#

It’s a tale of two major New Hampshire employers in the same industry.

While firearms manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., reports a sharp drop in revenue and earnings, fellow gunmaker Sig Sauer is working on major expansions of its facilities on the Seacoast.

Based in Connecticut, Ruger has a manufacturing facility in Newport that is a key employer in the state’s Upper Valley region. Sig Sauer Inc., the American spin-off of the German company, is an economic powerhouse in the Seacoast region, with manufacturing as well as training facilities here. The company is based in Newington.

This month, Ruger reported another quarter of low sales and earnings, part of a slide that started in 2021. Ruger’s first quarter of 2023 saw net sales of $149.5 million and diluted earnings of 81 cents per share. That was a large drop from 2022’s first quarter, when Ruger had net sales of $166.6 million and diluted earnings of $1.70 per share.

Ruger CEO Christopher Killoy said in a statement to investors that the earnings drop is simply because fewer people are buying guns. Ruger has responded to the sales slide by making fewer guns.

“Decreased consumer demand led to a 10 percent reduction in first quarter sales compared to the prior year. We took a disciplined approach, targeted a production mix that better aligned with consumer demand, and continued to responsibly manage our overall production levels to reflect market conditions as we did throughout 2022,” Killoy said.

Gun sales across the industry have slipped since the record highs in 2020 associated with concerns about safety during the COVID pandemic. Firearms industry journalist Stephen Gutowski with The Reload reports that while 21 million guns were sold in 2020, there were 18 million sold in 2021 and 16 million in 2022. 

Sig Sauer is not a public company, but the recent initiative to expand its facilities, which includes close to $40 million in loans from the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, indicates financial strength.

On the other hand, Killoy told investors the company is facing worries over its ability to get financing and credit. Large banks are choosing political optics over business and so refuse to do business with firearms firms, even small businesses like gun shops.

“(W)e have been notified twice in the past five years by two of the nation’s largest banks, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, that they would not provide us with any credit because of the lawful products that we design, manufacture, and sell,” Killoy said.

According to Killoy, Ruger is operating with no debt and plenty of cash. He told investors that the company is well-positioned to break out of the slump.

“Our long-term focus will continue to yield strong cash flow, prioritize the development of innovative new products, and safeguard our robust, debt-free balance sheet, which in turn will allow us to withstand the volatility of the ever-changing firearms market,” Killoy said.

It’s not just the financial sector and a volatile market that gunmakers must worry about. It’s an industry hostage to irrational forces beyond its control: The government.

A firearms industry insider who spoke to N.H. Journal said that even as the threat of some government regulation can drive sales of guns, like a proposed assault weapons ban, other regulations can have a crippling effect on business. 

In New Hampshire, state Sen. Deb Altschiller (D-Stratham) pushed a bill this year that would have opened the floodgates for lawsuits against gunmakers and gun sellers. Altschiler’s SB 247 would have removed limited liability for gunmakers, distributors, and dealers. 

The industry insider said Altschiller’s bill would have let crime victims sue companies like Ruger if, say, a Ruger gun was used in a crime. The gun store that sold that Ruger could also get sued. The bill was spiked in the Senate along party lines 14-10.

Sig Sauer is currently facing lawsuits from 70 people claiming they were injured when their Sig Sauer P320 pistols fired without pulling the triggers. The P320 9 mm pistol, a civilian version of a weapon sold to law enforcement, is one of Sig Sauer’s bestselling guns.

According to the industry insider, a key difference between Ruger and Sig Sauer comes down to who is buying which particular brand.

Ruger’s lineup is seen as more budget-friendly and geared to average gun owners with a range of hunting rifles, sporting rifles, pistols, and a well-known line of Cowboy-style single-action revolvers.

Ruger’s most recent high-profile business venture was buying Marlin, the defunct maker of level-action rifles, and bringing buyers a new line of old-fashioned weapons.

Sig Sauer makes high-end guns for the retail market, and its firearms are nearly three times as expensive as comparable Rugers. The company also produces high-end pistols, rifles, and machine guns for the military and police markets. Sig Sauer signed a 10-year contract with the U.S. Army last year, reportedly worth $580 million.

Sig Sauer is supplying the Army with new assault rifles and machine guns using specially developed Sig Sauer ammunition as part of the military’s Next Generation Squad Weapon program.

Representatives for Ruger and Sig Sauer declined to respond to requests for comment.

It’s New Hampshire Energy Week in the Granite State. Throughout the week, lawmakers and energy policy advocates discussed some of the challenges facing the state, solutions to solve these problems, and important pieces of legislation coming up in the next two years.

Under the Republican-controlled Legislature, it’s not exactly clear what energy policy issues the GOP leadership and Gov. Chris Sununu are going to prioritize, but there are some interesting bills that could come up for a vote during Sununu’s term.

Here are two controversial energy bills in front of the Legislature this session:

REPEALING RGGI

Rep. Michael Harrington, R-Strafford, is sponsoring House Bill 592, which would end New Hampshire’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI is a cap-and-trade program where utilities pay for carbon dioxide emission allowances. This serves to control and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The funds from these allowances are used for energy efficiency projects and ratepayer rebates.  Currently, eight other states in the Northeast participate in the program. New Jersey was also a member of RGGI, but pulled out of the program in 2011.

This bill has been opposed by pro-energy and environment groups like the NH Sierra Club and the New Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association (NHSEA).

