The Power of Less:

Reforming Government from the Inside-Out

In 2022, I was appointed to head New Hampshire’s state-level agency responsible for energy facility siting, permitting, and enforcing compliance. It was a role steeped in bureaucracy and inefficiency. My directive was clear: identify areas of improvement, lobby for necessary legislative changes and implement them effectively. Over the past two years, we tackled these challenges head-on and made decisions that, at first glance, might seem counterintuitive. Here’s what we discovered and the bold steps we took to ensure the system works better for everyone.

The first glaring issue was the overlap of investigative and adjudicative functions within my agency. For too long, the same body that investigated potential violations was also responsible for ruling on them. This lack of separation created a situation ripe for conflicts of interest, even if none were ever realized. When some legislators proposed increasing our resources to better handle investigations, I saw an opportunity to do something more meaningful.

Rather than expand my agency’s reach and staff, I advocated for transferring the investigative responsibilities to the newly established Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE was already equipped with the necessary resources and expertise to handle investigations more efficiently. By doing this, we maximized the state’s existing resources, eliminated redundancy, and created a clear firewall between the investigative and adjudicative functions of government. This separation ensures that investigations are conducted impartially and that decisions are made based solely on the merits of each case, without the shadow of internal bias.

The second significant change I spearheaded was perhaps the most uncommon: I advocated for the elimination of my own agency as a staffed office. This decision came from a deep understanding of the larger system and a commitment to ensuring that state resources are used in the most efficient way possible.

As energy projects in the state grew more complex and numerous, it became apparent that my agency, despite its best efforts, was not equipped to handle the increased workload effectively. Instead of lobbying for more staff and resources, I proposed a radical restructuring. We transferred the responsibilities of siting and permitting to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) via a major regulatory reform bill. At the PUC, these functions could be integrated into a larger, better-resourced framework.

I may not be the only bureaucrat who willingly reduced own authority and eliminated his own agency, but I've certainly never heard of another one. At the end of the day, this was about ensuring that New Hampshire’s regulatory policies are managed in the most effective, efficient way possible.

Why does all of this matter? In government, it’s easy to get caught up in the inertia of how things have always been done. Agencies grow, responsibilities overlap, and inefficiencies become the norm. But when we accept that as inevitable, we fail the people we serve. Every dollar spent on unnecessary bureaucracy is a dollar not spent on critical services like education, healthcare, or infrastructure. Every day wasted on duplicative processes is a day that our energy projects—and the economic and environmental benefits they bring—are delayed.

By separating investigative and adjudicative functions, we’ve built a system that is more transparent, fair, and accountable. And by streamlining our siting and permitting processes, we’ve ensured that New Hampshire remains at the forefront of energy innovation, capable of attracting and supporting the projects that will power our future.

In the end, the changes we implemented were not about making government bigger but about making it better. My hope is that these reforms serve as a model for other states facing similar challenges. After all, the goal of public service should always be to leave things better than we found them—even if it means working ourselves out of a job.

###