Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will she please send us live? Will the house please come to order? Members, just a reminder we are in orders of the day currently on House Bill two eleven, date of records and personal information. Member from Pultely.

[Representative Patricia A. McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to interrupt orders of the day for the purposes of announcements.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Pulte moves that we that we suspend our orders in in to in order to interrupt orders of the day for the purpose of announcements. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have suspended our rules to interrupt the orders of the day for purpose of announcements. Member from Rutland City.

[Representative Mary E. Howard (Rutland City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wish to, welcome back a prior representative and, constituent of ours. Doug Gage is in the, gallery above. Please welcome him to the our house.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the former member please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, orders of the day. Members, we are currently on house bill two eleven, data brokers and personal information. And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Putney.

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Thank you madam speaker. Within this bill is an appropriation for $50,000 It's an appropriation that will go to the Secretary of State's office to oversee a study for which a consultant will be hired. And this study We'll look at the feasibility of establishing an accessible deletion mechanism. This mechanism would be readily accessible and usable by consumers to let data held by a data broker to be deleted. The procedure of this deletion would protect the information from unauthorized use, disclosure, access, destruction, or modification. The consumer would also be able to verify that personal information has been deleted, And I'll offer the personal opinion that it's a reminder that our data is ours. It doesn't belong to data brokers, which is the way things seem to be going right now. The secretary of state would be required to submit an interim report to the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development and the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs on or before 12/01/2027 with a final report on or before 12/01/2028. Your Appropriations Committee considered this and voted nine zero two to approve this and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on commerce and economic development. Are you ready for the question? Member from Castleton.

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Excuse me. I wanna be clear. I am not aware of anyone in this chamber that is in favor of data brokers misusing Vermont's personal information. I know I'm not. But good intentions don't make good law, and H two one one, as written, will harm the very Vermonters it intends to protect. This bill creates a deletion right with no meaningful exemption for data that federal law already tightly regulates. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, the

[Unidentified member (multiple brief interjections)]: Graham Beach Lyla Act. Madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington, what is your point of order?

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Is this, on the amendment?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member, I I find your your point of order not well taken. The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on commerce and economic development? Member from Castleton, thank you. You may continue.

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you madam speaker. As I was saying, the bill creates a deletion right with no meaningful exemption for data that federal law already tightly regulates. For example, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Graham Leech Lyle Act, and the Drivers Privacy Protection Act. These aren't loopholes. They are comprehensive federal consumer protection frameworks. Whenever modern disputes an error on their credit report or when their bank screens a wire transfer against the sanctions list or when an insurer verifies their identity before issuing a policy, those services depend on the very data this bill would require to be deleted within thirty days. The bill also requires that retained data be segregated from all other uses, but FCRA compliance is not a single transaction. It requires ongoing reference to correction histories, fraud flags, and audit trails. Segregation makes that legally impossible. California, which we are told this bill is modeled after, paired its deletion mechanism with explicit cross reference federal exemptions. We have not done that here. We would be making Vermont an outlier in a way that degrades fraud prevention, complicates insurance underwriting, and ultimately makes credit and financial services harder to access for Vermonters. At this point, I'd like to interrogate the presenter of the bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Bradford is interrogated.

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. It appears that this bill is modeled in part on California's delete act. Given that California paired its deletion mechanism with explicit FCRA, GLBA, and DPPA exemptions cross referenced from its underlying privacy law, can the sponsor please explain to me and the body why h two eleven's exemptions in section two four four six subsection three c three are narrower and why Vermont should impose obligations on data brokers that even California with its much larger regulatory infrastructure did not?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: I'd love to madam speaker. Fair Credit Reporting Act, is actually included as an exemption and there are other, so I guess let me back up. While considering, the exemptions, when we take into account the California Privacy Act, that was put into place for as a comprehensive privacy framework for consumers. It is in large parts regulating first party relationships that consumers have with between themselves and businesses. That means that like if we are well, I think everybody knows what that means. It's a direct relationship. When in the data broker case, this is often, if not always, a relationship that a consumer it's a third party relationship between a consumer and a business. So this this data brokers are collecting and sharing and selling data that the consumers may never know that their that that data is being collected or sold. They have no means to other than the registry to have a place to look up who potentially has their data. They don't actually know who has their data and then and then they don't they also may have to go through a bunch of different steps, you know, from talking to folks who have who have tools that try to aid in deletion request, but also talking to former data broker employees, just the dark patterns and things that the number of steps up to like 11 steps that a consumer would have to one, figure out which entities have their data. And this could be up to 8,600 data brokers that are counted right now internationally. Then they would have to go to every single site and then try to find the deletion request link, which may or may not exist, and they may not may or may not be able to track that down, and then go through the steps of trying to request the deletion. As far as the getting into the exemption, so with the privacy act, generally, when privacy act started, so California was the first one as far as the state comprehensive data privacy act. And when California started and this was right around the time as 2018, the same time, the same year that we were trying to work on the data, we passed the data broker registry law. There was a there's an expectation kind of like an understanding that we would that entities could be exempted. So that means that like actually, I'll go through all three first and then I'll give examples. So, entity level exemptions. As data protection laws continued to be passed in subsequent states, then looking at the, examples, states started to move to a data level exemption framework. And then in this case, this bill actually creates something new which focuses on use case exemptions. And so with the entity level, this is something that like if I if I, want to provide an exemption to an entity level under the Grammleys Spiley Act, which I will add that in 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau put out a report urging states to no longer use Grammle H. Barley Act as means of exempting business under Consumer Protection Act because it is a notice and and opt out framework. It is not a comprehensive privacy framework. So if you're looking at an entity level of Graham H. Bartholomew, exempt examples of entities under Graham H. Bartholomew include things like banks, insurance companies. It also includes things like, debt collectors. It includes things like payday loans. It includes things, like auto, auto dealers. And so if we if we were to give an exemption, which California does when it started and is not updated, the entity level under Grammle's bliley, we would say that any data that is held by those entities including, again, debt collectors, payday lenders, car dealers, banks, insurance, anything there, the Vermonters, if they tried to request deletion, then they including so like the data held under this would be something that would fall under say credit reporting, identity verification purposes, fraud prevention. And in this bill, have made exemptions for each of those use cases. But under these entities, it also includes things like marketing, selling advertising profiles. And so in an entity level under Grammle Spiely as an example, then somebody could not request that they if they try to request their data be deleted from say like car dealer or a payday lender or like I said, these other examples, then they they would have no they would have to this entity would have full exemption to say no, we're not deleting your data. When we go down to the data then we go down to the data level and the use case level. So in the data level, if we're talking about Grammle H. B. I. Lee, it actually only takes two types of information to qualify as Grammle H. Level and like data this data level exemption which would be the mix of financial transaction data and your social security number. Knowing how much information is out there that includes these records, that data so say that we're moving down from the entity level, we're saying we're using data use kind of like exemption. Then if an entity brought in Grammlech Bliley qualified data into their systems, if we said that we're exempting data, then we're saying that we're exempting that data for every single tier underneath it and all of the use cases that it would be used for. So if somebody got that got that data on us under the Grammle Schliley kind of like data level exemption that qualifies for the under Grammle Schliley, then any type of purpose they used it for. Like, they might be taking it in at first to do things like fraud fraud prevention, identity verification, but then it could be what we're finding. And for talking to folks in the data broker industry is that the data brokers and the entities that, you know, have arms that one might be a data broker, one might be a marketing, and they all fall a big umbrella is that the data is often commingled, and or moves between all of these different departments. So when you get it under that legitimate kind of like use that you would expect a consumer like a consumer would expect, that they might want that data to be used for identity verification purposes, then it would move to things like the marketing department or the advertising department. What we're trying to do in this bill and what we have done in this bill is focused on use case exemptions. And so this means that the data that's brought into an entity for the purposes of identity verification, fraud prevention, there's also a kind of additional state and federal regulations, the Fair Credit Reporting Act is under there. We're saying that like that data, that's protected because it is often credentialed. It's often in databases that actually have really strict security. It might also be in a database that people actually have to have credentials in order to access that information because it is such like high highly sensitive data. But we're saying that data shouldn't be moved from that highly sensitive credential database as strong protections throughout the entire business and or subsidiaries of the business to be able to do whatever they want with that data.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: I think is

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: the member still going?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: No. It's fine.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: I'll stop Thank

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: you, member. I I appreciate that that very thorough response. Two of the things that you mentioned specifically in your answer were around use cases and the of data. And so I'm curious if the committee received any testimony from Vermont banks or credit unions about the impact of this bill's deletion mechanism on their operations, specifically on the data brokers, services they rely on on fraud detection, identity verification, sanction screenings, and credit underwriting?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yes. We did receive testimony from the Vermont Banks, Property and Casualty Insurance, an international data broker, and then also in addition former data broker employee. And in addition, there's been a lot of voices behind the scenes that have helped to understand to really help understand kind of this landscape and how the data is used and how it is categorized and how it is protected?

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: I thank the member. And, specifically, do they have concerns about this bill, the witnesses that you received testimony on?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yeah. So the so as far as it goes with the, banking testimony, the insurance kind of testimony, data broker testimony, there was a concern that because this is a new provision, this use case like based example that was crafted again with people from the industry and regulators that we made this use case exam exemption allows them to it exempts the data as it's used for identity verification, prod prod prevention, indirect processing agreements, for accurate reporting activities. But again, it is not, it does not allow the commingling and kind of like use of that data for other purposes. And so when we received testimony, it was generally that the we we talked offline. There was an appreciation for trying to get to a point where where we are trying to preserve the use of data for legitimate purposes while also trying to protect the consumer from those purposes that are not necessarily legitimate and or a concern. And so when it comes to the the banks and insurance and and brokers, there was a concern that they're not they haven't seen these used case exemptions before. And so there wasn't testimony to say I would say, like, generally, what we heard was that, because they're unsure of how this could impact them, they wanted an entity level and or data level depending on who was testifying exemption under generally, it was falling under Graham L.

[Representative Carolyn Branagan (Georgia)]: H. B. Riley.

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: So I what I'm hearing thank you, member. And so what I'm hearing is that all the witnesses were in support of the legislation.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: I'm that's a weird phrase in my question. Can

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Did all of the witnesses you heard from support the legislation?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: So, again, I think the what we heard was that people are unsure of the impact because they have not seen this in action because we haven't passed the law yet.

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: I I'll take that as a no. Thank you, madam speaker. And one I mean, one of the shared concerns that I have with the member and and the work that the committee did is making sure that Vermonters remain protected. And so one of the areas that this bill does impact is DMV data. And so my my next question is that while the bill does provide exemptions for FCRA furnished consumer reports, I don't see a corresponding exemption for data governed by the Federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act and I will also add that Vermont's own statute 23 VSA three zero four tightly restricts the use of DMV data. So if the data broker lawfully holds DPPA regulated motor vehicle records for fraud prevention or insurance, bless you, underwriting purposes explicitly permitted under federal law and a consumer submits a deletion request, what happens?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yeah. So the data under the DPPA so I had a lobbyist reach out and from both, I will just be frank with both concerning educational data, credentialing data, as well as information that falls under the driver privacy protection act. And these were both very last minute, sideline conversations where lobbyists came forward to voice concern. I had already been starting to work as of like this was all very last minute and I'd already been starting to really try to scramble on our last day to try to work with the education information clearinghouse to try to figure out if we could do something quick. And and we're not able to do that the day of when we were doing this. So, what we have done in the past for past privacy laws is we have worked on, an exemption, that kinda takes into account the relationship with state agencies, and that is something that we were exploring. And the agreement was that with in both cases was that they would be happy to continue conversations after as as this goes to the house, continuing to the senate. So we have more time to be thoughtful on both on all sides of this.

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: So there remains more work to be done on this member. Is that what I'm hearing?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: There is always more work to be done on bills, and in this case, there's an agreement with the lobbyists that represent these clients that will continue conversations.

