The House, Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Speaker JasperThe question is on the adoption of amendment (1944h), printed in House Record 39 on pages 1663 to 1667. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say aye; those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and the committee amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes the member from Plymouth, Rep. Bennett to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Travis Bennett (D - Graf 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. SB 179 is not about preventing voter fraud in New Hampshire. In the last fifteen years, there have been only six confirmed cases of voter fraud. With no concrete evidence of rampant voter fraud, allegations of "drive-by" voting persist due to trumped-up allegorical hearsay, rather than hard statistics. These allegations are an insult to our town moderators and election officials. SB 179, rather, has the inherent effect of restricting the rights of voters in New Hampshire, especially those of our university students. Of course, SB 179 sponsors will maintain that the bill is not about eroding stu dent's rights to vote, but we all know that the few thousand students in New Hampshire could easily sway a close election and there are those that wish this not to be so. As a student at Plymouth State University, I find the implications of this bill particularly troubling and indeed shameful. During an early September primary, the rights of thousands of incoming students to vote in the place where they live, pay taxes, contribute to the lo - cal economy and become a lifelong part of will come under question, due to the 30-day residency requirement in this bill. This is in clear violation of the New Hampshire Constitution, which ensures the voting rights of students. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that voter fraud is not a compelling interest t o implement a durational residency requirement and with no administrative need for a 30 -day residency requirement, because we have same day registration, this bill has no legal basis. Indeed, from its outset, SB 179 contained language that was found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court. Now, as amended, with the unconstitutional language regarding changes to voter forms, the bill is being purported to address trans - parency. Lines 3 through 8 on page 7 of SB 179, would allow the release of private vot er forms and affidavits to the public through legislative hearings, yet no public hearing was held on SB 179, as amended. Only the secretary of state and House legal counsel were allowed to speak during the executive session and curiously, the Speaker of the House sat on the committee as a surrogate, spoke and voted during the executive session. With the unconstitutionality and inherent effects of this bill in mind, SB 179 is clearly more of a concerted effort to restrict voting rights in New Hampshire and potentially sway the outcome of the September primary election. This is poor, unconstitutional legislation to begin with. Its passage through the election law commit - tee was questionable, at best, and, as amended, SB 179 encroaches on the privacy of New Ha mpshire voters having undergone no public scrutiny or testimony. Let us do the responsible thing and vote no on ought to pass and if its sponsors wish to do so, allow for the bill to be reintroduced during the next legislative session and undergo the public scrutiny it deserves. Thank you.

Speaker JasperWill the member yield to questions? Member does not yield. The Chair recognizes the member from Sandown, Rep. Gannon to speak for the committee report.

Rep. GannonThank you, Mister Speaker. I stand before you today to ensure that we protect the integrity of New Hampshire elections and the first in the nation primary. Voting is a fundamental right to all Americans, however, if an individual from another state comes and votes in New Hampshire, it cancels ou t the vote of the state's true citizens. This is wrong and tears at the fabric that binds us together as New Hampshire's citizens. This bill is a modest attempt to define domicile as the primary place you live and intend to return should you leave. New Hampshire's Secretary of State Gardner has said that New Hampshire has a problem in respect to voter fraud. He has personally observed it and this is a real issue. Even Vice President Joe Biden's niece, an out of state voter, was temporarily working in New Hampshire on a campaign, voted in a New Hampshire election. That is just wrong. This should be a bipartisan bill today. It is a bipartisan issue and I can't imagine anyone in this Hall wants out of state voters to be free to vote in New Hampshire elections. The bill will protect the sanctity of the voting process here in our state. Residents of my district have approached me stating that they are concerned about the integrity of our state's elections. Just the fact that they think this weakens our voting system. This bill will help to restore our voter confidence and the integrity of our elections. In our most recent general election, there were 1,800 votes that were challenged as to their origin. The secretary of state sent out letters and they are unverifiable. That's 1,800 votes. At this point, there is nothing we can do about it. Why are these votes so important to me? Ask the Representatives in this Hall who were elected by 1 or 2 votes. Are you also aware that New Hampshire is the place of the closest U.S. Senate race? In 1974, the Durkin and Wyman race was decided by just 2 votes. The minority on this issue has said we rushed this bill through. That is simply not accurate. We had a full public meeting on the bill months ago . Recently, there were minor changes in order to conform with the recent State Supreme Court decision. The minority, at our executive meeting, were fearful as you heard that this would impact the college student voting. The nonpartisan House legal counsel, as well as the secretary of state, has told us it will not affect them. At the public meeting on the bill, I asked the President of the ACLU and the New Hampshire League of Women Voters, could we compromise on this? Could we come up with a lesser time period that would not be offensive to you? I asked about 15 days. They said no. I said 10 days. They said no. Five days. Again, they answered no. I said, how about 1 day? If we could somehow do the paperwork in a day, could you live with that? I was told no. I even asked the minority in our election law committee if they could take it to the caucus the idea of a compromise to a lesser timeframe. They came back to me; they said there would be no compromise, not a day. It's difficult to develop bipartisan solutions when the other side refuses to work with us. This bill will ensure the people of New Hampshire decide our own elections, not out of state voters. Thank you.

