Nanny rates

On Wednesday, the House defeated a bill to re-allow a variation of so-called “payday loans” — short-term, high-interest loans — that lawmakers banned in 2009. The vote on Senate Bill 160 was narrow at 186-179, and the issue generated passion and contrasting views on the role of government.

“What have we come to? We were elected to get government off our backs and no more nanny states. I’m really disturbed,” said Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester).

“This will make loan sharking an acceptable business,” said Rep. Donna Schlachman (D-Exeter). “It’s state-regulated usury.”

Stuck in the middle

A Senate committee has voted to kill a House measure that would withdraw New Hampshire from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Sen. Jeb Bradely (R-Wolfeboro) is trying to keep RGGI alive, but make it a whole lot different.

“There are people who want to keep the program exactly as is, and there are people who want to repeal outright. We’ve got a long way to go with this,” Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) told the Concord Monitor about the amendment to House Bill 519 he plans to introduce on the Senate floor next Wednesday.

The article says his plan would lower the cap for the price of carbon from $9 per ton to $1 per ton (it’s currently $1.86). It would also turn that money back over to utilities, rather than use it to fund a state-administered grant program for renewable and efficient energy projects.

Power pleas

The House voted 261-104 to pass its version of Senate Bill 148, which would return any federal grant money for health care reform and force the state Attorney General to join the multi-state lawsuit against the law. The debate on the House floor was pointed and sharp.

“We don’t want to do anything, anything that will allow this federal law to plant its poisonous seeds in our state,” said Rep. Andrew Manuse (R-Derry).

“I urge you to read article 37 (of the state Constitution), use your common sense, deny this lust for power and defeat this amendment,” said Rep. Gary Richardson (D-Hopkinton).

Accounting jujitsu

Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester) was puzzled by a Senate Finance Committee amendment to House Bill 635. It would cut the Department of Corrections budget by $10.5 million by sending 600 prisoners from the state prison in Concord to an as-yet unknown location run by private companies.

“I really didn’t see any materials that indicated we could save $10.5 million. I didn’t know where they were going, how they were going to get there, what the costs would be,” said D’Allesandro, who was the only Finance Committee member to vote against the bill.

On Wednesday, the full Senate did not take up the amendment and the bill was returned to the Finance Committee.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

What quotables have you read or heard that you think reveal the verbal tenor of the 2011 legislative session? Email suggestions for the Daily Briefing to NH@FrontDoorPolitics.com.

Gas (tax cut) fumes

There’s been no shortage of talk about Senate Bill 78, which would cut the state gasoline tax by five cents a gallon through June 30. The measure passed the House this week, 208-98.

“This bill is good for our economy and will give welcome relief to the drivers of the state who are facing soaring gas prices.” — House Speaker William O’Brien.

When asked by the Concord Monitor if he would veto the bill if it reached his desk, Gov. John Lynch said it’s unlikely the Senate would follow the House’s lead. “I don’t believe it’s going to get to me. I don’t worry about political gimmicks,” he said.

House Majority Leader D. J. Bettencourt touted the economic benefits of SB 78. “While a five cent decrease may not seem like much at face value, it will add up when motorists fill their tanks each week. And as a resident of the border town of Salem, I am also confident that lower prices in New Hampshire will encourage those living along the border in Massachusetts to come here and purchase gas along with lottery tickets, liquor and other consumables,” he said.

Portsmouth blogger William Tucker of miscellany: blue had this take on the economic benefits of SB 78 that Bettencourt cited. “Majority Leader Bettencourt suggests Massachusetts’ drivers are going to head to New Hampshire to fill their gas tanks if the state cuts the gas tax by five cents per gallon. Let’s check the numbers. If we assume the entire savings is passed along to consumers (which is not guaranteed), a driver buying 20 gallons of gas would save $1.00. At $4.00 a gallon, if our Massachusetts driver has a car that gets 32 miles to the gallon, he would have to live within four miles of a New Hampshire gas station just to break even. Not likely.”