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, member, and thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on commerce and economic development? Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I think this is a a much needed and very valuable bill. I had I had a few really just clarifying questions about enforcement and much of the topic or some of the responses that we just heard answered them. So, I'll try to not overlap and just supplement a little bit. If I may interrogate the member presenting the bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Bradford is interrogated.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, one of my questions was about other states. I always get really nervous when Vermont wants to be first up as a small state, and I understand, California, did something a while ago, which may not be as up to date, but has led the way on this. Wondering, are there other states at this point, or does the member know how many other states there are that have enacted similar bills at this point?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yeah. Thank you, member. So one so as far as what we were, I think, referencing just for clarification earlier was generally focused on the California Consumer Protection Act, which at this point, 20 states as of yesterday, Oklahoma passed one. So there's 20 states that have that. And then in large part, again, that's really first party relationships. As far as data broker registry bills, the one the four states Vermont was the first in 2018. The other three states are Texas, Oregon, and California. And when it comes to so those are registry bills. And in registry bills, generally, there's no exemptions from having to register. California took the next step in creating a law which went into effect on January 1, which was or the mechanism went online, sorry, the January 1 for this year. And the law that created that mechanism was the California Delete Act. And in that one, they referenced the exemptions for the California Privacy Protection Act. And in general, just to provide an update, I know that Maryland is working on a registry and deletion. Connecticut just filed registry and deletion. Rhode Island just filed registry and deletion. As far as bills that are moving through sessions, Massachusetts is looking at it. I can't remember who else. Washington is looking at it, but just to provide, it is it is generally, a trend that more states are looking at this as highly sensitive, area that needs to needs action.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I thank the member. I just to follow-up to that because, although the discussion about some of the details of these systems was well over my head. I think I got from that that there is one area in the bill where where this is the first the first effort to do a specific part of what this bill does. Is that correct?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: So the yes. The the area that this is this varies slightly is that in comprehensive privacy acts, there tends to be this entity level exemption that was kind of the first trend or wave of exemptions for businesses to not have to with the laws and and as a fear of interrupting business generally. The kind of the next wave of things, which is generally what's like a lot of states that have enacted their privacy laws if they had entity level, like for instance, for Connecticut. Connecticut's always used in this building as a reference of a bill that they originally passed things like GLB, Grammle Spialy Act, entity level exemption when they first did it and their Connecticut, the Connecticut AG came out with a report saying these need to be tightened up. So their amendment from last year was to switch that entity level exemption to a data level exemption. And so generally, a lot of states are being encouraged to switch from, entity level exemptions which all which often rely or reference on federal privacy acts that have that tend to have loopholes in them. And as I said, a report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even itself said, please, you know, do better as far as entity level exemptions. So the next wave is data level. In this case, I worked with former data broker employees, regulators, really trying to hone in on, you know, if there was a concern that because this data moves around in different entities without people realizing it, data might be taken in for one purpose and a complete use for completely different ways in other in other departments or shared with different entities or sold with different entities that the consumer doesn't expect or want. And so we really tried to hone in on crafting really tightly crafting use case based exemptions.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, that was that was very helpful in understanding that that difference, which is sounds like a next step forward, but not a fundamental change from the the direction that other states have gone. I'm I'm wondering really about the enforcement and And did was there testimony, from the attorney general's office about their confidence level about being able to enforce the provisions?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yes. So, yeah, the attorney general, testified, and are and generally, very much in support of this and felt confident about this.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: That's great to hear. Was there any testimony from any, whether the attorney general's office or other legal perspectives, on any constitutional issues around the fact that this was multistate organizations who might not even easily be able to control or affect, something in one state. So it was, you know, limited, in what we could do. Were there any any constitutional concerns on that in that area?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: There I would say that I I don't think generally that we heard constitutional concerns like interstate commerce clause issues. Those were not raised.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The last question I have is is about the fines. Obviously, they're pretty hefty, which I would think for some of these data broker customer would be really important because if they're small fines, they could just ignore them and continue business. But it the the only concern it raised for me is whether they could argue that Vermont, our size, their ability to have real notice about this level of repercussions for for failures to follow the details of our law. Was there any testimony from, data broker, data brokers or data broker companies at all about, that area of enforcement?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: We did we did have testimony from, one data broker. We were very focused on the exemption, exemptions piece of the bill. We did not generally I don't to mess to my knowledge, we did not actually, ever have anybody who's expressing concerns about the fines that the the the it's actually sorry. I'll cover fees and fines just so for clarity. So as far as, fines and fees, we generally did not, hear any testimony of people raising that concern. The fines are very much in line with what other states are doing. As far as the fees, I I'll have to kind of share that I think it was I'm not gonna remember the states correctly, but in Texas and Oregon, like it's a $100 and $300. I can't remember which state is which as far as registration. As far as registration in California, they actually upped theirs to 6,600 and they set that because they were trying to fund the deletion mechanism, the building of the portal. We originally, in the original version of this bill, actually had it that that the attorney general or secretary of state, I think, could set the fees, but then we learned that we don't do that in Vermont. So we had to pick a number, and so the secretary of state, basically was comfortable with, 900 as a start, and so that's why we went with that.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I thank the member. I actually was only concerned about the fines, but it's useful to know the fees. In fact, the ability to pin down what different states are doing and the the depth of knowledge that we've heard is is extremely impressive on this whole topic. I'm, really excited about, supporting this bill and being in support of it, and I thank the member for, clarifying those things.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development member from Jericho.

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to speak out in support of the bill. The representative from Bradford did a great job of bringing together both advocates and lobbyists for industry to find a middle ground where we can continue to protect Vermonters and ensure that business goes forward in the way that it needs to for Vermonters to get the services that we've come to be accustomed to. I wanted to just remind everyone that this bill was first passed. This law was first passed in 2018. And if we think about any technology that we use, everything has changed so much since 2018. We do housekeeping bills in just about every area of government, and yet we have not yet updated this bill. It's in dire need of an update, and this bill does just that. The

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have amended the bill. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it, The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Members, at this time in terms of bill order we plan to continue in the order that is listed in the calendar. If something changes I will let you know but as of right now we're going, through the order in the calendar. So now we'll take up House Bill five seventy seven which is an act relating to establishing the Vermont prescription drug discount card program. The bill was referred to the committee on healthcare which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Colchester, representative Critchlow will speak for that committee. In affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the report of the committee on healthcare be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Georgia, representative Branagan will speak for that committee. And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on healthcare and when further amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means. The member from St. Albans Town, representative Dickinson will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: Page five seventy seven, an act relating to establishing the Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Colchester.

[Representative Wendy Critchlow (Colchester)]: We all know health care costs are rapidly becoming one of the greatest burdens facing Vermont households. Vermonters now spend on average nearly one out of every $5 they earn on their health care, and prescription drugs are a major driver of the cost. We can and must do more to rein in the cost of prescription drugs for our constituents, and h eight five seven seven is intended to do just that. H five seven seven would authorize the office of the state treasurer to join a growing multistate coalition known as ArrayRx, a collaboration founded in 2006 by Washington and Oregon that has since expanded to include Nevada, Arizona, Ohio, and most recently Connecticut. Joining ArrayRx would allow Vermonters to participate in its prescription drug discount card program, making lower prescription drug prices available at the pharmacy counter. So what would this program mean for Vermonters? Any Vermont resident can sign up and receive a discount card free of charge. The card offers discounted prices on all prescription medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration with savings up to 80% on generic drugs and up to 20% on brand name medications, as well as discounts on certain over the counter medications. These savings would would be especially meaningful for residents without insurance or for those who face high out of pocket costs for prescription drugs. Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act subsidies and federal tax credits expire expired and Medicaid Advantage plans are becoming less available. A growing number of Vermonters, especially seniors and working families, may find themselves needing additional help to support to afford their medications. Even for Vermonters with good insurance coverage, the ArrayRx card may still provide savings in certain cases. In addition, expenses incurred through the card may count towards the patient's deductible if the consumer submits a claim to their insurer. In Connecticut, which joined the program in 2023, residents have seen an average savings of approximately $259,000,000 a month. $202,159 dollars a month per member per month. I will now walk you through the sections which can be found on page thirteen seventy two. Section one, the SA chapter Vermont prescription drug Discount Card Program. Section one adds a new sub chapter to title 18 on the Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program. Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program establishes the Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program to be administered by the office of the state treasurer to reduce prescription drug cost by pooling prescription drug purchasing power with other states. The program will be available to all Vermont residents. Annual re annual report to the general assembly beginning January 2028 on the activities of the program and the previous calendar year, including numbers of Vermont residents and pharmacies participate participating and the amount of achieved. 40 June Vermont Prescription Drug Card Program Fund establishes a establishes a special fund to support the Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program. Sections two and three, health insurance pharmacy benefit managers and filling prescriptions. Sections two and three make similar amendments to eight VSA four zero nine three and eighteen VSA thirty six twelve. These sections require health insurance insurers and pharmacy benefit managers to count amounts paid by or on behalf of a covered individual for the prescription drug towards the covered individual's deductible and out of pocket minimums, even if the individual buys the drug without using their insurance. The sections also require insurance or PBMs or both to make a downloadable proof of payment form available to on their website so covered individuals can provide what they pay for the drugs and if they don't use their insurance and providing and provide notice to covered individuals at least annually that they are respond that they are responsible for providing proof of payment when they don't use the insurance in order to have their spending properly attributed to their deductible and out of pocket expenses, maximums. Section four, Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program implementation report. This section requires the state treasurer to report to the general assembly by 01/15/2027 on the implement implementation of the Vermont prescription drug discount card program. Section five, appropriates $50,000 from the general fund to the state treasurer's office in fiscal year twenty twenty seven for the cost of developing and implementing the Vermont prescription drug discount card program. And section six is the effective date of 07/01/2026. If just 1% of Vermonters enrolls, households could collectively save more than $20,000,000 each year on prescription medications. This is money families could instead put towards necessities like food, gas, or savings for their future. And we can bring this program to Vermonters without any ongoing costs for the state. This program is self funded through a small transaction fee baked into the advertised price that a consumer pays when they buy a drug. This legislation was received enthusiast received enthusiastic support from the Vermont Medical Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, the AARP, the Office of the Healthcare Advocate, notable independent pharmacists, and the Oregon State Pharmacists Association. Pharmacists in states that have actively administered the program have not reported negative impacts to their businesses, and several pharmacists across Vermont have provided statements in support of 57 h 577. Critically, unlike many other discount drugs and commercial insurance companies, the RA Rx discount card is governed by public sector employees who are dedicated to balancing the needs of pharmacies and consumers. And importantly, like the last bill, they do not sell your data. After hearing extensive testimony, the health care committee voted in favor of h five seven seven by eleven zero zero, and we asked for the body's support. The health care committee heard from the assistant general counsel, department of financial regulation, staff attorney for the office of the health care advocate, Vermont Legal Aid, deputy commissioner of insurance, Department of Financial Regulation, legislative liaison, Vermont Pharmacists Association, deputy chief counsel, office of the legislative council, a RARX steering committee member from the Oregon Health Authority, director of legislative and government relations, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, associate state director of the advocacy and outreach for AARP Vermont, director of the Rutland Pharmacy, senior adviser to the health policy initiatives, office of Connecticut state comptroller, Vermont state treasurer's office, a Vermont state treasurer from the office of the state treasurer, pharmacist from Lakeside Pharmacy, Vermont Pharmacists Association, EPA, comptroller for the office of the Connecticut state comptroller, special advisory to the treasurer, office of the state treasurer. And I already said we voted it out eleven zero zero, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on ways and means, member from Georgia.

[Representative Carolyn Branagan (Georgia)]: Thanks, madam speaker. Madam speaker, I think the best way to understand how this program would work is by thinking of a Costco card. Many of us have those Costco cards. You take them into the store and that enables you to buy food at a reduced rate sometimes. In the store, you pay for the Costco card, however, I think it's on an annual basis. This card won't cost the person who's buying pharmaceutical products anything. The way this card is paid for is with every purchase you make at the pharmacy, a percent or two, a few dollars are charged to the already reduced price you pay and that money is collected by ARX. So the bill as amended by the Ways and Means Committee removes the name of a fund that already exists in the treasurer's office and changes the name of that fund to the Financial Literacy and Economic Development Trust Fund. The committee also changed language that would have allowed the treasurer to establish fees to go into that fund. We in fact, we took that right out of the bill. That's a legislative job, not an executive branch job, so that's gone. Fees defray the costs of this program as I already tried to explain to you. This let's see. The So the treasurer does not have the ability to determine the amount of fee or that would go into the fund. This recognizes and maintains the difference between the branches of government, executive and legislative. In the Vermont ARX, the bill, I already told you would amend, the the fees. ARX is a multistate collaborative. I think, the the presenter of the bill explained to you which, states have started the bill. If this were to come to Vermont, ARX would manage the administrative responsibilities of distributing discount cards and providing customer service while the office of the treasurer would deal with the marketing. ARX would collect a small transaction fee at the time the discount is used. So when the the consumer goes in to purchase a pharmaceutical product, that's when the fee is paid. A portion of that fee is used to cover the transaction costs and the remainder goes to the state for administrative and marketing purposes. Please note that in section five of the underlying bill, there's an appropriation for $50,000. That's a one time approach appropriation, not an annual appropriation. The so the the company the treasurer's office rather only gets this money once. They use it initially to start the marketing of this program and they they are not scheduled to get any more money after that. So we have found by doing research that each of the states who already use this program, in each of those states the consumers are saving money, usually a couple $100 a month. In fact, this card is sometimes used at a pharmacy in my district, but it's used by people who are visiting the state. They can purchase pharmaceuticals, get these prescription products at a reduced rate, but the people who live in my district can't because Vermont doesn't participate. If we vote to start participating in this plan, then people in my district and yours can then receive these products at a reduced rate. Like shopping at Costco, everything isn't going to be cheaper, but many things will, enough to save a couple $100 a month. So I hope that explains the bill. Ways and means voted on on this amendment change nine zero two, and we look for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Colchester.

[Representative Wendy Critchlow (Colchester)]: Thank you, madam speaker. After hearing the amendment and hearing from ledge council, a representative from Georgia, and the office of the treasurer, we've we voted a straw poll with zero nine zero two at the amendment offered by the committee on ways and means be accepted.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Saint Albans Town.

[Representative Eileen Dickinson (St. Albans Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The house appropriations committee reviewed the bill h five seventy seven. The bill adds the appropriation of $50,000 to the office of the state treasurer for the cost of development and implementing the program for array r x. We heard from representatives of the treasurer's office, ledge counsel, and the joint fiscal office. The committee on appropriations recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended, as recommended by the committee on healthcare. When further amended, as recommended by the committee on ways and means by a vote of eight to one. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the report of the committee on healthcare be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means. Are you ready for the question? Member from Pultely.

[Representative Patricia A. McCoy (Poultney)]: Point of inquiry, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Pulte, what's your point of inquiry?

[Representative Patricia A. McCoy (Poultney)]: May the member of Georgia repeat the vote out of the house ways and means committee.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Thank you. Member from Georgia.

[Representative Carolyn Branagan (Georgia)]: Eight two one.

[Representative Patricia A. McCoy (Poultney)]: Well, I have 920. So that's my

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the house take a brief brief recess, please? The house will stand in recess. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Member from Georgia.

