Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. Thomas Oppel urges electing public utility commissioners to boost ratepayer accountability
Summary
At a House Election Law Committee hearing, Rep. Thomas Oppel said CACR 30 would make Public Utilities Commission members accountable to voters amid rising energy costs, and urged the committee to consider campaign contribution limits from regulated utilities; the committee later recorded procedural action on the proposal.
Representative Thomas Oppel told the House Election Law Committee that CACR 30 would make New Hampshire’s Public Utilities Commission more accountable to “citizens and ratepayers” by requiring commissioners be elected rather than appointed. He framed the proposal as a response to rapidly rising energy costs that he said fall most heavily on seniors, working families and people on fixed incomes.
“CACR 30 is simply about making our public utilities commission more accountable to the citizens and ratepayers of New Hampshire by requiring the members to be elected and recognize…,” Oppel said in opening remarks. He cited past controversies over utility construction costs and a guaranteed rate of return that can incentivize adding to a utility’s rate base, saying those structures can increase customer bills.
Oppel said he originally prepared a bill that would have included a ban on contributions from regulated utilities to candidates for the PUC, arguing in principle that the power and money of regulated utilities should not be used to “put a thumb on the scale” of elections. He also told the committee that the constitutional amendment as drafted needs technical fixes, including an apparent cross-reference error to the section dealing with Senate vacancies rather than executive departments.
During questions, Representative Lane raised constitutional concerns about an across-the-board ban on contributions from utilities, citing precedent in campaign finance law. Oppel said there are ways to structure contribution limits that might withstand legal challenges and argued for at least limiting the amount and direction of utility-funded campaign spending.
The committee closed the public hearing after noting limited in-person testimony and online submissions. In later executive session the committee recorded formal consideration of CACR 30; the chair moved the procedural committee recommendation (see committee actions). The committee’s formal report and any drafting instructions will determine whether the sponsor and staff return with revised language.
What happens next: committee staff will note Oppel’s drafting concerns and the sponsor suggested the committee might consider studying the issue before further action. The transcript records the committee placing CACR 30 on its calendar for future handling as reflected in committee business that followed.