RGGI reactions

The House voted to prohibit New Hampshire’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), but some Senators aren’t enthused. Sen. Nancy Stiles (R-Hampton) told the Portsmouth Herald that RGGI could be saved through Senate amendments to the bill. “The broad stroke is to save this bill in any way we can save it. There are always opportunities for amendments to come until the last gun is fired. But the most important thing is to make sure we have the components in there that will allow a majority of the senators to support it,” she said.

Andrew Hemingway, chair of Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, says RGGI isn’t worth saving. “While there are many fallacies about the merits of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the erroneous idea that the program stimulates job growth is keeping a few of the enamored hanging on…When government uses tax dollars to stimulate job growth, it is taking money by force from people who are producing wealth honestly and giving it to people who cannot create wealth on their own because there isn’t enough demand for their products. It’s never good when government picks the winners and the losers. In the case of RGGI, everyone is a loser,” he said in an opinion piece.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Make your own quotes, below! (Comments policy here.)

3 sides of the nickel

Gov. John Lynch dismissed the last-minute tax cut proposal that was trumpeted by House leadership (see “Speaking of Gas Prices“). Lynch said he wouldn’t have to veto Senate Bill 78 because the Senate won’t pass this “political gimmick” that could chop an estimated $6.5 million out of the state’s Highway Fund, which is used for road and bridge construction and maintenance.

House Majority Leader Rep. D. J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) countered with enthusiasm, suggesting an economic development chain reaction would unfold if the measure passes. While New Hampshire already has the lowest gas tax and prices in the region, Bettencourt said, “Expanding this margin by another 5 cents would result in more out-of-state residents coming to New Hampshire to fill their gas tanks. While they are here, visitors will also take advantage of our low tax environment and purchase other goods, including cigarettes, liquor and lottery tickets. This will help to drive up state revenues, as will the business profits taxes of the local gas stations benefiting from the additional business.”

On the other hand, Senate Finance Chair Chuck Morse (R-Salem) told the Concord Monitor he wondered whether oil producers would benefit most from the gas tax reduction. The Senate also wasn’t ready to embrace the math attached to the House cigarette tax reduction bill (lower taxes = greater revenues) when it tabled House Bill 156 yesterday (see “The Price of Taxing Tobacco“).

Steps of the dance

While it may appear that the Senate is playing bad cop to the House’s good cop when it comes to tax cuts, this is a traditional legislative dance of differing assumptions and priorities. It can and does work both ways, as Sen. Lou D’Allensandro (D-Manchester) found out in 2010 when he managed to get an expanded gambling bill through the Senate — only to run into a wall of opposition and skepticism in the House.

The reality is that this stage of the game is nearly all political posturing. The tax cuts that have been passed by the House or tabled in both the House and Senate remain very much in play. It’s the final House-Senate conference committees, where the two chambers’ differences are worked out, that will reveal the Legislature’s final revenue priorities come June.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

If you’re in retail, we want to know: Do you see more business with lower taxes?

(Comments below, policy here.)

If it seems like politicians want to cut the gasoline tax every time fuel prices begin to skyrocket, as we’ve seen during the past month, well you’re right.

You may recall, for example, how the massive gas price hikes during the summer of 2008 (during a presidential election season, by the way) brought out urgent political calls for a gas tax cut. Last week, the N.H. Republican House leadership said one solution to today’s high gas prices is a temporary 5 cent per gallon cut in the tax through June 30.

Naturally, Gov. John Lynch disagrees.

The proposal

To compensate for reduced revenue stemming from the tax cut, money would be collected from the $30 car registration surcharge, which is also set to lapse after June 30. The registration surcharge money goes into the Department of Transportation’s Highway Fund budget, so the tax cut would essentially take away money that would otherwise go for road and bridge construction and maintenance. It’s estimated the temporary tax cut would cost at least $6 million.

