Bruce Berke, Sheehan Phinney Capitol Group

This week's legislative pace can be characterized best as something less than full throttle. The General Court usually has full schedules on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays but this past week saw limited action on Tuesday due to our First in the Nation New Hampshire Primary. Then the House postponed dozens of hearings slated for Thursday due to the first snow storm of the New Year. However, I might add that the hearty members of the State Senate did maintain their regular schedule amid the flakes.

Regulation & Regulating Regulators

Hearings on bills of interest this past week included several that are designed to bring more oversight of state agencies. Two bills were heard relative to overseeing the Department of Environmental Services, one of which would include a grievance committee. Not sure at this writing as to the likelihood of passage, but the bills are definitely sending a "message" to DES.

Another agency bill seeks to repeal the manner in which the Department of Labor is funded. It is currently self-funded (through fines, violations and programs) and would disband that process and place the agency within the state's general fund.  Some believe this would bring greater accountability to the agency and reduce pressures to generate revenues from the business community through fines resulting from violations.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee this week recommended the passage of SB 48, a bill relative to the filing of rates for certain telephone companies. This committee recommendation represents more than a year's work, spearheaded by Senator Bob Odell, to re-regulate retail telecommunication services offered by companies such as FairPoint and Granite State Telephone.  Representatives from the Public Utilities Commission, the telecom industry, and NH Legal Aid worked with Senator Odell to create a friendlier environment for investment and competition while protecting those ratepayers who may not have multiple choices of providers in the highly competitive telecom marketplace. This bill is likely to pass the Senate next week then face more scrutiny in the House.

Health Care Exchanges

Upcoming this week in the House is a bill that would prohibit the State of New Hampshire from any form of participation in a health care insurance exchange.  As the reader may know, the federal Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) includes the development of exchanges where consumers (individuals and small businesses) will be able to purchase health care policies. The federal government will develop an exchange to establish "essential benefits" but the PPACA also provides the opportunity for states to develop their own exchange.

Senator Ray White of Bedford has been laboring over a state-based exchange proposal for several months. His bill (SB 163) passed unanimously out of the Senate Commerce Committee this week and is expected to pass the Senate next week.  Senator White is working with a growing list of business groups throughout the state of New Hampshire, including some that are not necessarily in favor of the PPACA. But they do see the value of a state-based exchange versus an inevitable federal exchange. Some of the benefits to a state-based health care exchange include lower costs than a federal exchange, more flexibility in order to tailor the exchange to New Hampshire, whereas a federal exchange will be "one size fits all."   Additionally, Senator White's bill has a "poison pill" written into it that will have his bill/law repeal itself should the federal PPACA be found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court this year.

This debate is definitely setting up as one of the more vivid and stark differences that the House and Senate will likely have this year. And from this view of the State House, it is clear that the only way for a state-based exchange to gain passage into law will be for the state's business community and consumer groups to engage in a one-to-one lobbying effort with nearly the entire 400 member House. A herculean task given the positions each side has staked out? Yes, but not impossible and certainly worth the effort if New Hampshire wants to have some degree over its health exchange destiny.

Much more will be written on health care insurance exchanges in the days ahead and it is hoped that participation in this debate will be healthy from members throughout New Hampshire's business community.

Will Stewart, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce 

The Government Affairs Committee met last Friday, Jan. 4, to makes its recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding what bills the Chamber should support, oppose or monitor during the 2012 legislative session.

During the next few issues of Capitol Insight I will review these recommendations, particularly those receiving "support" or "oppose" recommendations.

One of the four bills the Government Affairs Committee recommends the Chamber oppose is House Bill 1282, which would repeal the workforce housing law the Chamber helped pass in 2008. This law ensures that communities allow the development of housing options that are affordable to the workforce. A repeal bill similar to this year's passed the House last year (despite at 16-0 committee vote that it not even be taken up by the full House), but thankfully it was killed in the Senate. We're hopeful it won't get out of the House this year.

Another bill the Chamber will oppose again this year is House Bill 648, which was held over from 2011 and attempts to change an existing state law for the sole purpose of stopping a specific development project, namely Northern Pass. And while the Chamber has not taken a position one way or another on Northern Pass, we oppose this bill because targeting one particular project with legislation is a bad precedent. The  business community needs consistent policies to effectively evaluate risk and make reasonable business decisions about investing in and operating in a our state. Constantly shifting policies, changing policies to undermine development, or worse, targeting a specific project with legislation deters investment in our state and sends a very bad message to the business community.

Of course, not all of the bills being taken up this year are bad ideas. Indeed, the Government Affairs Committee has recommended the Chamber support some eight bills this session.

Two of these bills speak to initial recommendations of the Commission to Study Business Recommendations in New Hampshire, which was created with the Chamber's support last session to review the state's business regulations as they relate to labor, the environment and construction/permitting and make recommendations for legislative reform.

House Bill 1539 requires the state Building Code Review Board to consider economic impacts on the public in its review of amendments to the state building code, while Senate Bill 213 requires state agencies to issue a warning before imposing certain fines or penalties. The bill also requires state agencies to waive first time paperwork violations.