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.)

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.

Our midstream progress report on the N.H. Legislature continues today, checking up on the status of some featured legislation we’ve covered so far this session.

For more background on each bill, click the links to the corresponding dispatches in the bolded heading.

Retirement System Fix

The latest Republican-backed proposal to overhaul the state retirement system has its first public hearing this Friday. Senate Bill 3, sponsored by Sen. Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro), has started its legislative journey in the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee.

No Adequacy Change

A bill to redefine education adequacy was rejected by the House Education Committee. Rep. Ralph Boehm (R- Litchfield) proposed eliminating the current statewide requirements for education in the arts, world languages, health and technology. These are among the components of an adequate education that school districts must provide, according to a law passed in 2007 to meet state Supreme Court guidelines.

Boehm, vice-chair of the House Education Committee, had argued that local communities should have the right to determine the definition of an adequate education for their students. On Feb. 24, the House Education Committee voted 15-0 to recommend against Boehm’s bill. House Bill 39 is scheduled for a March 16 vote in the full House.

Members Only

A bill to restrict membership on House study committees to lawmakers is scheduled for a vote Tuesday by the House Legislative Administration Committee. Sponsored by Rep. Laurie Harding (D-Lebanon), House Bill 190 has received bipartisan support.

The measure follows a strong bipartisan House vote last year instituting a rule (not a formal law) that limits membership on House study committees to legislators. Previously, some study committees had invited members of the public, industry experts, or representatives from state agencies to serve.

RGGI Repeal Passes in House

Since December, we have followed a proposal to repeal a 2008 law and remove New Hampshire from the 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. House Bill 519 is sponsored by Rep. Richard Barry (R-Merrimack).

After a daylong hearing earlier this month, the bill was recommended for passage by a party line vote in the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee. It then passed the House Wednesday, 246 to 104. Before heading to the Senate, HB 519 will have a second trip in the House through the House Finance Committee.

Rethinking Renewables Gets Rethought

A few days after we wrote the headline “Renewable Energy Could Get a Whole Lot Bigger,” the bill at the heart of the dispatch (House Bill 302) died in its committee at the request of its own sponsor. Rep. Richard Barry (R-Merrimack) said he hadn’t planned on stirring up any controversy when he proposed making large-scale hydroelectric power part of New Hampshire’s renewable energy portfolio.

His proposal, however, drew out critics of the Northern Pass electric transmission line project in the northern part of the state. They were joined by supporters of solar energy development, which would have been impacted by a change in the law. The Renewable Portfolio Standards law also was already up for review later this year.

On Feb. 15, the full House agreed by voice vote with a unanimous House Science, Energy and Technology Committee recommendation to kill the legislation.

Hemp Not

The latest attempt to legalize the growing of industrial hemp was rejected by lawmakers. As we reported in early February, Rep. Derek Owen (D-Hopkinton) has sponsored at least seven similar bills since 1998. This year’s effort met the same fate as previous attempts. House Bill 101 was rejected by an 11-7 vote in the Environment and Agriculture Committee, in part because federal law prohibits the growing of industrial hemp. By a 304-51 roll call vote, the full House voted down HB 101 on Feb. 15.

Sex Registry Study Committee Measure Rejected

A bipartisan proposal to study the effectiveness of the state’s sex offender registry did not get much support in committee or in the full House. House Bill 122 was sponsored by Rep. James MacKay (D-Concord) and Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry). The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee recommended House Bill 122 be killed, and the full House concurred in a voice vote on Feb. 15.

House Votes to Defund NHPTV

The House Finance Committee is again considering a proposal to prohibit any state funds from being sent to New Hampshire Public Television. House Bill 113, sponsored by Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester), already passed the same committee and the full House by a 262-102 vote on Feb. 15.

All bills dealing with spending that pass full chamber votes are sent to the Finance Committee for second consideration — even bills that started there. If, as expected, it passes again through the same bodies, HB 113 will move to Senate.

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.

In what is shaping up to be the busiest period yet for lawmakers this session, the House will meet twice next week to vote on dozens of bills — on Tuesday after Gov. John Lynch’s budget address to the Legislature and on Wednesday for its regularly scheduled session.

Two bills that we have reported on this session in Front Door Politics — one to cut state funding for public television and the other to cut the state’s rooms and meals tax rate – will have full House votes next week.