[Representative Carolyn Branagan (Georgia)]: Reports going on here this afternoon. The report by the Ways and Means Committee nine two zero, which I think is what I reported in the beginning. The the report from the member from St. Albans Town is eight twenty one. The report I delivered nine twenty. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is shall the report of the committee on healthcare be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the report of the committee on healthcare. Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on healthcare as amended. Are you ready for that question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, when I I saw this bill, my first reaction was, wait. We did that already. I could swear I remember that we tried that. We passed a bill a while back. And it wasn't that I wasn't supportive, but I was wondering what happened and why that didn't work. So I went back and checked, and actually chapter 91 here is prescription drug cost containment. This is subchapter seven being added, but subchapter four was a specific program that involved attempting to pool with other states, but primarily about purchasing drugs at a lower cost from Canada rather than based on overall pooled benefits. So I was about 90% wrong and 10% right. But in coming across that, madam speaker, it did lead me to maybe make one suggestion to the committee. That, that program did not ever come to pass, didn't end up working out. So maybe, as we enact this new one, we should be deleting that law. And in particular, madam speaker, because section forty six fifty six of it requires an annual report, and that annual report is specifically exempted from the sunset provisions that require us to look at and repeal old or no longer necessary reports. So I don't know if it's still being done. If it's not being done, the law is being violated. But if it's not being done, it's because it's not necessary. Thank you, madam speaker. This is a terrific bill to see and I'm, fully in support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on healthcare as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. All those opposed please say nay. Aye. Ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Now we'll take up house bill seven eighteen which is an act relating to building energy efficiency. The bill was referred to the committee on energy and digital infrastructure which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Saint Johnsbury, representative Campbell will speak for the committee and carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the report of the committee on energy and digital infrastructure be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Burke, representative Kaczynski will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: Age seven eighteen, an act relating to building energy efficiency.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Saint Johnsbury.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Madam speaker, I believe you and most members are aware that Vermont has mandatory building energy codes. Residential building energy standards or REBs have been in place since 1997. Commercial building energy standards, CBs, since 2007. Although neither REBs or CBs includes enforcement mechanisms or penalties for noncompliance, on the commercial side, compliance is pretty high, likely due to higher levels of formal training and particularly professional licensing. In residential construction, however, Arby's compliance is not so hot. Many consumers are not aware that we have energy codes. Even some contractors are not. Some may be aware, but beyond meeting the letter of the codes with a self certified compliance certificate, don't actually pay much attention to them. Worse, some contractors choose noncompliance in order to undercut their competition because it's true energy code compliance does cost a little more upfront. But the public service department, which promulgates and updates energy codes, calibrates them to save more over time than they cost up front. That's to say nothing of the less tangible but very real benefits of improving the comfort, healthfulness, safety, and durability of the home. It may surprise some members to know that while Vermont does have binding residential building energy standards, we do not have an overarching residential building construction code for single family and two unit buildings. This means that there is no standard that building owners can hold contractors to when constructing or renovating what is, for most, their most costly and valuable asset. It also means there is no legal standard for insurance companies or the courts in case of problems. And effectively, it puts the liability for determining construction standards squarely on the builder or designer. Having a mandatory energy code without a residential building construction code is a cart before the horse situation. Energy codes are a subset of building codes. Without a building code, there is no institutional framework for energy code administration. Thus, not only are builders liable for determining construction standards, any builder who insists on RB's compliance winds up in the position of energy code enforcer with their clients. This is a messy this is the messy and unfair landscape of the residential construction industry in Vermont today. At the same time, we have an acute housing shortage and steeply rising material and labor costs. Against the target of bringing online more than 8,000 units per year over the next five years, we have averaged less than 2,000 a year over the last five years. And with a state budget stretched drum tight, there is understandably little appetite for erecting the regulatory structure necessary to relieve small residential contractors of the liability and their energy code enforcer

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: role.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: H seven eighteen addresses these problems in the following ways. By harnessing the power of market competition to motivate builders to take advantage of training opportunities to increase their understanding not only of energy codes but also of moisture and airflow dynamics involved in better insulated, more airtight buildings by raising the visibility and usability of the residential contractor registry where builders who undertake projects costing $10,000 or more are already required to register and offering voluntary certification credentials they can use to highlight their training, By establishing a task force to assist the Office of Professional Regulation or OPR, the host of the registry, with the technical and logistical challenges of of improving it. By setting a deadline for the division of fire safety or DFS to complete the assessment they're currently undertaking to determine whether and how to adopt an overarching residential building construction code, and by clarifying the authority of municipalities that wish to adopt and enforce but not make changes to existing energy codes. Those are the main points. They are the fruit of three years of off session building energy code working groups and committee involving stakeholders and state officials. But most working group stakeholders believed that without enforcement or penalties of some kind, it will be very difficult to increase energy co compliance. Whether that is so or not, this bill does not do that. Instead, it focuses on market signals. Incentivizing training is really the overall goal. With that, I will walk through the bill. The bill is on page thirteen seventy nine of today's calendar and also on the committee page for March 12. Section one is findings, most of which I've already explained. Section two sets a deadline of 01/15/2027 for the division of fire safety to complete their assessment that I mentioned is already underway of the residential construction code. DFS has agreed to do to this deadline and does not require additional funding. Section three establishes the residential contractor registry task force. Subsection b lists the task force's 15 members, including the principal regulatory offices, OPR under the secretary of state, DFS in the department of public safety, and the public service department. Other government officials include the attorney general's office, which handles construction related complaints, the weatherization assistance program in the Office of Economic Opportunity, and career and technical education representatives in the Agency of Education and Vermont State Colleges system. Industry stakeholders on this task force include Efficiency Vermont, Vermont Builders and Remodelers Association, the American Institute of Architects Vermont Chapter, Associated General Contractors of Vermont, Associated Builders and Contractors of Vermont, New Hampshire. The AGC typically focuses primarily on commercial, a b c on residential, and the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. Lastly, two public members are appointed by the governor, one of whom is a residential contractor not affiliated with ABC Vermont and New Hampshire or AGC Vermont. The bill does include an appropriation to support the task force, but it that was amended by appropriations. Subsection c on page thirteen eighty two of the calendar lists the powers and duties. The task force acts in an advisory capacity to OPR. First, to address short company shortcomings in the residential contractor registry such as improving the public facing web presence, identifying cost efficient strategies for outreach to the public and contractors, identifying and creating lists of trade specialties, for example, framing, roofing, foundations, clarifying the relationship between business based registrations and individual based certifications. And second, on the list of six powers and duties, to expedite the creation of voluntary certifications by identifying, vetting, and recommending credentialing entities. Initial certifications would include construction site supervisor, basic energy code, both residential and commercial, and high performance building. Third, to assess how to improve the energy education modules that are have been in statute and required under three VSA section one thirty eight. This is the chapter covering the secretary of state. And whether these specific modules should be administered by the public service department rather than OPR. I'll explain more about energy education modules in a minute. Fourth, to assess whether the type of regulation for residential contractors should be changed from registration to certification or licensure, the other forms of registration or other forms of licensure that the that OPR administers. Recall that licensure is one reason why compliance with commercial energy codes is much higher. Fifth, to assess whether and how the regulating entity for residential building contractors should be division of fire safety rather than office of professional regulation. And lastly, to consider any other strategies to improve and streamline the regulation of the residential construction industry. Subsection d lists the administrative and technical support for the task force. Subsection e requires annual reports and any recommendations for legislative action. Subsection f say says meetings will be monthly for the first year and every other month, at least every other month thereafter, until the task force sunsets on 06/30/2029. Subsection g is per diems from appropriations listed later. Sections four, five, seven, and eight update existing statutes in various titles that require energy education modules for building related professions and trades. These, as I say, have been in statute for a number of years. Currently, these modules mainly review statute language, which is hardly something that is useful to an electrician, plumber, or a heating tech, or to an architect engineer or property inspector. These sections direct the office in charge, whether OPR or DFS, to develop more relevant content and to review it with stakeholders every three years and update it if necessary. There are two other related items. One, in section four, regards energy education modules administered by OPR. Back in section three subsection c, subdivision three, the task force is directed in the powers and duty section to consider whether these modules administered by OPR should actually be administered by public service instead. The other related item is section six, which repeals the energy education module requirement for commissioned boiler inspectors as DFS advised these individuals are merely inspecting and testing, not installing, repairing, or adjusting equipment. Section nine directs OPR to conduct a sunrise report to assess whether and how home energy rating systems raters or HERS raters or energy professionals should be regulated professions. HERS raters are regulated now through public service, a legacy of a time when there was only a single rater in Vermont at Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, where Efficiency Vermont is housed. Energy professionals are not currently regulated. Sections ten and eleven make two changes to statute, one regarding RBs, the other CBs, and title 30 public service. The two changes are specifically allowing municipalities to enforce energy codes. In section 12, it will be clear that municipalities may implement energy codes if they so desire, but no municipality is required to. And municipalities may not make changes to RBs or CBs as promulgated by public service. And second item in sec sections or there's two statutes is a safe harbor provision for anyone filing an energy code certificate using twenty twenty codes rather than twenty twenty four codes, which is currently required by statute, based on the governor's executive order last September that provided for that option. This safe harbor provision was requested by the administration. It takes no position on the policy or the legality of the governor's executive order. It merely holds harmless anyone who has taken the EO at face value and acted accordingly. The administration has started has since started rulemaking to codify the EO, and the safe harbor will be in effect or is in effect until rules change. Section 12 adds clarifying language to title 24, municipal and county government, allowing municipalities to incorporate by reference into their existing powers to establish codes and regulations for the construction this is a quote from the statute. To establish codes and regulations for the construction, maintenance, repair, and alteration of buildings and other structures within the municipality and allowing them to enforce RBs and CBs. The VL Coffin has advised that the municipalities already think they have that that language already allows them to regulate buildings, which it sounds like it does, but we were advised by the attorney for the Department of Public Service that he felt that it was unclear in other parts of statute. This is intended to help a separate grant funded effort that is underway to establish uniform procedures for any municipality that wishes to do to do this adopt these codes and enforce them so that builders and architects won't be faced with different processes in different towns. Section 13 is the appropriation, again, to be changed by the appropriations amendment. Section 14 is the effective date, 07/01/2026. Madam speaker, Vermont has many fine homebuilders. Most, nearly all, take great pride in their work and strive to do a quality job using the latest high performance materials. And the typical residential and small commercial building is better insulated and tighter than even ten years ago. But, critically, not every builder understands really understands the whole building system they are assembling. They are often not fully aware of how the work of each trade affects the energy, airflow, and moisture dynamics of the integrated system. It's not a question of fault. I expect that many, perhaps most residential builders learned the job on the trade from seasoned builders who also learned on the job. It's how I started out. That may be finally changing now with more emphasis on CTE in schools and adult training opportunities. There is, in fact, a proliferation of training opportunities. But too often, attendance is sparse, where a small group of the same people show up year after year. It's hard to get on builders' radar when they have much else to do, either hurrying to finish a job, closing the sale on the next one, or bidding the one after that. H seven eighteen seeks to change that by amplifying market signals to encourage builders to take advantage of the trailing available and make their skills as advanced as the materials they're using. Madam speaker, the vote in your energy and digital infrastructure committee was six three, and we asked the body's support. We heard from Bill Sponsor and chair of the Building Energy Code Working Group, the director of the Office of Professional Regulation in the secretary of state's office, the director of the division of fire safety and the department of public safety, the deputy secretary of state, the president of the American Institute of Architects in Vermont, manager of government and public affairs, Donald Drackley Martin, legislative council office of legislative council, and written testimony from the assistant director of efficiency and energy resources at the division division at the public service department. But we had a great deal of more background than that than that testimony in our committee this this year. Last year, we heard from other other stakeholders, and the Building Energy Code Working Group heard from builders, regional planners, energy efficiency utilities, energy efficiency advocates, property inspectors, realtors, and banking and insurance. Urge the body support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Burke.

[Representative John Kascenska (Burke)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Members of the appropriations committee received detailed, testimony from the energy and digital infrastructure committee, regarding h seven eighteen, that proposes to create a residential contractor registry task force as detailed in today's calendar. The committee also received testimony from the joint fiscal office summarizing the fiscal impact to support the establishment of the registry in fiscal year twenty twenty seven In careful consideration of the capacity of the fiscal of FY of the FY twenty seven budget and recognize the intent of the bill, the appropriations committee recommends that the report of the committee on energy and digital infrastructure be amended by striking out section 13 appropriations and in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof a new section 13 to read as follows. Section 13, contingency of funding. The duty to implement the residential contractor registry task force described in section three of this act is contingent upon an appropriation of funds in fiscal year twenty twenty seven from the general fund to the office of professional regulation for that purpose. With a vote of nine two zero, your appropriations committee recommends the bill ought to pass as amended. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Saint Johnsbury.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: The energy and digital infrastructure committee thanks the appropriations committee for their work and their positive vote and has approved the amendment on a straw poll of six three zero.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now the question is shall the report of the committee on energy and digital infrastructure be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations member from South Burlington.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Madam speaker, your general and housing committee took a straw poll and we voted six one four.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on energy and digital infrastructure be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I interrogate the, member from appropriations?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Burke is interrogated.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, just to clarify, the replacement section only references the residential contractor registry task force being contingent on funds, but section 13 had two appropriations. Is the intent of the amendment to not not provide or not anticipate any appropriation for the funding of the demand resource plan?

[Representative John Kascenska (Burke)]: Thank you, madam speaker. That is correct.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, member. The other question is, madam speaker, we often have to vote for bills without knowing if they're gonna cost money or not because of the sequencing of things, but by fortunate happenstance of timing this year, I think we're aware that the appropriations committee has now passed its proposed budget. So I'm wondering if the member can tell me, is that $200,000 for the, residential contractor task force in the, budget as proposed by the appropriations committee?

[Representative John Kascenska (Burke)]: Neither of those two figures are in the proposed budget. The fiscal impact from the fiscal note appropriate appropriate a total of $400,000 that was and neither that total is not part of the budget.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So so that in other words, where it says contingent on the appropriation, in fact, the residential contractor task force does not any longer have duty to implement on the part of the the office there. Is that correct?