Speaker JasperDoes the member yield to a question? Member does not yield. The Chair recognizes the member from Dummer, Rep. Moynihan to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Wayne Moynihan (D - Coos 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker and thank you, members for your attention. The proceedings in the election law committee were not as complete as recently presented to you, at least in the perspective of the minority. You may recall that this body had a bill before it in April. It was HB 112. That HB 112 does essentially the same thing that SB 179 proposes to do. HB 112 adjusted the definition of domicile. HB 112 attempte d to connect voting with motor vehicle rules. That bill, after being presented to this body, was tabled by this body. Because of the concerns, this body was persuaded to recognize the bill had to be unconstitutional. So, HB 112 now sits on our table. It has, through the process we have now, subsequent to that, presented with a senate bill, SB 179 that basically does the same thing. What we debated in the committee, among the things that we debated in committee, was should we wait and see what the answers would be that we receive from the supreme court on the questions that we sent from this House as to whether or not HB 112 was constitutional. You will recall that HB 112...............

Speaker JasperThe member will....We are not talking about HB 112. You need to confine your remarks to what is in SB 179. The issues that were sent to the court you may talk about as long as they are confined to what is in SB 179.

Rep. Wayne Moynihan (D - Coos 2)Very well, Mister Speaker. Thank you. The issues that are in SB 179 include a variation on the definition of domicile, most importantly, the creation of a residency requirement and thirdly, a transfer of confidential information into public information. The recent supreme court decision, that to me was an answer to the questions that we had presented to the supreme court, came not in the form of an advisory opinion, in response to questions we presented, but came in the form of an actual opinion on a case in con troversy known as Guare v State of New Hampshire. In that case, the supreme court found that changes that had been made to the domicile, motor vehicle, voting qualification rules by the House in 2012, were unconstitutional. Therefore, we had a meeting two weeks ago on SB 179 because clearly of what's in SB 179 before it was amended, as we just did, had unconstitutional provisions. It had a provision in it that said if you voted in New Hampshire, you would have to register your car and get a license in New Hampshire. The amendment strips that part out, but the amendment does not strip out other defective parts of SB 179. SB 179 creates a residency requirement saying that if you are a doctor, who moves to New Hampshire 30 days before the election, you can't vote in the New Hampshire election because you cannot establish your domicile here within those 30 days prior to the election. Military people that are sent to the state could not vote within those 30 days. College students, who arrive and take up their domicile under approved New Hampshire law, could not vote in that election. So, the bill cl early cuts and puts a limit on our citizens' fundamental right to vote. Would we allow the fundamental right under the constitutional to bear arms to be limited? We would not be allowed to bring our firearms into New Hampshire for 30 days until after we live here. This law affects a fundamental right. Forgive me if I am repeating myself, but all elections under our constitution, Part I, Article 11 must be free and every inhabitant of the state, 18 years of age and upwards, shall have an equal right to vote in any election and every person will be considered an inhabitant for purposes of voting in the place where he has his domicile. Fundamentally, the controversies, the allegations of fraud, the allegations of misvoting very often come down to the debate ove r whether the voter is a resident or the voter is domiciled in New Hampshire. New Hampshire's constitution allows people who are domiciled in New Hampshire to vote in New Hampshire while they live here, even if it is not as a definition of residency says their intent to remain in New Hampshire. So, it's our constitution that has this domicile word in it. It's our constitution that if we want to change, we should amend, but it is not appropriate to amend the constitution by changing the definition of domicile in such a way as this bill does. The other issue that we believe would not be fair or constitutional is that the residency requirement and the domicile determination is made by a set of factors that used to be in a handbook and this bill puts into law. T he handbook was a training tool for election administrators. The terms and suggestions in that book that an election official might ask a voter to determine whether or not the voter's domicile is in fact in New Hampshire, we are, if we pass this, putting into law. Those suggestions, which are in the amendment and in the bill, are really tests not of domicile, but tests of residency. If you want to show your hunting license, that would be proof of domicile, but you need, as you know, to be a resident in most cases to get a hunting license. If you show your New Hampshire driver's license, you would establish your domicile, but as you know, you need to be a New Hampshire resident to get a driver's license. So, the bill conflates, as the New Hampshire Supreme Court recently said in that case, it conflates the meaning of domicile and residency. It takes two words and makes them mean the same thing when in reality they mean two very different things. Lastly, as was said without prior knowledge of the committee, a new section was put into the amendment that changes information that was heretofore confidential information from voter affidavits, religious exemption affidavits and the like into public information that could be distributed to the legislature. For these reasons, we believe this amendment is unconstitutional and wrong policy for our state and I would urge you to vote red to deny SB 179. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker JasperDoes the member yield to questions? Rep. Itse, you may inquire.

