The House, Thursday, March 18, 2010

Rep. Betsey Patten (R - Carr 4)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good morning everyone. I stand before you today in opposition to the majority report of Ought to Pass with Amendment. This bill allows municipalities to create property assessment clean energy districts that allows the towns, if they so choose, this is enabling, to incur debt for the purpose of providing financing to property owners in the district so that the loan granted for home improvements that lessen energy use will be paid back to the municipality. This sets up a subsidy by default because if there is a foreclosure or the taxpayer cannot pay the assessment, in the end the town has created a debt that constitutes a pledge of the municipality's full faith and credit to pay. Please listen to that last statement. The whole town, all of the other taxpayers will be paying for the home improvements of one taxpayer if that person cannot pay the assessment or cannot pay his taxes. Doing home improvements to lessen fuel oil, lessen our fuel oil use or any other fuel, is an admirable objective. The minority is not against lower fuel consumption, just against the primary funding source which is the municipal bonding or using general municipal revenues. There are other means of funding available, however, they are not the first in primary ones as you can see on page 1213 in our calendar. Municipal funding is proposed because the interest rate is lower for the municipalities than it is for private funding. I want to thank the sponsors and the lobbyists for working on most of our issues of the municipality, however, the minority would like to refer this bill back to the committee to remove municipal funding. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Speaker NorelliWill the member yield to a question? The member yields. Rep. Belvin, you may inquire.

Rep. William Belvin (R - Hills 6)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Representative for taking my question. I seek some clarity. If I'm a local regulated New Hampshire community bank, currently providing home improvement loans for all purposes, including energy efficiency, would this bill propose to allow municipalities and districts to use their tax authority, presumably at a lower interest rate to raise public money for this exact same purpose? Isn't this need already being met without this legislation using public money for a private purpose?

Rep. Betsey Patten (R - Carr 4)Thank you for the question, Representative. I agree with your assessment of the situation. The municipality will be able to borrow at a lower rate as we just heard before to be able to do this funding, but it is public money even though the amendment says this is in the public good, I still do not believe that we should be in competition with our private businesses. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Speaker NorelliThe question before the House is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1554. The Chair recognizes the member from Lyme, Rep. Pastor.

