New Hampshire · individual fact

New Hampshire prices and inflation

Compare New Hampshire’s price levels, category costs, and changes in its regional price deflator.

BLS does not publish a statewide New Hampshire CPI or a complete 50-state CPI cohort. The statewide comparisons here use BEA regional price parities and its implicit regional price deflator. They are explicitly labeled and are not CPI.

All-items price level104.22024 · #8 of 50 · highest first
Goods price level98.62024 · #16 of 50 · highest first
Housing-rent price level114.92024 · #11 of 50 · highest first

New Hampshire over time

Explore New Hampshire readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. New Hampshire officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a New Hampshire effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a New Hampshire change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

All-items price level New Hampshire · source units
New HampshirePublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

All-items price level2024: 104.299103.9108.8New Hampshire, 2014: 102.1New Hampshire, 2015: 104New Hampshire, 2016: 105.1New Hampshire, 2017: 105.8New Hampshire, 2018: 103.5New Hampshire, 2019: 104New Hampshire, 2020: 105.3New Hampshire, 2021: 102.6New Hampshire, 2022: 107.8New Hampshire, 2023: 105.4New Hampshire, 2024: 104.2201420192024
✦ Major events & context · 27National context · Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupt fuel supplies · 2005-08-29Katrina / RitaNational context · Global food and energy price surge · 2008-07-15Food / energy surgeNational context · Great Financial Crisis and Great Recession · 2008-09-15Great Financial CrisisNational context · Fed cuts rates near zero during the crisis · 2008-12-16Fed near-zero ratesNational context · American Recovery and Reinvestment Act · 2009-02-17Recovery ActNational context · Renewed global food and oil price pressures · 2011-04-11Commodity pressuresNational context · U.S. drought damages crops and raises food costs · 2012-08-10U.S. droughtNational context · Oil-price collapse lowers energy inflation · 2014-11-27Oil-price collapseNational context · Fed raises rates after the near-zero period · 2015-12-16Fed rate liftoffNational context · Hurricanes Harvey and Irma disrupt fuel markets · 2017-08-25Harvey / IrmaNational context · U.S.–China tariff escalation · 2018-07-06U.S.–China tariffsNational context · Fed cuts rates amid muted inflation · 2019-07-31Fed cuts rates in 2019National context · COVID-19 pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Fed emergency rate cut and asset purchases · 2020-03-15Fed emergency easingNational context · CARES Act pandemic relief · 2020-03-27CARES Act reliefNational context · American Rescue Plan expands pandemic support · 2021-03-11American Rescue PlanNational context · Reopening demand meets supply and chip shortages · 2021-07-09Reopening / shortagesNational context · Avian influenza disrupts egg supplies · 2022-02-09Bird flu / egg supplyNational context · Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine · 2022-02-24Russia invades UkraineNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2022 rate increases · 2022-03-16Fed rate increases beginNational context · Banking stress raises credit and inflation uncertainty · 2023-03-22Banking stressNational context · Supply recovery and slower rent growth ease inflation pressures · 2023-08-25Supply / rent easingNational context · Red Sea shipping disruption raises supply risks · 2024-02-22Red Sea shippingNational context · Federal Reserve cuts rates in September 2024 · 2024-09-18Fed rate cutNational context · Broad U.S. tariff announcement · 2025-04-02U.S. tariff announcementNational context · Federal shutdown interrupts CPI collection · 2025-10-01Shutdown / CPI data gapNational context · Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz energy disruption · 2026-02-28Iran / Hormuz shock● New Hampshire Legislature · 1● U.S. Congress · New Hampshire delegation · 1◆ Governor · 1■ New Hampshire agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2005-08-012026-06-30

3 of 3 reviewed New Hampshire actions match · 3 date markers shown. 27 major events shown separately.

