The NAIFA-New Hampshire Government Relations Committee partners with J. Grimbilas Strategic Solutions, LLC. to lobby on the issues important to our industry, our products and services, and our clients. J. Grimbilas Strategic Solutions, LLC. has been front line advocates to advance NAIFA-New Hampshire's legislative and regulatory priorities for many years. They've provided this week's update on recent committee meetings, bills they are following, and legislative issues they've identified as being of interest to NAIFA. 

Next Tuesday is Town Meeting Day.   There is very little scheduled for Tuesday and the House and Senate will meet on Thursday.  As such, there is less activity, overall, in the Legislature next week.

There were a few quick updates from this week:

• HB 195 (Privacy ) – The hearing on the bill was earlier this week.  The supporters were past legislators who have been active privacy issues.  They argued the privacy laws passed in 2024 did not go far enough.  There was opposition from a number of trade associations, including the Business and Industry Association, NH Bankers Association, and several law enforcement agencies explained that they had “concerns”.  The committee will vote on the bill next Wednesday.  We understand the Committee Chair may have an amendment to the bill.  If we receive it in advance, I will send it along to you.  Similar bills have passed the House in recent years but have been killed in the Senate.  Discussions about outreach to Senators have already started, should the House Committee pass the bill.
• House Commerce Executive Session – House Commerce held an executive session earlier this week.  They had about 10 bills on which they needed to vote.  The subject matters ranged from insurance, to cannabis/alcohol, and paint sales.  Most committees, you can expect committee votes to be partisan or very close.  Chairman Hunt was able to get unanimous votes on virtually all of the prevailing motions.  We have included reports for 5 of the  bills we were following for NAIFA-NH below.  As you will see, 3 of them are unanimous, one has 1 dissenting vote, and the other vote was 14-3. It is very rare to see a Chair be able to create this type of consensus in the House.  The debate on HB 774 (Medicare) was one of their longer discussions.  As the committee report details, although the committee understood the sponsors intent, Hunt argued the  issue was better dealt with at the federal level.
• State Budget -   Governor Ayotte’s final budget package was released on Tuesday, including HB 2, the so called “trailer bill”.   Overall, this is becoming a very difficult budget year and tax revenues have been below estimates and there is no additional federal funding expected.  Thus far, the efforts of the House Finance Committee have been focused on reducing existing costs, streamlining government, and consideration of adjusting some fees.  Governor Ayotte’s budget would allow for Video Lottery Terminals (aka slots) to help increase non-tax revenue.  We will see if the House and Senate can agree to the proposal, and, if not, where they turn for more revenue.  The public hearing on the state budget bills (HB 1 & HB 2) will be held on Wednesday, March 12^th before House Finance.

Committee Reports of Interest to NAIFA: 

• HB 302, relative to enabling the state treasury to invest in precious metals and digital assets. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
  • Rep. Keith Ammon for Commerce and Consumer Affairs. The Committee on Commerce and Consumer Affairs reports favorably on this bill (as amended), which enables—but does not mandate—the state treasurer to invest up to 5% of public funds in precious metals and certain digital assets with significant market capitalization. This legislation provides the treasurer with additional tools to potentially diversify the state’s investment portfolio while establishing strong security parameters and custody requirements. Several other states, including Oklahoma, Arizona, and Texas, have enacted or are exploring similar enabling legislation as part of prudent financial management strategies. The committee believes this forward-thinking approach allows New Hampshire to responsibly adapt to evolving financial markets while maintaining the treasurer’s discretion to determine whether such investments would be beneficial to the state. Vote 16-1
• HB 499-FN, making technical corrections to certain insurance laws. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT
  • Rep. John Hunt for Commerce and Consumer Affairs. As amended, this bill makes various technical corrections to the insurance laws as requested by the Insurance Department. The bill has several sections, among the most important of which deal with fee adjustment. Testimony indicated the bill will eliminate and streamline the process regarding many fees. Vote 17-0
• HB 552-FN, relative to coverage of children under the state retiree insurance plan. OUGHT TO PASS
  • Rep. Carry Spier for Commerce and Consumer Affairs. This is a very simple bill that allows retirees having minor dependent children, to purchase State Employee Group Insurance for those children to the age of 26 regardless if they are full time students or not. Vote 17-0
• HB 639-FN, relative to the use of and disputes over blockchain and digital currencies. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