[Representative John Kascenska (Burke)]: Madam speaker, please repeat the question.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: The the amendment from the committee on appropriations says that the duty to implement the residential contractor task force is contingent on the appropriation. And if I understood the prior answer, the budget does not include a recommended appropriation and therefore, is it correct that there is no duty to implement in this bill?

[Representative John Kascenska (Burke)]: That is correct.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I thank the member.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on energy and digital infrastructure be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The Aye. Ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the report of the committee on energy and digital infrastructure. Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended. Are you ready for the question? Member for Mollie.

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, I hope to briefly talk about how this isn't necessarily going to cost a little more. It may cost quite a bit more. First, just even going to the findings. The first finding want to read talks public policy free public policy for several years has implemented strategies to stimulate construction to relieve Vermont's severe housing shortage. These actions are gaining momentum. I'm going to stop right there. That isn't where this finding stops, but I think that's a positive sign. Okay? But then it goes on to say, but without appropriate construction standards for one and two unit dwellings and with uneven application of energy efficiency standards. Again, if these standards and I'll go into this later as far as the 2020 residential building energy standards compared to the 2024 residential building energy standards has a dramatic increase in construction costs. Next, just going down to number five in the findings. Madam Speaker, if I could, I'd like to inquire of the presenter of the bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Saint John's Berry is interrogated.

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: Madam speaker, it talks about here in the findings that recommendations of the twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five working group includes leveraging the office of professional regulation residential contractor registry to provide market incentives to contractors to register and obtain voluntary certifications, including in energy codes. However, the registry has not so far proved effective for the public, contractors, and or PR. So as a registered contractor, I believe the registration has done exactly what it was set out to do, and that's to encourage contractors that do work over $10,000 in a job, that's materials and labor, to register, and they have to have a written contract. They have to have insurance, and I believe that's what it's done. So can you explain to me what this finding is when it says has not so far provided to prove to be effective to those, the public contractor and OPR?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes, Madam Speaker. We heard from the director of the Office of Professional Regulation that the number of contractors registered has been trending down, and while we don't know how many contractors there are, that's part of the point of the registry, the director of OPR believes that we were only capturing a portion of the contractors in the first place. So that is the genesis of the statement that it is not proved effective. In addition, the registry is on OPR's website, but it requires a little digging to get to it, and when you do get to it, what you're presented with is a map. OPR is updating their websites right now, but to comply with the ADA requirements that people may have heard about. But what you get right now is a map showing, with dots on it, showing where contractors who are registered have their addresses. If you want to get more information about contractors and sort or filter the contractors by address or name or something like that, you have to download the spreadsheet. So it's not terribly user friendly the way it is now. That's part of the purpose of this bill, is to encourage OPR to, and provide a task force to help support them to improve the website and the registry in general.

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I'll speak to that a little bit later as well, that process for registering. While I have you, member, madam speaker, in regards to number seven under the findings, while the residential building energy standards do apply to single family residents, the Department of Public Service has advised the general assembly that enabling legislation does not provide clear authority for municipalities to administer and enforce the RBESs at the local level. Some municipalities do wish to have this authority. My question here is in looking at so there was a 2023, 2024, and 2025 working group. The 2025 working group in their last page talked about other strategies considered and not recommended. Again, not recommended by the working group. And number three on that is clarifying statutory authority for municipalities to enforce RBESs and CBSs. Okay. So can you clarify for me why the committee chose not to accept that recommendation by the working group?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes, madam speaker. I would have to look back. I don't know if I have that paper with me today. I'm trying to remember what what people said. I I I believe the the vote was was fairly close, and some members felt that that they were concerned about municipalities adopting different processes for administering and enforcing the Arby's, which would be confusing for contractors working in different towns. I mentioned, I believe in my report, that there is a grant funded effort underway currently through Energy Action Network to make these processes uniform, to consult with the municipalities that do have authority, they obtained authority through charter changes to enforce R. B. S, to work with them and to come up with a uniform set of processes in order to avoid that problem.

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. And while we're on the subject of the twenty twenty five working groups, things that they did not recommend, they did not recommend requiring credentials and not simply registration for residential contractors. But yet, in your task force request, number two, it says expedite the creation of voluntary certification, including identifying, vetting, and recommending credentialing entities with initial certifications in the following and similar subject areas. So again, a recommendation out of the working group that it seems, you know, they they did not recommend that, yet here it is again being asked of the task force to consider it. Again, just Madam Speaker, is that just a furthering of looking at that credentialing and and certification?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Madam Speaker, I believe the member is conflating two different items here. One is voluntary certifications, which is, was part of the original residential contractor registry setup. The registration is required, but certifications are voluntary. And the purpose of that particular subdivision of the bill is to ask the task force to facilitate identifying what those voluntary certifications would be and identifying the credentialing entity that would provide those certifications. So, again, those are all voluntary. The

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: other Thank

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Well, go

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: ahead. No, thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't know if you were done.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Well, I was just going to mention that the other part of it is the question of whether contractors should, the contractor registration should be different from just registration, which includes no credentials of any sort or any sort of testing, to another form of registration or licensing that OPR does. They do two other forms. One is called certification and the other is full licensing. Certification requires a certification, although it's not exclusive. Licensing would be exclusive, meaning that anyone who doesn't possess that license would be violating the law if they practice whatever the profession is. So those are the two different types of certification that I think the member was conflating.

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. And just one other question. So in section two, when talking about adopting residential building codes, you've asked the director of fire and safety to complete an assessment on whether and how the state should adopt a residential building code. My question here is, why wasn't it in that charge to ask them how much it will cost for administration and compliance of those codes?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: The Division of Fire Safety has been in a process of determining what would be necessary to adopt and adapt the model residential construction code for Vermont's purposes. And they were prompted to do that because there is federal, and I guess I neglected to include this in my report, the federal government, EMA, the FEMA, has had a program to support states that didn't have residential building codes to adopt them, and that would make the state then eligible for funding from FEMA to implement them. Vermont does not have a residential building code, and so the Division of Fire Safety was exploring it in order to be eligible for that funding. That funding has since been suspended, which I think is probably the reason why DFS is somewhat stalled in their process. However, the director of DFS has said that, they're they're perfectly willing to complete the process, and, and the original form of the bill set a a deadline for them to to adopt the code. And they were not willing to do that, but they were willing to to recognize a deadline to finish their process about what would be necessary. As for funding, they did not request additional funding for this. And enforcement would not would only be in buildings that DFS has jurisdiction over now, which does not include single family owner occupied buildings. Thank you, member.

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: Madam Speaker, going back to the Secretary of State's website for registering contractors, you know, I looked just the other day on a section that said complete application instructions are found here. And I clicked on it and it says the page is not available. I say that because Madam Speaker, when I registered I found it to be rather difficult. And I've had other contractors reach out to me asking me how to register. It has to be done online. It cannot be done in paperwork. The Secretary of State's office said they would help with that. The other thing that's a concern that if they could find the instructions and what some of the questions are online, it might help folks out that when they get to the position or the questions regarding have you ever been served have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor? Have you ever been convicted of a felony? Have you ever been on a registry of any kind? Those sorts of questions, folks, make a lot of folks step back and not want to continue any further. Again, I reached out to the Secretary of State on this, suggested that there should be something in that registration process that she told me could happen, that if an individual answered those questions honestly, the Secretary of State would sit down with the individual and go over what their felony was, and it didn't preclude them necessarily from being registered. But again, that's a concern for me is that whole process. And Madam Speaker, I think, you know, we've talked a lot about affordable housing and what we need to do to continue to build housing. To me, this bill certainly goes in the opposite direction. I can tell you, so as a member of LCAR, back when we looked at increasing the new residential billing energy standards and commercial billing energy standards to the new 2024 standards, there was a lot of public testimony that was in the packet that we looked at. And I just want to read a few of the comments from some of the contractors, architects, and even the Montpelier Housing Committee if I could.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: So one homebuilder talked about an 1,800 square foot home built today versus the 2023 standards could cost a difference of $28,000 with maybe savings of $1,000 in energy costs a year. Another one, I'm not going to name the names, but they're they put down their their their names of their home builders. Another one says, we have estimated that the increased cost to meet the code and stretch codes for act two fifty projects is over $17,500 per phone per home. The benefits for these future homeowners will not be realized for many, many years. Architects. The current language in the commercial building energy standards appear to require one charging station per dwelling unit, plus a percentage of other spaces, and the CBS language for EV capable seems to require that all the infrastructure, but for the actual charges itself must be in place. This has a very upfront heavy upfront construction cost. And just a note on that, after we consider that in Elkhart, I was reached out by a developer who wanted to put in some more apartment units in Stowe, and he was asking me what he could do in regards to that particular section section of the new standards and how how much it was gonna cost him to put those put those in place. Again, recently, under the the new guidelines that we're we're looking at here, we've we've had one meeting last Thursday in regards to the governor's executive order. We're gonna have more in El Carr. But, again, another home contractor talked about added added cost to comply to the twenty twenty four residential building energy standard codes compared to the twenty twenty codes average 1,600 square foot home is 16,963. Again, you know, you add these costs to what it might cost for a thirty year mortgage and that sort of thing. And there's a lot to it. I forgot to talk about the Montpelier Housing Committee who took testimony about Green Mountain Power switching the current 100 amp service to 200 amp service from dwelling unit to my home would be just shy of $4,000. These are all in these new standards, folks, that that they have to have an upgraded system to be able to electrify, have everything in your home electric. Madam Speaker, I guess I'll end there. Again, I've been involved in this for many years. I don't think, especially the conversation around not having the $400,000 in there or the $200,000 for the task force alone. It's a 15 member task force. I can't imagine how much they could get done with that many folks. And just as a final statement before I end, I won't say again who said this to me, but I can just say that it was a statewide office holder. In discussing a lot of this, whether it's the new codes or the registration policy and process, said, Mark, we can't have people building a house just to have a roof over their heads. And that to me is a real concern. And again, it just kind of sums up where we're headed. And I certainly can support this bill for all those reasons. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended? Member from Stowe.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, you know, a number of us were out on the state house lawn at noon, and there were a lot of rural Vermonters there with concerns about their future and what we have done to create barriers and what can we do to lower barriers. So they and many of them were young farm families, rural families concerned about how their kids could would have access to some of their land and raise their families here. So that I came in and was following this dialogue, and it spurred a few questions. Madam speaker, if I may interrogate the reporter of the bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Saint Johnsbury is interrogated.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Member, it wasn't clear to me. I guess I'll back up, and I'm older than most of you here, but many of us built our own houses. We didn't hire a builder. We might have hired someone to pour a foundation or drill a well, but there are a lot of rural Vermonters that have a lot of skills including building, carpentry, other trades. And you talk about certifications and registrations. And you've also talked about how far behind we are in meeting the needs of rural Vermonters and people Vermont workforce that wants housing. Is there anything in this bill that requires an individual wants to build his own home. The the previous comments, I believe from the member of law talked about, you know, we can't just allow something to so people to just get a roof over their heads. I'm talking about people build a house, can do proper insulation, but do it without a contractor. Do individuals who wanna build their own home have to get licensed and be registered under this bill that we're considering at this time?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Madam speaker, I believe that owner built homes are still exempt from from the building energy codes. That's the way it always has been, and this bill does nothing to change that. I I I would point out in response to other comments that the purpose of of of energy codes and of increasing the sort of knowledge and and and skill of builders is to avoid the situation where we're we're building buildings that need to be retrofit in a few years. It's far more expensive to retrofit a building than it is to build it right the first time. And that's really the the point of of having energy codes and having training and having not only energy codes, but building codes so that so that we are are building buildings, which, again, are the most expensive asset of of most people. We're building buildings that that that don't require retrofit or wholesale reconstruction at some point down the road.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Member, thank you, madam speaker. I thank you. I just hope that we can do all we can for rural families. Sometimes parents can pitch in, help their children build, but that we do not create new barriers for them to, be able to create a home and, become part of our, communities or their communities. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended. Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanted to comment on a case in point what, the member from, Lowell was referencing before because there were, references to sort of estimated costs or what it would cost the difference in terms of our housing crisis. And I last fall signed on to volunteer to be the manager for Northfield's new Habitat for Humanity project, which is a duplex. And the value of the home when completed, each unit will be valued market value of $350,000 which is thousand $7 The cost to build it, and keep in mind that with Habitat there's a significant amount of donated labor. Youth Build is going to be doing a large component. But the cost to build it is going to be a little bit more than a million dollars despite those labor contributions. And that doesn't make a lot of sense. It gives a lot of explanation as to why we have a housing crisis. And of course, have been asking, how could it cost that much to build a simple duplex? And the answer was the single largest part of that, the single largest chunk probably in the vicinity of $40,000 is the efficiency measures being put into the house. And I don't deny that they're really critical to be doing, but what I'm not sure is whether they need to be as extensive as some of the current requirements. It's I don't think it's a big backfill cost to add an exit. It's some wiring, but to add a charger outdoors for an electric vehicle for people who aren't going to be getting an electric vehicle for some time. And there are elements that I think could be voluntary and reduce some of those costs. It's it's always a tough balance but we have a real crisis in housing right now and to cost a million dollars to build something with a market value of $700,000 is not a market viability.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Chester. The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended? Member from Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Thanks Madam Speaker. I really I love being on the House floor because we have such thoughtful conversations and as they often are, they're wide ranging. So I just wanted to, remind members about what this bill, doesn't do. The residential building, energy codes have been mandatory in Vermont since 1997 for thirty years. So nothing about this bill changes that, advances that, or alters the fact, that the Arby's have been kicking around since 1997 with relatively, I guess, I want to say low compliance or lower than some folks might like. And this bill doesn't change that. So what we're trying to do is take a pretty small logical next step forward here by advancing a bill that might provide some tools to increase compliance in a way that is purely voluntary, by focusing on improving a tool that's I think could be more useful for contractors and could definitely be more useful for consumers, by focusing a little bit more on education and voluntary credentials and training and by setting up a task force to help with that. And that's really what this bill does. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended? Member from Moll? From Moll request that when the vote is taken, it'd be taken by roll. Is the member sustained? The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended. Member from Barrytown.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just have a few questions for the presenter of the bill, if

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: I may ask.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Saint Johnsbury is interrogated.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Okay. So I was just wondering, did the committee take any testimony from the attorney general's office as to how many energy building code lawsuits were brought in the last year?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: No. Madam speaker, we didn't take any testimony on that particular topic.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Okay. Did the attorney general give you any kind of indication as to the the prevalence of violations of the energy building code?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: I'm I'm sorry. Was that in reference to the attorney general again?

