Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Advocacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers tightening duties and oversight of Office of the Consumer Advocate; OCA urges retention of attorney-led structure
Summary
Members reviewed an amendment to House Bill 610 that would broaden the eligible qualifications for state consumer advocate leadership and add statutory guidance on the office’s duties. Donald Kreece (the state consumer advocate) and stakeholders including AARP and the advisory board discussed staffing, independence, and funding implications.
The subcommittee considered an amendment to House Bill 610 that would change statutory qualifications and assign additional duties and oversight to the Office of the Consumer Advocate (OCA). The amendment would allow the consumer advocate to be a qualified attorney, a professional engineer, or an economist and would reframe the advisory board’s role toward explicit oversight.
Donald Kreece, the state consumer advocate, said he remains "neutral" on abolishing the attorney requirement but said he is uncertain what problem the amendment is trying to solve. Kreece advised that the consumer advocate’s role requires advocacy in regulatory proceedings and that attorneys are trained to provide that representation; he noted his office already uses engineers and economists on staff. He recommended a succinct statutory duty framing: "pursue safe and reliable service at the lowest possible cost while maximizing customer freedom." Kreece opposed reducing staff and said the office already lacks bandwidth for additional matters.
Neil Kirk, a member of the Residential Ratepayers Advisory Board, said the board already provides oversight and that the advisory board’s role has been meaningful; he cautioned that shrinking staff would increase reliance on expensive outside experts and recommended retaining the current staff level while clarifying budget authority for outside experts if needed. Patrick McDermott of AARP New Hampshire urged retaining the office’s current scope and opposed the proposed amendment, noting the state’s high energy costs and the need for a robust, independent advocate.
Committee members asked questions about workload, staffing, independence, and whether statutory duties should be placed elsewhere in state policy. Members asked OCA to suggest refined statutory language and requested follow-up drafting, particularly around removal criteria and the office’s advisory oversight.
