NH House spars over climate and energy bills. Here are the latest votes. – New Hampshire Bulletin
The State House this week saw the enduring sharp divide between Republicans and Democrats on climate change and energy issues — in a state that remains the only one in New England without legally binding climate targets.
Republicans ended efforts to evaluate the future of electric vehicles in New Hampshire and voted to remove the requirement for utilities to submit plans that demonstrate their investments keep costs as low as possible. They also shot up laws net measurement And carbon prices.
In a series of statements released after the vote, Republicans said they want the free market to decide which cars consumers buy and protect taxpayers’ wallets from additional taxes.
Democrats called the day a major blow to efforts for more serious government-level climate action and public utility accountability amid a government energy crisis.
Republicans currently have a slim majority in the House of Representatives, but Thursday’s session saw an even bigger advantage with several Democrats absent.
Here’s a look at two of the bills in question, both of which came into the House without prior recommendation on split votes by the Science, Technology and Energy Committees.
Future of electric vehicles in NH
as introduced, House bill 92 would have required adoption of California’s vehicle emissions standards and ended sales of new gas-powered automobiles in the state by 2035. Proponents of the bill were willing to compromise by forming a study commission instead, but the entire effort was immediately quashed.
California has unique authority under US law to set emission standards, so the federal Clean Air Act allows other states to adopt them California Low Emission/Zero Emission Vehicle Program. New Hampshire is the only East Coast state north of New Jersey that has not yet adopted the standards, the bill said.
HB 92 would also have allowed EV owners to take advantage of an extended warranty for emissions-related parts and increased the state’s available EV inventory.
Democratic Rep. Rebecca McWilliams, the main sponsor of the bill, introduced herself a floor change on Thursday, which would instead have set up a commission to “address the market readiness and infrastructure challenge in New Hampshire for the oncoming wave of low-emission vehicles” rather than immediately embracing California’s program.
A large majority of Democrats voted in favor of the McWilliams amendment, but were defeated by overwhelming Republican opposition. The original bill was then killed by a vote of 40 to 331.
In a statement on ThursdayRepublican Rep. Doug Thomas called HB 92 “extremist legislation” and questioned plans modeled on California.
“Among the many regulations this bill will impose, the most egregious is a total ban on sales of internal combustion engines by 2035,” he said. “…We should let the free market dictate which cars consumers buy.”
Utility companies’ most cost-effective integrated resource plans
House Republicans introduced a bill that would remove the legal requirement for utilities to submit least-cost integrated resource plans to the Public Utilities Commission every two years. Consumer advocate Donald Kreis recently called these plans “the only way to control runaway utility investments.”
The Democrats voted unanimously against the Republican-backed proposal House bill 281while all but one Republican voted in favour.
To support removing the requirement, Republican Rep. JD Bernardy wrote to other lawmakers that due to divestitures, utility companies may no longer make money from the type or placement of power generation assets, making the requirement no longer relevant.
“The primary reason for the law no longer exists, so these plans are no longer being submitted and reviewed,” Bernardy wrote. “Further plans to minimize electricity costs related to distribution services and energy efficiency can and should be part of the Department of Energy’s state energy plan.”
While testimony on the bill indicated that the lowest-cost integrated resource plans are likely to be outdated anyway, Democratic Rep. Wendy Thomas wrote, “we shouldn’t … just remove the requirement without putting some guard rails in its place.”
“Current law requires the PUC to consider all cost-saving measures, including energy efficiency and diversity of energy resources, in each (least-cost integrated resource plan),” she wrote. “…Both Eversource and the Consumer Advocate testified that while the process may need updating, reforming and modernizing it is far better than doing away with it altogether.”
HB 281 will be voted on in the Senate at a later date.