Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consumer advocate bill draws split testimony over attorney requirement
Summary
Testimony on House Bill 610 focused on whether the state’s consumer advocate must be a lawyer. The current consumer advocate supported keeping the attorney requirement and urged deleting language that would allow engineers or economists to be appointed; an attorney who represented low-income ratepayers urged removing a new governor removal clause and keeping the attorney requirement.
The Senate Committee on Executive Departments and Administration heard competing testimony on House Bill 610, which would change qualifications and removal provisions for the state’s Office of the Consumer Advocate.
Donald Kreece, the state’s consumer advocate, testified that although he supports the bill’s overall approach, he recommended deleting language that would permit appointment of a professional engineer or an economist in place of the current statutory requirement that the consumer advocate be a qualified attorney admitted to practice in New Hampshire. Kreece said advocacy work before the Public Utilities Commission typically requires legal training, and warned of situations where the office could appear before the PUC without an in‑house lawyer.
Kreece said the bill originally proposed more drastic changes but was reshaped through negotiations; he asked the committee to remove the engineer/economist option so the office retains an attorney as its head. He also described staffing constraints (two attorneys on his staff, one economist and one vacant analyst position) and the practical difficulty of hiring attorneys for state government.
Alan Linder, a retired attorney who has represented low‑ and moderate‑income ratepayers, testified in opposition. Linder argued an attorney is essential for the consumer advocate because duties include document drafting, settlement work and cross‑examination of expert witnesses. He also raised concern about a removal clause in the bill that would allow the governor to remove the consumer advocate for "unsatisfactory performance," calling the clause redundant with the existing removal statute (cited in testimony as RSA 4) and potentially ambiguous about the advocate’s duties.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about the exact house‑amended language; both witnesses suggested narrow fixes (deleting references to professional engineer or economist and dropping the separate removal clause). The chair closed the hearing after no further testimony was offered. The committee did not adopt a final disposition on the bill during the session and held further action for follow‑up.
Next steps: committee review of potential amendments and scheduling for subsequent consideration.
