Committee Summary for House Ways and Means (03/25/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB302 00:06:36.560 - 9:05:32 AM	Public Hearing	relative to enabling the state treasury to invest in precious metals and digital assets.	Ammon, Keith(R)[A+]2024
HB696 00:31:48.279 - 9:30:44 AM	Public Hearing	exempting electricity generators from the utility property tax and including them under the statewide education property tax, and relative to communications services tax revenues.	Vose, Michael(R)[A]2024
HB224 01:30:52.480 - 10:29:48 AM	Executive Session	relative to rebates to ratepayers from the renewable energy fund.	Notter, Jeanine(R)[A]2024
HB524 01:33:56.159 - 10:32:52 AM	Executive Session	repealing the New Hampshire vaccine association.	Granger, Michael(R)[A+]2024

HB302: Representative Urs from Chester Information Only00:06:36.560 - 9:05:32 AM; Representative Urs introduced House Bill 302, which aims to enable the state treasurer to invest in precious metals and digital assets. He mentioned that he does not have detailed knowledge about the bill and his investments are primarily in educational institutions.
HB302: Susan Elme from Lebanon Oppose00:07:49.280 - 9:06:45 AM; Susan Elme expressed opposition to House Bill 302. She argued that the state treasurer's staff is small and not suited to manage investments in volatile assets like precious metals and digital assets. She highlighted that the bill allows up to 5% of public funds to be invested in these items, which she believes contradicts the treasury's role of maintaining stability and immediate liquidity. She suggested that the bill should be killed.
HB302: Representative Home Oppose00:11:07.440 - 9:10:03 AM; Representative Home opposed House Bill 302, recalling a previous instance 14 years ago where a similar bill to accept Bitcoin for tax payments was rejected due to concerns about the state becoming an exchange for cryptocurrencies. He agreed with Susan Elme's view that the current bill is inappropriate for the same reasons, and mentioned hearing that the bill's sponsors were primarily interested in Bitcoin and similar assets.
HB302: Representative Opel Information Only00:12:07.839 - 9:11:03 AM; Representative Opel inquired about the expertise within the Treasury Department regarding commodity trading and digital currency. He expressed concerns about the necessity for specialized knowledge in these areas, suggesting that even large investment firms employ specialists for such tasks. He highlighted the small size of the staff and speculated that the Treasurer and previous Treasurers would prioritize stability and security in their selections.
HB302: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:13:10.560 - 9:12:06 AM; The speaker reminded the committee about the policy concerning the Treasurer's capacity to engage in commodity trading. They discussed the potential of commodity trading as a revenue source for the state but expressed concerns about the budgetary impact of hiring additional staff with expertise in day trading. They referenced a personal anecdote about an accountant who experienced significant financial losses from day trading.
HB302: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:14:22.880 - 9:13:18 AM; The speaker announced the scheduling of a work session for April 1st to further discuss the bill with the Treasurer present. They requested Representative Almy to arrange for the Treasurer's attendance at this session. The meeting was then closed, with a mention of time for coffee.
HB696: Representative Michael Voss, Rockingham District 5, Epping Support00:31:48.279 - 9:30:44 AM; Representative Voss, the prime sponsor of House Bill 696, introduced the bill which had been passed by the full house. He explained that the bill treats electricity generators as manufacturers rather than utilities, exempting them from the utility property tax and requiring them to pay the statewide education property tax instead. He noted the complexity of the issue, referencing a detailed report from a study commission he chaired, and discussed the potential fiscal impacts on the utility property tax and the education trust fund.
HB696: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:35:03.520 - 9:33:59 AM; The speaker discussed the variability of the Education Trust Fund due to rounding errors, which can amount to a million dollars annually. They recommended reading a detailed report from a study commission that worked for 16 hours last fall, which includes 38 findings from the testimonies and meetings. The report is intended to answer questions about the bill's impact.
HB696: Representative Shamberg Information Only00:36:38.240 - 9:35:34 AM; Representative Shamberg questioned how the bill would affect the Education Trust Fund, noting a decrease in funding in future years. The response clarified that while property and utility tax revenues would decrease, the increase in SWAP (Statewide Education Property Tax) revenues would balance it out, resulting in no net revenue impact to the Education Trust Fund, just a change in the source of the funds.
HB696: Representative Voss Support00:37:25.560 - 9:36:21 AM; Representative Voss confirmed that the bill would result in a balance between incoming and outgoing funds for the Education Trust Fund, with no net revenue impact to cities and towns. The change would primarily affect the source of the funds.
HB696: Representative Spar Information Only00:38:30.839 - 9:37:26 AM; Representative Spar asked about the current tax situation for power generators, specifically whether they pay the SWAP tax as part of their municipal tax. It was clarified that they are currently exempt from SWAP and pay utility property tax instead, which the bill aims to change.
