Susie Hackler, Interim Executive Director, Conservation NH
February 24, 2012 | 0 Comments
Once again, a few shortsighted souls in the New Hampshire House of Representatives have mounted an effort to repeal the state's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The difference this year is that fortunately, they appear to be alone.
RGGI is a 10-state program in the northeast designed to lower emissions from fossil fueled power plants by requiring them to pay for their pollution. Proceeds from the auction of pollution allowances have been invested in energy efficiency improvements for businesses, municipalities and homeowners across the state — saving both energy and money. The program has been in place since 2009.
At last week’s hearing for HB1490, this year’s RGGI repeal bill, the House Science Technology and Energy Committee booked Representatives Hall because they expected huge crowds to line up for and against the program. But that narrative didn’t play out. Only the bill's sponsor, Rep. Jerry Bergevin (R-Manchester), spoke in favor of repeal. Rep. Bergevin spoke for less than thirty seconds, deferring any specific comments, questions, or explanation of the details of his legislation for the Committee Chairman to cover.
Chairman James Garrity (R-Atkinson) blamed the poor turnout on the issue of climate change. "Compared to last year, when it was packed, there weren't that many at all. I think there seems to be nationally and regionally an apocalypse fatigue about this issue. People are tired of this whole discussion."
Apparently Chairman Garrity wasn’t listening to those who did show up to testify. Most spoke against his attempt to repeal a program that by all accounts is working as intended to benefit the state.
Rep. Bergevin was followed by about 18 speakers from the state’s business, government and non-profit communities, all of whom oppose repeal of the RGGI program. Businesses spoke to the benefits of the program to their bottom lines; municipal representatives cited the benefits of energy efficiency investments for local taxpayers; others referenced several recent economic studies that clearly show the positive economic return RGGI has provided for the state (both by reducing the money we send out of state for fuel and by creating new jobs), and nine conservation organizations offered a joint letter about RGGI’s benefits to the environment.
Good for the economy, good for taxpayers and good for the environment. One would expect that a bill with no support in a public hearing would be quickly dispatched to allow legislators to focus on more pressing issues.
Instead, Chairman Garrity asked the House Rules Committee for an extension of time — inessence bending the rules — in order to hold some work sessions on the repeal bill. But what sense does it make to waste even more time on this senseless measure?
It is sadly evident that ideology rather than traditional New Hampshire common sense is the driving force behind RGGI repeal efforts. No business groups in the state demand a repeal of the program. No ratepayer organizations argue that RGGI creates undue burdens for them. No credible assessments assert that RGGI has harmed the state’s economy; indeed, reliable economic studies demonstrate RGGI’s benefit to jobs and economic growth in New Hampshire. No scientists dismiss the conservation benefits of the program. And all major stakeholders work together to make RGGI even more successful.
The fact remains that in the hearing in front of the spacious and empty Representatives Hall last week, the only person who seems to be focused on repeal of the RGGI program is the Committee Chairman.