requiring that retailers of fuel blends with 15% ethanol also offer fuel blends with 10% or lower ethanol content.
Summary
HB 454 requires retailers that sell higher-ethanol fuel blends to also make available at least one lower-ethanol option. Specifically, if a retailer offers a fuel blend containing 15% ethanol or more, it must also offer a fuel blend containing 10% ethanol or less. The bill applies to retailers of ethanol fuel blends and requires them to post prices for these fuels in the same manner already required under existing fuel price-posting law.
The bill is a consumer-choice and fuel-access measure aimed at ensuring drivers have access to lower-ethanol gasoline where higher-ethanol blends are sold. It does not prohibit the sale of higher-ethanol fuel; rather, it adds an availability requirement for retailers that choose to sell those products. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 454 would amend New Hampshire RSA 339 by adding a new section governing the sale of ethanol fuel blends. It would create a statutory obligation for fuel retailers to stock at least one blend at 10% ethanol or below whenever they sell a blend at 15% ethanol or above, and it would tie the new requirement to existing fuel price-posting rules. The practical effect would be to expand consumer access to lower-ethanol gasoline options and impose a compliance requirement on affected fuel retailers.
Sentiment
The available record suggests the bill was presented in a straightforward, policy-oriented manner, with no recorded committee testimony or vote history indicating strong opposition or support. The bill’s sponsor group and committee referral to Commerce and Consumer Affairs suggest it was treated as a consumer and retail-fuel regulation rather than a controversial measure. Because no transcripts or votes are available, the overall sentiment can only be characterized as neutral to mildly favorable based on the bill’s framing.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the burden placed on fuel retailers that sell higher-ethanol blends, since they would be required to maintain and offer an additional lower-ethanol product. Retailers or fuel distributors could view this as an inventory, storage, or pricing compliance requirement, while supporters would likely emphasize consumer access and choice. Another possible issue is whether the mandate could affect fuel availability or costs in areas where lower-ethanol blends are less commonly stocked, though no formal objections are recorded in the provided materials.
Requiring a food delivery service to enter into an agreement with a food service establishment or food retail store before offering delivery service from that restaurant.
Requiring certain non-public schools or education service providers that accept public funds to perform background checks on all employees and volunteers.
Requiring moderators to inspect absentee ballot affidavits for full execution including use of a notary, election officer, or any person authorized by law to administer oaths.
Requiring courts to order a minor and their family have psychological evaluations and, if necessary, counseling, where parental rights and responsibilities are contested in a family court matter.