Rep. Beatriz Pastor (D - Graf 12)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Honorable members of this House, you have in front of you two excellent blurbs, one from the majority and one from the minority. They describe in detail and fair terms most of what HB 1554 does. You also have probably the yellow/gold standard that we all pick up at the door and you may have read what the Union Leader wrote yesterday about HB 1554. I will respond to these issues raised by the gold standard and by the Union Leader during the question period if anybody has any questions, but just in a nutshell, they're out to lunch. They do not understand the bill. It's a total misrepresentation of everything this bill does. Now, the two blurbs are excellent and they summarize what HB 1554 does by saying that it is enabling legislation that allows municipalities to help people help themselves by making energy efficiency and clean energy improvement and that's what the bill does. The two contexts for this bill, there is the big picture and there is the small picture. The big picture has to do with global climate change. It has to do with clean air in the state where we live. It has to do with controlling emissions and carbon footprint. It has to do with improving the economy of our state at a point where we all realize that lowering our energy costs would be very good for the economy and not just for each one of us. Then there is the little picture and the little picture has to do with a different set of issues. It has to do with being able to live in a house that it is well heated, has good hot water without paying half your income for those comforts. It has to do with the ability to retrofit your house so that you can live well in that house while cutting your energy bills and increasing your energy efficiency. The big picture is about the state and about global issues. The small picture is about us. It's about you and me. It's about someone like any of us who maybe near or past retirement age and lives in a house that they very much love and that house could use some changes, it could use some retrofit, it's drafty, it forces us to turn the thermostat up, our energy bills go up and we would very much like to solve those problems, increase our energy efficiency and lower our energy costs. We don't do it. It has to do with maybe one of your sons or daughters. They have their first home, they are paying a mortgage, they love their home, and they would like to lower their energy bills. They could do it if they could invest $12, $20, maybe $30,000 in retrofitting their home, but they are not doing it. Why is that happening? Because in spite of the fact that the issues in the big picture and the issues in the small picture are different, they share one common goal. The common goal is to increase our energy efficiency so that we can lower our energy costs and lower our consumption of energy. They also share a major obstacle to achieving that goal. The major obstacle is cost in the big picture and cost in the small picture. What would you think about an energy efficiency program that would allow people, those who choose to do so, it would allow them to improve their energy efficiency, lower their energy costs at no cost to anybody other than those who choose to do that because that's what the bill does. Those who pay for it are those who choose to participate in the program. That's precisely what HB 1554 allows municipalities to do. If you ask me what I think of this bill, I'll tell you. I think it's a great bill. I think it's a classic "have your cake and eat it" bill. I'm not sure that's a legal category. I'm not sure that's a parliamentary category, but that's exactly what the bill is and I will show you how it works. There is a magic formula to it and it's actually quite simple. Step one, the municipality sets up a fund and a mechanism to help property owners finance the necessary energy efficiency and clean energy improvements they need in their house. It allows them to retrofit. Step two, the property owners pay the municipality back in the form of a special property tax assessment that is attached to the individual home, not to the district and not to the town. It's an individual contract between the municipality and the homeowner in every case and it takes into account how much money the property owner is borrowing based on an audit. It takes into account what the total cost of the retrofitting is gong to be and it sets a timeline so that it generates a positive cash flow and I'll explain that. There are two bottom lines to that magic formula. The first one is that it has to generate a positive cash flow and what that means is that the owner, the property owner who enters the program will be paying back the municipality in amounts that are always smaller than the amount of money they save in energy costs. That's the first bottom line. The second bottom line is that the total cost of the program is always going to be smaller than the energy savings accrued by the property owner who enters the agreement or by subsequent property owners who may be buying the house and picking up the special assessment attached to the property. That's the magic formula. Remember one thing. This is enabling legislation. It is totally voluntary for the individual and for the municipality. One question that we have to ask ourselves and it has already come up, is this legislation necessary. As legislators, we don't want to come up with bills that are redundant or that don't accomplish anything. There are many reasons why this legislation is necessary, but I will give you just two main reasons. The first one has to do with eligibility. There is that notion out there that there is just lots of money available for retrofitting, weatherization and energy efficiency improvements. The truth of the matter is that there is some money there. There is federal money and state money, but it is money for weatherization programs, for low income residents. It does not cover most of the population. There are also already some weatherization and energy efficiency programs that have been set up by the public utilities. The electrical utilities have had a program that works with a cash positive flow formula but it is also available for industrial and for electric. The bottom line is that there is precious little money for the middle classes and that's what this bill addresses. The second major reason why this bill is necessary has to do with a big mismatch. It's the mismatch between the goals that we have set for ourselves as a state in terms of energy efficiency and if you are familiar with the Governor's climate change action plan or if you listen to New Hampshire Public Radio just three days ago when they had Tom Burack talking about the same thing, this has a whole set of goals. One of the goals is to retrofit 30,000 houses per year, increasing the energy efficiency level by 60%. Do you have any idea of how many houses they have really been retrofitting so far? 600 house per year. There is also the stimulus money and with the stimulus money it has gone up. Now, we are doing close to 1,000 per year instead of 30,000. The bottom line is that no amount of grant money, no amount of federal or state money can pay for such a broad set of goals. We have to bring in private money and that's what the magic formula in HB 1554 does. In the end, it is the property owner who pays for the retrofitting of the house, but he pays for the retrofitting without increasing his debt because the cash positive flow guarantees that not only will he be paying for the improvements that he needs, but that every month he will actually be putting a little more money in his pocket than he used to before he retrofitted. That's where we are with this bill. That's what the bill really does. We can ask ourselves who benefits from that bill. Certainly the property owner benefits. He gets a more comfortable living situation with probably no drafts, lower thermostat, a lower energy bill, the good feeling of lowering the emissions and lowering the dependency, individual and state-wide, on fossil fuels and foreign oil which is also an issue within the big picture. Who else benefits? The municipality benefits because if anything the property values are going to go up because when people buy houses, they are more and more attentive not just to how high the property taxes are or how many bedrooms you have and how many bathrooms, they are also very attentive to your oil bill for the year, your energy bill for the year. How much does it cost to run the energy in this house? Also, it benefits the municipality because this is really an empowering piece of legislation for the municipalities. It gives them the authority to make those decisions by vote of their members and it also allows them to revitalize the local job market. The jobs that will be dealing with those retrofits are local jobs. In many instances, the people who will be financing those improvements will also be local banks so that the economy benefits, the municipality benefits and the individual benefits. When I became a legislator a year ago, I made two vows. The first vow was that I will try not to miss, ever, any opportunity to help the people of this state. The second vow was I will try to, in every possible opportunity, work with the whole house, with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I think that HB 1554 gives us all an opportunity to fulfill those vows. We can do it together. We can help the people of this state together. In addition to that, I could say that this bill is in the best spirit and tradition of this state. In that tradition is that of solving a problem, not by appealing to a higher authority, not by creating a bigger bureaucracy, but by helping people help themselves.