Rep. Daniel Itse (R - Rock 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you to the Representative for taking my question, the Rep - resentative from Dummer. First, did the secretary of state express a knowledge that there is indeed voter fraud in this state?

Rep. Wayne Moynihan (D - Coos 2)In the information that I heard, testified to in our committee, the secretary of state did not say that. The secretary of state, in our committee, I'll give you an example of what he said. He talked about some cases. The facts of the matter are that in the last 15 years, there have been 6 cases of established voter, misapplication of voting law here in New Hampshire. Six cases in the last 15 years. I recognize that there is a case in Dover where someone claimed a thousand letters had been presented and the ballot law commission had a hearing in Dover and they dismissed the petition in regards to those and did not require Dover to redo their checklist. The 1,786 letters that the secretary of state sent out after the 2012 election, I believe it was, are still under investigation. There has been no ruling that those 1,786 voters perpetrated voter fraud. From my perspective, he did not say that.

Speaker JasperDoes the member yield to a further question? Follow up question? Member does not yield. The Chair recognizes the member from Raymond, Rep. Hoelzel to speak in favor of the committee report. Rep. Hoelzel: Thank you, Mister Speaker. The amendment is necessary after the decision of the New Hamp shire Supreme Court in the Guare case. The amendment, with the help of House counsel and the secretary of state; that is how we came up with the amendment. This amendment will meet all federal laws so we will not be in violation of federal laws. Interest in making the law clear. The requirement that a person have established his or her domicile in New Hampshire for at least 30 days ...................

Speaker JasperWill the member please suspend? You need to remember, just for a point of clarification, that the amendment has already been adopted so you are speaking to the bill, as amended.

Rep. Kathleen Hoelzel (R - Rock 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The requirement that a person have established his or her domicile in New Hampshire for at least 30 days before voting makes our election laws more easily understood, so all who are qualified have an equal opportunity to register and vote. Election officials will now more easily be able to answer the question, what does domicile mean? Unclear laws invite those not qualified to try to take advantage of the lack of clarity and may discourage those who are qualified from exercising their right. Our government has a duty to make the election laws clear and easily understood. This bill will make clear that a person must have established his or her domicile here for at least 30 days before the election. With this bill , the public, election officials, and campaigns will have a clear rule that helps distinguish a short term visitor from a person who has legitimately established a domicile in New Hampshire. The 30 day domicile require ment supports the government's interest in maintaining legitimate elections by increasing the ability of the government to verify voter information and to enforce the law. The vast majority of people who are in New Hampshire for at least 30 days will create a record of their new address by performing at least one action that requires address information to be given. Actions that would create a record include but are not limited to: entering into a lease or a rental agreement, forwarding mail, establishing utilities, registering children for sc hool, registering for college or registering a motor vehicle. If, after an election, uncertainty does arise as to the legitimacy of a person's claim of domicile, these records will allow voter information to more easily be verified. Many states close voter registration up to 30 days before and I think it is almost 40 states that have durational requirements like this bill proposes. This gives election officials the time to confirm the validity of information provided by registrants. New Hampshire ensures that voting is easily accessible through the election day voter registration process. By adding the 30-day domicile requirement, New Hampshire will have a more viable way to verify voter information while still offering the highest level of access to the pol ls. The previous member spoke of domicile and domicile is clearly defined in RSA: 654:1. Residency is a separate definition and that is defined under RSA: 21:6. There was concern over the requirement that we have added to SB 179, which states that the information can be given to the secretary of state and that is so that we, as a legislature, can have that information. It would not be identifiable information. There would be nothing identifiable about the voter on that. It would just be numbers. Right now we have trouble getting those numbers sometimes and we also have trouble following up on them. I urge you to pass this bill. Thank you.