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Yeah. I just I'm wondering if she gave you any any kind of indication as to the the prevalence of these? I know you can't give me an exact number. If we're looking or a dollar amount or or how frequently these types of suits are being brought?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Well, we we have heard from office of professional regulation that they that they are getting complaints. Don't have the numbers right in front of me. A number of complaints, not not just a handful, about building construction. I believe there was a state auditor report about this recently in which I'm not sure if I'm confusing a couple of different reports. Anyway, it mentioned that complaints about contractors was one of the leading complaints that that that they are getting. And, anyway, I don't so I don't have exact numbers.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Okay. That that that's fine. And I'm just wondering, did did OPR indicate of the complaints that were filed with them, how many of the con contractors that were that had complaints lodged against them were actually on the contractor's registry?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Well, again, I don't know about that. But one point that I wanted to wanted to emphasize too is that OPR is not empowered to investigate complaints regarding quality. They they're they the registry was set up originally as as a financial fraud issue, as to address the financial fraud issue. In other words, a contractor perhaps taking a deposit on a on a project and then and then not executing the project. That that was the original intent of the of the

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Certainly. I'm just trying to get a sense of how many of these complaints that were filed with OPR actually included contractors that were listed on the registry.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yeah. I

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: agree. I I thank the member for that. As a contractor and I thank the member for his line of questions, I would like to make my statement now. Thank you. As a contractor who deals with the contractors registry frequently, I have found that probably 65% of my competitors are not on the registry. And to to to make a point here, I see no reason to continue passing legislation that makes it more difficult to build housing and implements arbitrary, you know, rules for for energy building code when we haven't even figured out the enforcement for the contractors registry yet, and it would not shock me. I would be interested to find out if a majority of the contractors that were actually sued, in the state of Vermont for any kind of breach of energy building code or any kind of breach of of of of contract at all weren't even on the registry to begin with. So I think we're we're putting the cart way in front of the horse to require, the good contractors that are out there to jump through yet another hoop, build another cost into building housing when we haven't even figured out who they are yet. So if I may ask for just a brief recess to consult with my leadership, that would be alright.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The house will stand in recess for a minute. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Member from Barrytown?

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: There it goes. I appreciate the moment there. I really would strongly caution this body to pass yet another piece of legislation that implements arbitrary goals when we don't even know what we're doing yet. Let's get the OPR right. Let's get the contractors registry right. Let's find out if these lawsuits are even coming regarding energy building code before we just start passing more legislation, to increase the cost of housing. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended? Member from St. Johnsbury.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Madam speaker, the member makes a good point about the lack of of compliance with with the registration, and that is part of the reason for seeking to improve or enhance what I'm calling market signals, the competitive marketplace for builders to get registered in order to to appear before the public as as as registered builders with certain expertise. So that is that is the one of the major points of this bill. And I would also not want to leave the impression that the standards, the energy efficiency standards required in our RBCBs are arbitrary. They're they're not arbitrary at all. They are carefully vetted by, first of all, the model energy code, the the organization which develops the model energy codes, and and then our department of public service, which adapts them to Vermont's conditions and Vermont's energy goals.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, having sat in committee and heard testimony from the Department of Fire Safety, the Department of Public Service, contractors, and architects, I support this bill. We have heard concern today. The estimates that building codes can add 17 and a half thousand dollars to a house. I will point out that this bill, h seven eighteen, does not change the existing codes at all. And in fact, with the safe harbor allowing contractors per the governor's order executive order to build to the twenty twenty standards can in fact save money. I would also say that the Department of Fire Safety has been working for a year or so studying the question of whether we should have a statewide residential building code. The Department of Fire Safety asked for, another nine months to finish that work. This bill gives them time simply to answer that question. It does not impose residential building codes. It allows the Department of Fire Safety to continue their work to make a decision as to whether having a statewide residential building code would protect Vermonters and b, whether the cost benefit analysis suggests that it is worth the the cost in terms of the benefit for protecting Vermonters. And I think we should give the department, the leeway they asked for to finish that work, and I support seven eighteen.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Barry member from member from Barrytown.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. While I don't disagree with the, presenter of the bill or some of my colleagues in the chamber that there are things in this bill that would help advance safety or safeguards for consumers. But I have a real problem without being able to quantify what the cost is currently to people that are already breaking the law, I e not on the contractor's registry at all, and then forcing more regulations on the contractors that are doing things the right way already, why, you know, doesn't the committee write a straw a memorandum to OPR and and work on enforcement there before passing a a bill that has significant changes to how we're doing things before we even take that first step. It's just so typical of of of what we do sometimes in this body and only to find that clean heat or one eighty one or whatever it is dies on the vine further down the line. So thanks.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Shelburne.

[Representative Shawn Sweeney (Shelburne)]: Madam speaker, the time for the construction trades has arrived. H seven eighteen is not perfect, but neither is construction. It's a constantly evolving business, and so will this code be. I have been building in Vermont for twenty five years. We need to raise the bar on construction, and this bill does just that. It does not mandate it. It tries to slowly educate folks in my business in and the building trades on how to build things right, which is truly needed in Vermont. As an owner of a design build company, I am voting for this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended? Are you ready for the question member from Chester?

[Representative Thomas 'Tom' Charlton (Chester)]: Madam speaker, my addition here is just a cautionary note. The cost of housing in Vermont is already higher than the average working family can afford. We don't have enough rental units for the average renter to find, and we're not in a housing inconvenience. We're in a housing crisis. We're nowhere near. Things are moving, but we are not in a building boom. I can assure you we are not. The standards and certifications and codes and regulations and licensures and all of these other things, these all address real issues. They are all issues, but the cost of these will go on to the consumer, not the contractor. And right now, I don't think is the time to do this. My position on this is not quite yet. I realize that we're talking about study groups that'll make recommendations that we'll consider. I would be more comfortable addressing this when we know that the average Vermonter can afford what we are proposing. If we add so many regulations to building a housing unit that we're building eight instead of 10, someone needs to explain to two of the families that sat in that balcony last session why our policies are more important than the fact they're sleeping in their car. I think there will come a time to raise the bar and raise the standard, but right now, we need to get people under a roof. And we have taken massive testimony on another bill that housing is a human right. So if the customer can afford the high end, they have that option now. But if they cannot afford our base level, then we are not serving them well. So my support for this bill is not yet. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended. Are you ready for the question? Member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I appreciate the dialogue that we're having here today. I think it's important. I want to just urge and remind my colleagues that there are costs to doing nothing, particularly when we are in places where things are changing pretty rapidly. And so I think discussions like this are important for us to consider those costs compared to the cost of doing something. I'm going to support this today because it is going to get us more information about how to move this forward. But I don't think cost is a black and white issue, when we're looking at energy and buildings.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Arsenault, Williston.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Two minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during a roll call. And when the clerk calls your name, please answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure? As amended, will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Austin of Colchester. Yes. Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Yes. Bartley of Fairfax. No. Berbeco. Birong of Vergens.

[Representative Philip Jay Hooper (Randolph)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Bishop of Colchester. Yes. Black of Essex. Yes. Bloomley in Burlington. Yes. Bosch of Clarendon. No. Buton Berry City. No. Boyden of Cambridge. Brady of Williston. Yes. Branagan of Georgia. No. Bring them to Saint Albans Town. No. Brown in Richmond.

[Representative Jana Brown (Richmond)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Burditt at West Rutland. Brecker Brattleboro.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Burkhardt South Burlington. Yes. Burrows West Windsor.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Burditt Cabot. Yes. Campbell, Saint Johnsbury. Canfield of Fairhaven. Carris Duncan and Whitingham. Yes. Casey Montpelier.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Underhill)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Casey Hoverton. No. Chapin East Montpelier. Charlton at Chester? Christie of Hartford? Gina of Burlington? Yes. Coffin and Cavendish?

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: No. Cole

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: of Hartford? Yes. Conlon at Cornwall? Durfee of Shaftesbury? Yes. Isis of Guilford?

[Representative Eileen Dickinson (St. Albans Town)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Evans of Springfield?

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Feltus of Linden? No. Galfetti of Berrytown? Yes. Garifano of Essex? Goldman of Rockingham? Yes. Good now, Bratibaro?

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Ghostland at Northfield? No. Granny and Jericho? Greer Bennington?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yeah.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Edgar Fairfield? No. Hengo Birkshire? No. Harpo of Glover? Yes. Harvey of Castleton? No. Hedrick of Burlington?

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Higley of Lowell? No. Holcomer Norwich? Yes. Cooper of Randolph? Yes. Houghton of Essex Junction? Yes. Howard of Rutland City? Yes. Holland of Rutland Town? Hoyte Hartford? Yes. Hunter Manchester? Yes. James Manchester?

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Kasenska, Burke? Keyser of Rutland City? No. Campbell Woodstock? Kreptner Burlington. Yes. Kornheiser Battleboro. Yes. Krasnow South Burlington. Yes. Labor Morgan. No. Mollie Schauburn. Yes. Malone to South Burlington. Lamont of Morristown.

[Representative Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Lerush of Franklin. No. Lipsky of Stowe. No. Logan of Burlington. Long and Uffin.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Leaders of Lincoln. Luno of Saint Albany City? No. Maguire of Veltan City? No. Malay of Pittsburgh? No. Marquette of Coventry? No. As in the Thetford? McCann of Montpelier, McCoy of Pultney, McFawn of Barrytown, McGillard Burtt, Yes. Nicholas of Milton, Mollie of Callis, Meniere of South Burlington.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Morgan Ela Milton. No. Morgan Emma Milton. No. Morris Springfield. Yes. Morrissey Abdington. Mora Westin. Yes. Roeke and Putney. Yes. Of Derby? Nelson of Brandon? Niagara Of Bennington? Yes. North of Fredericksburg? Mollie S. No. Newton of South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien at Tonbridge. Yes. O'Brien at Burlington. Yes. Oliver of Sheldon. No. Olsen of Starksboro. Yes. Page of Newport City. Parsons in Newbury. Fesso of Colchester.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Pinson all of Dorset. No. Poucher Hinesburg.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Powers of Waterford. Priestly of Bradford? Yes. Bridget of Pollock? No. Quimby of London? No. Rachel's in Burlington? Yes. Secoats of Randolph? Yes. Shyam Middlebury? Yes. Sheldon of Middlebury? Sibily of Dover? Yes. Southworth Walden? No. Squirrel of Underhill? Yes. Steady of Milton? No. Stevens of Waterbury?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Stone of Burlington? Sweeney of Shelburne?

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Tegla V. Corinth? No. Taylor Milton? No. Taylor Munden? Tomlinson of Winooski? Yes. Torrey Mortown? Yes. Walker of Swanton? Wads Of Zacchaeberry City?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Waters Evans of Charlotte? Yes. Wells Of Brownington? No. Old White Oatesfield? Yes. Old White Bethel? No. Winter Ludlow? Water Waterbury. Jacobonia Morristown. Bailey of Hyde Park. Boyden of Cambridge. Christie of Hartford? Conlon and Cornwall? Yes. Dodge of Essex. Logan of Burlington, Madeline of Thetford, McKenna Montpelier, Nicholas of Milton, Nielsen of Brandon.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: For purpose of explanation, member from West Windsor. Stand stand if you can.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm voting to support this bill in the hopes that my colleagues who also support to sorry. In the hopes that my colleagues who also support it will one day recognize the parallel to universal design and choose to support that important concept too. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Saint Johnsbury.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Buildings are complex energy, temperature, and moisture control systems. H seven eighteen incentivizes builders to take advantage of training opportunities. I voted to support that effort.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Cavendish.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Madam speaker, Vermonters cannot afford one more barrier, one more added cost, or one more regulation standing in the way of putting a roof over their family's heads. We need houses, not one more set of regulations or another study. We need to do as the people asked us to do. Find ways to make Vermont more affordable. Not a single person asked me to create one more obstacle towards building housing.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And member from Essex Junction.