New Hampshire · 2024: 104.2 · Rank #8 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100

BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year. Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare New Hampshire with the published U.S. category value shown. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

View observations and export data
New Hampshire All-items price level · source units
PeriodNew HampshireRankU.S. benchmark
2024104.2#8 of 50100
2023105.4#7 of 50100
2022107.8#6 of 50100
2021102.6#12 of 50100
2020105.3#8 of 50100
2019104#8 of 50100
2018103.5#11 of 50100
2017105.8#9 of 50100
2016105.1#9 of 50100
2015104#9 of 50100
2014102.1#12 of 50100
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

New Hampshire · state comparison

How does New Hampshire’s cost of living compare?

The U.S. all-items level is 100. Each category uses its own published U.S. benchmark. Compare the same category and year.

New Hampshire · 2024104.2
New Hampshire rank#8among all 50 states
U.S. price level100Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

All-items price level

BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year.

Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare New Hampshire with the published U.S. category value shown.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

New Hampshire
All-items price level history in New Hampshire98.8103.910920142024
2024 · New Hampshire: 104.2 · Rank #8 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
New Hampshire All-items price level history
PeriodNew HampshireCompare
2014102.1
2015104
2016105.1
2017105.8
2018103.5
2019104
2020105.3
2021102.6
2022107.8
2023105.4
2024104.2

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. New Hampshire stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. New Hampshire has a dark outline.

Lower value · 86.9Higher value · 110.7Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

New Hampshire · 104.22024 · Rank #8 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare New Hampshire with every state · 50 ranked
All-items price level · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California110.7—
#2Hawaii110—
#3New Jersey108.8—
#4New York107.9—
#5Washington107—
#6Massachusetts105.8—
#7Maryland105—
#8New Hampshire · your comparison104.2—
#9Connecticut103.6—
#10Florida103.4—
#11Oregon103.4—
#12Colorado103.1—
#13Alaska102.4—
#14Rhode Island102.3—
#15Virginia101.1—
#16Arizona100.7—
#17Nevada100—
#18Illinois100—
#19Delaware99.8—
#20Utah98.9—
#21Minnesota98.6—
#22Vermont98—
#23Pennsylvania97.6—
#24Texas97.1—
#25Maine97.1—
#26Georgia96.3—
#27Michigan96.2—
#28Idaho95.5—
#29Montana94.6—
#30North Carolina94.3—
#31Wisconsin94.1—
#32South Carolina93.7—
#33Indiana93.3—
#34Ohio92.8—
#35Wyoming92.7—
#36New Mexico92.2—
#37Tennessee91.9—
#38Missouri90.8—
#39Kentucky90.2—
#40Nebraska90.1—
#41Kansas90.1—
#42West Virginia89.5—
#43North Dakota89—
#44Alabama88.8—
#45South Dakota88.6—
#46Louisiana88.2—
#47Oklahoma87.8—
#48Iowa87.8—
#49Mississippi87—
#50Arkansas86.9—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

New Hampshire · state comparison

How much have prices changed?

This is BEA’s implicit regional price deflator, derived from regional price parities and the national PCE price index.

New Hampshire · 20241.4%
New Hampshire rank#46among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark2.6%Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Annual change in regional price deflator

Year-over-year change in the BEA implicit regional price deflator.

An annual regional inflation measure; different from BLS CPI-U. Changes can reflect regional price parity estimates and revisions as well as national inflation.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

New Hampshire
Annual change in regional price deflator history in New Hampshire-1.9%6%13.8%20152024
2024 · New Hampshire: 1.4% · Rank #46 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 2.6% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
New Hampshire Annual change in regional price deflator history
PeriodNew HampshireCompare
20152%
20162.1%
20172.4%
2018-0.1%
20191.9%
20202.4%
20211.4%
202212%
20231.4%
20241.4%

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. New Hampshire stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. New Hampshire has a dark outline.