“Repealing RGGI would be a mistake for New Hampshire in terms of our economy, our environment and our public health,” said Michelle McCarthy, campaign organizer of Environment New Hampshire, at a hearing on the bill in February in front of the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee.

Opponents of the bills point to an Abt Associates report that was released in January, which estimates that the state avoided $100 million in higher health care costs by reducing pollution. They claim that since RGGI’s inception in 2008, electricity prices have decreased in the participating states by 3.4 percent, while costs nationally have increased by 7.2 percent.

Supporters of pulling out of RGGI say New Hampshire still has some of the highest energy costs, especially for commercial and industrial companies. With high energy costs, businesses are looking to move or expand in other states.

“This is not rocket science, and companies like Sig Sauer are doing the math and realizing it’s cheaper to move jobs out of New Hampshire to cheaper-power states,” said Greg Moore, state director of American’s for Prosperity, at the hearing.

In December, Sig Sauer announced it was expanding its operations in Arkansas, and New Hampshire’s high electric rates was a motivating factor. The company is still retaining its offices in the Granite State, though, and it was announced this year that the company was awarded with a whopping $580 million, 10-year contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture its pistols.

A University of New Hampshire research study released Tuesday determined that New England does not need to increase energy use to continue to grow its economy.

“It is important to prevent further increases in the cost of energy and ideally to reduce the overall cost of electricity in New Hampshire, especially for customer groups adversely affected by the state’s relatively high electricity prices, including more intensive commercial and industrial users as well as low-income households that pay a greater portion of their income for energy,” the researchers noted.

Kate Epsen, a member of the NHSEA, said it’s time to quash the belief that just because of New Hampshire’s energy prices, businesses are leaving or not coming to the state.

“We hear a lot of clamor over these high rates, but the bottom line of the bills people receive is that they are the same or lower than the national averages,” she told NH Journal. “We need to weigh the risks versus rewards of a single, very large type of project or more energy efficient technologies that are more broad based and keep jobs and dollars in the state economy.”

Epsen alluded to the ever controversial Northern Pass project — the 192-mile proposed hydroelectric line from Canada to Deerfield. Proponents of the project says the power would reduce energy costs for residents and businesses, but opponents cite possible environmental issues from putting the lines underground to high towers ruining New Hampshire vistas and impacting tourism. The state’s Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) is expected to decide in the fall if the project will move forward or not.

However, Moore and supporters of RGGI agreed that perhaps the program shouldn’t be repealed, but could be made better to fit New Hampshire’s needs.

He said all the money collected should be rebated to customers, which could save homeowners $1.3 million a year and commercial and industrial customers could save $2 million.

Catherine Corkery, chapter director of the NH Sierra Club, said the program should be made better, not eliminated.

“The politically motivated repeal bills are putting the program at risk every year, making it unstable and difficult for users to rely on,” she said. “Repeated repeal threats exhaust resources and delay helping people.”

The bill has been retained in committee, meaning after working on the bill during the summer months, it could come up again for a vote in the next legislative session. A complicating factor to the debate is the federal Clean Power Plan (CPP), former President Barack Obama’s initiative to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. RGGI currently satisfies the federal requirements for the plan, yet President Donald Trump has pledged that he would dismantle CPP and could do so as early as next week.

Sununu indicated on the campaign trail that he would consider withdrawing from RGGI, but only if other states also left.

REPEALING ELECTRIC RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD

House Bill 225 would repeal the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which would require 17 percent renewables to be used by the state’s utilities this year. Those renewable energy sources include wind turbines, hydroelectric dams, solar panels, and even biomass plants.

If a utility does not meet its quota for renewable energy, it must make payments to the renewable energy fund, which is then spent on grants and rebates for individuals and businesses working on renewable energy projects.

New Hampshire’s RPS sets annual targets for electricity providers, and they meet targets by earning renewable energy certificates (RECs) for selling renewable power to retail customers. They can also buy RECs from other providers to comply.

Supporters of a repeal say renewable energy is more expensive than other energy sources, so the RPS forces consumers to pay for more expensive electricity. When utilities do not buy enough renewable energy, they essentially pay to subsidize more renewable energy projects. Due to these subsidies, there is little incentive for renewable energy sources to lower their prices. The legislature has also used money from the renewable energy fund to pay for unrelated budget items in the past.

Supporters of the RPS argue the law is necessary to ensure the development of renewable energy. A shortage of natural gas in New England caused electricity rates to spike over the winter months, highlighting the need for more diverse and renewable energy sources. Grants from the renewable energy fund also contribute significantly to the North Country economy, for the biomass and forestry industries.

Rep. Bart Fromuth, R-Bedford, sponsored a similar bill in 2015, but the House tabled it. However, the bill with an amendment was passed by the House in a Thursday executive session.

The Citizens Count, NH’s Live Free or Die Alliance — a nonpartisan organization looking to give citizen’s a voice in their local government — conducted a Facebook survey of New Hampshire residents on their support for the bill in January.

Approximately 55 percent said they were opposed to repealing the RPS, compared to 45 percent who were in favor of repealing, the survey found.

Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley has been a leading voice of energy policy in New Hampshire. He said he understand the concern of high energy prices, but doesn’t believe the bills repealing RGGI and RPS will ultimately pass.

“When all is said and done, the current laws will largely stay in place,” he told the Associated Press. “What we need to do in New England is to site new sources of generation in a way that protects people’s property values and their rights. That is a tough needle to thread.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.