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: This bill does not increase the cost of housing. It focuses on increasing the usefulness of the contractor registry. The goal of the registry is to support contractors and help consumers make informed decisions.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Barrytown.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: More studies for more regulations to make building more housing more expensive does not make sense. Let's enforce the regulations we have before we make more.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 84. Those voting no, 57. The ayes have it and you have amended the bill. Now members the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The eyes do have it, and third reading is ordered. Up next is house bill seven forty, which is an act relating to the greenhouse gas inventory and registry. Bill was referred to the committee on energy and digital infrastructure which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Manchester representative James will speak for that committee Then carrying an appropriation, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the report of the committee on energy and digital infrastructure be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Underhill, representative squirrel will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: Page seven forty, an act relating to the greenhouse gas inventory and registry.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Madam speaker, h seven forty is a short bill that accomplishes one thing. It gives the agency of natural resources specific authority to engage in rulemaking for one specific purpose. ANR requested that the legislature take this step, and it's a top climate priority of the new 2025 climate action plan. During this public rulemaking process, ANR will develop and adopt rules to create a new greenhouse gas reporting program. This new program is different from our existing high level greenhouse gas inventory, and it gathers information that is not currently available to the public or to the agency. I'll walk you through the bill as it was approved by the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee and you can find the language on our committee page dated February 27. Section one amends 10 VSA five eighty two, the statute establishing the greenhouse gas inventory and registry. Specifically, it amends subsection e rulemaking authority. It adds new language here giving the secretary of ANR the specific authority to create a comprehensive greenhouse gas emission reporting program that covers all sources of emissions including fuel suppliers. Suppliers of transportation and heating fuels covered by the rules must comply. The rules shall include at a minimum the types and volume of fossil fuels sold by sector for the transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, and by zip code municipality or the smallest geographic level practicable. Section two is session law. It directs the secretary of ANR to adopt final rules by 07/01/2027. Section three is also session law addressing the funding requested by ANR to accomplish this work. It recommends 500,000 in additional base funding, funding that would be used to draft the rules, develop a database, and to support ANR staff in ongoing efforts required to stand up the program and ensure compliance. And subsection b creates two new permanent positions in the agency of natural resources to work on the reporting program. Our colleagues on house appropriations have amended section three and we'll be hearing about those changes in a minute. Section four is the effective date, which is on passage. Madam speaker, I wanted to briefly explain why this bill matters. We often talk about climate action in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. It's true we measure progress in this way. It's an important high level metric, and it tells us how we're succeeding or falling behind in our effort to reduce the air pollution that's caused by burning fossil fuels. But real climate progress doesn't happen at the level of sky high metrics. This is nitty gritty grassroots work. We reduce carbon pollution by helping Vermonters reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. And that happens one person, one household at a time. We ratherize a drafty home. We install heat pumps to warm or cool our buildings. We drive an EV or a more efficient car that uses less gas. These one by one investments help the planet, and they help people save money on energy over the long run, offering durable savings. But there's an upfront cost to these investments. And this is where climate policy so often hits a brick wall. How do we help Vermonters use less fossil fuel and realize long term energy savings by doing the work one household at a time? The answer is we need better data. H seven forty gives ANR the rulemaking authority it needs to gather this data. And with that data, we can build better, more targeted, and more people responsive climate policy in the future. This bill bridges the gap between the high level metrics we already have and the more granular data that we need. H seven forty covers all sources of emissions across all sectors and two things are notable here. First, it includes the heating and transportation sectors. That's important because heating and transportation account for more than 70% of our air pollution and more than 70% of what Vermonters spend on energy. So these are key areas where we need to find cost effective, cost saving ways to help Vermonters use less of these fuels. Second, it collects data by zip or town where we currently only see statewide aggregate totals. This geographic data would be helpful to state agencies, to policymakers in the legislature, and especially to our regional planning commissions, municipalities, and town energy committees. Madam speaker, this bill doesn't advance sweeping policy. It does not change landmark laws. It doesn't require fuel suppliers to perform calculated complications. It simply asks them to provide sales volume data that they have readily available. This bill responds to the climate challenge and to the complexity of climate policy with a small, reasonable, and realistic next step. Let's get better numbers. Why? As we heard many times in testimony, you can't manage what you can't measure. And this is hardly a hasty step. If approved and funded this year, rulemaking will be done in 2027. Data collection starts in 2028. And we won't even see the first report until 2029. That's why this policy is one of the top recommendations of Vermont's newly adopted 2025 Climate Action Plan. And it's why it is called foundational to future climate policy and planning by the secretary of ANR, the director of our state climate action office, and our state treasurer. It's investing a little now to help Vermonters save a lot down the road. Madam Speaker, there are a lot of people in this room and in this body who have spent a lot of time and energy talking about climate policy. And I would propose today that act 70 act seven or act, I wish, that, H seven forty will give us the information we need to have more thoughtful conversations about this complex and controversial sometimes controversial area in the future to try to work together to come to consensus. Madam Speaker, House Energy and Digital Infrastructure heard testimony from the managing director of the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, legislative council, office of legislative council, Vermont climate councilor and chair science and data subcommittee of the climate council, Climate and Energy Program Director at VPERG, Executive Director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, Energy and Climate Program Director oh, I said that one. At the Vermont Natural Resources Council, climate action office program manager at the Agency of Natural Resources, the secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, the senior energy project manager at the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, the Vermont state treasurer, office of the state treasurer, and the senior manager governor of government affairs and corporate communications at Suburban Propane. We voted out h seven forty favorable with amendment on a vote of six three zero, and we request your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Underhill.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Underhill)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The house appropriations committee reviewed h seven forty legislative council and joint fiscal office. As a result of our discussion, house appropriations office two instances of amendment related to section two, sections two and three. The amendment can be found on page thirteen ninety two in today's calendar. The first instance of amendment strikes out section two in its entirety and inserts a new section two. In the new section two, rule making as contemplated in the bill is contingent on appropriation fiscal year 2027. Creating a database for the reporting of data is also contingent on appropriation of funds. The second instance of amendment strikes out section three which is the appropriations and positions in its entirety. Your house appropriations committee was unable to support this appropriation. And it is not part of the FY twenty seven budget passed out of our committee yesterday. The House Committee on Appropriations favorably recommends eight seven forty as amended by House Energy and Digital Infrastructure and further amended by House Appropriations on a vote of eight three zero. We ask for the body support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Madam speaker, the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee thanks our colleagues on appropriations for their work. We did review their amendment and we approved it favorably on a straw poll of six three zero.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is shall the report of the committee on energy and digital infrastructure be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have amended the report of the committee on energy and digital infrastructure. Now the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended? Member from Rutland City.

[Representative Mary E. Howard (Rutland City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Manchester is interrogated.

[Representative Mary E. Howard (Rutland City)]: And, madam speaker, may I read from a part of a letter from the state treasurer?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Mary E. Howard (Rutland City)]: Thank you. Madam speaker, let's see. On 02/18/2025, the office of the treasurer released a report to the general assembly with recommendations for viable approaches to a cap and invest program with technical assistance with ANR. Though the report concluded that at this time there was no viable cap and invest programs available to Vermont, it notes that there may be a path to be a viable approach in the near future. The report poses recommendations for steps to support the careful design of a cap and invest program in the future. Member, it's mister miss speaker, did the committee discuss the implementation of a cap and invest program when considering h seven forty?

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Madam speaker, we did not. As the member so aptly explained, our treasurer says at the moment there is no viable cap and invest for Vermont to join.

[Representative Mary E. Howard (Rutland City)]: Thank you, member. And so what initiatives, would this data, be used for?

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Madam Speaker, I I think the point of the data and the point of gathering the data is to get the numbers in hand and see what might be a best a next best step.

[Representative Mary E. Howard (Rutland City)]: Thank you, member. And I will, go from here. I see this as an into the, that we have the propensity, to hassle businesses. Does Vermont really wanna go down this road again? I will not, and I will not support this bill. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended. Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I interrogate the member from Manchester?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Manchester is interrogated.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, could could we just get clarification, if the, rule making section, and the appropriations, positions were removed if there were no appropriations and the member from Under Hill said that the committee on appropriations did not recommend those. Could the member explain, the value of the remainder of the bill if any?

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Yeah. Our understanding from, our discussion with the appropriations committee is that absent the funding, ANR would not be required to continue with the work, and they likely would not do so without the funding. However, I think it's very important that we pass this bill and get it across the finish line so that if funding becomes available in the next year, if the contingency happens that ANR has the rule making authority it needs to go ahead. So I see these needing to progress on parallel paths.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I thank the member. It seems to me that passing this bill without any funding to actually execute it doesn't necessarily make much sense.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended? Member from Randolph.

[Representative Philip Jay Hooper (Randolph)]: Madam speaker, I rise in support of h seven forty. Often when we make policy, good data to help describe the problem we're trying to solve is impossible to obtain. That is not true in this case. We know how to collect this data, and if h seven forty becomes law, we'll have important new insight into our consumption of fossil fuels, helping us to create climate policy that matches our needs.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Saint Albans City.

[Representative Joseph 'Joe' Luneau (St. Albans City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The pathway the treasurer saw for Vermont to potentially implement cap and invest was joining a New York cap and invest program. However, it is clear to Governor Hochul that implementing the cap and invest program is far too expensive with a projected cost of $4,000 per rural New York household to comply. Vermonters spoke loudly when they said no to clean heat, and the super majority ignored them. Now with the demise of the 2023 unaffordable heat act, we see the majority trying to revive it and expand it to transportation fuels. This is not what Vermonters can afford or need, and it's a backdoor to the implementation of financial disaster.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, h seven forty is a straightforward bill, and it does something really important. It gives the agency of natural resources authority to collect better data on greenhouse gas emissions across Vermont, including from fuel suppliers and to understand that data by sector and at a more detailed geographic level. If we are serious about addressing climate change and ensuring that all Vermonters have access to the energy transition and not just Vermonters with means, then we need to be serious about understanding and measuring what is contributing to climate change and the progress of the energy transition. At the federal level, we are seeing the active dismantling of climate policy, more support for fossil fuels, and growing energy demand, all while seeing an increase in damage caused by our changing climate and weather. We are also seeing national efforts to change how emissions are regulated and who can be held accountable. That makes it even more important that Vermont has clear, reliable data so that we can make decisions based on reality and what is happening here, not assumptions on national trends. And while we have discussed in this chamber so many times that Vermont's emissions are small in a global context, this work allows us to keep pace with the energy transition and to understand the rate and impact of climate change here at home. Over the years, many of us have supported policies to reduce emissions, but too often, we are working with incomplete or inconsistent information. This bill helps us in that regard. I will also say that it helps many of your constituents in, this building, madam speaker, of our constituents. It helps our regional planning commissions who work one on one with Vermont's Town Energy Committees. If you don't know your Town Energy Committee, I encourage you to get to know them. They are really incredible volunteers working to help reduce increase efficiency and and comfort in your towns for your town. The regional planning commissions are really they don't have the data that they need. This bill will help give us much more precise data and help your town energy committees with better planning. This does not set new mandates on Vermonters. It does not pick winners or losers, and it ensures we have the data we need to make informed decisions going forward. So while the clean heat standard is not in effect, madam speaker, if we were to have data like this, it would have been helpful for us in better assessing that policy as we were working on it. This type of data will be helpful in assessing other climate policies, which I am very clear my constituents want me to be working on since the climate is changing and the energy transition is happening globally. So I will be voting for this, and I think this is a small practical step to give us better information.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended? Member from Cavendish.

[Representative VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Thank you, madam speaker. If this information is needed by the treasurer's office, they could add a line to the spreadsheet. But H740 is just this body's ability to lay the groundwork for Clean Heat Standard two point o. We don't need this. And it's proven we can't afford it. We didn't even put it in the budget. I urge the body to vote no. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended? Member from member from sorry. Not I know you're not from Moore. Moore Town.

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, I'll be voting for this bill, and I'll be voting for it with the many different hats I wear here in the legislature on a member of the energy committee, and as a local town energy committee member, a local planner, a former regional planning board member, this is the data we've always wanted. And my vote is going to all of those volunteers and all of those planners who have been asking the question, why can't we see what we're spending, on these important sectors, heating our homes and driving our cars, and why can't we see it on a local level so we can do better planning and track our progress better? This is for all of the planners out there and it's something we can do easily compared to the really hard things that face us with our changing climate. This is an easy thing for us to do and the climate action office, they're the ones to do it.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Weston.

[Unidentified member (Weston)]: Madam speaker, Vermonters have paid almost $10,000,000 more for gas since the start of our president's war. We are now paying about $4,000,000 more per week than a month ago. We recall another ill conceived war in Ukraine that spiked fuel prices a few short years ago. 80% of Vermonters energy burden is in transportation and heating, mostly through burning fossil fuels. This makes Vermonters incredibly vulnerable to price spikes due to wars, pandemics, and natural disasters. The good news is there are alternatives and ways to help low income Vermonters migrate to less volatile options. One of the problems we are facing is a lack of good comprehensive data to understand the flows of fossil fuels in the state. That is why governor Scott's agency for natural resources asked the legislature to pass this bill. The bill simply directs ANR to develop a mechanism to gather data so future administrations can have the option to develop good public policy to buffer Vermonters from the whims of arrogance and ignorance. I stand in support of h seven forty because I do not see a future of stable fossil fuel prices. I believe we all share an affordability agenda. This would be a small step to fulfilling that agenda.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Milton.

[Representative Michael Morgan (Milton)]: Madam speaker, h seven forty has but one purpose, to set the stage for a de facto carbon tax on home heating and transportation fuels. Vermont treasurer's office concluded that such a program would be expensive, regressive, and especially harmful to rural Vermonters. The PUC came to the same conclusion. New York is coming to the same conclusion. Vermont voters made it clear in 2024 that they do not want and cannot afford these types of policies. And with no viable path to implement a clean heat standard or a cap and invest program, even if Vermonters did support the concept, h seven forty is just another example of us throwing good taxpayer money, money doing we do not have after bad. I'll be voting no, urge my colleagues to do the same, and when the vote is taken, I ask to be taken by role.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Milton request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by rolls. The member sustained. The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended. Member from Colchester.