New Hampshire’s gas tax is 18 cents per gallon, ranking in the bottom third of the country’s gas tax rates, and hasn’t been raised in two decades.

The proposal will be attached as an amendment to Senate Bill 78, which would eliminate the registration surcharge immediately upon passage — and which Lynch has threatened to veto.

Back-and-forth

House Speaker William O’Brien (R-Mont Vernon), according to the Concord Monitor, seemed to dare Lynch when he said, “Does he see the same pain that we see in the economic life of New Hampshire?”

“This proposal is simply a political gimmick and would offer no relief at the pumps for the people of New Hampshire,” Lynch’s spokesman Colin Manning also told the Monitor. “What it would do is provide less money for the people of New Hampshire to maintain our roads and bridges.”

Gas tax talk usually drives economists to the extremes. Supporters cite economic benefits to consumers and convenience store owners. Opponents believe the quickest way to bring down gas prices is to cut demand by driving and buying less, which they say is what happened in 2008 when gas prices spiked at around $4 a gallon and demand dropped.

The big picture

In his budget proposal, Lynch kept the surcharge in place through 2013 to help pay for tens of millions of dollars in road and bridge construction projects.

But since last fall’s election campaign season, Republicans have focused on the $30 vehicle registration surcharge as a political issue. Last week, they issued a report showing the surcharge’s impact on towns and cities across the state.

The House report offers no plan for making up the lost revenue to pay for scores of projects the Department of Transportation says will be put on hold if the House budget plan — without the surcharge — is passed.

In other tax cut news, the Senate Ways and Means and Committee has come out against a House proposal to cut the tobacco tax, House Bill 156. The bill is scheduled for a full Senate vote on April 27. It could be an early preview of how the Senate and House approaches to revenue reductions compare. (You can see an earlier report on HB 156 here.)

Q&A

Would you rather have a 5-cent reprieve in the gas tax for two months, or see that money go to roads and bridges? Let us know in the comments box, below. (See the comments policy here.)

>> A public hearing on eliminating the registration surcharge and temporarily cutting the gas tax by 5 cents (SB 78) will be held in the House Finance Committee, Room 210 of the Legislative Office Building, on Tuesday, April 26, at 10:00 a.m.

This Daily Briefing was written by Michael McCord.

Money, Money, Money

As we noted in a dispatch last week, the House Finance Committee has scheduled two-day executive session on House Bill 1, House Bill 2 and House Bill 25 beginning today.

The committee will also host a three-hour budget explainer presentation for House members on Tuesday, March 29. The House will not meet in full session this week, but there are scheduled sessions for March 30 and March 31 to complete voting on all bills originating in the House.

The Senate, meanwhile, will meet in session Wednesday to consider more than 34 bills and amendments. The Daily dispatch will bring you previews of the Senate session tomorrow.

Northern Pass

On Tuesday, the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee will continue work sessions on two proposals — House Bill 648 and House Bill 649 — connected to the Northern Pass hydroelectric project (see earlier Daily Dispatch here). The committee’s reporting deadline for both bills was extended to March 24.

According to the Concord Monitor, a recent public hearing in Franklin by the U.S. Department of Energy generated strong pro and con opinions on the economic and environmental impacts of the proposal to bring Canadian hydroelectric power into the regional power grid. The project would include a planned $350 million generator conversion project in Franklin and an estimated 40 miles of new right-of-way contracts in the northern part of the state.

>> Tuesday, March 22, work sessions for the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee on House Bill 648 and House Bill 649, Legislative Office Building, Room 304, beginning at 10:15 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

To prepare for the flurry of activity, today we begin a series of dispatches looking at some of the bills we’ve followed from early stages through public hearings and committee votes. We start with bills that are on the “consent,” or voice vote calendar.

