Prohibiting the intentional release of polluting emissions, including cloud seeding, weather modification, excessive electromagnetic radio frequency, and microwave radiation and making penalties for violation of such prohibition.
HB 764 would create a new prohibition in New Hampshire law against “geoengineering” activities, including weather modification, stratospheric aerosol injection, and solar radiation modification, when those activities involve the intentional release of polluting emissions. The bill also frames cloud seeding as generally prohibited, but allows it in a narrow exception during a governor-declared state of emergency for a catastrophic drought, subject to environmental review, public notice, and oversight by the Department of Environmental Services (DES).
The bill would add a new subdivision to RSA 125-C, establish enforcement procedures, and create civil and criminal penalties for violations. It authorizes notices of violation, abatement orders, injunctions, civil forfeitures of up to $25,000 per violation per day, and misdemeanor or felony liability depending on the violator. It also requires DES to notify a list of federal agencies and research bodies that geoengineering is prohibited in New Hampshire, and it repeals RSA 12-F, the existing weather modification law.
HB 764 would significantly expand state regulation of atmospheric modification activities by creating a broad statutory ban on geoengineering and related practices, while replacing the current weather modification framework with a more restrictive regime. It would place primary enforcement responsibility on DES and involve the Attorney General, the courts, and potentially the criminal justice system through new civil and criminal penalties. The fiscal note anticipates no revenue impact but estimates substantial and indeterminable state expenditures, largely due to new staffing, technical expertise, monitoring, and enforcement needs.
The available materials suggest the bill is supported by sponsors who view it as a public-health, environmental, and state-security measure intended to prevent deliberate atmospheric manipulation. The bill’s findings emphasize harms to health, agriculture, wildlife, aviation, and the economy, and frame the measure as an assertion of state authority. No committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote history in the supplied materials.
The main points of contention are likely to be the scientific basis and scope of the ban, the inclusion of concepts such as cloud seeding, weather modification, stratospheric aerosol injection, solar radiation modification, and references to electromagnetic radio frequency and microwave radiation. The bill’s broad findings and strong language about federal programs and state sovereignty may also draw concern from opponents who could view it as overbroad, speculative, or difficult to enforce. The fiscal note highlights another likely point of dispute: DES says it lacks the expertise to administer the bill and would need new staff and equipment, creating potentially significant costs to the state.