The House, Thursday, March 16, 2023

Speaker PackardRep. Meuse offers Ought to Pass with Amendment. The amendment is (0596h) printed in House Record 15. Are you ready for the question on the amendment. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, Nay. A division has been requested. Only members in the Chamber. Only members that were in the Chamber on the voice vote can vote. If you weren't in the Chamber on the voice vote, you cannot vote. The motion before us is on the amendment. We had a voice vote and a division was requested. This will be a division vote on the amendment. 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. 178 voting Yea, 186 voting Nay, the amendment fails. The question now is on Ought to Pass on HB 596. The Chair recognizes Rep. Harriott- Gathright.

Rep. Linda Harriott-Gathright (D - Hills 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill explicitly prohibits New Hampshire law enforcement personnel from targeting individuals for suspicion of a crime based on an individual's race, ethnicity, color, national origins, nationality, language, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation, political affiliations, religion, social economic status or disability. It further clarifies that these characteristics shall not be a factor in determining the existence of probable cause to arrest or to be placed, the individual into custody. The bill provides clear guardrails to prevent demographic characteristics that have nothing to do with criminal activity from being used as a factor to constitute reasonable suspicions that an offense has been committed in order to detain an individual or to stop a motor vehicle. But to be clear, there is nothing in the bill that prevents a law enforcement officer from using a physical description to apprehend a specific suspect linked to an identified criminal incident or scheme. In New Hampshire, people of all races, ethnicities, religions and colors rely on the police to protect us from harm and promote fairness and justice in our communities, but racial profiling has led some of our neighbors who may not look or speak like the majority of our residents, to live in fear simply because they look different, come from a different place or practice a different religion. While the Governor's 2021 law enforcement accountability, community and transparency, LEAC Commission, made a series of legislative recommendations on gathering racial profiling data. Some have yet been enacted. Meanwhile, the act of racial profiling itself has never been explicitly prohibited by New Hampshire law. It is time to do so as over 30 other states have already done so. Our state has the unique distinction of having passed a motorcycle profiling law, but not a racial profiling law. There is a problem here in New Hampshire and we can address that issue because I believe that everyone in here in this room today realize what is happening in New Hampshire. I'm not talking about across the state, I'm talking about right here. I know you have friends and you might even have family members that experience the same situations. All we're asking is that we as a body stand and say it's not okay here in the State of New Hampshire. Before there was ever a name for racial profiling, it has been ingrained in our country law enforcement practices. From a public safety perspective, racial profiling results in a loss of trusts and confidence in our law enforcement. It involves unwarranted screening of certain groups of people, assumed by law enforcement, agents, to be predisposed to criminal activity. Where, as we all know, that is not true as well. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Charlotte DiLorenzo (D - Rock 10)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I stand in support of HB 596 as amended. As a Black woman, I believe I was racial profiled by law enforcement in a New Hampshire town. This was a couple of years ago. One Saturday morning, I was driving to the Market Basket supermarket in Stratham. On my way to the market I drove past a Stratham police station and a few seconds later I glanced in my rearview mirror and I noticed a Town of Stratham police cruiser with flashing blue lights behind my car. Well, as I know it is the law to pull to the side when you see flashing blue lights, I pulled over and stopped my car and looked into my rearview mirror and I realized that I was the one that was being stopped. I was a little bit frightened and so I just sat in my car and tried to remember to do what my parents and aunts and uncles told me to do when you are approached by the police. Get your license and registration out, be polite, don't talk back, be respectful to the officer. The officer approached me and I handed her my license and registration. I didn't bother to ask why I was being stopped. I think I was in shock. As I sat there waiting for the report to come through, I was thinking to myself why is this happening to me? There is nothing wrong with my car. My car is in perfect condition. It's daytime so it wasn't like a headlight or anything. All of my registration was valid, my driver's license was valid, my insurance was valid and so I just sat there thinking about what my elders told me about being stopped by the police and tried to follow that. Well, a few minutes later, the officer returned to my car and told me I was free to go. I didn't ask her why she stopped me, but she told me that she was looking for a red Chrysler PT Cruiser vehicle. My vehicle was a red Toyota Prius. There is no way you could mistake a Prius for a PT Cruiser. So I left. As I am relating to this you can tell that it stills bothers me. I still wonder why did that happen. Why would someone stop me? I am a wife, a mother and a grandmother, you know? I was just going to the store to get bread and milk on a Sunday morning. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Stone. Representative Stone: Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, we heard testimony in the committee and the area of concern that was raised was Title 18, US Code, Section 242 already making it a crime for a person acting under the color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the constitution and the laws of the United States. Is there a possibility that pollical influence could lead to investigation, subsequent prosecution? Would demographic makeup in different areas within the state affect the standards used to determine racial profiling? This legislation leads to allegations of racial profiling based on statistics only. Will all officers be treated equally regardless of race? The committee was not provided any answers. The sponsor of this bill remarked that they want to make a statement that racial profiling is not allowed in this state. Laws are not appropriate methods to make statements. Our laws must prohibit specific conduct in a clear and articulate manner so that citizens can understand what specifically is prohibited and what consequences are for violating the law. New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council provides extensive training on the topic of racial profiling and civil rights issues. The state county and local law enforcement agencies currently have the authority to enact policies relating to racial profiling. They also have the ability to deal with any performance issues relating to sustained violations of these policies. In closing, racial profiling is already illegal under federal law as it has been. This bill looks to provide a further divide within the criminal justice system and I would ask that you please vote no on the Ought to Pass so that another more appropriate motion can be brought forward. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes the last speaker. There has been a roll call vote request. It is sufficiently seconded. Members will take their seats. The Chair recognizes Rep. Ford.

