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:
Committee Reports of Interest to NAIFA:
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.
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.