Speaker NorelliWill the member yield to a question? The member yields. Rep. Borden, you may inquire.

Rep. David Borden (D - Rock 24)Living on the east coast of New Hampshire, I find the west coast accent very interesting. It came up earlier that this might be competing with banks and I'm wondering do the bankers view this as competition.

Rep. Beatriz Pastor (D - Graf 12)Thank you for the question, Representative Borden. It's a very good question because this bill is not an improvisation. We have worked very hard at crafting the bill. We worked first with a team of bi-partisan legislators and then we worked with the Municipal and County Government committee. We've had many study sessions and many conversations and discussions with the banks. The banks have stated repeatedly and unequivocally that they do not see this as competition. They have other concerns. They had concerns about liens and over the course of our negotiations we reach a compromise that, in the words of the representatives of the New Hampshire Banking Association, they were not jumping up and down, but they could certainly live with. Speaker Norelli: Will the member yield to a follow up? The member yields.

Rep. David Borden (D - Rock 24)$300 million gallons of fossil fuel oil was consumed last year in the state and household consumption was about twice what it is in Europe in the same climate in Northern Europe. I am wondering if this will help local households, particularly middle income households, to be able to reduce their consumption.

Rep. Beatriz Pastor (D - Graf 12)Thank you for your question. That is precisely the goal of this bill. It's aimed at the average household. The goal is to reduce drastically the consumption of fossil fuels. Our state is particularly dependent on fossil fuels. I believe 85% of our heating comes from fossil fuels. Enacting this legislation would have a really dramatic effect on energy consumption in the state. Let me just say that we are not the first ones to come up with this legislation. There are already 13 states that have enacted legislation along those lines. The Vice President's middle class task force recommends legislation along those lines. The state of Vermont passed similar legislation last year and I understand that they already have several hundred houses that are signing up for one of those districts. It would definitely have a major effect on our energy consumption and dependency on fossil fuels.

Speaker NorelliWill the member yield to another question? The member yields. Rep. (William) Johnson, you may inquire.

Rep. William Johnson (D - Belk 5)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. My question is a little bit different and my concern is a little bit different. The majority blurb contains a couple of sentences dealing with cash flow. I think I am probably as green as anybody in this audience, so I had a contractor come out to my house last year and I wanted to look at a proposal to switch to solar energy. He came out with all of his equipment that is very specialized. He came back to me with a proposal that basically said that it would take me about 17 years to see, not a return, but a return of my principle investment. That did not factor in any financing costs which this would envision because of the loan from the town. If I were to factor in some kind of financing or return on investment cost in there, I'm probably over 20 years before I see my ability to not only pay off the loan but pay off any financing costs. I know what my age is and if I add 20 years to it, I'd like to see a return to me and not to my estate. My question and my concern is, if you can deal with this, is that if other people realize this type of situation, the town is going to be in trouble, the person taking out the loan is going to be in trouble and aren't we all in trouble if that's the case?

Rep. Beatriz Pastor (D - Graf 12)Thank you for your excellent question. This bill enables municipalities to set up programs for energy efficiency, but remember one thing. We are not talking about luxury programs. We are talking about cost effective programs. The way the magic formula works is that you apply for a retrofit and an audit is conducted and the audit determines what kind of improvements you house needs. If you live in a really well insulated house, but you decide that you'd like very much to have a geothermal heating system, that is not going to be cost effective at this point in time. Guess what? The big savings in oil consumption and the big savings in energy consumption don't come from those fancy improvements. They come from the very basic improvements. I'm going to refer to a few figures, not many, from an actual case. Similar legislation has been implemented in the state of New York. If you look at the chart, you see that of the improvements that have been requested, 34% were heating system replacement, not with fancy geothermal, but with basic better boilers. The second group is added air sealing and insulation, 32%. Then you have basement insulation. Then you have wall insulation. In other words, this legislation is aimed at people who are going to be getting the biggest bang for the buck. If you show up at the municipality with a proposal like the one we just heard about, you know what's going to happen? You're not going to qualify for the program because the program bases the eligibility on the ability to solve the problem by retrofitting and generating positive cash flow. If the improvement is of such nature that you don't get the biggest bang for the buck, that you are really getting into the fancy more expensive stuff and a very small reduction in energy consumption or energy costs, you will not qualify. The vast majority of the people in this state are not in that privileged category, they are in the category of people who need to do basic retrofitting and who are going to be getting the biggest bang for the buck.

