Wood frame construction is far and away the most common framing for residential construction projects. The National Association of Home Builders recently reported that the average new single-family home uses more than 2,200 square feet of softwood plywood, and more than 6,800 of Oriented Strand Board (OSB), in addition to roughly 15,000 board feet of framing lumber. That softwood is almost entirely Spruce-Pine-Fir (SPF) lumber native to Canada and the northern regions of the United States. SPF is easy to use and is prized for its light weight, strength and stiffness, low shrinkage and swelling rates, making it a favorite for structural applications. This has found its way into our building codes and into many architectural and engineering specifications for construction.
In general, the further north the tree grew, the better the quality of SPF. This has led the industry to designate “SPF” for Canadian grown lumber, and “SPFS” – spruce-pine-fir “south” – for U.S. grown lumber. Codes and specs often favor “SPF” over “SPFS” for this reason. But take a look at any map of North America; there are forested portions of Canada further south than portions of New Hampshire – including all of Coos County, where most New Hampshire lumber is harvested. And this has not escaped the notice of our Legislature.
On April 22, 2026, Governor Ayotte signed HB1204 into law. Its stated purpose is “to ensure that New Hampshire families and New Hampshire builders can build New Hampshire homes with New Hampshire wood by eliminating the barrier between SPF and SPFS within the state building code.” Effective October 19, 2026, New Hampshire native lumber graders’ inability to certify New Hampshire-grown spruce, pine, and fir as “SPF” will no longer prevent the local construction industry from using spruce-pine-fir harvested in the Granite State.
The key statutory provision states: “For purposes of the state building code, spruce-pine-fir south (SPFS) lumber harvested and milled in New Hampshire . . . shall be accepted wherever spruce-pine-fir (SPF) is specified.” There is a further directive that “Licensed architects and structural engineers shall also consider and shall provide alternative options of construction utilizing SPFS lumber.” An exception is included for design professionals who have a particular reason to specify SPF for the safety and structural integrity of a structure, but we can expect this exception to be rarely invoked once the new statute, designated as RSA 155-A:15, goes into effect.
Another change to the law governing lumber usage is on the horizon: SB529, which has now passed both houses of the New Hampshire Legislature and will soon be on the Governor’s desk. It provides:
“The material specification of any state-funded building in New Hampshire shall give preference to lumber harvested in the United States, unless design criteria necessitates utilizing imported sourcing. Construction drawings or design specifications utilizing softwood framing lumber harvested in the United States shall reference United State-sourced spruce-pine-fir lumber (SPFs).”
State-funded building in New Hampshire is a small percentage of total construction, but a legislated preference for American-grown SPF could still skew the market a bit. If equally good Canadian lumber becomes available at a lower price, but New Hampshire taxpayers are forced to pay more money for equivalent domestic goods, the result will be a taxpayer subsidy of the American lumber industry. And New Hampshire taxpayers will end up subsidizing New York, Vermont and Maine lumbermen as well as our own, with no reciprocity required. This kind of “buy American” legislation is better suited for Washington than Concord.
At the moment, Canadian SPF is not cheaper, thanks to tariffs and duties on Canadian lumber which are presently a combined 45%. With builders better positioned by the new legislation to choose New Hampshire lumber, and required to use American lumber on state-funded projects, those surcharges should become less of a factor in the overall price of construction.
In general, the further north the tree grew, the better the quality of SPF. This has led the industry to designate “SPF” for Canadian grown lumber, and “SPFS” – spruce-pine-fir “south” – for U.S. grown lumber. Codes and specs often favor “SPF” over “SPFS” for this reason. But take a look at any map of North America; there are forested portions of Canada further south than portions of New Hampshire – including all of Coos County, where most New Hampshire lumber is harvested. And this has not escaped the notice of our Legislature.
On April 22, 2026, Governor Ayotte signed HB1204 into law. Its stated purpose is “to ensure that New Hampshire families and New Hampshire builders can build New Hampshire homes with New Hampshire wood by eliminating the barrier between SPF and SPFS within the state building code.” Effective October 19, 2026, New Hampshire native lumber graders’ inability to certify New Hampshire-grown spruce, pine, and fir as “SPF” will no longer prevent the local construction industry from using spruce-pine-fir harvested in the Granite State.
The key statutory provision states: “For purposes of the state building code, spruce-pine-fir south (SPFS) lumber harvested and milled in New Hampshire . . . shall be accepted wherever spruce-pine-fir (SPF) is specified.” There is a further directive that “Licensed architects and structural engineers shall also consider and shall provide alternative options of construction utilizing SPFS lumber.” An exception is included for design professionals who have a particular reason to specify SPF for the safety and structural integrity of a structure, but we can expect this exception to be rarely invoked once the new statute, designated as RSA 155-A:15, goes into effect.
Another change to the law governing lumber usage is on the horizon: SB529, which has now passed both houses of the New Hampshire Legislature and will soon be on the Governor’s desk. It provides:
“The material specification of any state-funded building in New Hampshire shall give preference to lumber harvested in the United States, unless design criteria necessitates utilizing imported sourcing. Construction drawings or design specifications utilizing softwood framing lumber harvested in the United States shall reference United State-sourced spruce-pine-fir lumber (SPFs).”
State-funded building in New Hampshire is a small percentage of total construction, but a legislated preference for American-grown SPF could still skew the market a bit. If equally good Canadian lumber becomes available at a lower price, but New Hampshire taxpayers are forced to pay more money for equivalent domestic goods, the result will be a taxpayer subsidy of the American lumber industry. And New Hampshire taxpayers will end up subsidizing New York, Vermont and Maine lumbermen as well as our own, with no reciprocity required. This kind of “buy American” legislation is better suited for Washington than Concord.
At the moment, Canadian SPF is not cheaper, thanks to tariffs and duties on Canadian lumber which are presently a combined 45%. With builders better positioned by the new legislation to choose New Hampshire lumber, and required to use American lumber on state-funded projects, those surcharges should become less of a factor in the overall price of construction.
RSS Feed