Speaker JasperWill the member yield to questions? Member does not yield. Rep. Kappler h as 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 Chair recognizes Rep. Shurtleff for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Steve Shurtleff (D - Merr 15)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this bill establishes a 30-day period before new residents are allowed to vote in New Hampshire elections and in effect, we are telling people do not come to New Hampshire after October. And, if I know that 4 elections will be held in most municipalities next year, creating four 30-day windows in which our new neighbors would be denied their right to vote. And, Mister Speaker, if I know that one of our most cherished rights as American citizens is the right to vote and this bill effectively denies honest citizens from exercising that fundamental right, would I now press the red button to prevent and protect eligible New Hampshire voters from being disenfranchised? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker JasperThe question is on the committee report on SB 179. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you will press the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Chandler for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Gene Chandler (R - Carr 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know the secretary of state knows there are problems with our voting laws and I know that the supreme court had some differences with our previous legislation and I also know the committee, fine legal minds and the secretary of state crafted this legislation before you. And, if I know all of that and believe it is in the best interest of the bonafide voters of the state of New Hampshire to pass this legislation, would I now press the green button?

Speaker JasperThe question is on the adoption of the committee report on SB 179. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you will press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members voted who were here when the question was p ut? The House will attend to the state of the vote. There having been 211 votes in the affirmative, 145 in the negative, the committee report is adopted.

Speaker JasperThe question is on amendment (1926h), printed in House Record 39, pages 1668 to 1669. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor, say aye; those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The question is on the committee report. The Chair re cognizes the member from Hampton, Rep. Cushing to speak against the committee report.

Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, as we had a discussion yesterday, I would like to move an amendment.

Speaker JasperYou are recognized to offer your amendment.

Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)I would like to move amendment (2019h) please.

Speaker JasperAmendment (2019h) is not in order. The Chair is ruling that the amendment is non-germane. You are recognized to speak to the committee report.

Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I do not challenge the ruling of the Chair, but I appreciate the conversation you and I had yesterday afternoon. I appreciate that we were able to disagree on this and let me proceed anyway.

Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)It's with great reluctance that I rise to speak in opposition to this. I have a tremendous amount of respect for all of the people who have been working around this issue, not just this year, but for years. I was able to serve on the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee under Sen. Bradley when he was the Chair and I know he is the prime sponsor of this bill. I respect the work, but I can't help having a sense of being back to the future when this legislation comes before us. In 2008, I was part of a group of people who opposed, who introduced SB 152. This issue came before the legislature before a spade of earth had been turned at the Merrimack, at the Bow plant. There was legislation that came before both the House and the Senate to ask for an investigation before we proceeded to spend what was promised to be a quarter of a billion dollars and ended up being almost twice that. We were told at the time, don't worry. If things don't work accordingly, you will have a chance to review it. About half a billion dollars later, we are back here and being asked to pick up the tab. We are being asked to approve a bill that will allow the Public Utilities Commission to approve an order to impose half a billion dollars worth of rate increases on the customers of Public Service Company of New Hampshire or I guess after a million dollars, it's now being called Eversource or as some people think it's going to be known as "everpay." This is a bill that is trying to move beyond what has been the historical problems we've made. I have a couple of concerns about this. One is that it just seems like we're rewarding mismanagement. In a way, that is really outrageous. What is embedded in this bill is the notion that Public Service Company, that somebody is entitled, entitled, to a 9.8% rate of return on their investment; that they have been entitled the entire time. Since 2009, when the project began, the prime lending rate has been at 3.5%. It's really hard to understand how you can mess up a project. Me ss up when you have captive customers, when there are barriers from entry to prevent anybody else from coming in and you are able to make a rate of return on all of your investment and claim that the rate of return should be, what I think is, almost usurious. Why should you make three times the prime lending rate when you have an absolute guarantee of customers? It doesn't make any sense and that is what we are awarding in this. I also have some concerns about what impact this is going to have on the whole State of New Hampshire. One of the things that's missing from here is a fiscal note that can explain what impact this will have on state revenues and local revenues. The reality is what's being contemplated is an auction of the existing assets of Public Service Company, of assets that have been paid for over the years by captive customers. What we don't account for is what impact that auction is going to have on local communities and upon the state when those assets are sold at a fire sale process and we take a hit in our local communities from property taxes and every property taxpayer in the state takes a hit because of the impact that it has on the Education Trust Fund on the statewide property tax. I asked the question during the presentation last week about what the impact was going to be upon revenues in the state and nobody could answer it. It seems to me when we are going forward, what is a pretty major undertaking, we are going forward in imposing a broad base on three -quarters of the people of the State of New Hampshire, a half a billion obligation to pay off for past mistakes that were made in the name of stockholders of Northeast Utilities, that we ought to have an answer to some of these questions. Finally, what concerned me about this, just from a philosophical position, for perspective, is what we're doing with the plants that are being sold off. Those plants right now are subsidized by the taxpayers. There are portions of that plant that are considered for the purposes of pollution control. Th ey have been paid for. They make a rate of return on it and yet, they have almost managed at the same time to exempt themselves from local property taxes and state property taxes. We call it a subsidy. What we are contemplating doing is, not only are we going to sell the plants, we are going toss in the subsidy. So you will have the State of New Hampshire property taxpayers to end up subsidizing the new owners of these merchant plants who have no obligation to any customers w ho are then going to be able to sell that subsidized power, that they don't have to pay property taxes on, on the open market and they may be selling it in Massachusetts. Just think, isn't that going to be interesting? We are going to pass a bill that's going to require New Hampshire property taxpayers to subsidize the operations of power plants that sell the electricity in Massachusetts. I just have some problems with this. Someone said that this was an exercise of getting up and tilting against windmills. I said no it's actually tilting against a coal-fired plant with scrubbers on it. I just think it's a bad deal.

