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.
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
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
2024 · New Hampshire: 104.2 · Rank #8 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
New Hampshire All-items price level history
Period
New Hampshire
Compare
2014
102.1
2015
104
2016
105.1
2017
105.8
2018
103.5
2019
104
2020
105.3
2021
102.6
2022
107.8
2023
105.4
2024
104.2
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
California
110.7
—
#2
Hawaii
110
—
#3
New Jersey
108.8
—
#4
New York
107.9
—
#5
Washington
107
—
#6
Massachusetts
105.8
—
#7
Maryland
105
—
#8
New Hampshire · your comparison
104.2
—
#9
Connecticut
103.6
—
#10
Florida
103.4
—
#11
Oregon
103.4
—
#12
Colorado
103.1
—
#13
Alaska
102.4
—
#14
Rhode Island
102.3
—
#15
Virginia
101.1
—
#16
Arizona
100.7
—
#17
Nevada
100
—
#18
Illinois
100
—
#19
Delaware
99.8
—
#20
Utah
98.9
—
#21
Minnesota
98.6
—
#22
Vermont
98
—
#23
Pennsylvania
97.6
—
#24
Texas
97.1
—
#25
Maine
97.1
—
#26
Georgia
96.3
—
#27
Michigan
96.2
—
#28
Idaho
95.5
—
#29
Montana
94.6
—
#30
North Carolina
94.3
—
#31
Wisconsin
94.1
—
#32
South Carolina
93.7
—
#33
Indiana
93.3
—
#34
Ohio
92.8
—
#35
Wyoming
92.7
—
#36
New Mexico
92.2
—
#37
Tennessee
91.9
—
#38
Missouri
90.8
—
#39
Kentucky
90.2
—
#40
Nebraska
90.1
—
#41
Kansas
90.1
—
#42
West Virginia
89.5
—
#43
North Dakota
89
—
#44
Alabama
88.8
—
#45
South Dakota
88.6
—
#46
Louisiana
88.2
—
#47
Oklahoma
87.8
—
#48
Iowa
87.8
—
#49
Mississippi
87
—
#50
Arkansas
86.9
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
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
2024 · New Hampshire: 1.4% · Rank #46 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 2.6% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
New Hampshire Annual change in regional price deflator history
Period
New Hampshire
Compare
2015
2%
2016
2.1%
2017
2.4%
2018
-0.1%
2019
1.9%
2020
2.4%
2021
1.4%
2022
12%
2023
1.4%
2024
1.4%
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Montana
6.7%
—
#2
Idaho
6.2%
—
#3
Utah
6%
—
#4
Nevada
4.8%
—
#5
Michigan
4.7%
—
#6
New Mexico
4%
—
#7
Indiana
4%
—
#8
Wyoming
3.9%
—
#9
Illinois
3.9%
—
#10
Colorado
3.8%
—
#11
Delaware
3.7%
—
#12
Ohio
3.6%
—
#13
Wisconsin
3.6%
—
#14
North Dakota
3.5%
—
#15
Vermont
3.5%
—
#16
South Dakota
3.1%
—
#17
Maryland
3%
—
#18
Minnesota
3%
—
#19
Kentucky
2.9%
—
#20
South Carolina
2.9%
—
#21
Hawaii
2.9%
—
#22
Rhode Island
2.8%
—
#23
Mississippi
2.8%
—
#24
Kansas
2.8%
—
#25
Pennsylvania
2.8%
—
#26
Arkansas
2.8%
—
#27
New York
2.7%
—
#28
Arizona
2.6%
—
#29
North Carolina
2.5%
—
#30
Texas
2.5%
—
#31
New Jersey
2.5%
—
#32
West Virginia
2.5%
—
#33
Nebraska
2.4%
—
#34
Georgia
2.4%
—
#35
Florida
2.4%
—
#36
Virginia
2.4%
—
#37
Tennessee
2.4%
—
#38
Alabama
2.3%
—
#39
Missouri
2.3%
—
#40
Louisiana
2%
—
#41
Connecticut
2%
—
#42
Alaska
1.7%
—
#43
Maine
1.7%
—
#44
Oklahoma
1.6%
—
#45
Iowa
1.5%
—
#46
New Hampshire · your comparison
1.4%
—
#47
Washington
1.3%
—
#48
California
1.3%
—
#49
Oregon
1.2%
—
#50
Massachusetts
0.8%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
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
2024 · New Hampshire: $64,632 · Rank #8 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $59,195 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
New Hampshire Real personal income per person history
Period
New Hampshire
Compare
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Wyoming
$75,501
—
#2
Connecticut
$74,254
—
#3
Massachusetts
$71,629
—
#4
South Dakota
$69,153
—
#5
Nebraska
$65,297
—
#6
North Dakota
$65,271
—
#7
Colorado
$65,223
—
#8
New Hampshire · your comparison
$64,632
—
#9
Washington
$64,421
—
#10
New York
$64,153
—
#11
New Jersey
$63,142
—
#12
California
$63,028
—
#13
Minnesota
$62,039
—
#14
Virginia
$61,914
—
#15
Maryland
$61,111
—
#16
Illinois
$60,333
—
#17
Alaska
$60,272
—
#18
Iowa
$60,144
—
#19
Montana
$59,203
—
#20
Kansas
$59,172
—
#21
Vermont
$58,893
—
#22
Oklahoma
$58,692
—
#23
Pennsylvania
$58,620
—
#24
Tennessee
$58,582
—
#25
Wisconsin
$58,273
—
#26
Texas
$58,219
—
#27
Missouri
$57,850
—
#28
Maine
$57,480
—
#29
Florida
$57,131
—
#30
Louisiana
$56,789
—
#31
Nevada
$56,503
—
#32
North Carolina
$56,310
—
#33
Ohio
$56,232
—
#34
Rhode Island
$55,878
—
#35
Indiana
$55,562
—
#36
Oregon
$55,451
—
#37
Arkansas
$55,219
—
#38
Delaware
$55,185
—
#39
Utah
$55,116
—
#40
Michigan
$53,569
—
#41
Georgia
$52,952
—
#42
Arizona
$52,890
—
#43
Idaho
$52,816
—
#44
South Carolina
$52,463
—
#45
Kentucky
$52,290
—
#46
Hawaii
$52,272
—
#47
Alabama
$52,216
—
#48
New Mexico
$51,121
—
#49
West Virginia
$50,051
—
#50
Mississippi
$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.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
3 of 3 reviewed New Hampshire actions · newest first
Jun 16, 2026 · HB 1733 · (New Title) relative to the reconciliation of default electric service rates. · Enacted · Chapter 147New 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.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 16, 2026 · HB 1733 · (New Title) relative to the reconciliation of default electric service rates. · SignedGovernor · HB 1733
(New Title) relative to the reconciliation of default electric service rates.
Jun 16, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Kelly Ayotte · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Kelly Ayotte signed HB 1733. 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.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 12, 2026 · HR 7919 · Gas Prices Relief Act of 2026 · In CongressU.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.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified New Hampshire officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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 proposalView proposals from Rep. Chris PappasU.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.
New Hampshire House of Representatives, Strafford 18 · R–NH
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Michael D HarringtonNew 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.
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.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
New Hampshire snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to New Hampshire, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.