Many bills that made it to the legislative floor this year faced head-on the looming possibility of a natural gas pipeline running through the southern half of the state. But few still remain alive.
Nearly 10 bills that were introduced to the state House of Representatives this year dealt with pipelines, and more specifically natural gas lines. The spate of bills came in response to the proposed 30-inch natural gas line that is proposed to go through the state on its way to deposit Marcellus shale gas in Dracut, Massachusetts.
While some of the bills remain possibilities, the majority of them were found inexpedient to legislate – effectively killing them – before ever leaving the House or being viewed by the Senate.
A key point for many who have objected to the pipeline is whether New Hampshire is bearing too heavy a burden for energy that the state doesn’t have a heavy need for.
New Hampshire has peak days where there is a need for natural gas, but many detractors of the pipe have pointed out that New Hampshire is a surplus producer of electricity.
HB1148 is a bill that passed in the House and is currently in committee in the Senate, and would require that the Public Utility Commission determine whether any pipeline capacity contract with a term of more than one year is in the public interest.
The bill outlines that the PUC must consider whether the contract is necessary and cost effective, whether the contract compares favorably to other options, and whether the applicant has exercised due diligence in exploring alternatives that would reduce private land takings.
For long-term projects, the applicant would also have to evaluate the potential for technological improvements in energy efficiency and storage to reduce or eliminate the need for new infrastructure.
This bill could be key, as the currently proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline is subject to Federal approval first, not state.
However, capacity contracts still have to be approved through the PUC.
Also passed was HB1660, which outlines additional rights for landowners whose land is being taken by eminent domain for pipelines. The bill would allow a resident to require that the developer of a pipeline take an entire tract of land under eminent domain, rather than just a right-of-way. This allows the property owner to sell it in its entirety if they ask.
HB1101 is currently in limbo, sent to an interim study committee. This bill would prohibit gas pipelines from charging tariffs on the end users to pay for the pipeline, putting that onus back on the developer.
Several bills this year dealt with a key issue: Money. All of them, however, failed to gain traction and were found inexpedient to legislate. (See info box)
Another bill, HB1174, which would have required that compressor stations, which move the gas through the pipe, be required to obtain power from external electric sources, rather than use natural gas from the pipe for power. This bill was also found inexpedient to legislate.