HB1169

Centerline Utility Services provides underground locating services for several utilities in ME, NH, VT, MA, and RI. These proposed changes would be counter to the best practices outlined by the Common Ground Alliance and would lead to an increase in underground damages. Having 72 hours to respond to sites is critical for us during the busy spring/summer/fall digging season. Reducing the window we have to respond will make it difficult for our team to make it to each site and ensure it is properly marked. Vermont recently moved from 48 hour response to 72 hour response, and we have seen a decrease in damages due to late response. The proposed change to have tickets not expire for 1 year would also increase utility damages. Currently, tickets must be renewed every 30 days, which causes our team to respond to the site again and remark underground facilities. Paint markings on site usually only last about a month, sometimes much less depending on traffic and excavation on the site. Without clear markings on site utilities are vulnerable and could be hit. Several years ago Maine moved from 30 day expiration to 60 day expiration. We have seen an increase in underground damages due to the markings on site simply not lasting that long. Thank you for your time. Mathias Florenz

I am a utility locator who works for centerline utility services and part of my job is completing dosage tickets for contractors and home owners. In the especially during dig season it is very hard is high volume area to maintain even with the 72 hour window we have at the moment. This would then for put more stress on locators and excavators and could potentially rush and lead to damaged utilities which is not our goal. As someone who works in this field I hope you take in consideration of utility workers who already deal with a small window to keep excavators and home owners safe. Thank you for your time

As a member of the public that also works in the Dig Safe field, and I oppose this as I believe it will likely result in a greater risk of damages to underground utilities and presents an excessive danger to property, utilities and people. 72 hours is a pretty universal time throughout the country for notification, the 72 hours gives the technicians working for the utilities sufficient time to locate and mark utilities. Reducing this time to 48 hours would result in technicians not being able to perform their locating tasks in time and damages would likely occur as a result. Additionally extending the life of an excavation notice from 30 days to a year also presents an excessive danger to property, utilities and people. Having to submit a new notice every 30 days keeps the utilities freshly marked and ensures safety in the case that a new utility may be installed in the excavation area.

I respectfully submit this testimony in opposition to HB 1169. HB 1169 proposes multiple changes to New Hampshire’s excavation notification requirements, including reducing the advance notice period, extending the validity of excavation tickets to one year, and modifying observed holidays. Collectively, these changes weaken the effectiveness of the damage prevention system established under RSA 374:51. Adequate advance notice is a foundational element of safe excavation. Reducing the required notification window limits the ability of facility operators to properly coordinate locates, address complex or congested utility environments, and ensure accurate markings. This increases the likelihood of incomplete or outdated information at the job site, elevating risk for excavators, locators, and the general public. Extending the life of an excavation notice to one year presents additional concerns. Site conditions change frequently due to weather, construction activity, utility maintenance, and seasonal factors. A long-term ticket risks reliance on markings that are no longer accurate or visible, which undermines situational awareness and increases the potential for utility strikes and service disruptions. New Hampshire’s Dig Safe framework reflects nationally recognized best practices that prioritize safety, accountability, and communication among all stakeholders. HB 1169 departs from these principles by favoring convenience over safety without demonstrating a corresponding benefit to damage prevention or public welfare. For these reasons, I support the position of NH Dig Safe and the New Hampshire Department of Energy and respectfully urge the Committee to find HB 1169 inexpedient to legislate. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for your consideration of the safety of New Hampshire’s infrastructure and workforce.

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed change reducing the Dig Safe response time from 72 hours to 48 hours. I have worked as a utility locator for over 15 years and have direct experience locating utilities in Vermont. Vermont previously operated under a 48-hour response time for many years and recently transitioned to a 72-hour requirement. Since this change, both contractors and utility locators have been able to work more efficiently, communicate more effectively, and, most importantly, reduce the number of damages and dig-ins. The 72-hour response time allows for better scheduling, more accurate locates, and improved coordination between all parties involved. Utility locating is not simply a matter of speed; it requires careful planning, record review, field verification, and clear communication. Rushing this process increases the likelihood of errors, which can lead to utility strikes, service disruptions, and serious safety risks. During peak construction months, particularly in the summer, the volume of work alone makes a 48-hour response time unrealistic. Forcing shorter deadlines under these conditions places undue strain on locating personnel and significantly increases the risk of missed or incomplete locates. Based on both my professional experience and the observed improvements following Vermont’s move to a 72-hour response time, I believe reducing the timeframe back to 48 hours would be a step backward. There is no clear benefit to this change, while the potential safety and operational risks are substantial. For these reasons, I strongly believe the Dig Safe response time should remain at 72 hours. Respectfully, Eric Fletcher

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.