Thank you, Mister Speaker. New Hampshire's latest 3-year energy efficiency plan would have produced significant cost savings for all of New Hampshire ratepayers, in the hundreds of millions of dollars.…
Rep. Rebecca McWilliams (D - Merr 30)Thank you, Mister Speaker. New Hampshire's latest 3-year energy efficiency plan would have produced significant cost savings for all of New Hampshire ratepayers, in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Why? Because energy efficiency is the cheapest form of energy. It's the energy you don't have to buy because you don't need to use it. The 2020 plan would have increased funding for the New Hampshire Saves Program, which is a proven cost-cutting program with roughly $150 million to $350 million returns to New Hampshire citizens for energy efficiency projects. This would have insulated town halls, installed money saving heat pumps in businesses and residences across the state, allowed our own small business owners to perform energy efficiency programs and increased our small businesses who do energy efficiency work in this growing industry. This would have produced electricity bills across the board for all New Hampshire residents, not just for the owners of the buildings who receive an energy efficiency audit and insulation or blower door program because the prices we pay for energy reflect our combined total use. These prices go up with increased use, especially in the highest cost peak periods. The authors of this amendment do not recognize that energy efficiency investments pay off year after year and provide accelerating value over time. The focus is on the short-term outlay when we need to look at the overall long-term results. If you switch out lightbulbs that use 1/6th of the energy or install appliances that are 250% more energy efficient, or you add insulation that keeps heat inside your building, you cut your energy use and that cuts not only energy bills, but also the amount of energy needed across the grid. Energy efficiency cuts energy costs and prices. Let's be clear, this amendment does one thing. It cuts energy efficiency funding, putting cost effective upfront investments out of reach for towns, businesses and families. The New Hampshire Saves Programs are subjected to a rigorous cost benefit analysis, which ensures that this program provides benefits that exceed their costs. On average the return is 2 to 1 for New Hampshire Saves, but frequently it's 3 and 4 to 1. It's estimated that under the 2020 plan, the systems benefit charge, which funds New Hampshire Saves, would save New Hampshire electric customers $525 million over the first 3 years and $1.3 billion over 10 years. We are currently experiencing peak utility costs in the winter in New Hampshire. All of our constituents can benefit from reduced utility costs. Yes, this is called the systems benefit charge because it benefits all users across the entire system. Passing this amendment would mean not making these cost saving investments and that means you are being asked to vote to increase rate and bills by hundreds of millions of dollars, over ten years by over a billion dollars, unnecessarily at the expense of New Hampshire businesses, residents and economy. Please fund New Hampshire Saves. Invest that money in New Hampshire and don't waste it. Build a thriving New Hampshire economy built on local businesses, local jobs and Yankee thrift. Defeat this amendment. Thank you.
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. The member from Epping, Rep. Vose is recognized to speak in support of the majority amendment.
Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. The majority amendment (2205h) sets the funding mechanism for energy efficiency in our state, the system benefits charge, into statute and it sets it at the highest level that it's ever been in its history. In addition to that, it provides a mechanism to increase the system benefits charge year over year by a stable and predictable amount. The 3-year average of the consumer price index plus .25%. This will allow energy efficiency programs to grow in a stable and affordable manner and provides predictability to those programs going forward. More importantly than that, the majority amendment will save ratepayers money. It will keep increases in the system benefits charge in an affordable range of some $5 to $10 million a year. That contrasts sharply with the energy efficiency plan that was proposed to the Public Utilities Commission about a year ago. That would have raised ratepayer charges by $30 to $70 million year over year. So what that means to you and I as average ratepayers is the difference between a $2 to $8 per month charge for energy efficiency as opposed to a $8 to $16 a month charge. But ultimately, the most important thing that the majority amendment does is it puts the legislature back in control of the funding mechanism for energy efficiency. Since this funding mechanism is essentially a tax on electricity, only the legislature should have the authority or has the authority, the constitutional authority to set that rate. Therefore, I ask the members to accept the committee amendment. It is the essence of the bill. Thank you, Mister Speaker.