Speaker NorelliWill the member yield to another question? The member does not yield. The question before the House is on the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1554. The Chair recognizes the member from Rindge, Rep. Hunt.

Rep. John Hunt (R - Ches 7)Thank you, Madam Speaker. No, I did not change committees. I'm on two now and I don't need any more. However, I do have a couple concerns with this bill that if it had come to Commerce, we would have had a little more pause.

Speaker NorelliWould the member please suspend? It is very noisy in here. Members have a right to hear the speaker. I would ask you to please be courteous and if you have conversations, take them to the anteroom. You may proceed.

Rep. John Hunt (R - Ches 7)There are really just two things so I will be brief. The most important thing that I want to take away is that we have done a lot to insure the financial integrity of a person who is taking out a loan. We have raised the standard in terms of our loan requirements for our financial institutions. As I read this bill, all I see is one word that says the town shall have criteria. There is nobody overlooking that criteria. The bank department, the bank commissioner would not have any authority to ensure the safety and soundness of these loans. I don't understand why we would suddenly be passing all this legislation the last couple of years to address these problems of people who are taking loans and they can't afford to pay them back, and we want to create a loan program that has no oversight. I am absolutely in support of re-referring this bill so that we can at least step back and look at that language. I don't want to kill the bill. I am certainly interested in the concept of helping people get loans. At the same time, let's not rush this through and disregard something that is very important to the taxpayers of the town when they start to ask who is getting this loan and how do I know they are going to pay it back. The second issue is somewhat esoteric, but it is important because it is something the commerce committee dealt with this year. That is liens. We had a condo bill in which condo associations want to make sure that they can get their fees paid back when there is foreclosure. The commerce committee struggled over this issue and the resolution was it could only be on future loans, mortgages on a property. You can't retroactively, there is plenty of case law, constitutional, but there is plenty of case law that you can't retroactively put in a super lien. This legislation has a super lien in it. Please, let's fix this before we pass it. Please support the minority of re-refer.

Speaker NorelliThe question before the House is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1554. The Chair recognizes the member from Colebrook, Rep. Rappaport.

Rep. Laurence Rappaport (R - Coos 1)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, members of the House. Municipalities should not compete with private industry. This is something that we all agree on. During hearings, the banks, who would be the potential competition, stated repeatedly and emphatically that they did not see the municipalities as competing with them in HB 1554. At the end of negotiations, the banks were okay with a compromise regarding foreclosure scenarios. Municipalities should not use municipal revenues as a source of funding their energy efficiency program. We feel that perhaps they should because we want to get this thing done and perhaps that's the only way we're going to get it done. The fact that municipalities should not use municipal revenues as a source of funding for this energy efficiency program, bear in mind, this is enabling legislation. It does not require the municipalities to do anything. The municipalities have to opt into this and that choice would be, if they so decide, that choice is subject to the same rules and voting requirements as any other appropriation by a municipal body. They either have to approve it at town meeting first or if you are an SB 2 town, it would be approved appropriately there. One of my colleagues earlier talked about an investment in solar as being ridiculously long and it is. Solar panels are manufactured of crystal and silicone and even though silicone is basically sand and is essentially free, the energy that's required to heat them up to make crystals is literally staggering and that's the essence of the cost. However, this bill isn't concerned with solar. This bill is concerned solely with pellets or with mini wood chips or outside wood furnaces burning logs. The bill is enabling and I would expect that nobody is going to borrow money to do something really stupid because one, the town won't let them, they won't qualify and two, the payback would be enormous and it wouldn't make any financial sense. I ask for your support for HB 1554 based on the fact that I believe that people will look for this sort of thing if it makes financial sense to them. They are not going to do it if it doesn't make sense. No, I won't take questions.

Speaker NorelliThe member does not yield to questions. The question before the House is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1554. The Chair recognizes the member from Atkinson, Rep. James Garrity.