Speaker JasperThe Chair recognizes the member from Epping, Rep. Vose to speak in favor of the com - mittee report.

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill before us at the moment was described by one of its primary sponsors as something that he wasn't happy about, but something that needed to be done. Kind of like your tax return, not something you look forward to, but something you really can't avoid. In 2006, this body instructed PSNH, now Eversource, to install a scrubber at the Merrimack Station in Bow. The invoice for that expensive technology came due in 2012 when the scrubber went on line and part of the cost of that scrubber was deferre d while the PUC performed a prudence review to determine if the company should recover all the money that it invested. Eversource default service customers began paying 2/3 of the scrubber costs immediately. The interest was accruing on the deferred part and Eversource was collecting almost 10% profit on the 2/3 of the cost that the people had started to pay for. Now, some folks thought that there was a better way to deal with this issue. That better way turned out to be a process started as long ago as 1996. New Hampshire was one of the first states in the country to begin the process of deregulation of the electricity market. Part of that process involved the breakup of monopolies like Eversource, a process called divestiture, which separated power generat ion from its sale and distribution. By resurrecting divestiture, the sponsors of SB 221 saw a way to more economically pay for the Merrimack Station scrubber and level the playing field for the electricity suppliers all at once. Eversource knew that divestiture was part of its long-term future and it could see that its aging fleet of power plants was likely to be worth more in 2015 than at any time in recent history. When offered the opportunity by SB 221, the company decided to enter into settlement negotiations for divestiture. The result of those negotiations was an outline of a settlement that will save ratepayers $380 million over the next five years. These savings come from Eversource forgoing $25 million in scrubber costs, from delaying a rate case fo r two years, which saves $69 million, and from giving up $50 million a year in profits from their generation plants once they are sold, which comes to $250 million in five years. Sale of the generation plants on the open market will likely not cover their book value. The difference in the two numbers constitutes a stranded cost, which is money the company is entitled to recover. SB 221 provides a mechanism, called securitization, to allow Eversource to sell bonds secured by a small ratepayer surcharge to recover those stranded costs. So, the bottom line here is that the bill for the scrubber is now due and payable. We can pay a lot for it, or we can pay about $380 million less. I vote for paying less, and I urge you to do the same. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker JasperDoes the member yield to questions? Member yields. Rep. Hess, you may inquire.

Rep. David Hess (R - Merr 24)Thank you very much, Mister Speaker. Thank you for taking the question. As a predicate, let me say that I served for four years on the Governor's Business Tax Commission to look at the incentives and disincentives for having industry and business locate in New Hampshire and stay and expand in New Hamp - shire. One of the three major factors that almost everyone sites is the high energy costs in New Hamps hire compared to the rest of the country. My first question, I think you may have answered, but let me be clear. Do I understand that the PUC cannot order divestiture of any facility unless it finds that it is in the economic interest of retail customers of PSNH to do so?