Defunding Public Television

House Bill 113, sponsored by Rep. Steve Vaillancourt (R-Manchester), would cut all state funding to New Hampshire Public Television — estimated at around $5 million for the next two years. The measure was recommended by the Finance Committee with a 19-6 vote in favor. Vaillancourt told the Portsmouth Herald last month that his proposal was “the easiest five million we can cut” from the budget.

The measure would prohibit the University System of New Hampshire, which oversees NHPTV, from using state money to fund the state’s only non-commercial television station.

“We are not just a television station,” testified New Hampshire Public Television president and CEO Peter Frid before the Finance Committee last month. “We are a multi-media, community-centered institution that offers online services, and maintains numerous partnerships with community, educational, state and municipal agencies to extend the value of the public’s investment.” Frid estimates that NHPTV serves more than one million viewers a month and that the loss of state revenue would impact as much as one-third of the station’s $8.5 million annual budget.

Reducing Rooms and Meals Tax

House Bill 166, which would reduce the rooms and meals tax from 9 to 8 percent, was recommended by the Ways and Means Committee by a 16-5, party line vote. The committee’s majority report by Rep. Laurie Sanborn (R-Loudon) said, “Reducing the tax is good for our economy, encourages people to spend money here, and helps our business community grow and create jobs.”

The Minority report by Rep. Christine Hamm (D-Hopkinton) said it was doubtful that consumers would be concerned by a 70 cents tax difference for a $70 hotel bill. “Since the commissioner of the Department of Resources and Economic Development confirmed that assumption when he testified there had been no impact on the state meals and rooms revenues that could be attributable to the rate’s increase in 2010, and since the state is in need of sustainable revenues, the minority considers a reduction of this rate to be unnecessary and inadvisable at this time,” Hamm wrote.

If enacted, the bill is estimated to cut state revenues between $16.3 million and $27.2 million.

Redefining Renewable Energy

House Bill 302 would change the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standards law and, among other impacts, add large hydropower plants to the list of what’s considered “renewable” (see earlier posts from Feb. 4 and Feb. 7). As expected, following the public hearing for HB 302 on Feb. 8, the Science, Energy and Technology Committee gave it a unanimous thumbs-down. The Inexpedient to Legislate recommendation has relegated the to be killed on the consent calendar next week.

>> The House and Senate will meet in joint session on Tuesday, February 15, at 10:00 am.

>> The House will meet immediately after the budget address until 3:00 p.m., and will reconvene on Wednesday, Feb. 16, at 10:00 a.m.

>> The Senate will meet in session on Wednesday, Feb. 16, at 1:00 p.m.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

“I think this will level the playing field and simplify a complicated law,” said Barry of House Bill 302. Barry, who is also sponsoring a bill to repeal the state’s involvement in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, will find out how much of a “to do” will come from his proposal when he formally introduces it at a public hearing Tuesday in the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee.

Among the changes to the existing law (which originated as House Bill 873), it would deemphasize solar power, add larger hydropower dams to the renewable energy mix for utilities, and increase legislators’ authority over the Renewable Energy Fund. Financed by utilities that don’t meet annual standards for using renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydropower, the REF goes toward grants for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Under HB 302, the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee would have to approve REF grants issued by the Public Utilities Commission. Authority to audit all projects funded by the REF would also transfer from the commission to the committee.

Renewable Energy Fund

Gov. John Lynch hailed the 2007 Renewable Energy Act as a major step toward meeting the state’s goal of 25 percent renewable energy use by 2025 and stirring economic development. “The Renewable Energy Act will encourage investment in energy production in New Hampshire that will deliver economic and environmental benefits to the state and the region,” Lynch said when he signed the bill. The law, which was co-sponsored by current Senate President Peter Bragdon (R-Milford), passed by a vote of 253-37 in the House and unanimously in the Senate.

According to financial analysis provided by the Public Utilities Commission, Barry’s proposal would lead to an almost $750,000 reduction of utility payments into the Renewable Energy Fund. This is due to a change in renewable energy classifications that will allow electric companies to pay less than market price for the different classes of renewable energy certificates they must meet, according to the Public Utilities Commission’s statement in the HB 302’s fiscal note.