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. The question is on the majority committee amendment (2205h). For what reason does the member rise? This will be a division vote. Members please take your seats. Who requested the roll call? Rep. Edwards has requested a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members please take your seats. The House will come to order. Rep. Oxenham is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Lee Oxenham (D - Sull 1)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know this amendment cuts funding for cost effective New Hampshire Saves Programs from the projected levels of the 2020 triannual plan. And if I know that losing these investment dollars results in raising electricity prices for ratepayers across the system by hundreds of millions of dollars. And if I also know that this amendment does nothing to cut into the billions of New Hampshire energy dollars that are being sent out of state annually or to cut our fossil fuel use, would I then vote against this amendment and push the red button?
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairIt's really loud in here again. Rep. Vose is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that amendment (2205h) sets the system benefits charge at 2020 levels, which is the highest level it's ever been in the history of the state and also allows for that system benefit charge to grow year over year by a formula that is both affordable and sustainable. And if I know that amendment (2205h) puts the legislature back in control of essentially on a tax on electricity, would I now press the green button to support the committee amendment?
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThis is a division vote. Sorry, it's a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 187 having voted in the affirmative, 156 in the negative, the amendment is adopted. The bill is on second reading and open to further amendment. Rep. Mann moves amendment (2299h) which would have been distributed with your packets. Rep. Somssich is recognized to speak in favor of the floor amendment.
Rep. Peter Somssich (D - Rock 27)Thank you, Mister Speaker. While the minority is of the opinion that HB 549, even with the majority amendment, is still seriously flawed, we offer amendment (2299h) as an important improvement. Ideas for it have been borrowed from suggestions made by one of our majority committee colleagues. This amendment addressed two critical issues. It addresses the request by the Public Utilities Commissioners, Office of Consumer Advocate to explicitly put into the legislation the existence and role of the energy efficiency resource standard, the EERS. Additionally, it includes a badly needed simplification of the rules around the systems benefits charge, but it firmly opposes the notion of setting low ceilings on that charge, which is the primary funding mechanism for New Hampshire Saves. This is the program that funds energy efficiency and renewable energy and is currently critically underfunded, often running out of funds by July 1st of each year. Therefore, this amendment does not include specific funding levels or specific mechanism for annual increasing those funding levels. That is because we believe that funding levels should be increased significantly and also because we have been assured by a senior member of the other body that the final version of HB 549 will undergo a complete replacement at which time needed fixes will be made. That is why this amendment is only a small down payment on that improvement we hope will be made and which is why I ask you to give it your support so please the green button to support amendment (2299h). Thank you, Mister Speaker and I request a division vote.
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. The member from Strafford, Rep. Harrington, is recognized to speak against the floor amendment.
Rep. Michael Harrington (R - Straf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. A couple of things I think we ought to get straight here because we are dealing with myths here instead of reality. We keep getting told over and over again that no matter how much money you spend on energy efficiency, it's never enough. If you spend $1 million, people want $10 million. If you spend $10 million, they want $100 million. The simple fact is that just throwing money at energy efficiency projects is not economically efficient. If you have to spend $1,000 to save a megawatt hour that you can buy for $50, that's not a good plan for anybody. What backs this up? All we have to do is look to our friends to the South in Massachusetts. They've spent money many, many times on energy efficiency what we have. I believe it's in the billions of dollars now and yet the last time I checked the Eversource rates for Eastern Massachusetts, this is the total rate, was slightly higher than the Eversource rates in New Hampshire. If throwing huge amounts of money at energy efficiency was the solution to lower electric rates, there's would be much lower than ours, not slightly higher. So, what does this amendment do? It was just stated the approved amendment, the majority amendment, takes the authority for raising the system benefit charge and puts it where it belongs with the legislature. It is in fact a tax and the system benefit charge is supposed to benefit the system, but a lot of the money has little to no benefit to the system because when your neighbor's house gets insulated, his oil bill goes down, but his electric bill hardly changes at all. It doesn't have any effect on the electric system one way or the other. So, this amendment would take that out and we turn it to the, what I would assume is the program that was rejected by the Public Utilities Commission is being not efficient and way too costly. So they want to put this thing in the energy efficiency resource standard into law. That's the standard that resulted, that was rejected by the PUC because it was way, way over price. So, in closing, just remember throwing money at energy efficiency does not necessarily save you money. Massachusetts is proof of that. The systems benefit charge is effectively a tax and the setting of that charge belongs in the legislature. Thank you.