Rep. David Hess (R - Merr 24)That is the $180 million in savings that you alluded to

Rep. David Hess (R - Merr 24)Is that the $180 million, plus or minus, that you alluded to in your initial comments?

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)It was $380 million and that is part of the divestiture settlement that the PUC and Eversource will work out.

Rep. David Hess (R - Merr 24)Do I also understand from the amendment, as I am reading it on page 1669 of the calendar, that this amendment requires, doesn't authorize or enable, but requires the commission to consider the impact on the economy of the area that is currently serviced by PSNH in making it's divestiture decision? Rep. Vose: That is correct. It not only requires the PUC to consider the economic impact on our jobs and employment picture, but it gives the PUC the authority to design rates, to ameliorate a negative impact on our largest commercial and industrial customers of electricity.

Rep. David Hess (R - Merr 24)Does this amendment also mandate that the PUC must consider the ability to attract and retain employment across industries as part of its decision?

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)That was an important consideration for many Republicans in the House and the STE Committee also agreed that this was an important consideration for the PUC to take under account so, yes that is a part of the amendment.

Speaker JasperDoes the member yield to further questions?

Speaker JasperMember yields. Rep. Fromuth, you may inquire.

Rep. Bart Fromuth (R - Hills 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative Vose, for taking additional ques - tions. Would you agree that last winter when rates at Enstar, National Grid, Central Maine Power, Liberty Utilities and Unitil all climbed between 15 and 24 cents per kilowatt hour and PSNH remained at 10 cents per kilowatt hour; that had a lot to do with the fact that PSNH relies on stable, not volatile, coal production that they were able to keep those rates nice and low for those PSNH customers?

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)I would agree that was the case this past winter, but that wasn't the case the previous winter and may not always be the case and that's not really germane as a question to the is sue of divestiture which I think is important for the long-term future of the electricity market in New Hampshire and in New England.

Rep. Bart Fromuth (R - Hills 7)Thank you, Representative. Would you agree that right now, we've been having a significant amount of discussion about a natural gas pipeline in the Northeast to try to increase our capacity ability because so much reliance on natural gas generation for the production of electricity has really consumed the Northeast and that was a major cost driver this past winter?

Rep. Bart Fromuth (R - Hills 7)So, this past winter ...........Again, to start off, we've been having a lot of discussion lately about building additional pipeline capacity in the Northeast because the Northeast has come to heavily rely on natural gas for the production of electricity.

Speaker JasperThe member will suspend. You are really making a statement, but I'm not sure it is not germane.

Rep. Bart Fromuth (R - Hills 7)I apologize, Mister Speaker. If I may rephrase?

Rep. Bart Fromuth (R - Hills 7)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Would you agree that if divestiture were to take place that the main generation source behind PSNH's power would become natural gas?

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)That's speculation. I could not agree or disagree with that. There are so many complexities in the electricity market, so many variables that we can't really control, that would be hard to predict.

Speaker JasperRep. Fromuth has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members will take their seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Cushing for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Robert Renny Cushing (D - Rock 21)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I am opposed to broad based taxes and I real - ize that what SB 221 really represents is a broad based tax of a half a billion dollars imposed upon utility customers of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, would I now vote no and press the red button?

Speaker JasperThe question is on the committee report on SB 221. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you will press the red button. The Chair recognizes Rep. Pa ckard for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Sherman Packard (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know many of us made a campaign promise to do what we could to control electric cost in this state. If I know the state's ability to attract and retain business is dependent upon a competitive and stable energy market. If I know that passing this bill today will result in considerable savings to New Hampshire rate payers verses doing nothing. If I know that this is the last and best opportu nity to fully deregulate our energy market in New Hampshire. If I know the BIA, the BAE, the chambers of Manchester, Nashua, Dover, and Concord all support this legislation. If I believe this bill will ensure more of our constituents hard-earned money stays in their pockets, would I now press the green button and support the hard work of the Science, Technology and Energy Committee and their vote of 18 to 1 on this very important and complex issue? Thank you.

Speaker JasperThe question is on the adoption of the committee report on SB 221. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you will press the green button. If you are opposed, you will press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members voted who were present when the qu estion was put? The House will attend to the state of the vote. There having been 308 in the affirmative, 43 in the negative, the committee report is adopted. Rep. Edwards declared a conflict of interest and did not participate.