  • Rep. Carry Spier for the Majority of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. New Hampshire has been in the forefront of adopting regulations that accommodate leading edge business practices. This bill, as amended, seeks to strike a balance between attracting new businesses to the state and the communities in which such a business might locate while obtaining the tax revenue of the business. (1) The bill as amended allows for the use of digital assets to purchase goods without discrimination solely based on the fact that a digital asset is used as a method of payment. To be clear, the seller and the buyer must still agree on the exchange and such exchange is still subject to all applicable federal taxes and regulations. Since NH does not currently have a sales tax, income tax, or capital gains tax, this clause adds no protections that do not already exist. Use of digital assets for transactions with publicly traded companies is limited, much more complex and not under the control of the NH legislature. (2) The bill as amended also allows for home-based digital mining. This is also currently allowed. However, digital mining activities that disrupt apartment living are still subject to disturbance rules laid out in rental agreements or condominium bylaws. (3) The bill as amended does not al- low the state to set a noise level. Rather, each local municipality may do so as long as the noise level applies to all industrial-zoned properties in that municipality. The stated local control of noise level was agreed to by the NH Municipal Association. (4) The amended bill prohibits charging different electricity rates for industrial digital mining operations compared to other industrial users. It should be noted that NH electricity rates are among the highest in the country. We purchase about 30% (natural gas), 18% from renewable and other sources and 52% from the Seabrook nuclear power plant which is due to retire in 2050 and for which we currently have no replacement. This means that for the foreseeable future compared to other states that are able to generate their own electricity like Texas, California, and Washington or have strong support for solar like Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, New Hampshire is unattractive for industrial-scale digital mining operations. NH legislation (and weather) is also currently unattractive for such operations to pursue solar or wind energy on their own. (5) Per the amended bill, an individual that only operates a node on a blockchain network and only performs the computer functions of validation, transaction relay and network security or engages in digital mining are not considered libel for any transaction just by performing those stated functions. This is true for any blockchain unless the person performing those activities also engages in related illegal activities that impact the blockchain and its transactions. (6) Finally, the bill as amended allows (but does not require) the governor with the consent of the executive council to appoint a presiding justice to handle blockchain disputes which assumes such justice either has expertise in the field of blockchain or has access to such expertise. Other regulatory sections of the original bill have been deleted by the amendment. Vote 14-3.

    Rep. Merryl Gibbs for the Minority of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. This bill involves matters relating to blockchain technology, specifically including protections for digital asset mining. Digital asset mining involves new technologies that raise a number of concerns, including high levels of noise and exceptionally high levels of energy use. The bill deals separately with noise issues, but energy use is covered only by a general statement that “[n]o state or local government agency or subdivision thereof shall...[i]mpose any requirement on a digital asset mining business that does not equally apply to all industrial-zoned properties[.]” While high noise levels generally affect only those located near the business in question, the exceptionally high levels of energy use required for digital mining businesses will affect the entire municipality where the business is located, and may potentially affect the entire state, by placing a strain on the electrical grid and potentially affecting other businesses’ and households’ access to electricity. State agencies and local governments should have the option to set requirements that specifically address energy use by digital mining operations. In addition, a commission is being established to study issues relating to blockchain technology, and this commission should have the opportunity to weigh in on this issue, before the legislature establishes such protections for digital asset mining.

• HB 774-FN, requiring Medicare supplemental policies to cover pre-existing conditions. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

  • Rep. Carry Spier for Commerce and Consumer Affairs. Upon initial enrollment in Medicare Part B, individuals have a six-month period during which they may purchase a commercial supplemental plan, with full coverage for any pre-existing conditions. After that enrollment window, it is up to the commercial supplement plan provider to determine how pre-existing conditions are to be covered, often requiring a one year waiting period. This bill was submitted to allow individuals on Medicare Advantage (Advantage) to switch to Medicare with commercial supplemental insurance plans (the combination referred to as Medi-supp) with a state-mandated requirement to cover pre-existing conditions from the point of sign-up. The stated assumption was that Medi- supp with the mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions would be better than any Medicare Advantage plan. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (experts on health policy issues), for the past 4-5 years after plan and service improvements, 95% of subscribers to Advantage are happy with their health coverage. The robust coverage that was once offered under Medi-supp was eliminated in 2020. For the most part, none of the remaining plans include Part B deductible coverage. Some of the remaining plans do cover some or all of Part A deductibles. There are numerous Advantage plans. The cost and coverage depend on the size of the network (geographical area covered) and the depth of the network (how many health providers in the selected area are included). The area can be very local (like town) or generally up to two states. The depth can be 30% of medical providers in the area up to 70% of providers. Additionally, for the most part, the coverage type can be HMO (managed care requiring referrals) or PPO (preferred provider where out of network providers can be seen at a higher deductible cost). Once a subscriber makes a choice of insurance company and plan options, they are free to change any aspect of the Advantage plan as often as every year (during the enrollment period) while pre-existing conditions will be fully covered throughout. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), less than 2% of people seek to switch between Medi-supp and Advantage with the switch going both ways. 55% of eligible subscribers choose Advantage over Medi-supp as it is currently implemented. During the committee hearing, we heard that mandating Medi-supp coverage for pre-existing conditions beyond the enrollment window could potentially increase the premium rates for all individuals under the plan. This may result in some subscribers facing challenges in affording their current coverage. Based on all available information, the committee could not find a compelling reason to mandate Medi-supp coverage for pre-existing conditions under the circumstances described during the hearing when it is possible to achieve a similar desired outcome within the scope of Medicare Advantage. Vote 17-0.