Committee advances bill requiring agencies to report permitting timelines

The Executive Departments and Administration committee voted to advance Senate Bill 74, which would require state agencies to report counts of permit applications granted, denied, pending and those taking longer than 90 days to legislative leaders.

Supporters said better data is needed to evaluate whether current statutory time limits and commonly granted extensions are justified. Grant Bossie, deputy chief of staff for the New Hampshire Senate, introduced the bill on behalf of Sen. David Pearl and said, "Senator Pearl believes this is information our agency should have already been tracking within their current budgets." Attorney Brian Gould, who works on environmental permitting, told the committee the Administrative Procedure Act provides baseline timeframes but that many agencies and specific statutes differ, making comprehensive reporting useful.

Why it matters: Committee members and outside witnesses said slow or inconsistent permitting timelines can stall private projects and erode predictability. Gould told the committee the baseline in state law generally gives agencies 30 days to determine completeness and 60 days after that to issue a decision, but several statutes and agency practices deviate from that schedule. "The legislature—annot make decisions on permitting timelines without knowing how long they re taking now," Gould said.

Details from testimony: Witnesses described gaps in the state pproach: the Department of Transportation, a frequent example in testimony, is treated as exempt from some statutory time limits; the Department of Environmental Services (DES) has varied timelines across programs (air, wetlands, solid waste) and, in at least one program, agreed as part of prior legislation to report timelines to the Legislature. The Business Industry Association's representative said the governor has pushed for permitting streamlining and that better data would help shape changes for housing and other regulated activities.

Fiscal note and next steps: Committee members questioned a fiscal note that said DES would need additional staff to produce the reports; sponsors argued the information should already be available within agency systems. The committee moved the bill "ought to pass" and placed it on the consent calendar for forwarding to the Finance Committee to review the fiscal note.

Votes at a glance: The committee voted to advance the bill and placed it on consent for referral to Finance; the clerk recorded 13 yes votes and no recorded no votes during the committee roll call.

What happens next: The bill will go to Finance for review of the fiscal implications noted by DES, after which it would continue through the legislative process if approved.