By Granite State Report
New Hampshire just rewired the legal meaning of “clean energy.” HB 189 is now law, signed by Governor Ayotte and taking effect September 13, 2025.(LegiScan)
On paper, it looks like a harmless language tweak. In practice, it tells you a lot about where our political class wants to steer the state’s energy future—and who gets a seat at the table.
What HB 189 actually does
HB 189 does two big things:
- Writes a new definition of “clean energy” into state law. The bill adds a section to RSA 21 that says “clean energy” means minimal to no greenhouse gas–emitting sources, including nuclear and other renewable sources.(bills.nhliberty.org)
- Rewrites the priorities for the state’s 10-year energy strategy and cuts out a key advisory body.
- It changes the strategy’s focus area from “renewable energy” to “clean energy and fuel diversity.”(bills.nhliberty.org)
- It removes references to the Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Energy Board (EESB) from the law governing that 10-year strategy.(LegiScan)
The bill passed both chambers and was signed July 15, 2025; it’s Chapter 169 of the session laws and becomes effective 60 days after passage.(LegiScan)
So this is not a proposal. It’s the new ground rules.
The political signal: nuclear is officially “clean”
The first clear signal: small-scale nuclear is now explicitly inside New Hampshire’s “clean energy” tent.
Earlier versions of the bill framed clean energy as small-scale nuclear, renewables, and “fuel diversity.”(LegiScan)
The final amended text is a little broader and more abstract—“minimal to no greenhouse gas–emitting sources, including nuclear and other renewable sources”(bills.nhliberty.org)—but the political intent is the same:
- Nuclear is now on the same conceptual shelf as solar, wind, and hydro in New Hampshire law.
- Any future 10-year state energy strategy will be expected to treat nuclear as part of the “clean” toolkit.
Supporters frame this as reality catching up with physics: nuclear plants are low-carbon and run 24/7, which matters in a region that freezes hard in February. And they’re not wrong about the emissions math.
But there’s more baked into this than science. This is also about who gets invited to the party over the next decade—traditional utilities, nuclear developers, and certain industrial players just got a friendlier legal climate.
The vanishing board: sidelining efficiency and “sustainable energy”
The second move is quieter but just as important: HB 189 scrubs references to the Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Energy Board from the 10-year strategy statute.(LegiScan)
The EESB was designed to look at exactly what its name suggests—efficiency and sustainable energy—and to feed that expertise into policy. Removing it from the law doesn’t abolish the board outright, but it downgrades its formal role in shaping long-term strategy.
That’s not a neutral edit.
Energy efficiency is almost always the cheapest “resource” in the system. Every kilowatt-hour you don’t need to produce is one you don’t have to finance, transmit, or argue about at a public hearing. When you weaken the efficiency voice, you tend to strengthen the voices that sell you more electrons, more fuel, more steel, and more concrete.
HB 189 tilts the institutional table away from “how do we use less?” and toward “which big technologies do we build?”
“Clean energy and fuel diversity”: a clever, slippery pairing
The other key phrase HB 189 leans on is “clean energy and fuel diversity.”(bills.nhliberty.org)
“Fuel diversity” sounds responsible—no one wants all their eggs in one gas pipeline—but politically it’s a Swiss Army knife:
- To climate hawks, it can mean a mix of renewables, nuclear, and storage so we don’t bet the farm on any one source.
- To fossil-fuel defenders, it can mean keeping gas, oil, or even coal in the mix indefinitely, on the grounds that diversity itself is a virtue.
The amended version of the bill technically defines clean energy as minimal to no greenhouse gas–emitting sources, which should exclude conventional fossil fuels.(bills.nhliberty.org)
But law is implemented by humans with agendas. Once you enshrine “fuel diversity” next to “clean energy,” you open interpretive space for:
- “Bridge fuels” that stick around much longer than promised.
- Creative accounting around “minimal” greenhouse gas emissions.
- Pressure for ratepayers to subsidize expensive “clean” projects in the name of diversity and reliability.
It’s a lawyer’s playground.
The upside: realism about the grid
Let’s give HB 189 its due.
New Hampshire needs to stop pretending you can run a winter-peaking, industrial-grade grid on vibes and rooftop solar alone. Intermittency is real. Storage is still expensive at scale. ISO-New England has warned for years about winter reliability and over-dependence on natural gas.
