"Crossover" is the point of the New Hampshire legislative session in which legislation passed in both the New Hampshire House and Senate "crossover" to the other body for further legislative action. This event marks the halfway point of the legislative session.
It has been a busy session in Concord. Here a few numbers to give you a sense of the volume of legislation acted upon since January: The House processed some seven hundred and fifty pieces of legislation and passed more than three hundred on to the New Hampshire Senate for further action. During the same period, the Senate took action on more than three hundred pieces of legislation and passed two hundred and twenty on to the House for further action. Public hearings will be held on each of the remaining bills in their respective chambers with hopes that by late May or early June the work for this session will be completed.
Education Funding
There are several macro level pieces of legislation that are pending in the process that could, if passed, impact the overall fiscal condition of the state. Those proposals revolve around the all too familiar issue of education funding. The Senate has taken two votes in that regard. First, the Senate voted 19-5 to pass a constitutional amendment that would permit the state to allocate state aid to education on a targeted basis for purposes of need by school districts rather than the current per pupil allocation.
A proposed constitutional amendment requires a three-fifths vote of the House majority and this threshold will be difficult to achieve. If the amendment passes the House, the final step before adoption requires a two-thirds affirmative vote by the electorate in November. These are high hurdles to overcome and a discussion in which many say the business community should be deeply involved. Because the Supreme Court ordered, school funding plan is much more expensive than a targeted plan, it is likely that businesses would likely to be faced with ever increasing state business taxes to pay for it.
In other Senate action relative to education funding, the Senate has approved a school funding spending plan that approaches $1 billion and nearly $100 million more than last year. This action signals a need to find additional revenues. The House, where we can expect a very healthy debate on the additional spending, also must vet this proposal.
Gambling
Speaking of additional spending and revenues, the debate on gambling continues to remain alive but has yet to move forward. Two bills were involved in the latest debate: Senate Bill 306 is an act relative to allowing gaming in Coos County, building a casino in Berlin and establishing a fund to assist with payment of property taxes; and Senate Bill 330, an act relative to video lottery machines at certain pari-mutual facilities were heard by the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The committee recommended to the full Senate that the bills be found inexpedient to legislate. A lengthy debate on the floor of the Senate resulted in the bills being laid on the table. This is a move that is intended to preserve the issue for consideration at some point in the future.
These gambling bills or others quite similar have been proposed almost every year for at least the last 15 years. The legislature has consistently opposed the notion that gambling will fill the State coffers without endangering our present quality of life. As the legislation stands now, the discussion will rise and fall with the financial needs of the State. Those who have an opinion about the benefits or detriment of expanded gambling as a revenue source for New Hampshire should contact their legislator.
The Environment
Another macro level bill that received much scrutiny in the House involves whether or not New Hampshire should join nine other states in signing on to a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, aka RGGI, pronounced "Reggie".
RGGI is a regional effort to address climate change by reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants that generate at least 25 megawatts of power. The reductions are achieved through a flexible market-based mechanism commonly referred to as "cap and trade", in which total emissions from affected facilities are limited, or capped, at an initial level and the cap is reduced over time. The state would issue "allowances" (the right to emit one ton of CO2) in an amount equal to the total capped emissions, and allocate those allowances to individual states in proportion to their emissions. Facilities can either make reductions themselves or purchase allowances from an allowance market system. The demand for allowances set a market price, and the cost of allowances should encourage facilities to make additional reductions. All this being said, this initiative is designed to bring about the emission reduction of 17% by 2019 as compared to a 7% increase without RGGI.
The rub comes in when the issue of what happens to the dollars raised by the sale of these credits ripens. House Bill 1434 says that a percentage of the money raised will go toward energy efficiency. Some in the business community feel that the money should go toward reducing electric rates. Others are afraid the dollars will go to the general fund, never to be seen again. The bill has now crossed over to the Senate for more discussion.
Privacy
House Bill 686 seeks to regulate the remotely readable devices that are so prevalent in our lives today. It will require consumer products or identification documents with remotely readable devices to include a consumer notice to that effect; it will prohibit the human implantation of a remotely readable device without the individual's informed, written consent; it prohibits electronic tracking of another individual with certain limited exceptions; and it will change the definition of payment card and re-encoding for purposes of the crime of using a scanning device or re-encoder for fraudulent purposes.
There was much testimony around the jurisdiction the state has about requiring manufacturers from other state s to conform to a New Hampshire specific law. It is expected that portions of this law will be proven to be a burden to interstate commerce and therefore unenforceable.
Passage of this law in its current form would be a first of its kind. As with any privacy-related issue, there are always unintended consequences that should be thoroughly studied before making any decisions.
The only thing that is certain in the legislative process is that there will be uncertainty: at least until the end of the session. Stay tuned.
This article is intended to serve as a summary of the issues outlined herein. While it may include some general guidance, it is not intended as, nor is it a substitute for, legal advice. Your receipt of Good Company or any of its individual articles does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green or the Sheehan Phinney Capitol Group. The opinions expressed in Good Company are those of the authors of the specific articles.
|