Lower value · 0.8%Higher value · 6.7%Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

New Hampshire · 1.4%2024 · Rank #46 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare New Hampshire with every state · 50 ranked
Annual change in regional price deflator · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Montana6.7%—
#2Idaho6.2%—
#3Utah6%—
#4Nevada4.8%—
#5Michigan4.7%—
#6New Mexico4%—
#7Indiana4%—
#8Wyoming3.9%—
#9Illinois3.9%—
#10Colorado3.8%—
#11Delaware3.7%—
#12Ohio3.6%—
#13Wisconsin3.6%—
#14North Dakota3.5%—
#15Vermont3.5%—
#16South Dakota3.1%—
#17Maryland3%—
#18Minnesota3%—
#19Kentucky2.9%—
#20South Carolina2.9%—
#21Hawaii2.9%—
#22Rhode Island2.8%—
#23Mississippi2.8%—
#24Kansas2.8%—
#25Pennsylvania2.8%—
#26Arkansas2.8%—
#27New York2.7%—
#28Arizona2.6%—
#29North Carolina2.5%—
#30Texas2.5%—
#31New Jersey2.5%—
#32West Virginia2.5%—
#33Nebraska2.4%—
#34Georgia2.4%—
#35Florida2.4%—
#36Virginia2.4%—
#37Tennessee2.4%—
#38Alabama2.3%—
#39Missouri2.3%—
#40Louisiana2%—
#41Connecticut2%—
#42Alaska1.7%—
#43Maine1.7%—
#44Oklahoma1.6%—
#45Iowa1.5%—
#46New Hampshire · your comparison1.4%—
#47Washington1.3%—
#48California1.3%—
#49Oregon1.2%—
#50Massachusetts0.8%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

New Hampshire · state comparison

Are incomes keeping up with prices?

Real personal income accounts for national inflation and regional price differences.

New Hampshire · 2024$64,632
New Hampshire rank#8among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$59,195Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Real personal income per person

Regional price-adjusted and inflation-adjusted personal income per resident.

Constant 2017 dollars. This differs from household wages, disposable income, and the national real-hourly-earnings measure.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

New Hampshire
Real personal income per person history in New Hampshire$44.86K$56.99K$69.12K20142024
2024 · New Hampshire: $64,632 · Rank #8 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $59,195 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
New Hampshire Real personal income per person history
PeriodNew HampshireCompare
2014$52,500
2015$53,623
2016$54,017
2017$54,844
2018$57,215
2019$59,512
2020$61,489
2021$66,325
2022$60,234
2023$62,459
2024$64,632

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. New Hampshire stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. New Hampshire has a dark outline.

Lower value · $48.47KHigher value · $75.5KStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

New Hampshire · $64,6322024 · Rank #8 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare New Hampshire with every state · 50 ranked
Real personal income per person · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Wyoming$75,501—
#2Connecticut$74,254—
#3Massachusetts$71,629—
#4South Dakota$69,153—
#5Nebraska$65,297—
#6North Dakota$65,271—
#7Colorado$65,223—
#8New Hampshire · your comparison$64,632—
#9Washington$64,421—
#10New York$64,153—
#11New Jersey$63,142—
#12California$63,028—
#13Minnesota$62,039—
#14Virginia$61,914—
#15Maryland$61,111—
#16Illinois$60,333—
#17Alaska$60,272—
#18Iowa$60,144—
#19Montana$59,203—
#20Kansas$59,172—
#21Vermont$58,893—
#22Oklahoma$58,692—
#23Pennsylvania$58,620—
#24Tennessee$58,582—
#25Wisconsin$58,273—
#26Texas$58,219—
#27Missouri$57,850—
#28Maine$57,480—
#29Florida$57,131—
#30Louisiana$56,789—
#31Nevada$56,503—
#32North Carolina$56,310—
#33Ohio$56,232—
#34Rhode Island$55,878—
#35Indiana$55,562—
#36Oregon$55,451—
#37Arkansas$55,219—
#38Delaware$55,185—
#39Utah$55,116—
#40Michigan$53,569—
#41Georgia$52,952—
#42Arizona$52,890—
#43Idaho$52,816—
#44South Carolina$52,463—
#45Kentucky$52,290—
#46Hawaii$52,272—
#47Alabama$52,216—
#48New Mexico$51,121—
#49West Virginia$50,051—
#50Mississippi$48,465—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living from FactVote’s New Hampshire candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

