CI Header
Sponsors
SPB+G 2013 logo



Cap Group

Editorial Board

Brad Cook
Sheehan Phinney
Bass + Green
  
Bruce Berke
Sheehan Phinney 
Capitol Group
 
Sheehan Phinney 
Capitol Group

 

Sheehan Phinney 
Capitol Group

 

Sheehan Phinney 
Capitol Group
  
Will Stewart 
Greater Manchester
Chamber of Commerce

Join Our Mailing List

The Budget Intrigue & Related Components

Bruce Berke, Sheehan Phinney Capitol Group

 

If playing Sodoku or putting together jigsaw puzzles is your favorite hobby and you happen to enjoy the development of public policy, then this past week would have been Nirvana for you.

 

While the Governor delivered her budget address last week, much of what took place this week was driven by the initiatives she set forth in her proposal. Most of the intrigue focused on revenues and who was supporting which methodology to accomplish the proposals put forth last week.

 

First, there was the road toll or more commonly described as the gas tax. In her address, the Governor did not have a specific solution but indicated that she would entertain responsible approaches to maintaining our highways. A House bill called for a gas tax increase of 12 cents over three years plus an increased fee for the vehicle registrations but was amended in committee to drop the registration fee and add .03 to the overall increase bringing the tax to .33 after 3 years.  However, the Senate Finance Chair called that idea irresponsible as Senator Morse prefers to fund our highway infrastructure with revenues from expanded gambling. Others have different ideas for how that money may be spent. Competing interests for the same dollars. 

 

Speaking of gambling, it was difficult at times to know who was for gambling expansion and who was against it unless you had a program!  Leading off in support of expanded gambling was Governor Hassan. With her no broad base tax pledge, the Governor is somewhat hamstrung to find the necessary revenues to fund the initiatives outlined in the budget. If gambling expansion does not pass, then all bets are off on the budget and the potential of other revenue sources being tapped.  

 

Because the Governor's support for gambling is limited to one high-end, destination resort, some of the usual suspects that would normally be 100 percent behind expanded gambling were either opposed or at a minimum throwing a lot of rocks at the bill introduced by Senators Morse and D'Allesandro. Who wants to be the lucky winner? Well, at the top of the list is Rockingham Park. Close behind is a group from Hudson that want to develop a resort and conference center and at their side is the New Hampshire Motor Speedway that suggests its facility will be the greatest draw of all potential sites. As proposed, the bill sends money to many different sectors of governments in order to attract as much support for the bill. But as mentioned above, already a schism has emerged between the House and the Senate as it relates to highways and the gas tax. 

 

And finally, there was the tobacco tax. While there is near unanimity that the tax will increase, there appear to be differences as to how much.  First the Governor called for a hike that would increase the levy to $1.98, just .02 less than our neighboring state to the east. The House Ways & Means Committee heard a bill this week that would take the tax to $1.88 and it was sponsored by a leading Democrat on the House Finance Committee, the committee which writes the budget. Clearly, not everyone is singing from the same song sheet on this the most easily raised tax over the last 20 years. Just another example of the work that is necessary to bring the state's multi-billion dollar budget to a successful conclusion in about four months.

 

It is still only February and the final budget will not emerge until June. But with some of the major elements of the budget debate already receiving such high profile "looks," you can bet on many more differences of opinion and re-writes of these measures between now and June 30 when the current fiscal year concludes. Stay tuned.

Northern Pass inspires a slew of troubling bills

Will Stewart, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce 

 

If you know anyone on the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee, give them a hug.

  

For the past two weeks, members of this committee have had to endure hours upon hours upon hours of public testimony - not to mention getting bombarded with phone calls and emails - on a slew of bills that have attracted interested parties from across the state. The reason? In short: Northern Pass.

 

The specifics of each bill are varied, but the result of each is the same: stopping Northern Pass.

 

Regardless of your view of the Northern Pass Project (the Chamber supports it), such bills should be troublesome for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that by targeting a specific project, they send a strong anti-business message to developers and others who want to do business in New Hampshire.  

 

Legislators should not want, nor is it their role, to vote on specific projects. Their role is to establish a rigorous review process that developers can abide by and in which the public has confidence.  

 

Other concerns include: 

 

Turning back the clock of deregulation: The following bills  look to essentially repeal a deregulation process that it took the state more than a decade ago to enact. Deregulation served to introduce competition to the electric industry in an effort to bring down costs for customers. Deregulation was intended to incentivize private development and elective projects, yet these bills single out elective projects and subject them to new, costly mandates and increased bureaucracy:

  • HB 166
  • HB 449
  • HB 569
  • HB 568
  • SB 99

Lack of stakeholder participation: While local concerns with regard to a project are certainly important, so, too, are concerns from those in other parts of the state. On projects that have a statewide impact, affected stakeholders from across New Hampshire should have the opportunity to contribute their opinions, too. These bills, however, ignore or diminish the greater good for the state and region in favor of hyper-local and personal interests:

  • HB 484
  • HB 449
  • SB 99

Minimizing Economic Impact: Major energy projects carry with them significant economic benefits like reduced energy costs, energy diversity, jobs and new tax revenue. The following bills undercut those benefits by a) requiring costly mandates that drive up project costs or b) diminishing the ability for regulators to consider economic impact as a core benefit of a project.  

  • HB166
  • HB 569
  • HB 580
  • HB 586
  • HB 568
  • SB 99