This process bundles up scores of new pieces of legislation and lets lawmakers agree to the committee recommendations on each bill, all by voicing just one vote. The official name for killing a bill is voting it “Inexpedient to Legislate,” commonly shortened to ITL. Short for “Ought to Pass,” an OTP recommendation means the committee supports the bill in question.

To help you follow along, the committee names in bold are linked to previous Front Door Politics dispatches covering these bills.

Education

The committee gave a unanimous Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) recommendation for House Bill 39, which targeted the state’s curriculum requirements for an adequate education.

Election Law

House Bill 223, which would eliminate election-day voter registration, received an ITL recommendation.

Executive Departments and Administration

Back in November, we highlighted the progress of a study committee looking into establishing a state meat inspection service. House Bill 339 would establish just such a service, and received a unanimous Ought to Pass (OTP) committee recommendation.

Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs

Two pharmaceutical take-back bills are headed for passage after receiving unanimous OTP committee recommendations. House Bill 71 would allow communities and private entities to establish drug take-back programs, and House Bill 426 would allow for institutions such as nursing homes and correctional facilities to re-allocate unused drugs.

Municipal and County Government

House Bill 144, a proposal to repeal the PACE, or clean energy district legislation from last year, has been amended to changes some funding mechanisms in a way that satisfied committee concerns about the new program. The PACE changes are headed for passage after a unanimous OTP recommendation by the committee.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

The House Science, Energy and Technology Committee will meet in Representatives Hall to consider two measures:

• House Bill 648, denying all eminent domain petitions to any large-scale transmission project, sponsored by Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R-Colebrook)
• House Bill 649, establishing guidelines for regional planning commissions to do separate economic and social impact studies on the Northern Pass project, sponsored by Rep. Rick Ladd (R-Haverhill)

In its current incarnation, Northern Pass calls for building 140 miles of direct-current transmission line in New Hampshire, from the Canadian border to a converter terminal in the City of Franklin (the terminal would convert Canadian direct current application to American alternating current). The 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydro-power would then be sent to a substation in Deerfield and connected to the New England power grid. An estimated 45 miles of new right-of-way agreements would be needed in the North Country for 135-foot-tall transmission towers, to be spaced about 800 feet apart.

Opponents such as the organization Bury the Northern Pass say the privately financed project will mar the landscape, drive down property values and generate little economic benefit beyond the converter station. Passions ran high last month when a hearing about changing the state’s renewable energy portfolio standards to include large-scale hydro-power was seen as an endorsement of the Northern Pass project. Dozens of people showed up to speak against Northern Pass, and the related did not make it out of committee.

If it goes forward, the Northern Pass transmission lines would be built, owned and maintained by Northern Pass Transmission LLC, a subsidiary of Northeast Utilities (which also owns PSNH). On the Canadian side, Hydro Renewable Energy Inc. (a subsidiary of Hydro-Quebec) would pay transmission fees to Northern Pass Transmission.

>> Wednesday, March 9, public hearings on HB 648 and HB 649 in the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee, Representatives Hall at the State House, beginning at 10:15 a.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Sponsored by Rep. Beatriz Pastor (D-Lyme), PACE became law last year, but hasn’t yet been used. A move to repeal it will be considered in an executive session in the House Municipal and County Government Committee today. But Pastor tells Front Door Politics that Republican committee leaders gave her a chance to change PACE in order to save it.

This rooftop solar electric system is at work on a rooftop in Durham, NH. (photo courtesy Revision Energy)

The PACE program allows cities and towns to finance residential and commercial energy efficiency and clean energy projects through municipal loans of up to $35,000. Each loan is to be paid back by the property owner who receives it, through increased tax payments for up to 20 years.

PACE supporters say the program meets a financing need banks and other forms of financing have yet to fill – and would help local taxpayers save significant amounts of money on their energy use.  (See an earlier Daily Dispatch here for more explanation about the debate over PACE.)