Rep. Damond Ford (D - Hills 40)Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, not as a Black man as you can see because that is visible. But I stand up here in support of this bill because it is in our heart to say that in the State of New Hampshire we do not racially profile people. We know that it happens but this body should stand up and say our law enforcement, those who are tasked to enforce the laws that we are passing in this house, should not racially profile people. I am fortunate enough and blessed by the almighty to not have been racially profiled by police in this state, but I'm from Virginia, born there. It happens. It still happens, but because it hasn't happened to me, doesn't mean it isn't happening to others in this state. Those in small places up North in Coos County and in big places like Manchester. It is happening. We should codify this. Support this bill as OTP. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 596. This is going to be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 596. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Stone for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jonathan Stone (R - Sull 8)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that racial profiling is already illegal under federal law Section 242, Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under the color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the constitutional or the laws of the United States. And Mister Speaker, if I know the main argument put forward by the sponsor in support of this bill was, we want to make the statement. And Mister Speaker, if I know as a consequence of this law, police are encouraged to implement quotas for arrests based on race, sexual orientation or ethnicity, which is racist and sexist, would I now press the red button for Ought to Pass? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Wheeler for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D - Hills 33)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that we should be judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, including law enforcement. And if I know that this would be a statement based on law affirming as the overseers of law enforcement, that they cannot racially profile, then would I press the green button on OTP? Thank you very much, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 596. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 186 voting Yea, 185 voting Nay, the motion is adopted.

Speaker PackardRep. Chretien moves Ought to Pass and has a floor amendment (1033h) in your seat pockets. The Chair recognizes Rep. (Doug) Thomas. The Chair recognizes Rep. Vose. Representative Vose: Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, I rise this afternoon to oppose the amendment to HB 208. On the surface, it appears to be a fairly innocuous amendment. It changes a few dates from 2024 to 2026 and one to 2027 and it adds a clause about funding for writing a climate action plan. But the amendment is essentially the bill itself with just those few changes that I mentioned. The bill itself is a fundamentally dangerous proposition for the State of New Hampshire. This bill could, even though it looks innocuous, this bill could actually fundamentally change the way we live. It could allow government to dictate what kind of car you drive, to dictate how you heat your home, to dictate where you can work, to dictate where you can go on vacation or whether you could go on vacation. That's what a climate action plan could do to this state. This legislation says the General Court declares that it shall be the energy policy of this state to achieve the greenhouse gas emission goals identified in the climate action plan. Those goals are pretty draconian and to achieve them would require changing our lifestyle. We better be careful how we proceed with something like that. Now I'll point out that the use of the word goals doesn't actually make this a mandate, but it would be an encouragement to adopt policies that could significantly change the way you live. I'd also point out that the 2009 climate action plan contained 67 recommended actions, one of which was to import hydro and wind power from Canada that was never implemented, obviously. But the reality remains that putting a policy like this in place

Speaker PackardThe Representative will suspend for a minute. Are you speaking to the amendment or the bill itself?