[Unidentified member (multiple brief interjections)]: Yes. Madam speaker, can I read an email that I received from the sergeant at arms office?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Unidentified member (multiple brief interjections)]: The sergeant at arms office received over 500 messages by phone. Callers expressed support for climate action. Below is a list of the people who called to urge you to vote no on any attempt to roll back climate change policies.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from member from Heinzburg.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Madam speaker, I support passing h seven forty. In just the last couple weeks, Vermonters are acutely feeling what the price of volatile the price volatility of fossil fuels and what it does to their family budget. Without accurate and indisputable data on Vermont's consumption of heating and transportation fuels, legislators will be unable to develop strong affordable energy policies. We know and we have experienced that a lack of data allows lobbyists and activists from both sides to influence our decisions. This bill will produce the data necessary to move away from arguing about data to debating the best policies to help Vermonters who are looking for help to affordably heat their homes and drive to work. We must have indisputable and accurate data to inform our energy policy decisions.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Barrytown.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Madam speaker, we have the data. It's readily available. And at this point, we all know that weatherization of homes is the low hanging fruit, is the simplest pass to path to reducing home heating fuel, consumption. We know that using more efficient cars is a path to reduction. We know how to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. This bill is a path to a carbon tax. Thank you.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, I was curious that a member from Barrytown stood up and stole stole no thunder, but I wanted to share with you and the body what an enjoyable and interesting meeting I had with you last summer when you toured all of Vermont, made a a great effort. It was much appreciated visiting a lot of the rural communities and speaking to folks and leaders there. And in our conversation, it was probably five in the afternoon. You had another stop to go to. One thing that we and I encourage you, and you brought it up, and that was weatherization. Vermont has the oldest housing stock of any state in the union, And weatherization for rural folks and moderate and low income folks is probably the best energy saving affordability cost benefit. And I think we both agreed that that was a very high priority. To to my experience this year, I haven't seen any bills. I've heard that, you know, the feds stop funding for moderate and low income folks for their solar arrays, but I haven't seen anything come before us on weatherization. I agree with the member from Barrytown. Weatherization is a huge financial saving and support for moderate and low income Vermonters with aging housing stock. The other thing I haven't heard much about is that 75 per 78% of Vermont's thermal and transportation greenhouse gas emissions are offset by Vermont's forests, 80% of which are owned by private Vermonters. And to achieve the maximum value of both storage and sequestration, active management, achieves that goal. So, I'm disappointed that we have not heard, any of these things that actually help Vermonters survive, And I will not be supporting this. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended? Member for Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Our committee did actually kick off the session by taking a significant amount of testimony on weatherization which I agree, and I think we all agree is really foundational work. It's the client it's the kind of climate work that is so easy to, understand and see. You make an investment in weatherizing a home and instantly that home is warmer, it's more comfortable and a family is saving money on their energy bills. So no definitely no arguments there. I think the point we're trying to make today is that when you try to build statewide policies that really help the people who need it most, you start with a couple of goals. Like one, where can we find consensus? Where can we build, sort of a foundation, a good a good foundation for our policy? And then where do we take it from there? And how do we, how do we target those policies to the folks who need it most? And so, I guess I would just remind people about the very clear accomplishment of this bill which is simply to gather better numbers, numbers that actually are not currently available at the level at which we need them. They're not granular enough. So that down the road a future legislature could take a look at some good numbers and say, could we build a policy that really jumpstarts weatherization? Could we build a policy that helps folks, you know, install heat pumps? Like how do we do that? And I just want to remind people that conversations in this body over how to do that quickly get very complicated and quickly get very controversial. And so this is an attempt to just kind of step back and say, can we build a better road toward this in the future? And, that is really all H740 accomplishes. I think it's really important. I would remind people that if the contingent funding becomes available this year, we still won't see good numbers until 2029. So that also gives this body plenty of time to think about what might be the next best step.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Arsenault of Williston.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes. Two minutes. Will the house please come to order? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during a roll call. And when the clerk calls your name, please answer in a loud and clear voice so that the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure as amended? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Yes. Bartley of Fairfax. Rebecca of Winooski. Yes. Byrong of Regens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Yes. The lack of Essex. Yes. Bloomley of Burlington.

[Representative Alicia Malay (Pittsford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Boston of Westminster. Yes. Bosch of Clarendon. No. Putnamary City.

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: No.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Boyden of Cambridge. No. Brady of Williston. Yes. Birmingham of Georgia. No. Birmingham of Saint Albans

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: Town. No.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Brown of Richmond. Yes. Burditt, West Rutland. No. Burkhardt of South Burkhardt of South Burlington. Burlington?

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Yes. Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Burrows of West Windsor? Yes. Burda Cabot? Yes. Canfield of Fair Haven? Carris Duncan of Lightingham? Casey Montpelier?

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Casey of Hoverton? No. Chief in East Montpelier? Yes. Charlton of Chester? Yes. Christie of Hartford? Gina of Burlington? Coffin and Cavendish? No. Cole of Hartford? Yes. Conlon and Cornwall?

[Representative Thomas 'Tom' Charlton (Chester)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Cooper? Corcoran of Bennington? Yes. Critchlow of Colchester? Demar of Edisburg? No. Dickinson of Saint Albans Town? No. Dover Vision, Williamstown? No. Dodge of Essex? Dolan of Essex Junction?

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Dolgin of St. Johnsbury. No. Donahue of Northfield.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: No.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Duke of Burlington. Durfee of Shesbury. Yes. Eastes of Guilford. Emmons of Springfield? Yes. Feltus Glendon? No. Cal Fetty at Barrytown? No. Garifano of Essex? Yes. Goldman at Rockingham? Good now, Brattleboro. Yes. Ghostman on Northfield. No. Granting at Jericho. Yes. Greer Bennington. No. Greg Burkhardt. Hengo Berkshire. Yes. Harper of Glover. Yes. Harvey of Kesselton. Yes. Frederick Burlington. Yes. Higley Abloh. No. Holcomb Norwich. Cooper Randolph? Houghton Houghton of Essex Junction?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Howderland City?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Holland or Rutland Town? No. Hoyde Hartford? Yes. Hunter Manchester? James Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Yes. The vaccination.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Kasenska, Burke. No. Keyser, Rutland City. No. Kimball Woodstock. Yes. Klepner, Burlington. Yes. Kornheiser, Battleboro. Krasno, South Burlington.

[Representative Patricia A. McCoy (Poultney)]: Yeah.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Labor, Morgan. No. Lilia Shelburn. Malone to South Burlington. Yeah. Lamont of Morristown. Lerusha Franklin, Lipsky of Stowe, Logan of Burlington, Long and Uffin, leaders of Lincoln, Luno of St. Albans City, Miguel Edward Port. Yes. Nicholas of Milton. Mollie of Callis.

[Representative Ela Chapin (East Montpelier)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Meniere of South Burlington.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Morgan Ela Milton. Morgan Emma Milton. Morris of Springfield. No. Morrissey Bennington. Nora Weston. Yes. Burwicki Putney. Nelson and Derree. No. Nielsen and Brandon. Michael Benington. No. Martha Fairsburg. No. Moise of Volkert. New to South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien of Tunbridge. Odie Burlington? Yes. Oliver Sheldon? Olson of Starksboro? Yes. Paige of Newport City? Parsons of Newbury? Pezzo of Colchester. Yes. Pinsonault of Dorset. John. Poucher Hinesburg. Yes. Powers in Waterford. No. Priestly of Bradford. Bridget Burditt? No. Quinby of London? No. Rachel's in Burlington? Yes. Seco to Randolph? Yes. Shyam Middlebury? Yes. Sheldon of Middlebury? Yes. Seville of Dover?

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Southworth Walden? No. Squirrel Of Underhill? Yes. Steady Milton?

[Representative Brenda Steady (Milton)]: No. Explanation.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Stevens of Waterbury?

[Representative Kristi Morris (Springfield)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Stone of Burlington?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Sweeney of Shelburn?

[Representative Wendy Critchlow (Colchester)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: No. Taylor Milton? No. Taylor Munden? Thomas Tomlinson? Tori Moore Town? Yes. Walker Swanton? Wassesack of Berry City? Yes. Waters Evans of Charlotte? Yes. Wells of Brownington?

[Representative Thomas 'Tom' Charlton (Chester)]: No.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: White O'Hatesfield?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Wider Bethel? Yes. Winter Of Ludlow? No. Wood Of Warbury?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: Yakavonia, Morristown.

[Representative John Kascenska (Burke)]: Bailey

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: of High Park. Bartley of Fairfax. Christie of Hartford. Dodge of Essex, Duke of Burlington? Yes. Eastes of Guildford? Huber Randolph? Logan of Burlington, McCann of Mount Payer. Nicholas of Milton, Nielsen of Brandon, Parsons of Newberry.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: For purpose of explanation, member from panel.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, we are fortunate to live in an era of plentiful information and responsible analysis. It is unwise to remain ignorant of that plentiful information and devoid of that responsible analysis.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Madam speaker, it's a sad fact that we will answer to our children, our grandchildren, and to future generations for our failure to act decisively on climate. That reckoning will not happen someday. It is already happening today. Better data leads to better policy, and better policy helps Vermonters save money on energy now and down the road.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Vermont represents something like fifteen one thousandths of 1% of global emissions. And while we do have a responsibility to the rest of humanity to reduce our fifteen one thousandths of 1%, we have a higher responsibility to protect Vermonters' health and Vermonters' pocketbooks. Every time a kid gets off a school bus, they get a lung full of diesel exhaust, and it's carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and carcinogens like benzene, formaldehyde, arsenic. Every time our oil furnaces kick on, we are spreading carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and carcinogenic fine particulate matter to our families and to our neighbors. Gas is at $3.89 a gallon. That is not affordable. Heating oil, $5.41 a gallon, not affordable. Diesel, $5.71 a gallon, not affordable for Vermonters. This bill gives us the data so that we can effectively address these threats to Vermonters' health and their budgets.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Putney.

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Madam speaker, my vote to support this bill is a vote for the future, for a cleaner future, for the legacy of leaving our children and grandchildren a cleaner future. And my yes vote is for a more affordable today. We see the roller coaster of the price of dinosaur fuels, while my experience is installing a heat pump saves me 40% off my heating bill and driving an EV saves me 50% on transportation. I vote yes for an abort affordable today and a cleaner future. A real win win.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member for Milton.

[Representative Leland Morgan (Milton)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Leland Morgan (Milton)]: My no vote. I ran for the seat under affordability. I have to believe that the majority of my fellow Vermonters wouldn't want me to spend 500,000 of their hard earned property tax paid payer dollars for a report when most of them struggle to put food on their tables.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: A member from Waterbury.

[Representative Alicia Malay (Pittsford)]: Madam speaker, we are continually striving to make decisions based on good data. That's all this bill does and it's why I vote yes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Barrytown?

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Oops. There you go. Madam speaker, this bill

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: sets up Member, would you like

[House Clerk (Roll Call)]: to speak?

[Unidentified member (multiple brief interjections)]: Sorry. Would you like

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: to Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Thank you. Madam speaker, this bill sets the groundwork to assign blame and taxation on vulnerable Vermonters and have little to no impact on climate change, but many impacts on gentrification and the elitification of the state of Vermont.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Bennington.

[Representative Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: H seven forty may be a data collection bill, but if these steps are used to implement a plan that will make me a young Vermonter and my neighbors of all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds pay more for heating fuel, I will gladly raise the point that this went against legislative intent because that is not affordability. Those of us that use heating fuel for our homes appreciate our suppliers, and we refuse to lose that choice, especially at an extraordinary economic cost.

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: Members,

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: please listen to the member member from Morristown.

[Representative David Yacovone (Morristown)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative David Yacovone (Morristown)]: That dog won't hunt. That dog won't hunt. I'm fond of my former boss, the secretary of human services, who would frequently invoke that. I was amused during the debate today because I thought that old dog, the clean heat standard, won't hunt. There are many who like to get folks angry, distract them, play fear, but that's not what we need for an answer. That dog won't hunt.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, please listen to the results of your votes. Those voting yes, 82. Those voting no, 56. The ayes have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Next up is House Bill seven seventy eight which is an act relating to dam safety. The bill was referred to the committee on environment which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from East Montpelier, representative Chapin will speak for the committee and then carrying an appropriation the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on environment. The member from Underhill, Representative Squirrel will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: Page seven seventy eight, an act relating to dam safety.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from East Montpelier.

