Representatives weigh promise, value of forests in move to restrict carbon programs

State-owned forestlands around Mount Kearsarge, in Warner. (Photo by Molly Rains, New Hampshire Bulletin)

New Hampshire and its counties may soon be barred from enrolling publicly owned lands in carbon sequestration programs.

“We don’t see sequestration as a traditional use,” said Rep. Mike Ouellet, a Colebrook Republican, at a hearing before the House Committee on Municipal and County Government on Tuesday. The committee later voted, 13-1, to recommend passage of House Bill 1205, which would prohibit “carbon sequestration projects” on state- and county-owned lands.

Forest carbon sequestration is the process through which trees absorb carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas released in large volumes by the burning of fossil fuels, from the atmosphere. Then, trees lock that carbon away for storage by converting it into plant matter. Disturbances like logging and wildfires cause forests to release some carbon back into the atmosphere.

Healthy forests sequester carbon naturally as they grow. Through carbon sequestration contracts, landowners monetize that ability, often marketing it to companies wishing to offset their carbon emissions by purchasing carbon “credits” elsewhere.

The contracts that form the basis of sequestration projects vary. They may permit a range of management practices or require a hands-off approach, and they typically last anywhere from a couple decades to a century, according to Steven Roberge, forest resources state specialist with the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension.

No county- or state-owned land is currently listed on the registry of New Hampshire carbon sequestration projects maintained by the Division of Natural and Cultural Resources. But the long duration of forest carbon contracts and the possibility they would impose restrictions on land use were two reasons bill proponents cited for preventing them on public lands in the future.

“It’s very clear how New Hampshire wants to use its forests, its land, that it’s used for the public enjoyment and not strangled by somehow entering into 100-year contracts,” said Executive Councilor Joseph Kenney, who represents the state’s northern district, at the hearing.

Others said timber harvest could be an important source of revenue for counties and the state, and worried the contracts would have a negative impact on the timber industry. Ouellet, who introduced the bill on behalf of prime sponsor and Milan Republican Rep. Arnold Davis, said sequestration was not one of the traditional uses of public lands.

“We bought that land, as taxpayers, with certain expectations of what it was going to be used for,” he said. “Tying it up … feels like a break in trust.”

Rep. Alvin See, a Loudon Republican, also spoke in favor of the bill. He requested an amendment to add cities and towns to the list of entities that cannot enroll lands in the program, “so that there’s no question that it applies to all public land.”

However, Matt Lahey, public policy director for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, spoke in opposition to the bill. Carbon sequestration projects can bring revenue to forest landowners, including counties or the state, he said. He also spoke in opposition to a blanket prohibition on such projects as proposed by the bill.

More from this section

New Hampshire has 2 billionaires, see who they are

“We take that position acknowledging that there are a whole bunch of questions about these forest carbon markets,” he said, “but we also believe, the forest society believes, that these types of programs could be one option for a forest landowner to generate some more revenue.”

Carbon sequestration and carbon storage are two of the many resources forests offer and can be managed to maximize, Roberge said in a phone interview. But such management strategies don’t always need to occur in the absence of other land uses. Different markets for carbon credits carry different levels of expectation for forest management and use. While some are strict, others allow some activity such as selective timber harvesting, he said. 

The UNH Extension does not advocate for or against any particular management strategy, said Roberge, who added that managing a forest for just one resource like timber or carbon is generally ineffective.

At the hearing, one landowner said carbon sequestration projects often required hands-off management that defers logging to prioritize mature and old-growth trees. 

Mature and old-growth forests are important ecologically and for carbon storage: They store multiple times more carbon than younger, managed forests, and can also continue to accumulate large volumes of carbon if left alone, according to a 2025 study by researchers at the Woodwell Climate Research Center and Wild Heritage.

But one thing that’s often misunderstood about forests and carbon, Roberge said, is the different roles played by forests of different ages. While mature and old-growth forests are important for carbon storage, young, rapidly growing forests have an important role to play, too: as they grow, they rapidly capture the element and sequester it away.

“I think about forest carbon as a bank account,” Roberge said. “Sequestration is the interest rate and storage is the balance. The higher the interest rate, the more your balance grows. … (Old growth) forests are definitely beneficial to have, but so are very young forests. That diversity is very important. We need all those things on the landscape.”

Rep. Julie Gilman, an Exeter Democrat, suggested the statute be changed to an enabling statute, allowing counties or the state to take action themselves and opt-in to prohibiting carbon sequestration projects on their lands. 

“Every county is different,” Gilman said, adding that counties could consider their landscape and timber availability when deciding whether to allow such projects.

“Under current law, counties are permitted to enter into contracts with businesses and other organizations,” said Rep. Laurel Stavis, a Lebanon Democrat. The bill, as proposed, would set up carbon sequestration programs as the only businesses counties could not engage with, she said. But Ouellet said he felt that restriction was justified to honor the intended use of public land.

Ultimately, Gilman was the only representative on the committee to vote against recommending the bill.

A House study committee is currently tasked with studying the topic of carbon sequestration, including the tax impact and policy around the practice, and its impact on forest management and the timber industry. A moratorium on new sequestration contracts on both public and privately owned land over 500 acres is in place until November 2027.

The House Committee on Municipal and County Government voted to place HB 1205 on the consent calendar for future consideration by the full House of Representatives.