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)Mister Speaker, the amendment is the bill itself with a few small changes. So the bottom line here is simple. This amendment is the bill itself with a few small changes and it's a fundamentally dangerous bill. I urge you to vote no on the amendment.

Rep. Michael Harrington (R - Straf 18)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you, Representative, for taking my question. I'm looking at a section of the amendment here and I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with climate action plans, energy or the climate at all. Where it says this plan must consider opportunities to encourage public and private investment toward to rural, low-income, low to moderate income, and minority communities in New Hampshire and provide an opportunity for small businesses, schools, affordable housing associations, and other community institutions to participate in and benefit from statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Rep. Michael Harrington (R - Straf 18)This sounds like some type of a socialized plan and can you explain what it has to do with energy?

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)Thank you for the question, Representative. All this language is designed to give government the power to virtually do anything it wants in a climate action plan and that's one of the things that makes it dangerous. Thank you.

Rep. Jacqueline Chretien (D - Hills 41)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Thank you for those interesting perspectives. This amendment makes a few improvements and clarifications to the language of the original bill, 208, in response to the testimony that we heard in committee and concerns that were raised from my colleagues. So mainly it adjusts the deadline dates for the reports in the first emissions reduction goal to move them two years into the future. So we heard it was necessary to make them more reasonably achievable for DES. The amendment also adds a section, as was noted, section five, that clarifies that any costs that DES incurs that are associated with personnel or administrative support to prepare the plan and emissions inventory should come from federal grants, which have recently been made available specifically for this kind of work. In the unlikely event that the time line for that isn't fast enough, they can use some of the funds the state receives from the regional greenhouse gas initiative as a backup source. Please vote to adopt the amendment so that we can vote on the best possible version of this important bill and ensure that this state has a climate plan that will make us all eligible to receive as many federal dollars for energy projects as possible by pressing the green button. Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is the amendment (1033h). A division has been requested. Members will take their seats. The motion before us is floor amendment (1033h). This is a division vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Vose for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that this amendment is fundamentally the bill before us. And if I know that this amendment and this bill is a massive expansion of government influence over our lives, would I press the red button to say no to this amendment? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. Chretien for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Jacqueline Chretien (D - Hills 41)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that a vote on the underlying bill will follow a vote on the amendment. And if I know that the amendment simply changes the dates and clarifies the funding source for this bill, would I now press the green button? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is floor amendment (1033h). 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. 185 voting Yea, 186 voting Nay, the amendment fails. We are back to a motion of Ought to Pass on HB 208. The Chair recognizes Rep. Doug Thomas.

