U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has told the New Hampshire Union Leader that the state's repeal of its Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative participation remains on track at the federal level, signaling continued coordination between the administration and state regulators on a carbon-allowance exit that affects power-sector compliance obligations across the Northeast.

The Administrator's characterization, reported by the New Hampshire Union Leader, places the timeline question back at the center of compliance planning for in-state generators, natural gas utilities and the regional allowance market that prices RGGI allowances quarterly.

What did the EPA head say?

According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, Zeldin indicated the federal process tied to New Hampshire's emissions program withdrawal is proceeding. The statement came in response to questions about the schedule for the state's withdrawal from RGGI, the nine-state cap-and-trade program that New Hampshire joined in 2012 and from which it has since moved to exit.

The Administrator's framing of the repeal as "on track" implies continued federal engagement on the state plan revision process, the administrative mechanism that determines whether a state remains part of the regional carbon-pricing framework.

Why is New Hampshire exiting RGGI?

New Hampshire lawmakers passed legislation in 2024 directing the state's Department of Environmental Services to withdraw from RGGI. The repeal statute set a multi-year compliance horizon for in-state generators, requiring emissions-reductions obligations to be met through the final control period and requiring the state to deposit proceeds from allowance auctions in the energy efficiency fund under the transition schedule.

Supporters of the repeal cited electricity rate concerns and argued that RGGI compliance costs were passed through to residential and commercial ratepayers. Opponents, including environmental groups and the regional grid operator, warned that exit could complicate interstate emissions accounting and reduce funding for weatherization programs that had been supported by auction proceeds.

What is EPA's role in the withdrawal?

Under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, states seeking to modify their state implementation plans for existing fossil-fuel power plants must secure EPA approval. New Hampshire's repeal effectively requires the agency to act on a revised state plan that removes the CO2 emissions cap applicable to affected EGUs.

The federal process determines whether the state can exit on its legislated schedule or whether additional rulemaking, public comment or a federal plan substitute is required. Zeldin's "on track" framing indicates the administration does not anticipate delays on its end of the process.

What changes for generators and allowance markets?

The practical milestones ahead are:

• Final RGGI control period for New Hampshire-affected units, with compliance obligations for covered emissions
• Settlement of remaining allowance auctions and distribution of proceeds
• EPA action on the revised state implementation plan
• Any legal challenges from environmental plaintiffs who have contested the repeal

The repeal also affects auction revenue forecasting for the state's energy efficiency fund, which historically received a share of RGGI proceeds. With exit advancing, New Hampshire DES and the Public Utilities Commission will need to identify replacement funding mechanisms to maintain program continuity for weatherization and utility rebate programs.

What happens next?

The next regulatory milestone is EPA's formal action on New Hampshire's revised state plan. The timing of that action will determine whether the state's legislated exit timeline holds or whether generators must continue to hold RGGI allowances beyond the final control period.

Market participants will watch allowance price movements on the next RGGI auction for signs of how remaining states are recalibrating supply expectations in response to New Hampshire's exit. A state plan approval from EPA would effectively close the federal chapter of the repeal; a denial or request for additional information would reset the timeline and prompt a new round of litigation or legislative action in Concord.

Zeldin's confirmation that the process is on track suggests the administration views the withdrawal as procedurally straightforward, though the underlying litigation over the repeal statute and the accounting of emissions from imported power remain separate tracks that could still alter the outcome.