|
Not many topics have generated more attention in the legislature this year than the natural gas pipeline being developed by Kinder Morgan in this part of the state. A number of bills have been filed with the goal of taxing or regulating the construction of that pipeline, and seven of those bills had hearings this week. To give you a sense of the range of the bills, this week's hearings featured:
- HB 1544 (levying a one percent tax on revenues from contracts for natural gas transmission);
- HB 1101 (prohibiting New Hampshire citizens from being charged for construction of a high pressure gas pipeline that is directly or indirectly connected to an export terminal);
- HB 1472 (requiring pipeline to be installed below the frost line);
- HB 1174 (requiring natural gas transmission compressor stations to have external sources of energy);
- HB 1140 (requiring gas pipeline owners to maintain certain levels of insurance or bonding);
- HB 1145 (creating new standards for PUC review of gas pipeline capacity contracts).
There are some important issues afoot here. No one can have any doubt that the pipeline is a matter of major concern for some who live and run businesses in the area. On the other hand, there are extensive processes in place today that govern the review, approval, siting, construction, maintenance, and regulation of gas pipelines. All of this is in the hands of the NH Public Utilities Commission and the NH Site Evaluation Committee, and especially the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which has wide and preemptive jurisdiction over gas pipelines like the Kinder Morgan pipeline.
There are several principles which are going to be governing the Chamber's review of these bills.
First, the overriding principle by which these bills should be judged is their impact on energy prices in New Hampshire. Will the bills contribute to a reduction in energy costs to New Hampshire customers, or will they result in continuing escalation of energy prices?
Second, do the bills attempt to create new types of state requirements in areas where FERC has ultimate jurisdiction? If so, then the state laws will be meaningless, and at best they can only lead to unintended consequences in areas which are not being contemplated at present (which is never a good thing).
Third, can the concerns of New Hampshire citizens be brought before existing bodies (such as FERC, the NHPUC and the NHSEC) under statutes and rules that already exist?
And finally, as we repeatedly said during the early days of the Northern Pass controversy, we think the legislature should be wary of the practice of creating special laws for particular projects. Despite the robust review and approval procedures that already exist with respect to energy projects in this state, it seems to have become routine, when new energy projects are proposed, to see numbers of bills filed that look to change how the project will be reviewed or approved or regulated. Now, sometimes that sort of thing certainly is necessary (if, for example, there is some notable hole in the regulatory process that no one has previously recognized). But since businesses crave certainty, and without that we place an obstacle in the path of businesses relocating into and/or expanding in the area, we think it is important to consider whether the processes that are in place right now are so inadequate as to outweigh the principle that legislation works best when it is not directed at a particular project or entity.
We will keep you updated on where we go on this and what happens on these bills.
| 