Rep. Doug ThomasThank you, Mister Speaker. Members, in my committee we are told often just how far New Hampshire lags behind other states around us, that we should be more like the states around us. Maybe that's why we are experiencing the greatest influx of people coming in from most states to New Hampshire. They like New Hampshire. We know how to take care of our environment. We have clean air. We have good mountain views. We have great beaches. The agencies that we have here, DES, Department of Environmental Services and a Department of Energy, they know how to take care and guide us through the environmental crisis that everyone is looking at here and have been doing a great job. That's why we already have a climate action plan from 2009 and we have done quite well with that. Just a few days ago, I learned that there is federal money coming down that will enable DES to write an update. I asked DES if they needed legislative direction to write an update to your climate action plan and they said no. Since we have done such a great job with the 2009 plan, I have complete trust that our state employees will do a great job in updating according to federal guidelines what the next climate action plan will be and using the money that is being given to us by the federal agency. So we don't really need this bill to write an update to a climate action plan. What we need are good state employees that know the commonsense that New Hampshire has to put in there what we already know is doing a good job in keeping our state so good that everyone is coming here for both hiking, tourism and also to live. The other part of this bill talks about the New Hampshire Department of Energy. If this bill were to pass, the Department of Energy would be tasked with doing project planning, funding determinations and rulemaking. This is not what the Department of Energy is for. It is basically an economic regulator in our state and it's doing a great job so far. So if this bill were to pass, that portion would have to be funded. The Department of Energy would have to grow with staff members, costing us more money on something that DES is already doing. So this bill isn't needed. What we need is commonsense and trust in our state employees to keep up with the environmental regulations that we already have to keep New Hampshire going. Also, the requirements that this bill would do are extreme such as having zero emissions by the year 2050, which are just not going to happen, plus it will affect our economics in doing so. We are New Hampshire. We don't want to be like the rest of the states here. That's why we don't need HB 208. That's why we need to press the red button. Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Rep. Jacqueline Chretien (D - Hills 41)Thank you, Mister Speaker. This bill does two simple, but critical things. First, it sets out a series of stepwise goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the state in statute to 80% of 1990 levels or less by 2050. Then, it charges the Department of Environmental Services with creating and maintaining plans to meet those goals. I sponsored this bill first and foremost because the people of New Hampshire want the state to have a climate plan. With the exception of some date changes, this bill is actually essentially identical to bills that were introduced in the last two sessions. In 2020 it passed the House with a margin of 197 to 123, but unfortunately died a COVID death in the Senate. Last term it was tabled with many other bills from this committee, however, the public support for all three iterations of this bill has been overwhelming with 10 to 1 margin signing in for the bill versus against it. We have a mandate from our constituents to act on climate. A second reason why I sponsored this bill is because I believe as legislators, we have a responsibility to protect our residents and our state resources for future generations. Climate change is real and is already having negative impacts on our residents, businesses and the environment. Warmer winters are a killer for tourism and revenues in the North Country. Hotter summers are bad for kids with asthma and older people with COPD. Warmer waters and unpredictable weather patterns are major challenges for our fishermen, farmers and maple sugar producers. The science is clear that global weirding is happening at an unprecedented rate due mostly to greenhouse gas emissions primarily from fossil fuels and that structural changes will be required to slow it down. We have a responsibility to the future citizens of the state and the world to do our part. With that said, I recognize that climate change alone may not be a persuasive argument for everyone in this chamber. So let's talk about the money instead. There is substantial evidence growing almost daily that renewables and low carbon technologies, in general, are on learning curves or experience curves. And what this means is, unlike fossil fuels, which have costs essentially the same price per kilowatt produced for centuries, renewable technologies are becoming exponentially cheaper over time as production scales and this includes storage technology. They are far exceeding initial expectations in terms of affordability. This is actually amazing news because it means that the sooner we make this switch from oil and gas to solar and wind and other technologies, the more money we can save. Excuse me? I believe I have the right to be heard. Thank you. This is not counting any costs of climate change itself at all. Nothing about the savings of preventing flooding or wildfires or drought, so just the cost of energy itself. If you like citations, there is a really fabulous paper published in the Journal Joule last year that I can recommend that shows these trends clearly. If you prefer anecdotes, I can tell you there are already places, many places in the country where wind and solar are regularly the least expensive sources of electricity. And again, this gap is all but guaranteed to get wider over the next couple of years. I really can't emphasize this enough. We literally cannot afford not to switch to renewables as fast as we possibly can. For me it is also important to consider that low carbon tech presents an opportunity to develop homegrown energy from instate companies so we keep more energy dollars in the state and because renewable projects, including energy storage projects, can be sited throughout the state. They ultimately help us build a more resilient distributed grid. To be honest, Granite Staters aren't actually all sitting around waiting for us on this. We currently have many municipal and individual level efforts in the state to produce renewable energy, but what we don't have is a guiding, binding plan at the state level to help businesses understand where best to make long-term investments and to bridge the gap between local projects and the region level tasks of grid planning so they can be more efficient, avoid planning missteps and delays and not get left out of opportunities as our neighboring states go forward. On the topic of opportunities, let's talk about the big one, federal investment. Monies to accelerate the transition from fossil energy to renewables is coming and its clearly going to be a game changer for supporting renewables projects nationwide. New Hampshire is not even eligible for some of these dollars because we don't have an appropriate state level climate plan and we are otherwise in an enormous competitive disadvantage among the other states that feed into the New England grid because, yes, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts all have ambitious and legally binding greenhouse gas reduction goals. They have plans and state administrative support in place to direct federal funds to benefit their people and their businesses and New Hampshire doesn't. I'm happy to pay my fair share of federal taxes as part of my duties as a citizen of this great country, but I also want to make sure that my community is going to receive our fair share of the return on federal investments. If every other New England state has a real plan with shovel ready green energy projects, they are aware all of the dollars for modernizing New England's energy grid is going to get and they are aware the jobs created with these projects are going to be. I don't know about you, but when I'm out knocking doors next Summer and Fall, I don't want my constituents asking me why New Hampshire is the only state in New England that isn't benefiting from a green jobs boom. Finally, I do want to acknowledge, yes, my colleague from Londonderry is correct, New Hampshire does technically have a climate plan. The first one was created 14 years ago and it had emissions reduction goals in line with the ones proposed here and in line with what all the other states in New England have now, but it was essentially ignored after the Lynch administration ended. So if these goals had been put into statute, which is the difference with this bill, if we had actually followed the recommendations set out in that plan instead of undermining them, if we had stuck to the goal that was set then of obtaining 25% of our energy from renewables by 2025, we would certainly be less reliant on gas today and there is every reason to believe that we would have been more resilient to those electricity price spikes that we saw this year. That final goal of an 85% reduction by 2050 would be that much closer. So in closing, one thing that we have heard over and over again this year when the energy bills come up is that oh this isn't the time to invest in energy efficiency, now isn't the time to invest in renewables and you know what, I actually agree with that. The right time was 20 years ago. It was 14 years ago, but we failed to act at that right time so the next best time to act, the time that we have is now. Let us not let another 15 or 20 years go by. Let's not let our children and grandchildren and constituents look back at us and say the same thing we are saying about previous legislatures, oh gosh this could have been so much easier if they had just acted back then. Let's make energy transition a bipartisan issue. Stop kicking this can down the road and commit together to the serious energy transition plan that New Hampshire deserves. Thank you and I request a division vote.