From that angle, putting nuclear inside the legal definition of “clean” is a rational step:
- It acknowledges that firm (always-on) low-carbon power probably has to be part of any serious decarbonization plan.
- It lines up state law with emerging federal narratives around advanced reactors, micro-reactors, and other small-scale nuclear tech.(BillTrack50)
If the choice is between burning more gas every winter or eventually swapping some of that out for small-scale nuclear with tight safety rules and public oversight, the emissions argument falls heavily on the nuclear side.
You don’t have to love nukes to admit that.
The downside: weakening the “first fuel” and inviting loopholes
Where HB 189 falls short is what it de-emphasizes:
- By cutting the Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Energy Board out of the statute, the law downgrades the cheapest tool we have—efficiency.(LegiScan)
- By moving from a straightforward “renewable energy” focus to a looser “clean energy and fuel diversity” framework, it invites creative rebranding and sector lobbying.(bills.nhliberty.org)
Efficiency is not sexy. There’s no ribbon-cutting when a building uses 30% less energy. But every serious energy analyst will tell you the same thing: the lowest-cost megawatt is the one you never have to generate. When you weaken the institutional champion for efficiency, you are voting—indirectly—for higher system costs down the line.
And when you broaden “clean” without hard guardrails, you’re trusting future commissions and legislatures not to water it down. That’s a big bet.
What a smarter version of this bill could’ve done
HB 189 had the bones of a strong, future-proofed policy. A better version would have:
- Kept nuclear in the clean-energy family but coupled it with hard, statutory guardrails:
- Independent safety oversight language
- Public engagement requirements for siting
- Clear lifecycle waste and decommissioning standards
- Strengthened, not weakened, the role of efficiency:
- Replacing the EESB with a more modern, better-resourced body rather than just erasing it from the core statute.
- Locked in a tighter definition of “clean”:
- For example, setting explicit lifecycle emissions thresholds or aligning with best-available science, instead of leaving it at “minimal to no” and hoping future policymakers interpret it in good faith.(bills.nhliberty.org)
Instead, we got a bill that does the easy political thing—signal nuclear openness, talk up “clean energy,” talk up “diversity”—while quietly undercutting the one part of the system that actually saves people money: using less.
Where Granite Staters should press for answers
HB 189 is now baked into law. The next fight is about implementation. Here are the questions every lawmaker, candidate, and regulator should have to answer:
- How will “minimal to no greenhouse gas–emitting sources” be defined in practice?
Will there be hard numbers, or will this be a vibes-based definition ripe for loopholes?(bills.nhliberty.org) - What replaces the EESB’s role?
If we’re cutting them out of the 10-year strategy, who is now responsible for making sure efficiency and sustainable energy aren’t just afterthoughts? - Who pays for the nuclear turn?
Advanced nuclear isn’t cheap today. Are we talking about big ratepayer-backed projects, public-private partnerships, federal subsidies? How is cost risk split between investors and ordinary households? - How will we measure success?
Are we tracking emissions per kWh, overall system cost, reliability metrics, or just how many press releases say “clean”?
If your legislator can’t answer these, they didn’t think this through—or they don’t want to say the quiet part out loud.
Where I land
HB 189 is a mixed bag:
- The good: It drags New Hampshire’s legal language into the 21st century by admitting that nuclear can be “clean” in carbon terms and that we need a broader toolkit than just wind and solar.
- The bad: It softens the focus on efficiency and sustainable energy, introduces a fuzzier, more politicized definition of “clean,” and leans heavily on “fuel diversity” without spelling out what that means for emissions, costs, or accountability.
If New Hampshire is serious about building a grid that is affordable, reliable, and genuinely low-carbon, this law can be a starting point—but not the finish line. It needs to be followed by:
- Stronger efficiency policy
- Clear emissions standards
- Transparent planning for any nuclear projects
- Real public input instead of insider energy-sector horse-trading
The danger isn’t that we included nuclear in the definition of clean. The danger is that we took our eye off the ball—efficiency, transparency, and enforceable standards—and told ourselves that new technology alone will save us.
Technology doesn’t set policy. People do. HB 189 shifted the rules of the game. Granite Staters need to decide whether we’re playing to win on climate and costs—or just changing the labels on the same old energy politics.
