissions, hire staff, reengage stakeholders. That costs time and political capital.
- Climate / Energy Transition Impacts Offshore wind is one of the clean energy resources in the mix for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, diversifying energy supply, and potentially lowering electricity prices over time. Removing focus weakens NH’s ability to contribute to or benefit from that transition, especially in a region increasingly focused on decarbonization.
- Fisheries, Environment, and Community Concerns Supporters of HB 682 cited concerns about cost, impacts to fisheries, environmental risk, uncertainties etc. These concerns will somewhat ease since state tasked groups that might do assessments are eliminated. But the flip side is reduced capacity for informed analysis or mitigation of those issues if offshore wind returns.
What Remained / What Can Still Happen
Even though HB 682 cuts much of the deliberate focus on offshore wind, not everything is wiped out; some “toeholds” remain. These may allow for future engagement, depending on political & economic conditions.
- The Office of Energy Innovation retains some advisory capacity to track developments and possibly respond if offshore wind interest re-emerges. As noted in NHPR reporting, sponsors tried in amendments to ensure that the office could still advise the governor on clean energy resources in the Gulf of Maine, carry out certain assessments of ports, supply chains, workforce—even if not proactively driving offshore wind strategy.
- Regulatory or statutory provisions touching offshore wind (studies, mitigation, coastal program coordination) may still persist in modified forms. Some duties related to “additional studies or mitigation” for proposals in the Gulf of Maine are touched by the bill.
Quotes & Political Perspectives
- Gov. Kelly Ayotte: Called offshore wind in the Gulf of Maine “too expensive, a risk to our commercial fishing industry, and not the right fit” for NH.
- Rep. J.D. Bernardy (R), a sponsor: said the new structure allows looking at “the full spectrum” of evolving energy sources (not only offshore wind) such as hydrogen or battery storage.
- Environmental and clean energy advocates: Voiced disappointment. They see this as a symbolic retreat and worry NH is losing competitiveness in clean energy and losing opportunity in jobs, infrastructure, and contribution to climate goals.
Link to the Official Bill Text / Government Source
You can read the full official text of HB 682 (Amended) here (via LegiScan):
Also, the New Hampshire Governor’s Office published a press release including signing of this and other bills:
Governor Ayotte Signs 43 Bills into Law which includes HB 682.
Potential Criticisms & Areas of Concern
- Energy Cost & Reliability: Some critics argue that reducing focus on offshore wind limits the state’s options to scale renewable energy supply, which could make energy costs more vulnerable, especially as fossil fuel prices fluctuate.
- Climate Commitments: While NH does not have legally mandated greenhouse gas reduction goals at the level of some neighbors, stepping back from offshore wind may make it harder to meet voluntary or future targets.
- Regional Competition: Other New England states (Maine, Massachusetts) are pushing ahead with offshore wind development. NH may be sidelined in receiving economic spillovers—jobs, ports, supply chain.
- Environmental & Fisheries Impacts: While supporters of HB 682 cite risk to marine ecosystems and fisheries as reasons for pullback, the absence of state resources and oversight may make future environmental review and mitigation harder if projects resurface.
- Dependency on Others: If NH doesn’t host offshore wind projects, it may need to rely more on energy imports, or on projects landing elsewhere (ports, connections outside NH), which can reduce local benefit and reduce state’s input into transmission and site planning.
Conclusions
HB 682 represents more than a bureaucratic reshuffle. It’s a policy reversal—or at least a pause—from New Hampshire’s prior steps toward offshore wind readiness. The law removes major dedicated structures and mandates, signaling that offshore wind is no longer a state priority for now.
But despite the cutbacks, there are still statutory remnants (particularly advisory duty, and parts of the office’s residual role) that could allow NH to re-engage if federal leasing, economic feasibility, or public support shifts. Whether the state takes that path will depend on political will, fiscal pressures, and regional & federal policy shifts (e.g., BOEM, climate laws, renewable energy market costs).
For citizens and stakeholders, the question now is not whether offshore wind might happen in the Gulf, but whether NH can rebuild its capacity—and whether it chooses to.