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. Before we move on, we've got a bipartisan problem here. Both sides are making a lot of noise and it's really hard to hear the speaker. I'm actually at the point where I'm trying to calculate the noise level because I'm worried that if I stop and say everyone should quiet down while one is speaking will it look evenhanded. It shouldn't be that way. We should care that they put work into their speech, that it's hard to go up there and speak in front of hundreds of people and we should respect the work that they put into this and just be quiet and listen to them. I'm learning things listening to them. Let's just give them the respect that they deserve, all of us, please. The House will be in order. Rep. Somssich had asked for a division vote. This will be a division vote. Members will take their seats. The question is on floor amendment (2299h). Rep. Mann is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. John Mann (D - Ches 2)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that there is no constitutional problem with raising the systems benefit charge in that the constitution gives explicit permission for the Public Utilities Commission or any other agency to raise the rates. And, if I also know that the purpose of these energy efficiency projects are not just to save money, they also include reduction of CO2 emissions, which has effects that may concern our children and our grandchildren. If I further know that our economy, the New Hampshire economy, dumps $85 to $90 million per year to import heating oil with the effects cascading down the economy. And, if I further know that a program of competent energy efficiency work on the willing owners of homes and other buildings would begin to stem this outflow of money and over the long run would produce an accelerating and you have to do the math to see this, an accelerating growth of savings that outstrips the costs and that the costs in any event is comparable to one or two or three LED bulbs. We are talking about kilowatt hours saved by the LED bulbs beating the systems benefit charge. If you can't afford three bulbs, I'll show you how you can afford 20.
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairWill the member suspend? This is supposed to be.
Rep. John Mann (D - Ches 2)Would I now press the green button to pass or the red button to defeat. The green button to pass HB 549 with my amendment (2299h) so that we can get control of our energy expenses and CO2 emissions and so on? Thank you.
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThe House will come to order. Rep. Vose is recognized. Rep. Harrington is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Michael Harrington (R - Straf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this amendment would try to restore the flawed program that was rejected by the Public Utilities Commission as being way to expensive and I know it would remove the authority for raising what is effectively a tax, the system benefit charge, from the legislature and give it to an agency, would I now push the red button and defeat this amendment?
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThe question is on floor amendment (2299h). This is a division vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 155 having voted in the affirmative, 189 in the negative, the amendment fails. We are back to the majority committee report of Ought to Pass with majority amendment. The member from Hollis, Rep. McGhee is recognized to speak against the committee report.