Rep. James Garrity (R - Rock 6)Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm speaking to you as a member of the energy efficiency and sustainable energy board and the science and technology committee. I have a huge amount of respect for my colleagues who did such hard work on this bill. What I want to do for you is sort of talk about realism. The goal here is to try to help achieve the goals of the governor's climate change action plan. One of those goals is if we are going to reduce the carbon footprint from residential and commercial, we need to retrofit, deep retrofit, 30,000 homes a year. The EESE board that I'm a member of as a subcommittee is studying how do we reach these goals and what's it going to cost? We had a briefing last month from that subcommittee and they said that to do a deep retrofit on your average house, we are not just talking about putting plastic on your windows or a little bit of insulation, but deep retrofit which includes maybe structural changes to your house. This cost anywhere between $50 and $100,000 per home. Let's use a conservative estimate and call it $50,000. If we wanted to reach this goal, take 30,000 homes times $50,000 per year, that's $1.5 billion per year to get these retrofits done and if we assume that we'd use this PACE program to do it, that means that our municipalities around the state will have to go out and try to bond $1.5 billion every year to establish these loan funds. If you look at my little town and let's say 100 people in my town wanted to do this, that's $50,000 times 100 at $5 million. My little town bonding $5 million is a pipe dream. It took us 3 years to bond $2 million for a new library that everybody wanted. I just want to bring a little bit of reality back to the picture. The towns have to bond the money to establish the cash trunk that you are going to borrow from them and then pay back through taxes over the years. Another interesting thing is Berkeley, CA. They did this and I read in The Economist last month that Berkeley had a surprising experience. They figured they were going to do this and be able to loan money cheaper than the banks and it ended up that because there was more risk in this program, it cost them more to bond than it cost the banks to lend. In that case, if you wanted to borrow money from Berkeley to do energy efficiency, you'd have to pay a higher interest rate than you would with a commercial bank that does this already. I appreciate the goals. They are lofty. I think they are probably realistically unachievable and I don't see where our towns are going to bond $1.5 billion every year. Can you just listen to the town meeting debates? We just need $5 million more bucks this year on warrant article 27. Come on, these people can't even pay their taxes and are paying 18%. So, just to throw a little cold water on the great dreams, vote as you want, but vote with a little realism.

Speaker NorelliWill the member yield to a question? The member yields. Rep. Groen, you may inquire.

Rep. Warren Groen (R - Straf 10)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. I do agree that the goal is laudable here, but I question the mechanism. My question would be is sustainability of the retrofits taken into account? By that I mean, I was at an energy seminar where there was a presentation on solar energy and a $17,000 system only cost me $4200 out of my pocket, but that was after subsidies from all different levels of government and the program would never stand alone on its own. It's like pouring ethanol on your house, in a sense. It has to be subsidized in order for you to be able to afford to use it. Is that sustainability taken into account when evaluating who gets to retrofit and what equipment they get to retrofit with?

Rep. James Garrity (R - Rock 6)I'm sorry, I don't know. I think the sponsors could probably tell you that, but I don't know the answer.

Speaker NorelliThe question before the House is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1554. A roll call has been requested. This is the final speaker. The Chair recognizes the member from Plymouth, Rep. Cooney.