HB696: Representative Boris Information Only00:40:01.400 - 9:38:57 AM; Representative Boris inquired about the overall tax impact of the SWAP on communities with power generators, considering administrative and bookkeeping costs. The response indicated that the tax collected would be similar but varied by community based on the presence of generators and adequacy funding. An example was given for the town of Seabrook, showing how the bill would affect their funding.
HB696: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:40:47.359 - 9:39:43 AM; The speaker discussed the financial implications of HB696 on the town of Seabrook, stating that the town would become an excess swept town by $16,252, leading to a reduction in the state's adequacy payment to Seabrook. The overall outcome was described as a wash, though the details were acknowledged as complex. The speaker also inquired about any municipalities that might be significantly harmed by the bill, indicating a need for further analysis.
HB696: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:41:34.640 - 9:40:30 AM; The speaker responded to a question about the impact of HB696 on municipalities, stating that no community would be significantly harmed due to the state adequacy formula designed to hold communities harmless. This was in response to a query during commission testimony.
HB696: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:42:57.359 - 9:41:53 AM; The speaker addressed concerns about the fiscal note and the impact of HB696 on the education trust fund. They explained that the bill provides an exemption for generators with existing payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreements until 2032 or the agreement's expiration. The speaker clarified that PILOT agreements are between the generator and the town, not the state, and thus, the bill's impact would be on the utility property tax paid to the education trust fund, while payments to the municipality under PILOT would continue.
HB696: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:44:25.440 - 9:43:21 AM; The speaker further clarified the relationship between PILOT agreements and the state education tax, stating that under HB696, generators would be exempt from the state education tax while maintaining PILOT payments to the municipality. They mentioned that this would result in a wash, as discussed earlier, and acknowledged the complexity of the relationship between PILOT and swept payments.
HB696: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:46:47.200 - 9:45:43 AM; The speaker was unable to provide an immediate analysis of the impact of HB696 on the town of Bow, where the Bow Power Plant is set to close in two years. They suggested that someone else might be able to answer the question and raised concerns about the availability of funds post-closure.
HB696: Unknown Speaker Support00:48:15.280 - 9:47:11 AM; The speaker supported HB696, arguing that it is illogical for non-utilities to pay the utility property tax and that the bill would reduce litigation caused by divergent property assessments from the Department of Revenue Administration (DRRA) and municipal assessors. They explained that exempting generators from the utility property tax would eliminate the need for dual assessments, potentially reducing legal disputes and costs borne by taxpayers and electricity consumers.
HB696: Pat Brammy, formerly on the committee Support00:51:06.800 - 9:50:02 AM; Pat Brammy, a former committee member, provided a historical context of the issues surrounding the taxation of utility and telecom properties. He recounted his involvement in past commissions that addressed similar issues, starting from 2016 when telecom disputes arose over property assessments. He described the formation of subcommittees and commissions that led to legislative solutions for telecom and utility companies, including a formula for assessing properties. Brammy highlighted the formation of a third commission, which he chaired, aimed at addressing the taxation of power generators. He emphasized the need to remove power generators from the utility property tax category due to their deregulated status and discussed the fiscal implications, noting potential revenue adjustments from other sources like slot machines.
HB696: Molly Connors, New England Power Generators Association Support01:00:43.839 - 9:59:39 AM; Molly Connors, representing the New England Power Generators Association, argued in favor of HB696, stating that power plants in New Hampshire are incorrectly taxed as utilities rather than manufacturing facilities. She explained that utilities can recover property taxes from ratepayers, a mechanism not available to power generators, leading to an unfair and costly dual taxation system. Connors detailed the three-year process involving study commissions that recommended removing power generators from the utility property tax and instead subjecting them to the statewide education property tax. She highlighted the competitive nature of the power generation market and the administrative burden of current taxation processes.
HB696: Unnamed Speaker, New England Power Generators Association Support01:05:39.599 - 10:04:35 AM; An unnamed speaker from the New England Power Generators Association addressed concerns about the availability of sensitive commercial information. They explained that during the commissions, assessors expressed a desire for more detailed financial and operational data from power generators to better perform their assessments. The speaker highlighted the competitive nature of the power market and the potential disadvantage of sharing such information. They also clarified that the physical structure of power plants is straightforward, and the focus is primarily on financial data. Additionally, they confirmed that power generators do pay business profits tax and discussed the nature of PILOT agreements, stating these are bilateral contracts between municipalities and property owners, not directly involving the state.