Impact on Small-Scale Renewables

Barry says “leveling the field,” such as not giving a greater percentage of renewable energy classification to solar power, and taking grant approval from “the bureaucracy” will ending up promoting more economic development. But Jim Rubens, a New Hampshire environmentalist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, says Barry’s proposal would do just the opposite.

Rubens says it would “kill” the growing solar energy market in the state, send more money outside New Hampshire and lead to a greater politicization of the renewable energy grant process by taking it away from an appointed board connected to the PUC.

“It will take adjudicating projects and put them into a fairly charged political environment,” Rubens says. In particular, he explain, it could best benefit potential large hydroelectric providers. Large hydroelectric power plants like Hydro-Quebec are currently not considered a renewable energy source, but they would be under HB 302. Rubens says that re-classification would come at the expense of scores of small-scale but growing renewable energy sources in the state.

Barry denies that he had any intention to help any sector in particular, but Ruben says that a close look at HB 302 shows real winners and losers.

“What it does by the virtue of its design is create a very strong policy towards Canadian hydropower,” Rubens says. “As proposed, it takes away the economic benefits from New Hampshire.” Those benefits, he says, are what originally made the law popular to a broad bipartisan coalition.

Some wording regarding the economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy technologies would also be struck from the law under HB 302.

>> Tuesday, Feb. 8, at 1:00 p.m. — Public hearing of the House Science, Energy and Technology Committee, Legislative Office Building, Room 304. A possible executive session or committee vote on HB 302 could take place.

>> Find out more about what are Renewable Portfolio Standards and how they work at the Department of Environmental Services link here. We also recommend the Concord Monitor story here about a pending Hydro-Quebec project and what it could mean to small-scale energy development in New Hampshire, as well as a story from NHPR about North Country opposition to the Northern Pass Project.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.

Here we highlight three proposals that were put on the regular calendar, which will likely be moved to next Wednesday. The Senate will hold its session tomorrow (Feb. 3) at noon.

Rx Drug Return

House Bill 71, which would allow for establishment of pharmaceutical drug take-back programs, was the subject of a Front Door Politics dispatch last month. The measure had strong bipartisan support and was recommended for passage by the House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs Committee with a unanimous 17-0 vote.

In the committee’s report to the full House, Rep. Evalyn Merrick (D-Lancaster) said the ability of New Hampshire communities and private entities to establish take-back programs for both uncontrolled and controlled drugs would build upon previous efforts with local law enforcement officials to remove “thousands of unused medications from homes and (the) streets of New Hampshire.”

Weeding Out Industrial Hemp

A Hopkinton lawmaker this year continues his quest to allow farmers to grow industrial hemp in New Hampshire. Rep. Derek Owen (D) has sponsored at least seven similar bills since 1998. This year’s measure, House Bill 101, would also set up a special state agricultural program to oversee the production. But there is a catch:

Federal law prohibits the growing of industrial hemp. Owen’s bill respects this by providing that the program would only be implemented once the federal government amends its laws.

By an 11-7 vote, the Environment and Agriculture sent the bill to the full House with an “Inexpedient to Legislate” recommendation, saying that if the federal law changes, then a New Hampshire law would be unnecessary. They also question the passage of creating a program to oversee the production, since costs are unknown at this time.

Critics of industrial hemp say it is closer to the drug marijuana than it is to a fiber. But advocates say there is a distinct difference in the chemical make up and the crop is grown and utilized in a wide range of products in Canada, China, Germany and a number of other countries.

Unrestricted Agents

By a 7-5 vote, the Executive Departments and Administration Committee recommended passage of a bill to repeal a 2007 law requiring sports agents to register with the state. House Bill 136 is sponsored by committee chair Carol McGuire (R-Epsom). In the majority report, Rep. Spec Bowers (R-Georges Mills) said only six agents have registered since the law was passed and there have been no enforcement actions.

“It is not needed because athletes, parents, and coaches are knowledgeable about the rules and are fully able to exercise individual responsibility,” Bowers said. “The statute is harmful in that it encourages reliance on the government to protect people from their own decisions.”

According the Secretary of State web site (the agency that oversees sports agent registrations), it costs $100 for a new sports agent application and $50 for renewal.

This Daily Dispatch was written by Michael McCord.