Rep. Mary Cooney (D - Graf 8)Thank you, Madam Speaker. No one could be opposed to the goals of this legislation which will encourage every homeowner to make their home more energy efficient. This bill will allow them to join with others in their own community to become part of an energy district. As has been stated, all the programs directed at energy efficiency have not been terribly effective on a large scale of reducing energy consumption. This bill will enable municipalities to create a locally financed option giving homeowners the ability to make their homes energy efficient while spending less than they would have on energy bills without the improvements. Through the vetting process outlined in the bill the homeowner will save more in energy efficiency than the cost of the loan. The office of energy and planning has received an increasing number of inquiries from municipalities, community leaders and local energy committees asking for resources their communities could employ to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy. Often homeowners face a difficult choice in deciding whether to make their homes more energy efficient. The cost of a short term loan is a barrier. Perhaps the homeowner has other priorities, kids, and college expenses, maybe they are retired or maybe the homeowner doesn't know how long he will be living in his home. This bill allows the homeowner to finance energy improvements over a variable length of time depending on the improvement and tie it to the property rather than to themselves. Depending on the municipality this could be accomplished by adding it onto a property tax bill or municipal service bill, not as a property tax, but as an energy loan. This is not a property tax, but a loan which will be paid off over the term of the loan depending on the project selected by the homeowner through the energy audit process. By the standards set forth in the bill the dollar amount saved on energy use would have to be more than the payments made on the loan just in the first year, a positive cash flow. Upon sale of the home, the energy loan would stay with the property unless it was negotiated as part of the sale. Municipal and county government committee worked very hard to address concerns of all the stakeholders, the NH municipal association, the NH bankers association, the NH municipal bond bank, the department of revenue and the office of energy and planning. The greatest concern between several of the parties involved was the priority lien. Both the municipalities and the mortgage holders felt they should hold the priority lien. We addressed the concerns from the NH bankers association to be sure the mortgage holders maintained their position in the lien process, 2nd after the property lien, the energy lien would take 3rd position and that is on page 1213, IV if you want to look at the priority lien positions. In an effort to allay fears of default and to protect taxpayers, there are safeguards in the bill. The total loans on the property in relation to value would not exceed 85% of assessed value multiplied by the municipality equalization ratio nor would the energy improvement loan exceed 15% of the value of the property. A minimum loan would be $5,000 and a maximum $35,000. A commercial building limit would be $60,000 or 15% of the assessed value whichever is less. Property owners would have to be current on mortgage and property taxes for 3 years as long as the property has been owned. In addition, the municipality may offer further standards to qualify the property owner. Municipalities will have various options on how to finance the loans for their energy district. It may be made by the municipality through a bonding process or a third party lender licensed by the state of New Hampshire which could be either banks or economic development corporations. It may be with the federal energy efficiency and conservation block grants or grant funds from many federal, state, private or other source. The use of municipal funds would have to be approved by a special warrant article and would require a loss reserve account. The majority of the committee feels that all of these options, including municipal funding, should be options available to all communicates. Cities may want to use the municipal funding since they might have an ability to dedicate an amount for that purpose. The loss reserve account would be tapped in the event of a non payment of the energy loan or foreclosure for the interim amount of the energy loan payments missed. Upon the sale of the property, the remaining loan would stay with the property. In the event of the redemption of the tax lien the homeowner would also be responsible for the energy loan payments that were missed by paying the loss reserve and delinquent amount due. Some municipalities may want to establish a revolving loan account to achieve the self-sustaining loan fund. Many communities will employ the services of a county or other economic development organization to administer the program. The US Dept. of Energy has strongly encouraged states, counties and municipalities to consider implementing PACE, Property Assessed Clean Energy financing mechanisms and will provide assistance to states in designing programs. This legislation will provide New Hampshire municipalities with a template for implementing energy conservation programs. It will enable towns and cities to access grants and implant energy saving initiatives which will assist the state in meeting the ambitious goals outlined in the New Hampshire Climate Action Plan. In accordance with these goals, the office of energy and planning has applied to the US Dept. of Energy for retrofit ramp up program that would seek to invest $20 million in federal funding along with $100 million in leveraged private financing to implement the beacon communities project in 3 New Hampshire communities. These communities would then serve as models to other communities to implement similar programs. Jobs will be created with the implementation of this program. There will be a need for energy auditors, installers of energy saving products and inspectors to make sure the work is completed as contracted. This bill will allow municipalities to join with others or act on their own to participate in this innovative program designed to serve the public benefit by conserving energy and at the same time, save homeowners significant energy costs. I urge you to support HB 1554 and Madam Speaker, I request a roll call.

Speaker NorelliWill the member yield to a question? The member yields. Rep. Kurk, you may inquire.

Rep. Neal Kurk (R - Hills 2)Thank you, Madam Speaker and I thank the Representative from Plymouth for taking my question. Are there any circumstances whatsoever, including the loss ratio or loss reserve, that the taxpayers of the town that approve this and enter into the project would have to pay because some particular individual went bankrupt, got sick, lost his job, house foreclosed upon, house under water? Are there any circumstances under this program in which taxpayers would have to pick up losses in a particular loan?

Rep. Mary Cooney (D - Graf 8)Thank you for the question. No, they would not because the loss reserve fund would pick up any interim amount on that loan due that was unable to be paid. If in the case of redemption of a tax lien and the owner said that now they can pay them, they have a job now, they would pay back, besides their delinquent taxes, they could pay the loss reserve account. If in the case of a third party lender, the way the bill is written, it would be up to them to decide if they needed to hold a loss reserve account, otherwise, they would be the losers, not the taxpayers.

Speaker NorelliWill the member yield to a follow up. The member yields.

Rep. Neal Kurk (R - Hills 2)Thank you for accepting the question. When this article appears upon the ballot in SB 2 towns in their deliberative sessions, may the town meeting amend the article?

Rep. Mary Cooney (D - Graf 8)I do not believe so because we did not allow petition articles to be presented in this. It would have to come from the governing body and so it could not be amended.