8 statements from 5 candidates

2026 New Hampshire U.S. House - District 1 General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Stefany Shaheen

1 statement

Democratic · U.S. House District 1 · NH

Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Eliminate home utility bills: The cheapest kilowatt is the one we never use. New housing developments in New Hampshire are already offering homes where families won’t pay a monthly electric bill. You shouldn’t need a new house to make it happen. Retrofitting homes, businesses and other buildings and…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Housing and cost of living

Candidate campaign source

Eliminate home utility bills: The cheapest kilowatt is the one we never use. New housing developments in New Hampshire are already offering homes where families won’t pay a monthly electric bill. You shouldn’t need a new house to make it happen. Retrofitting homes, businesses and other buildings and adding onsite generation reduces costs and our environmental impact at the same time.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Stefany Shaheen — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

2026 New Hampshire U.S. House - District 2 General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 2 statements

Republican · U.S. House District 2 · NH

CPI / inflation mention

For Granite Staters across the 2nd District, affording basics needs like groceries and fuel are at the top-of-mind this year. Life is getting way too expensive, way too quickly. While inflation has subsided greatly from the sustained levels during the last presidential administration, there is more …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, taxes, spending, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

For Granite Staters across the 2nd District, affording basics needs like groceries and fuel are at the top-of-mind this year. Life is getting way too expensive, way too quickly. While inflation has subsided greatly from the sustained levels during the last presidential administration, there is more work to be done amid positive geopolitical pressures.Let me be clear: my #1 priority when getting to Washington, DC to serve as your congresswoman is to work tirelessly every single day to drive down costs for ordinary New Hampshire folks.To that end, I will put more pressure to get special interests, corporations, and the Federal government out of managing the economy. Instead of pushing for public-private partnerships and regulations that seem only to end up helping politically-connected big players, I will endeavor to remove subsidies and red tape for all businesses, large and small, unleashing true market competition. We must allow the free market to thrive. Only then, do costs come down and real job growth and real prosperity naturally follow.Also, the cost of energy has a huge impact on the prices we pay for so many things. We must declare energy freedom and allow access, with appropriate mechanisms to control pollution, to all of our available resources: nuclear, oil, solar, coal, and wind. We should not be in an either/or political fight amongst ourselves on which energy sources to promote. Artificial energy restrictions not only do not make sense for national security (dependence on other countries), but it further divides and impoverishes the country.Lastly, plain and simple, the government must reduce its spending; we must grow the economy and start paying down the national debt. Our children and grandchildren will thank us.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Lily Tang Williams — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

Robbie Mahrou

1 statement

Independent · U.S. House District 2 · NH

Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Protect family farms and local food independence from excessive regulation and high energy costs. 87% of NH farms report less than $50,000 in gross annual sales.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, taxes, spending, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

Protect family farms and local food independence from excessive regulation and high energy costs. 87% of NH farms report less than $50,000 in gross annual sales.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Robbie Mahrou — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗

2026 New Hampshire U.S. Senate General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 5 statements

Chris Pappas

4 statements

Democratic · U.S. Senate · NH

Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

On the Executive Council, Chris voted to expand Medicaid to bring down health care costs and increase access for tens of thousands of Granite Staters. In Congress, Chris is fighting to restore ACA enhanced premium tax credits, and he forced a vote on legislation to prevent health care costs from sky…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care and the opioid crisis

