Relative to a quorum of the public utilities commission.
The impact of HB169 on state laws is primarily centered around the operations of the PUC and its ability to conduct hearings and make decisions. The bill eliminates the existing provision that allows hearings to be held by one or two commissioners, necessitating all three commissioners to be present for any formal action. This change may require the PUC to maintain a Special Commissioner on retainer to ensure compliance in instances where commissioners are not available due to various obligations or circumstances. The associated costs for this Special Commissioner could significantly affect the budget allocations related to utility assessments.
House Bill 169 (HB169) proposes a significant amendment to the quorum requirements for the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of New Hampshire. Under this bill, the definition of 'majority' would change to require a two-thirds majority for all decisions, rather than a simple majority. This adjustment will ensure that the PUC must have a minimum of four of its six total commissioners present to make formal decisions, which is intended to enhance the rigor and oversight of the Commission's operations. The PUC is defined as an independent regulatory agency, signifying its role in overseeing utility services in the state.
The sentiment around HB169 is mixed. Proponents argue that requiring a more robust majority will create more thorough scrutiny and deliberation within the PUC, thus serving the interests of consumers better. They believe that enhancing the decision-making process will lead to more sound policies affecting utilities. However, there are concerns raised by opponents, who suggest that this requirement could lead to delays in decision-making and reduce the PUC's responsiveness to urgent matters affecting the utility sector and consumers alike.
Notable points of contention regarding HB169 include its fiscal impact and operational implications. While proponents emphasize the potential for improved governance and oversight, critics question the efficacy and efficiency of requiring a two-thirds majority, especially for an agency that is vital for timely regulatory decisions in the utility sector. The requirement for a Special Commissioner potentially incurs financial obligations that could be passed onto consumers through higher utility rates, which may create backlash among the public.