Speaker NorelliWill the member yield to another question? The member yields. Rep. Jasper, you may inquire. Rep. Jasper: I have two. Hopefully somebody else will yield. I call your attention to page 1214 in the House Record. On this bill, it is 53 F:7 Financing Terms, and it says that improvements shall be financed pursuant to an agreement under this chapter only on such terms that the property owner experiences a positive cash flow impact during the first year. So, after the first year and there has been a negative cash impact, what happens? Is the financing withdrawn? What does this mean?

Rep. Mary Cooney (D - Graf 8)The reason the positive cash flow was put in for the first year was because, as we all know, energy costs vary greatly from year to year. During the energy audit, it would be determined that the energy saved would be more than the cost of the loan, but it would be almost impossible to predict. The energy savings obviously would go on, but in many cases, if the costs go up for your fuel oil, you're going to get a bigger savings than what you would have paid without the energy retrofit.

Speaker NorelliWill the member yield to a follow up? The member yields.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)I'm trying to understand that, but if there is not a positive cash flow, what happens?

Rep. Mary Cooney (D - Graf 8)I think the decision is made based on the audit and I don't see how that could possibly happen if the audit were correct.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you. I would like another follow up question to the speaker or if the speaker doesn't someone else.

Speaker NorelliWill the member yield? The member yields.

Rep. Shawn Jasper (R - Hills 37)Thank you. The next section, section 2, talks about the municipality that provides financing shall establish a loss reserve account and maintain funds in such account at a level.........yadda yadda yadda. Where do these funds come from? They don't seem to be part of the bond. Would a municipality have to take funds out of its other cash reserves to fund this?

Rep. Mary Cooney (D - Graf 8)No, there were many ways that they could do that. Very likely there might be some administration fee attached to the loan which could then help fund the loss reserve account or it could be through grants or other possibilities.

Speaker NorelliWill the member yield to another question? The member does not yield. The question before the House is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1554. Rep. Kappler wishes to make a motion. Please state your motion.

Rep. Lawrence Kappler (R - Rock 3)Thank you, Madam Chair. Hearing a very long debate on this and some controversial answering of various questions as I see it in the amendment, I don't think this body is prepared to vote on this today so I make a motion to lay on the table and ask for a roll call vote.

Speaker NorelliRep. Kappler moves that HB 1554 be laid on the table. Rep. Kappler has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. Will members please take their seats? This will be a roll call vote. The question before the House is the motion to lay HB 1554 on the table. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 146 having voted in the affirmative, 187 in the negative, the motion fails. The question before the House is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1554. Rep. Cooney has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Will members please take their seats? The question before the House is the majority committee report of Ought to Pass as Amended on HB 1554. This is a roll call vote. If you're in favor, you'll be pressing the green button. If you're opposed, you'll be pressing the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. The House will be attentive to the state of the vote. 180 having voted in the affirmative, 155 in the negative, the majority committee report is adopted. Rep. Kurk is recognized for a motion.