Speaker PackardRep. Santonastaso has requested a roll call. It is efficiently seconded. This will be a roll call vote. Members take your seats. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 208. This is a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Vose for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know that 2009's New Hampshire climate action plan ran to 74 pages and recommended 67 steps, the vast majority of which were never implemented, including importation of Canadian hydro and wind power. If I also know that the Manhattan Institute has identified at least 42 solid reasons that explain why net zero by any date can never happen, which negates the need to plan for such a contingency. And if I know that now is not the time to expand government influence over our lives. And finally if I know that creating such plans is costly as well as ineffective, would I now press the red button to relegate this bill to its rightly place in the chronicles of historical futility? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Wendy Thomas for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Wendy Thomas (D - Hills 12)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know this bill will have New Hampshire join other New England states in setting medium- and long-term greenhouse gas reductions plans and would require the Department of Environmental Services to prepare and maintain 5-year plans related to these targets and an annual emissions inventory. And if I know climate change is occurring and already having an impact on New Hampshire businesses, our environment and our state's health. And if the lack of a specific climate plan to reduce greenhouse gas makes it more difficult for municipalities and businesses to make long term investment decisions and that we must have a state climate plan in order to be eligible for certain federal funding that is dedicated to renewable energy projects for the New England grid. And finally, if I know that setting and pursuing ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals is both the right thing to do from a climate and environmental perspective while also being fiscally and economically prudent for the future of this state, would I now do the right thing for New Hampshire's energy and economic future and press the green button for Ought to Pass? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 208. 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. 183 voting Yea, 187 voting Nay, the motion of Ought to Pass fails. For what reason does the member rise?

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Inexpedient to Legislate. A division has been called. Members will be in your seats. The motion before us is Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 208. 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 the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 192 voting Yea, 181 voting Nay, the motion of Inexpedient to Legislate passes.

Speaker PackardMembers take your seats. The House will be in order. The Member may continue.

