HB123

House · 2025 sessionRepublicanSigned into law

Carbon sequestration moratorium and study

Defines pre-sequestration timber tax revenue with payment in lieu of taxes, establishes a moratorium on carbon sequestration contracts, and creates a commission to study the effects of carbon sequestration on tax revenue, forest management, and the logging industry.

(Second New Title) defining pre-sequestration timber tax revenue, establishing a moratorium on carbon sequestration and establishing a commission to study the effects of carbon sequestration in New Hampshire forests upon state and local tax revenue, effective forest management, and the health of New Hampshire’s logging industry.

AgricultureTaxes - LocalEnvironment - Conservation

Status

Signed into law · July 22, 2025

✓Introduced
✓House
✓Senate
✓Governor
✓Law

Division of testimony

44 submissions

Support 8Oppose 36Neutral 0

Barbara RichterOpposeConcord, NHfor NH Association of Conservation CommissionsFeb 18, 2025

Please vote ITL on HB123 and allow landowners to choose how they can make income off their property.

Paul DoscherOpposeWeare, NHfor Myselfflagged non-germaneFeb 18, 2025

Both HB 123 and the non-germane amendment have serious problems. The amendment would penalize almost any landowner that has used public funds for forest improvement, any grant provided by LCHIP for a conservation easement, etc.

Nancylee GreinerOpposeHarrisville, NHfor MyselfFeb 18, 2025

The amendment extends its reach to include “any land put into trust which receives any public money from the state.” This provision would restrict certain private lands, such as family trusts, that receive state funding. Since the phrase “receives any public money from the state” lacks specificity, it would apply to family trust properties that have obtained grants from agencies like the N.H. Department of Forests and Lands, N.H. Fish and Game, or the N.H. Department of Agriculture. This includes funding for invasive species control, endangered species habitat conservation, right-of-way purchases, or easements. As a result, these lands would be ineligible to participate in a forest-carbon-credit program. Forest-carbon-credit sales are a property right, and I oppose any prohibition restricting private landowners from engaging in such programs.

Patricia AnastasiaOpposeLondonderry, NHfor MyselfFeb 18, 2025

HB123 undermines our efforts to develop sustainable forestry, It may prevent landowners from enrolling their forested lands in carbon sequestration programs. It is a benefit to all to provide incentives to landowners of forested land to keep them forested. Taxing standing timber will result in less forested land, which will have a negative impact of the environment, which in turn will have an economic impact on business such as tourism that NH relies on. This new tax will make it harder for landowners of forested land to keep it forested. We all benefit from our forested lands; this bill will result in more logging and more development as owners of forested land are unable or unwilling to pay taxes on their standing timber.

Douglas AhlstrinSupportPittsburg, NHfor MyselfFeb 10, 2025

As a resident of Pittsburg, NH, and a member of the selectboard, I have witnessed the loss of revenue due to the reduction of timber tax revenues. Intents to cut are down, as areas that are normally harvested for the trees that have grown there, are now untouched because of lands being purchased for the sole purpose of carbon sequestration. This practice not only hurts the town, the state, the timber industry, and the management of our forest lands. It serves benefit for the State of New Hampshire. Only the corporations which have purchased these forest areas to offset tariffs from other states or countries in which they operate profit from this practice. I strongly urge, and support the passage of this bill, so that the lost revenues/taxes may be recouped.

Dan BergeronOpposeConcord, NHfor New Hampshire Fish and Game DepartmentFeb 10, 2025

Dear Members of the Committee, There are very few landowners statewide currently enrolled in carbon credit programs. The only major economic impact the Department is aware of is occurring in Coos County. The Department understands why Coos county is interested in finding an in-lieu tax for land enrolled in carbon credit programs. However, our concern is that language in this bill could have wider implications on woodlands across the state. If land enrolled in carbon programs will be taxed the same as regular land, it may provide incentive to prevent landowners from enrolling their lands, resulting in lower greenhouse gas benefits. Alternatively, there may be landowners that don’t currently have merchantable wood on their land and want to enroll in the program to gain some economic benefit from owning it, aside from development. The in lieu tax may be a deterrent to enrolling. Such landowners may just as well decide to sell their land if they can’t reap any economic benefit from it which may result in more development, a loss of habitat, and higher greenhouse gas emissions. For these reasons the Department is opposed to HB123. Respectfully, Dan Bergeron Wildlife Division Chief NH Fish and Game Department 11 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301

Nick GermanaSupportKeene, NHfor Cheshire 15Feb 10, 2025

The idea of carbon sequestration makes sense, but the problem is in how it is implemented. NH is the second most forested state in the country, and it is not surprising that we have become the target for large national corporations who want to benefit from tax incentives while actually doing nothing to reduce their carbon footprint. Towns are deprived of much-needed tax revenue and our loggers suffer as a result of all of the timber that is taken off line through these programs. (This is also very poor woodlands management). As a result, we actually have to import timber from New York, with all of the costs and carbon emmisions that come with the added transportation. This is not a sustainable system. It has a negative impact on the economy of the North Country and has very questionable environmental benefits. I know that HB123 is not about the larger issues of the carbon sequestration program, but about the ability of municipalities up north to collect revenue they very much need. I hope the committee will vote OTP or, if necessary, find a way to amend the bill to get it to OTPA.

Paul GrenierSupportBerlin, NHfor City of BerlinFeb 10, 2025

My name is Paul Grenier and I reside in Berlin. I am a 32 year public servant in Berlin's government, I have served 16 consectutive years as a City Councilor, followed by 14 years of consecutive service as Berlin's mayor and now on my second year as a City Councilor. From 2002 to 2024, I served concurrently as a Coos County Commissioner. I completely understand the complex nature and reasons for this bill. Decades ago, NH law was amended to allow for reforestation of our state, particularly in the northern 3 counties. The introduction of the timber tax, or the legal term of timber yield tax, was to encourage industrial land owners to avoid having to pay property taxes on standing timber until harvested. It also by default saved municipalities and county government in unincorporated places the extreme expense of trying to value standing timber for property taxes. This process has worked extremely well, allowing NH to reforest to be one of the top three forested states in the nation. The current laws allow for outdoor recreation including hiking, fishing, hunting and both motorized and non-motorized wheeled recreation. Then came the idea of carbon sequestration, which in NH, punishes NH timber harvesters and political subdivisions from deriving an income to support our families and threaten northern communities and their governments for a long traditional source of revenue needed to fund local governments. Police, education, county taxes and most importantly fire and rescue will all be unaffordable, endangering the very existence of working forests and outdoor recreation. The only real economy left in Coos will be potentially destroyed to please the wealthiest of the wealthy living in areas far from New Hampshire. Passing HB123 is arguably the most important bill this committee will face this year. Please vote HB123 OTP. Thank you, Paul Grenier Berlin

Alex CampbellOpposeMerrimack, NHfor MyselfFeb 10, 2025

Absolutely not. It is unconstitutional for a public school district to send taxpayer funds to a private religious school. Should my local district enter into a contract like this, I would strongly consider a legal challenge. Thank you.

Rebecca TurcotteOpposeHenniker, NHfor MyselfFeb 10, 2025

I oppose this bill and do not believe that any landowner should be taxed on their still standing trees. This type of legislation would allow a logging company or individual that wants these trees to push for this tax to financially force someone to cut their trees. This is New Hampshire - live free or die is our motto- we should not be forced to change our property in order to avoid paying taxes. This will not only financially hurt New Hampshire residents but will be detrimental to the environment by removing wildlife areas. Removing wildlife areas will hurt animal populations and hinder the revenue received from the hunting and fishing trade.