Rep. Neal Kurk (R - Hills 2)Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move that the debate on HB 1554 be placed in the Permanent Journal. Speaker Norelli: Rep. Kurk moves that the debate on HB 1554 be printed in the Permanent Journal. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say Aye. All those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the debate will be printed. REGULAR CALENDAR - SPECIAL ORDERS (CONT'D) HB 1510, relative to grounds for divorce for persons with minor children. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY. Rep. Deanna S. Rollo for the Majority of Children and Family Law: This bill would create a policy that would force couples with minor children to stay married or seek a fault divorce. The majority of the committee felt that forcing parents to stay in a marriage or to state a reason for the separation for the record was not in the best interest of their children. Vote 15-3. Rep. Edward P. Moran for the Minority of Children and Family Law: While this bill has inherent problems, the committee as a whole is very concerned about the inability of so many adults to sustain successful marital relationships and the minority felt this could be a vehicle for productive discussion. The question being adoption of the majority committee report of Inexpedient to Legislate. Rep. Groen spoke against and yielded to questions. Rep. Marshall spoke in favor and yielded to questions. Rep. William O'Brien spoke against. Reps. DiFruscia and Gile spoke in favor. Rep. William O'Brien requested a roll call; sufficiently seconded. YEAS 248 NAYS 81 YEAS 248 Arsenault, Beth Bolster, Peter BELKNAP Johnson, William Miller, Kate Millham, Alida Pilliod, James Reever, Judith Russell, David Fields, Dennis Swinford, Elaine Nedeau, Stephen Ahlgren, Christopher Stuart, Richard Butler, Edward Knox, J. David Stevens, Stanley Umberger, Karen CARROLL Butynski, William Allen, Peter Bridgham, Robert Buco, Thomas Johnson, Jane Carr, Daniel McConkey, Mark Patten, Betsey Mitchell, Bonnie Lerandeau, Alfred Wiley, Susan Robertson, Timothy Parkhurst, Henry Sad, Tara CHESHIRE Theberge, Robert Mears, Lucy Butcher, Suzanne Butterworth, Timothy Cooney, Mary Thomas, Yvonne Eaton, Daniel Hunt, John Lindsey, Steven Meader, David Aguiar, James Richardson, Barbara Roberts, Kris Sterling, Franklin Jr Weber, Lucy Merrick, Evalyn COOS Richardson, Herbert Almy, Susan GRAFTON Benn, Bernard Ford, Susan Friedrich, Carol Gionet, Edmond Gould, Franklin Harding, Laurie Ladd, Rick Jr Laliberte, Suzanne Mulholland, Catherine Nordgren, Sharon Pastor, Beatriz Pierce, David Preston, Philip Smith, Suzanne Taylor, Kathleen Townsend, Charles White, Andrew HILLSBOROUGH Beck, Catriona Chandley, Shannon Baroody, Benjamin Beauchamp, Roger Beaulieu, Jane Cote, David Belvin, William Bergin, Peter Boisvert, Ronald Emerton, Larry Chase, Claudia Chininis, Alexis Christensen, Chris Ginsburg, Ruth Craig, James Day, Russell Drisko, Richard Hammond, Jill Farley, Michael Flurey, Joan Garrity, Patrick Hebert, Roger Gorman, Mary Graham, John Haley, Robert Jasper, Shawn Hardy, Valerie Harvey, Philip Harvey, Suzanne Komi, Richard Hodges, Kevin Holden, Frank Holden, Rip Levasseur, Nickolas Jeudy, Jean Knowles, John Knowles, Mary Ann Marshall, Seth Kopka, Angeline LaPlante, Roland Leishman, Peter Nixon, David Levesque, Melanie Long, Patrick Mack, Ron Matarazzo, Anthony Messier, Irene Movsesian, Lori Peterson, Andrew Sr Ramsey, Peter O'Brien, Michael Sr Ober, Lynne Ober, Russell III Schulze, Joan Pilotte, Maurice Pratt, Calvin Price, Pamela Spaulding, Jayne Rokas, Theodoros Rosenwald, Cindy Ryder, Donald Williams, Carol Shattuck, Gilman Shaw, Barbara Soucy, Timothy Sullivan, Daniel Thompson, Robert Walsh, Robert Jr Coffey, Jennifer Winters, Joel Gile, Mary Kidder, David MERRIMACK Potter, Frances Stetson, William Bartlett, Michael Brown, Carole Clarke, Claire Walz, Mary Beth DeStefano, Stephen Foose, Robert French, Barbara Hamm, Christine Hess, David Kelly, Sally Bridle, Russell Lockwood, Priscilla Owen, Derek Porter, Margaret Casey, Kimberley Richardson, Gary Schuett, Dianne Shurtleff, Stephen Day, Judith Tilton, Joy Tupper, Frank Wallner, Mary Jane Dowling, Patricia Watrous, Rick Webb, Leigh Yeaton, Charles Gleason, John Henson, John ROCKINGHAM Katsakiores, Phyllis McCarthy, Barbara Abbott, Dennis Allen, Mary Borden, David Packard, Sherman Brown, C. Pennington Cali-Pitts, Jacqueline Case, Frank Petterson, Don Charron, Gene Crisler, Margaret Cushing, Robert Sapareto, Frank DeSimone, Debra DiFruscia, Anthony DiPentima, Rich Weare, Everett Elliott, Robert Ferrante, Beverly Flanders, John Sr Gould, Kenneth Griffin, Mary Hagan, Joseph Browne, Brendon Hoelzel, Kathleen Howard, Doreen Ingram, Russell Horrigan, Timothy Kepner, Susan Lyons, Melissa Mann, Maureen Lewis, Robert McEachern, Paul Moody, Marcia Nord, Susi Pantelakos, Laura Perkins, Amy Perkins, Lawrence Priestley, Anne Read, Robin Jr Russell, Trinka Schlachman, Donna Splaine, James Sullivan, James Webber, Carolyn Welch, David