Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Propane Heating Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Propane industry offers best‑practice guidance after AmeriGas problems; committee schedules study
Summary
Industry representatives told the Commerce and Consumer Affairs committee HB 1395 was written in response to misconduct by one firm, distributed best‑practice guidance and encouraged consumer complaint resolution through industry contacts; complaints to industry spokespeople have fallen markedly since corrective actions.
Robert Scully, a lobbyist for the Propane Gas Association of New England and the Energy Marketers Association of New Hampshire, and Leslie Anderson, president of the Propane Gas Association of New England, asked the committee not to advance House Bill 1395 and instead rely on industry best practices. They described the bill as a response to a single company’s poor service (AmeriGas) and said associations had prepared a best‑practice sheet and contact information to resolve most customer issues.
Scully said the guidance will be published on industry websites and that the associations are prepared to intervene directly when customers have problems. He said the associations provide phone numbers and expect most small disputes can be handled without referral to regulators or litigation: “This is our industry accepted practice on how to deal with issues that people have with changing companies or with tanks or problems with propane or oil,” he told the committee.
Committee members pressed for data about complaint volume. An industry speaker told members complaints have dropped substantially since AmeriGas committed resources to pick up tanks and correct service problems: “I’ve had 2 [complaints] since this summer,” one industry representative said, contrasting that with earlier, higher frequencies.
Members also asked consumer questions about contract structures. Industry representatives explained different contracting options — pre‑buy, cap pricing, and market‑priced deliveries — and said price exposure depends on the contract chosen.
The committee did not take a final vote on HB 1395 during the session. The chair said the prevailing procedural motion for this meeting would be to treat many items as interim studies and to allow subcommittees and members to work on details before any reintroduction or formal vote.