Rep. Carol McGuire (R-Epsom) disagrees. She opposed the original PACE legislation, and told Front Door Politics in January that it was “not good public policy,” presented too much risk for local taxpayers, and “would benefit the few at the expense of everybody else.” McGuire sponsored this year’s PACE repeal bill, House Bill 144, which goes to executive session today.

The repeal bill was originally scheduled for a committee vote on Jan. 27, but Pastor says committee chair Rep. Beverly Ferrante (R-Derry) and vice-chair Rep. Franklin Sterling (R-Jaffrey) gave her time to address “the concerns the committee” had about the original legislation. Those concerns included

• the type of bonds that municipalities could use to set up the revolving loan funds to finance energy improvements
• how to establish a municipal “loss loan” program to protect municipalities against possible default by property owners who get the loans, and
• clarifying whose repayment would be prioritized (the municipality or a mortgage holder) in case of default

“We have proposed amendments to answer those concerns,” Pastor says. In particular, she says the issue of repayment precedence — which has been complicated by federal mortgage regulations — has been solved by only allowing residential applicants who no longer have mortgages to use the program (commercial property applicants fall under different guidelines).

“For communities who choose to go down this road, we have made it strong enough to get it started and to work in a narrow framework,” Pastor says. She adds that the process “has been truly bipartisan.”

That acknowledgement is brought into relief by an even bigger energy debate falling mainly along party lines. The House voted 246 to 104 Wednesday to repeal the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). House Bill 519 now goes to the House Finance Committee before crossing over to the Senate.

>> Thursday, Feb. 24, Municipal and County Government Committee, executive session on HB 144, Legislative Office Building, Room 301, 1 p.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord, with contributions from Hilary Niles.

By a party line, 13-5 vote, the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee gave House Bill 519 an “ought to pass” recommendation last week. The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Richard Barry (R-Merrimack) has moved quickly from its public hearing on Feb. 10 to an executive session on Feb. 15 to this Wednesday’s full House vote, with no further subcommittee or committee work sessions in between.

RGGI is the cap-and-trade program for Northeastern electricity power generation companies such as Public Service — New Hampshire’s largest power generator. These utilities can either reduce their carbon dioxide emissions or purchase pollution allowances at quarterly auctions. New Hampshire joined RGGI, which is the only cap-and-trade program of its kind in the nation, completely in 2009.

The program is believed to cost ratepayers somewhere between 36 to 40 cents per month. Money made from the sale of pollution “allowances” is funneled through the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for grants toward energy efficiency and alternative energy projects, which in turn are designed to cut energy demand and, theoretically, cut carbon dioxide emissions in the New England region.

The competing majority and minority reports from the committee offer ideologically opposite views on climate change science, the scope of government, regional solutions, whether the bill has been properly vetted, and the role of public investments.

First, the majority report to repeal RGGI:

“It was clear to us that RGGI was really all about the money and not about the climate. It is not the role of state government to subsidize or prop up private businesses; RGGI created the illusion of free money to those who were fortunate enough to receive funding, and many think that funding should continue indefinitely,” wrote Rep. Frank Holden, R-Lyndeborough.

“The majority believes it is not the proper role of government to create burdensome mandates which take a small amount of money from the many (electric ratepayers), funnel that money through multiple levels of bureaucracy (RGGI, Inc. and NH PUC), and redistribute a large amount of money to the few. The majority believes that RGGI was a stealth tax, hidden in the electric rates of our constituents. RGGI also has added to the size and scope of New Hampshire’s state bureaucracy; we need to shrink the size of government. Finally, the majority believes that New Hampshire does not need a complex and expensive multi-state scheme to find solutions to our environmental and energy challenges. New Hampshire has the ability to control emissions and protect our environment by developing uniquely New Hampshire solutions.”

The minority report was written by Rep. Naida Kaen, D-Lee, who was the prime sponsor of the original RGGI authorization bill (House Bill 1434) in 2008.