Candidate campaign source

On the Executive Council, Chris voted to expand Medicaid to bring down health care costs and increase access for tens of thousands of Granite Staters. In Congress, Chris is fighting to restore ACA enhanced premium tax credits, and he forced a vote on legislation to prevent health care costs from skyrocketing. He is also leading the effort to protect Granite Staters from the disastrous Trump tariffs that have created record-high prices and reimburse small businesses for the tens of thousands of dollars they’ve been forced to pay.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Chris Pappas — candidate-owned primary source 7 ↗
View 3 more statements from Chris Pappas
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

New Hampshire is facing a housing crisis — average home prices are skyrocketing, housing construction is stalling, working families are being priced out of rental units, and homeownership feels out of reach for many Granite Staters. Chris is fighting to tackle the housing affordability crisis by tak…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Housing and cost of living

Candidate campaign source

New Hampshire is facing a housing crisis — average home prices are skyrocketing, housing construction is stalling, working families are being priced out of rental units, and homeownership feels out of reach for many Granite Staters. Chris is fighting to tackle the housing affordability crisis by taking on Wall Street firms that are driving up costs, cutting red tape to build more housing, supporting first-time homebuyers, and working to make homeownership attainable for hardworking families again. Read Chris’s full plan to lower housing costs.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Chris Pappas — candidate-owned primary source 5 ↗
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Chris believes that Granite Staters should not have to worry about how they can afford to heat their homes, turn their lights on, or fill up their gas tanks. That’s why he’s fighting to lower energy costs for New Hampshire families by cutting energy taxes, protecting heating assistance programs like…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Energy and the environment

Candidate campaign source

Chris believes that Granite Staters should not have to worry about how they can afford to heat their homes, turn their lights on, or fill up their gas tanks. That’s why he’s fighting to lower energy costs for New Hampshire families by cutting energy taxes, protecting heating assistance programs like LIHEAP, lowering utility bills for veterans and military families, and defending clean energy tax credits that reduce costs, promote sustainability, and create jobs. He’s taking on Big Oil and standing up to the Trump Administration’s damaging policies that would raise heating, gas, and electricity costs. He’s also leading efforts with Senator Mark Kelly to suspend the federal gas tax and provide relief to Granite Staters at the pump. Read Chris’s full plan to lower energy costs.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Chris Pappas — candidate-owned primary source 5 ↗
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Right now New Hampshire families are being squeezed by unprecedented price tags at grocery stores across the state. Chris Pappas is fighting to lower grocery costs by taking on corporate price gouging and opposing Trump’s reckless tariffs that act as a tax on working families. He supports rolling ba…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, taxes, spending, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

Right now New Hampshire families are being squeezed by unprecedented price tags at grocery stores across the state. Chris Pappas is fighting to lower grocery costs by taking on corporate price gouging and opposing Trump’s reckless tariffs that act as a tax on working families. He supports rolling back harmful new tariffs on food and everyday essentials, cracking down on AI-driven price discrimination, and protecting the nutrition assistance programs that thousands of working Granite Staters rely on. Pappas believes no family should struggle to afford groceries while big corporations rake in record profits. Read Chris’s full plan to lower grocery costs.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Chris Pappas — candidate-owned primary source 5 ↗

John E. Sununu

1 statement

Republican · U.S. Senate · NH

CPI / inflation mention

Reduce inflation and lower the costs of housing, health care, and energy for New Hampshire families.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Household Costs

Candidate campaign source

Reduce inflation and lower the costs of housing, health care, and energy for New Hampshire families.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

John E. Sununu campaign source 2 ↗
How statements are selected

This section matches specific inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living terms in retained, attributed source text from published New Hampshire candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

New Hampshire incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current New Hampshire legislators and New Hampshire’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from New Hampshire’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

2 matching sponsorships or proposals · 2 New Hampshire incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Chris Pappas

U.S. House of Representatives, New Hampshire District 1 · D–NH

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Chris Pappas
U.S. Congress · New Hampshire delegation · HR 7919

Gas Prices Relief Act of 2026

Mar 12, 2026 · In Congress

Rep. Chris Pappas · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

H.R. 7919 proposes suspending the specified federal gasoline excise tax and leaking-underground-storage-tank financing rate from enactment through September 30, 2026. It replaces trust-fund revenue from general funds and directs Treasury to use applicable powers to pass the benefit to consumers. The bill remains in Congress, so it establishes no tax holiday or price reduction. The linked gasoline fact represents New England, not New Hampshire alone.

Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

The EIA fact is a New England regional regular-gasoline price proxy, not a New Hampshire-only price. A proposed federal gasoline-tax holiday concerns a price component across the region and nation; it does not establish enactment or consumer savings. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained New Hampshire evidence context: New England regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

2.2026 gasoline tax holiday (a)In generalIn the case of gasoline removed, entered, or sold on or after the date of the enactment of this Act and before October 1, 2026— (1)the rate of tax under section 4081(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be zero, and (2)the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate under section 4081(a)(2)(B) of such Code shall not apply to gasoline to which the rate under paragraph (1) applies. (b)Transfers to Trust Fund (1)In generalThe Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund established under section 9503(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund established under section 9508(a) of such Code amounts equal to the reduction in amounts credited (but for this subsection) to each such Trust Fund by reason of subsection (a). (2)Coordination rules (A)Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust FundAmounts transferred to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund under paragraph (1) shall be treated for purposes of sections 9503(b)(1) and 9508(b)(2) of such Code as taxes received in the Treasury under section 4081 of such Code attributable to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate. (B)Highway Trust FundAmounts transferred to the Highway Trust Fund under paragraph (1) shall be treated for purposes of section 9503(b)(1) of such Code as taxes received in the Treasury under section 4081 of such Code which are not attributable to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate. (c)Benefits of tax reduction should be passed on to consumers (1)It is the policy of Congress that— (A)consumers immediately receive the benefit of the reduction in taxes resulting from the application of subsection (a), (B)transportation motor fuels producers and other dealers take such actions as necessary to reduce transportation motor fuels prices to reflect such reduction, and (C)transportation motor fuels producers and other dealers that fail to reduce transportation motor fuels prices to reflect such reduction shall be subject to monetary penalties which are not less than the amount of the reduction in taxes which should have been passed on to consumers. (2)EnforcementThe Secretary of the Treasury shall use all applicable authorities to ensure that the benefit of the reduction in taxes resulting from the application of subsection (a) is received by consumers.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Michael D Harrington

New Hampshire House of Representatives, Strafford 18 · R–NH

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Michael D Harrington
New Hampshire Legislature · HB 1733

(New Title) relative to the reconciliation of default electric service rates.

Jun 16, 2026 · Enacted · Chapter 147

Rep. Michael D Harrington · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1733 prohibits recovering differences between actual and estimated wholesale default-electric-service costs through non-bypassable charges, except when the Public Utilities Commission finds extraordinary circumstances in an adjudicative proceeding. It took effect upon approval on June 16, 2026. The exception remains, and the law does not establish a particular price reduction.

Chapter 147, approved 2026-06-16. Approval, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.

Why this record is included

The fact measures retail electricity revenue per kilowatthour across customer sectors. Default-service reconciliation charges concern one regulated price component, not every customer’s rate or a demonstrated statewide price reduction. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained New Hampshire evidence context: Average retail electricity price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

147:1 Restructuring Policy Principles. Amend RSA 374-F:3, V(e) to read as follows: (e) Notwithstanding any provision of subparagraphs (b) and (c), as competitive markets develop, the commission may approve alternative means of providing transition or default services which are designed to minimize customer risk, not unduly harm the development of competitive markets, and mitigate against price volatility without creating new deferred costs, if the commission determines such means to be in the public interest. No reconciliation of actual and estimated wholesale power supply costs incurred by a utility to provide default service shall be recovered through a non-bypassable charge, except in extraordinary circumstances as found to exist by the commission through an adjudicative proceeding. 147:2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current New Hampshire officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a New Hampshire statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.