Rep. Kat McGhee (D - Hills 27)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Nice to see you again. HB 549, as amended, does several things the minority disagrees with. It lowers investment for energy efficiency at a time when the value of those investments is rising along with the rising fuel prices. It halts essential forward progress as though the benefit of the New Hampshire Saves Program have not been proven. It calls for changes to the EESE board's involvement and role in state energy planning and that's a board that myself and my colleague from Epping are both appointed House representatives to. Those of us who have been in the legislature for a while know that stakeholder boards are a great deal for New Hampshire, and they are how we get incredible work done out of talented people for no money. In that way, the EESE board truly is an extension of our citizen legislature, except in the case of the EESE board, the members do often bring high levels of expertise to bear on the problems that we ask them to solve. So we think that the EESE board should have that role in planning energy efficiency. They are not politicians by design. We see no reason to fix something that was not broken. The minority also takes exception to the redefining of rate setting as being the role of the legislative or executive branches of government, rather than the energy regulators who were supposed to remain separated by a bright red line when the new Department of Energy was sold to us as part of the budget trailer bill. So the minority does not agree with the thrust of the bill, as amended, however, HB 549 does provide a vehicle to fix the drastic upheaval of the Public Utility Commission's November decision on the weatherization companies and utilities who administer the New Hampshire Saves Program. Although this bill does not leverage the return on investment of energy efficiency to the degree we believe the New Hampshire Saves Program has earned, tossing HB 549 today, although against our instincts, will allow the legislative process to proceed toward fixing what was broken by that PUC order. It will help restore the faith of New Hampshire small businesses who are counting on us to reinstate essential New Hampshire Saves funding. We ask you to pass this far from perfect bill so that it has a chance to become a rescue vehicle for all the uncertainty imposed on the dedicated men and women who weatherize our homes and love their purposeful New Hampshire based jobs because they know, and we know, their work has never been more needed. I ask for a division vote.
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThank you. The member from Epping, Rep. Vose, is recognized to speak in support of the committee report.
Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. As my distinguished colleague from Hollis just pointed out, HB 549 will address a current problem with our energy efficiency programs. The Public Utilities Commission reset the systems benefit charge funding mechanism back to 2019 levels as of January 1, 2022. By passing this bill, those levels would be reset back up to the 2020 level, which I mentioned earlier is a historic high for the State of New Hampshire. But more importantly, HB 549 addresses a significant problem for the lowest income ratepayers in New Hampshire. They suffer the most when electricity prices go sky-high. That's because they pay proportionally more of their income for energy. So taxes like the system benefits charge are regressive by nature. That makes it imperative that increases to the systems benefit charge should be modest and they should be predictable and that's what HB 549 does to the systems benefit charge. Now we all know that energy efficiency makes sense. Everybody should understand how it benefits their personal and professional lives and therefore some portion of SBC funds should be used to raise public awareness of the need for energy efficiency and HB 549 does that by allocating to the energy efficiency and sustainable energy board, the EESE board, 1% of SBC funds for the purpose of promulgating information about the benefits of energy efficiency. We have to remember that people are somewhat reluctant to spend money on energy efficiency because the costs are upfront. You have to pay them first, but the benefits accrue over time. So you don't really get what you pay for the day you hand over the check and that's one reason why people don't rush out to do energy efficiency projects. Lastly, I want to close here by reminding people that if you look it up in the dictionary, a tax is defined as, "A sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for a specific facilities or services levied upon income, property, sales, etc." or, "A burdensome charge obligation, duty or demand." By this definition, the systems benefit charge qualifies as a tax because it is demanded by government, and it's levied upon electricity sales. I would remind you all, that the New Hampshire Constitution authorizes only the General Court to impose taxes. Thank you, Mister Speaker.
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairRep. Somssich requests a roll call. Is that sufficiently seconded? It is sufficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members please take your seats. Rep. Pimentel is recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.
Rep. Roderick Pimentel (D - Merr 6)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that funds raised through the systems benefit charge pay for energy efficiency programs for the very popular New Hampshire Saves. And, if I know that all our surrounding New England states are outperforming us in reducing energy demand through energy efficiency. And, if I know that because we are falling behind, New Hampshire will continue to pay a larger and larger part of New England's energy transmission costs, but if I also know that failing to pass this legislation will.....If I also know that because of decisions at the PUC, that failing to pass this legislation will totally eviscerate the progress we have made toward reducing our energy demand, would I hold my nose and press the green button and vote for this bill?
Rep. Michael Harrington (R - Straf 3)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Without holding my nose, I'll just say push the green button.
Rep. Steven Smith, in the chairThe question is on the majority committee report on HB 549 of Ought to Pass with Amendment. This is a roll call vote. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations are open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had an opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. The House will come to order. 343 for everybody voting in the affirmative and no one disagreeing, the committee report is adopted.