Rep. Kat McGhee (D - Hills 35)Thank you again, Mister Speaker. Esteemed colleagues, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI, a regional cap and trade program involves 11 states and it helps fund investments in those states in clean, local energy supply, greater efficiency and current technologies. States do this to help avoid the kind of crushing price hikes we fell victim to last year. Though every state uses their RGGI money differently, only New Hampshire has chosen not to invest their money to modernize the state's energy economy. New Hampshire opted to offer electrical rebates so small that no one notices them while our rates shot up over 150%. Last year, New Hampshire received $43 million under RGGI. By statute, we can only use the first dollar of our allowances to fund energy improvements. Last year the average was about $13 as my colleague from Lancaster mentioned. Currently in March the allowance is around $12.50 so about the same. But less than 7% of that money gets used for its intended purpose and remember we've been spending the RGGI money this way for years, giving 93% of our investment capital away, a couple of dollars per person, per month. New Hampshire has received $262 million over the life of the program and what do we have to show for it? If we keep doing what we've been doing, which is the absolute minimum, then we cannot claim that we are doing all that we can to help people lower their bills and deal with the high cost of energy. It's really simple. No investment, no return. It's not taking money from people, which is one way to spin it. It's putting some of that money where it could actually do them some good. The bill asks us to increase that $1, 7%, to $3, so tripling our money to make investments and that would turn into approximately 20% or more, just under 21%. But we would still be rebating 80% of the funding onto the utility bills of the customers. So this is truly a compromise, as my caucus believes, we should be using 80% for energy transition and like the other 10 states in RGGI are doing. But having 20% of the annual funding gives us at least a chance to make the money work for our constituents, to do some things that are interesting and to try to keep up in terms of competitiveness. We can give them supply and demand side options and truly being down costs. We are not spendthrifts in New Hampshire, but we are not fools either. Our lack of progress on local sustainable energy has increased our share of the regional transmission costs on that regional grid. We don't have to be the only state member of RGGI who isn't seeing the benefits of this wildly successful program. We can do something today. If you told your constituents that you were going to do something to lower energy bills, then you can point to this vote as your follow-through on that commitment. Thank you.

Speaker PackardRep. Santonastaso has requested a roll call vote and that is sufficiently seconded. Members take your seats. This will be a roll call vote. The motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 524. This is going to be a roll call vote. The Chair recognizes Rep. Vose for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Michael Vose (R - Rock 5)Thank you, Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker, if I know the word investments is another term for taxes. And if I know that his bill reduces RGGI ratepayer rebates and will cost $70 million in the coming decade. If I also know that efficiency increases energy demand by making products and services more affordable. Finally, if I know that cost increases this past year for home heating, road travel and lighting our homes have hit near record levels, would I now press the red button to allow beleaguered energy buyers to catch a breather from relentless price spikes? Thank you, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe Chair recognizes Rep. McGhee for a parliamentary inquiry.

Rep. Kat McGhee (D - Hills 35)Thank you, Mister Speaker. If I know that New Hampshire ratepayers are not benefiting from the rebate program that was in place when they saw their bills go up by hundreds of dollars last year. And if I know that an increase in energy program funding from 7% to 20% would mean we could do more than just energy efficiency to help people lower their energy costs. And finally, if I know that rebating 80% of the RGGI fund to electric bills instead of 93% is a fiscally responsible compromise that won't do all the RGGI can do for New Hampshire, but it will help, then would I now press the green button to give consumers the choices they deserve to lower their costs? Thank you.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Ought to Pass on HB 524. 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. 181 voting Yea, 186 voting Nay, the Ought to Pass motion fails. For what reason does the member rise?

Rep. Joe Sweeney (R - Rock 25)I move Inexpedient to Legislate, Mister Speaker.

Speaker PackardThe motion before us is Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 524. A division has been called. All members should still be in their seats. This will be a division vote. The motion is Inexpedient to Legislate. If you are in favor, you'll press the green button. If you are opposed, you'll press the red button. Voting stations will be open for 30 seconds. Have all members present had the opportunity to vote? The House will attend to the state of the vote. 187 voting Yea, 180 voting Nay, the motion of ITL passes.