HB696: Melan Mino, Granite State Hydropower Association Support01:10:17.360 - 10:09:13 AM; Melan Mino, representing the Granite State Hydropower Association, expressed support for HB696. Mino highlighted that the bill was a recommendation from a study commission on assessing power generation, which they were part of for three years. They emphasized the importance of the pilot transition language in the bill, which was requested by their members who use Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs). Mino clarified that PILOTs are only available to renewable generators and are limited to a five-year term, unless extended for financing new projects. They also noted the transition period ends by January 1st, 2031, to prevent indefinite extensions. Mino stressed the importance of not disrupting existing PILOT contracts and mentioned slight differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, favoring the Senate's updated language. They opposed additional reporting requirements, arguing that such laws in other states apply to all taxpayers, not just power generators.
HB696: Adam Donor, Department of Revenue Administration Information Only01:16:15.520 - 10:15:11 AM; Adam Donor, Assistant Director of the Municipal and Property Division at the Department of Revenue Administration, provided information on the Statewide Education Property Tax (SWEPT). He explained that SWEPT is capped at $363 million, and changing the tax base, such as adding a new class of property, reduces the rate rather than increasing revenue. Donor clarified that the state does not enter into PILOT agreements, and when calculating the SWEPT warrant, a uniform rate is developed statewide, with adjustments for communities with PILOTs based on agreed revenue amounts. He noted that there is always a natural shifting of tax burden, but the proposed changes in HB696 would not cause anything unnatural.
HB696: Representative Opel Information Only01:18:07.040 - 10:17:03 AM; Representative Opel sought clarification on the impact of HB696 on the Statewide Education Property Tax (SWEP) for communities with existing Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) agreements. He questioned the purpose of the exemption in the bill's language, expressing confusion about how the value of PILOTs would be calculated and included in the tax base, and how this would affect the tax rate and who would ultimately pay it.
HB696: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:19:37.760 - 10:18:33 AM; The speaker responded to Representative Opel's query, explaining that the exemption in the bill aims to prevent double taxation for power producers with existing PILOT agreements. They clarified that during the exemption period, the tax rate might decrease due to the inclusion of more property in the tax base, but the ratepayer would be different from the power producer.
HB696: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:21:41.360 - 10:20:37 AM; The speaker continued to address Representative Opel's concerns, emphasizing that the exemption prevents power producers with PILOTs from being liable for the new SWEP tax, thus avoiding double taxation. They noted that this situation would not shift taxes but prevent an additional tax burden.
HB696: Representative Shamberg Information Only01:22:46.040 - 10:21:42 AM; Representative Shamberg inquired about the differences between DRA assessments and those conducted by private assessors. The response highlighted that DRA assesses properties on a statewide basis, using a comprehensive approach that includes the entire value of a filer's property in New Hampshire, whereas local assessors focus on individual parcels. This difference in approach can lead to varying assessments.
HB696: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:24:02.159 - 10:22:58 AM; The speaker elaborated on the DRA's assessment methodology, explaining that they use an umbrella approach to value all properties owned by a filer in New Hampshire, using income and expense information to develop appraisals. They noted that these values are then allocated to the municipal level, which may not align with local parcel-level appraisals, serving as a starting point for municipalities.
HB696: Former Representative Ibra Support01:26:14.840 - 10:25:10 AM; Former Representative Ibra emphasized the bipartisan support for the bill, mentioning that it had backing from both Democrats and Republicans. He highlighted that the bill's effective date is set for July 1st, 2027, which is two years away, ensuring that it would not impact the current biennium's revenues.
HB696: Representative Vos Information Only01:27:32.040 - 10:26:28 AM; Representative Vos provided specific data on how HB696 would affect the town of Bow, stating that the SWEP amount would increase by $2,445 if the bill were to take effect. He referenced a report that contains data for all towns in New Hampshire, which is available online through the general court website.
HB224: Representative ORS Information Only01:30:52.480 - 10:29:48 AM; Representative ORS made a motion to retain House Bill 224, which was seconded and passed with a unanimous vote of 20 to 0. There was no discussion on the motion.
HB524: Representative Wars Information Only01:33:56.159 - 10:32:52 AM; Representative Wars made a motion to retain House Bill 524, which was seconded by Representative Shamberg. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 20 to 0. There was no discussion on the motion.

Janigian, John(Chairman)(R)[B+]2024	Ohm, Bill(Clerk)(R)[B]2018	Ulery, Jordan(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2024
Almy, Susan(D)[CT]2024	Oppel, Thomas(D)	Smith, Steven(R)[B+]2024
Malloy, Dennis(D)[CT]2024	Schamberg, Thomas(D)[CT]2024	Southworth, Thomas(D)[CT]2024
Tierney, James(R)[B-]2024	Cole, Brian(R)[B-]2024	Aures, Cyril(R)[A]2024
Bolton, Bill(D)[CT]2024	Elberger, Susan(D)[D-]2024	Smith, Geoffrey(D)[D-]2024
Soti, Julius(R)[A+]2024	Spahr, Terry(D)	Bryer, Scott(R)
Murphy, Mary(R)	Ford, Mary(R)