House panel backs fee realignment to sustain oil cleanup, spill-response funds

The House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday recommended that House Bill 658 ought to pass, approving a package of fee adjustments and reimbursement changes intended to keep the state’s oil cleanup and spill‑response funds solvent.

The committee vote followed a detailed presentation by the Department of Environmental Services. Robert Bishop, administrator of the Oil Remediation and Compliance Bureau, told the panel the bill “impacts 2 different funds” and makes four statutory changes: it adjusts several per‑product import fees, raises the cap on reimbursements for low‑income homeowners who must replace leaking home‑heating oil tanks, extends the funds’ fee collection for 10 years, and amends an annual reporting date.

The measure stems from an actuarial review the Oil Fund Disbursement Board commissioned. Bishop said the review examined 10 years of spill and inventory data and sought to balance expected corrective‑action reimbursements across fuel categories. He told the committee the board concluded the fuel‑oil (home‑heating) fee would have to rise sharply under a strict actuarial balancing; the board instead rebalanced fees across categories and proposed a smaller, targeted increase for fuel oil while lowering some other fees. Bishop said the board aimed to leave the funds with enough to cover that year’s administrative costs and roughly a quarter of anticipated reimbursements, and to retain about $1.5 million in the Oil Pollution Control Fund to cover the first days of a major coastal spill.

Bob Scully, representing the Energy Marketers Association of New Hampshire, said the fund assists homeowners who cannot afford remediation and that ultimately the import fees are passed to consumers. “All these little add ons are that you see in this bill eventually do make their way down to the consumer,” Scully told the committee.

Committee members pressed DES officials on the underlying data and on implementation timing. Bishop said the board’s actuarial executive summary is available and that he would provide it on request. Members also raised operational questions about lead time for distributors and for the Department of Safety to update billing systems; Jennifer Martz, Fund Management Section Supervisor at DES, said DES staff and a Safety representative on the Oil Fund Disbursement Board have discussed timing and that the board can set implementation details.

DES officials said there are roughly 300 petroleum release responses per year, and that home‑heating oil releases — about 100 a year — account for the largest number of claims eligible under the ODD fund. Bishop said roughly 60–70 of those home‑heating events per year are paid through the fund.

Representative Breyer moved the committee recommendation that the bill “ought to pass.” Representative Doucette seconded. The committee recorded an 18–1 vote in favor of the recommendation.

The committee discussion flagged two follow‑up items: (1) DES to provide the actuarial executive summary and (2) continued coordination with the Oil Fund Disbursement Board and the Department of Safety about a practical implementation date so distributors and software vendors have adequate lead time.

Revised fee tables and exact per‑gallon amounts are in the bill text and the board’s actuarial materials; the committee heard the changes were actuarially driven and intended to produce an overall roughly 8% increase in total import‑fee revenue while rebalancing burden across fuel categories.

The committee’s report will accompany the bill as it moves to the next stage. If the Senate or the board determines a later effective date is needed for administrative implementation, members said that could be handled in the remaining legislative process.