“The minority believes that this bill should have been retained in committee for a proper vetting, and to provide a better understanding of the potential consequences of its passage. Some of the possible outcomes of the passage of this legislation, as amended, are likely to be that New Hampshire electric rate-payers will continue to pay at least $5 million on their electric bills while the State of NH gives up $13 million annually in proceeds from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative auction. To date more than $28 million has gone largely to help local municipalities weatherize municipal buildings, thereby reducing local taxes, and to assist families and businesses save money by becoming more energy efficient, all of which reduces our dependence on foreign oil and ultimately reduces all ratepayers’ electric rates. The minority believes that modification of the program may be warranted, but that the decision to repeal should be properly reviewed so as to avoid potential damage to NH’s economy and to many citizens of the state.”

In the fiscal analysis of the bill, the Public Utilities Commission estimated if the state withdraws from RGGI, it would lose between $9.8 million and $18 million in funding from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Fund in the next budget year. The final funding figures would depend on the auction price for allowances and the rate of economic recovery. Ratepayers would still pay a surcharge because the state belongs to the regional power grid, which charges RGGI fees regardless of participation.

If the Republican majority in the House votes to repeal RGGI, the measure would then move to the Senate. Current Senate President Peter Bragdon (R-Milford) and Sen. Bob Odell (R-Lempster) were co-sponsors of the original RGGI bill three years ago.

>> Wednesday, Feb. 23, full House session scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Representatives Hall.

The House Science, Energy and Technology Committee heard testimony from dozens of supporters and opponents of House Bill 519, which is sponsored by Rep. Richard Barry (R-Merrimack). Public interest was large enough for the committee to move the hearing to Representatives Hall. The hearing was also streamed live over the Internet.

Barry and co-sponsor Rep. Andrew Manuse (R-Derry) told the committee that RGGI was not working environmentally and was an economic drag on the state. “RGGI is a stealth tax that never shows up. It’s hidden on your electric bill,” Barry said at the hearing about the extra cost paid by ratepayers.

But former Rep. David Borden (D-New Castle) said HB 519, not RGGI, “was bad for New Hampshire and bad for New Hampshire businesses.” He said it would stall the progress the state has made in alternative energy and energy efficiency development to decrease the state’s dependence on outside sources of electricity and heating oil. RGGI-funded grant projects for residents, nonprofits, businesses and governmental entities (state and local) have totaled more than $28 million since 2009, said Gov. John Lynch in written testimony to the committee.

RGGI is a cap-and-trade program for electricity power generation companies such as Public Service of New Hampshire — the state’s largest power generator — that can either reduce their carbon dioxide emissions or purchase pollution allowances at quarterly auctions. Public Service is the only utility in the state that generates and distributes electricity.

New Hampshire joined RGGI completely in 2009 and it is believed to cost ratepayers somewhere between 36 to 40 cents per month. Economist Ross Gittell from the University of New Hampshire testified that there was no evidence that RGGI has hampered economic development in the state. He also said that ratepayers would still pay a surcharge because the state belongs to the regional power grid, which charges RGGI fees regardless of participation.

HB 519 supporter Grant Bosse, the lead investigator with the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, testified that no one will know if RGGI has cut CO2 emissions until next year when the first compliance reports will be issued and that allowance price and sales volume have become weaker than expected. He also found fault with the competitive grant making process from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Fund.

In the fiscal analysis of the bill, the Public Utilities Commission estimated that if the state withdrew from RGGI, it would lose between $9.8 million and $18 million in funding from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Fund in the next budget year. The final funding figures would depend on the auction price for allowances and the rate of economic recovery.

The original RGGI bill, House Bill 1434, was co-sponsored in 2008 by current senate President Peter Bragdon (R-Milford) and Sen. Bob Odell (R-Lempster). So far, HB 519 has no Democratic co-sponsors.

>> Tuesday, Feb. 15, executive session of the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee on House Bill 519, Legislative Office Building, Room 304, 3 p.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.