[Representative Ela Chapin (East Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, we have a large and aging set of dams across our state. Over 1,000 dams of various scales, purposes, and conditions from small private dams to those that generate power, to those that are state owned and designed for flood control. We have taken important steps in recent years to improve our ability to regulate dams to protect the public safety of communities downstream, and this bill takes the next logical step in this direction. I will start with some context and background. Over 900 dams are state regulated primarily by the dam safety program at the Department of Environmental Conservation. Another 21 dams that generate electricity are currently regulated by our public utility commission. And the small remainder are regulated at the federal level, primarily by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or Army Corps of Engineers. In 2018, we passed act one sixty one, which established a definition for dams and required the Department of Environmental Conservation to establish standards for the safety and regulation of dams, an inventory of dams, and a hazard classification system, and to undertake rule making related to standards for registration, design, maintenance, and inspections, as well as emergency action plans. The department has done significant work over the past eight years to further develop our dam safety program and regulatory structure. In 2024, we passed act one twenty one, the flood safety act, which further addressed dam safety after flooding of twenty twenty three made clear there was more work to do. The act set up a process to transfer public safety jurisdiction of 21 electric generating dams regulated by the PUC to the dam safety program, centralizing all dam safety state regulations in one office that is staffed with engineers and added several positions to program. It restructured the dam safety revolving loan fund to support proactive repairs, not just emergency projects, and most important to this bill before you today, it established a study committee on dam emergency operations planning to recommend how to ensure municipalities plan for the hazards related to dam failure and how to shift responsibility for emergency planning from individual municipalities to regional authorities. The dam safety program develop has developed a hazard classification system for dams based on the potential public safety impact if it if a dam was to fail. The classifications include high hazard dams, significant hazard dams, and low hazard. High hazard dams are those with a downstream population at risk, the probable loss of life if a dam was to fail. A significant hazard dam is one in which there's a probable economic or environmental impacts like roads or bridges that would be damaged, but no probable loss of life, and a low hazard dam is not expected to cause significant impacts if the dam were to fail. This bill focuses on high hazard dams. We have at least 77 dams high hazard dams in Vermont, meaning they have at least one person at risk downstream. 50 of these are state regulated by the Department of Environmental Conservation. 22 of those have between a 100 to 999 persons at risk, and 11 have thousand or more persons at risk. High hazard does not mean there is a high risk of dam failure. It does not consider the condition or management of the dam. The failure of a high hazard dam is considered a low, low probability but a high consequence event. The dam safety program does do site visits and develop risk assessments to identify dams that are at risk of failure, provides guidance for improvements, and offers financing for repairs as part of their role to regulate and oversee dam safety. They are currently developing new rules to establish detailed technical standards for dams and enabling the state to require improvements and repairs. So in 2025, the summer study committee on dam emergency operations planning considered how the state could municipalities to develop coordinated emergency operations plans for all municipalities below high hazard dams as required by act one twenty one. You might ask, what is an emergency operations plan? In the world of dam safety, there are emergency action plans and emergency operations plans. Action plans are developed by the dam owner and include information about the dam and the areas that would be inundated downstream if the dam were to to fail or if there was an emergency release of water to avoid an imminent dam failure. Action plans are now required of dam owners and are shared with the municipalities downstream of the dam. Emergency operations plans, the subject of this bill, are plans and guidance for downstream municipalities that would be impacted by such a failure or emergency release. Ensuring there are plans, guidance, and coordination for authorities and emergency responders. These plans naturally include how responders would notify and work to evacuate people at risk in inundation areas, but they are somewhat unique from existing emergency operations plans that municipalities and emergency responders may already have and that a release or failure from a dam creates a large, fast moving wave of water that can flood many roadways and municipal buildings or cut off typically utilized evacuation routes or shelters, and also that most or all downstream municipalities are simultaneously impacted, and thus a coordinated regional response is needed rather than a plan that is specific to just one municipality. The study committee identified a variety of challenges and several options to support municipalities to develop such plans and recommended starting with a pilot project to develop two sets of emergency operations plans for communities below two state owned high hazard dams. This bill would do that. It would require the Vermont Emergency Management division of our Department of Public Safety to carry out this pilot project in collaboration with the dam safety program at the Department of Environmental Conservation. The pilot project would undertake the development of emergency operations plans for all municipalities in the region below each of the two dams chosen for the pilot, coordinated at a regional level by the Vermont Emergency Management or a contractor such as a regional planning commission. The pilot project is expected to take twelve to eighteen months to complete. The bill also clarifies that the governor and the state director of emergency management are authorized to order evacuations when there is a dam failure or imminent risk of a dam failure because there was some difference of opinion about whether this is clear in statute. And it would also result in a report back to the legislature that would include recommendations about how to support communities below the rest of the state's high hazard dams to develop emergency operations plans by 2035. I will now walk through our strike all amendment, which starts on page thirteen ninety two of today's calendar. Section one amends 20 VSA section 10 to clarify that the governor or the director of emergency management can order an evacuation of an area subject to inundation from a dam failure without municipal approval. The flooding can happen so swiftly in the event of a dam failure or emergency release and potentially affect such a large area downstream that this is an important option for public safety. Section two, subsection A requires the division of emergency management conduct the pilot project in coordination with the Department of Environmental Conservation, and the pilot project will consist of a set of emergency operations plans for each of the two dams included in the pilot project. And each set of emergency operations plans will include one plan for each municipality downstream of that dam. One dam would be a state owned, high hazard dam with a population at risk over 1,000, which would have to be one of the three flood control dams along the Winooski River, and one state owned, high hazard dam with a population at risk between one hundred and nine hundred and ninety nine. Subsection b requires that the division includes input from emergency management entities, municipal officials, emergency responders, regional planning commissions, state and regional search and rescue partners, and any electric generation operators if there is one located at the state owned dams selected for the pilot project. It also enables the division to hire a contractor such as a regional planning commission to complete the pilot project. Subsection c lists requirements for emergency operations plans, including that each plan identify evacuation routes and locations for shelter or reunification, engage entities that house vulnerable populations in the planning process such as schools, shelters, and senior living communities, plan for how to coordinate mutual aid and address the use of early warning systems and VT alert. Subsection d requires a division to report back to the relevant committees the results of the pilot project, including the plans, a summary of the process and the cost of the pilot project, information about early warning systems in such situations, and a scope of work for the division to develop planning templates and training for municipalities. Subsection e requires recommendations from the division on how these plans could be completed for all high hazard dams in Vermont with a population at risk of a 100 or more persons by 2035, whether this could include federally regulated dams and what it would cost and recommendations on how the plans should be completed for high hazard dams with the population at risk of fewer than 100 persons. It also requires recommendations on funding resources for the creation of emergency operations plans by municipalities, education needed to raise awareness about the importance of these plans, how to use geotagging and the VT alert system for people occupying structures in inundation zones, and the practicing of emergency response under the plans. Section three provides $250 0 to the division of emergency management and a $125.00 to the Department of Environmental Conservation to conduct the pilot project. Section four enables the act to take effect upon passage. We heard testimony from the bill sponsor, legislative council, the dam safety program manager, and

[Representative Mark Higley (Lowell)]: an

[Representative Ela Chapin (East Montpelier)]: administrator and administrator at the Department of Environmental Conservation's Dam Safety Program, the director of Vermont Emergency Management at the Department of Public Safety, the emergency management director at the Town of Plainfield, the executive director of the Montpelier Commission on Recovery and Resilience, the executive director and a planner at the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission, the chair of the Lake Champlain Basin Program Citizens Advisory Committee, the chief dam safety engineer at Green Mountain Power, and the chief of Rescue Incorporated. Madam speaker, I'm happy to report that the possibility of a dam failure where lives are at risk is a very small probability, but it is also not unfathomable, and it is important that Vermont communities and local, regional, and state emergency responders are well prepared. Your committee on environment is grateful to the division of emergency management and the dam safety program for their willingness to undertake this important next step in ensuring we are prepared to protect public safety. Your committee on environment voted to pass this strike all amendment on a vote of eleven zero zero, and we request your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Underhill.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Underhill)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Your house appropriations committee reviewed eight seven seven eight with legislative council and the joint physical office. There are two general fund appropriations in section three. $250,000 to Vermont Emergency Management and 125,000 to the Department of Environmental Conservation for the emergency operations plan pilot project required under section two. The house committee on appropriations favorably recommends eight seven seven eight as amended by house environment on a vote of ten zero one. We ask for the body support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on environment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Up next is house bill nine fifteen which is an act relating to establishing an extended producer responsibility program for beverage containers. The bill was introduced by the committee on environment. The member from Springfield, representative Morris will speak for the committee and affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the bill ought to pass. The member from South Burlington, representative Burkhardt will speak for the committee. Then carried an appropriation, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations which also recommends that the bill ought to pass. The member from Underhill, representative Squirrel, will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: H nine fifteen, an act relating to establishing an extended producer responsibility program for beverage containers.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Springfield.

[Representative Kristi Morris (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, your environment your house environment and energy excuse me. That's last year's. Madam speaker, your house environment committee offers h nine fifteen a strike all amendment relating to establishing an extended producer responsibility program for beverage containers. Vermont's beverage container redemption deposit law, often referred to as the bottle bill, was enacted in April 1972 and implemented on 07/01/1973. The fundamental goals, nearly fifty three years ago, were to reduce litter, divert used bottles and cans away from the waste disposal in our landfills, and more recently, it provides clean materials for new bottles and cans. Five decades ago, a 5¢ deposit was placed on beverage containers in an effort to incentivize customers to redeem them for recycling. This amount has remained constant since the program's inception. Another advantage of redemption is enabling sports teams, scout programs and other organizations to fundraise in support of their programs. Currently, the beverage manufacturers are responsible for collecting the deposit containers from the redemption centers and stores. Redemption rates approach 72% of covered containers sold in Vermont. Customers pay the $05 when purchasing the covered beverages. The redemption centers pay the $05 back to the customer when the containers are returned. The manufacturers pay $05 per the container to the redemption centers. In addition, they pay a $0.35 handling fee for co mingled containers and 4¢ for non commingled. The handling fee is the profit for the redemption centers. The unredeemed 5¢ deposits commonly called as sheets are paid to the state of Vermont into our clean water fund along with allocations from room and meals tax and property transfer taxes. The container handling fee has remained constant for many years. Without a fee increase or adding other containers into the program, redemption centers struggle with revenues as a result of increased wages and operational costs. Madam Speaker, H915 would establish a producer responsibility organization to modernize and expand the number of locations within the state for easier customer redemption. Further, for an interim period, the non commingling fee will be increased by 1p from $04 to $05 Until such time, the PRO stands up their enhanced stewardship plan and it gets approved by ANR. Under the stewardship plan, handling fees or other payments will be negotiated between the PRO and the redemption centers. To compensate for this effort, the PRO will receive a portion of the if sheets for four years in the form of ANR grants for expansion of new redemption centers or improvements to existing centers and stores who redeem bottled deposits. The Department of Environmental Conservation has acknowledged this plan and recognizes the bottle redemption program and clean water fund programs are both important to conservation efforts and supports the diversion of funds to establish the PRO. The creation of the PRO will reduce the number of container sorts at redemption centers and modernize redemption methods. There are several container redemption methods in use today, including bag drop off, reversed vending machines, and others. H915, excuse me, will shift the redemption program plan responsibility from ANR to PRO under ANR approval. I'll now walk through the changes in H915. The bill can be found on the Environment Committee webpage using the Bill Search tab. Sorry, gotta get away from my swivel chair here. Section one amends 10 VSA chapter 53. It reaffirms that the definitions of what a distributor and what is a manufacturer and they remain unchanged. Clarifies the deposit for non liquor beverage containers by striking the current not less than language and states the deposit per container is $05 Increases the per container handling fee that the PRO pays the retailer and redemption centers from the 4¢ to the 5¢ when containers are not commingled. Additionally, it provides that the handling fee shall not apply to beverages that are covered by an approved stewardship plan once it is implemented. It clarifies that a manufacturer or distributor shall not refuse to pick up containers from the retailer or refuse to pay the refund value. It also enables a retailer to refuse to redeem beverage containers if their building is less than 5,000 square feet. It also requires beverage containers sold to be clearly labeled, then include a universal product code and barcode. It sets forth the Department of Liquor and Lottery requirements for redemption of liquor bottles and authorizes DLL to coordinate and compensate the PRO for collection of liquor bottles. Section one also provides that no manufacturer or distributor may sell or distribute a beverage container in the state without participating in an ANR approved PRO. Subsection 5031B. On or before 01/01/2027, a manufacturer shall apply to the Secretary of State to form a PRO that will fulfill the requirements under this chapter. Secretary may approve that excuse me, madam. I gotta blow my nose.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The house will stand at ease for a moment.

[Representative Kristi Morris (Springfield)]: Yeah. I'm back. So on or before 01/01/2027, manufacturers will apply to the secretary of state secretary of ANR to form a PR that will fulfill the requirements under this chapter. Under fifteen thirty one c, the secretary may approve a p r o for a period not longer than ten years. Dear, thank you. Enables ANR to form a p r o, if none exist, or adopt its own stewardship plan. 1532 sets requirements of the stewardship plan, and this is important. For the collection of convenience of collection, a plan shall ensure that customers have convenient redemption opportunities, take reasonable efforts to cite points of redemption equitably across all regions, at least three points of redemption per county, at least one redemption in a municipality with a population of 7,000 or more, and shall take reasonable efforts to cite collections points of collections in areas with high population densities. Those are communities that are under 7,000, but have significant density populations. Number two, the fair operation and compensation to redemption centers include, describe how all locations that redeem beverage containers are fairly compensated. There shall not be barriers to participate in the collection program. Describe how to manage in sorting of containers at redemption centers is minimized. The plan shall describe how materials will be picked up and how to maximize the use of existing infrastructure. Collection location standards include provide expeditious redemption services, be at sites that are secure, sufficiently lighted, and provide for safety of the persons redeeming containers, provide education for consumers, requires consultation with stakeholders, requires a PRO to annually report the information back to ANR, and specify the timeline ANR has to approve the proposed plan and the PRO's implementation timeline. There's a third party program audit of the PRO stewardship plan every five years. Requires a PRO to conduct an annual fiscal audit, analyzing expenditures and reporting back to the ANR. And then it sets goals for the minimum beverage container redemption rates. The first being 75% beginning 07/01/2029, and 80% beginning on 07/01/2032. Starting 01/01/2029, ANR will report redemption rates annually to the legislature and shall make recommendations whether the deposit should increase. There is no automatic increase in this bill to the container deposit. It will remain 5¢. ANR may adopt rules necessary for the administration of the redemption system. And then there's an antitrust provision that allows manufacturers to have conversations with each other and set up to stand up the PRO stewardship plan. Section three amends 10 VSA subsection thirteen eighty eight authorizing the transfer of the sheets or unclaimed beverage deposits from the Clean Water Fund to the Solid Waste Management Assistance Account for four fiscal years. And this is allowing for Grant to implement the PRO stewardship plan. In fiscal year two thousand and thirty and thirty one, that amount will be $1,000,000 In fiscal 3233, that reduces to $750,000 Section five requires manufacturers and distributors, subject to the water bill, to report recycling information to ANR in the same manner as recycled materials are reported by the material recovery facilities. It includes a number of containers and tons, material type, and what products the beverage containers were recycled into. I'm almost done. Section six repeals the requirement of 10 VSA subsection fifteen twenty nine that ANR certifies redemption centers because once the PRO is established and implementing a plan, the PRO will be responsible for approving Redemption Center, not ANR. Section seven are the effective dates. The act takes effect 07/01/2026. Madam Speaker, almost done. H nine fifteen provides long overdue support of our local redemption centers in the stores taking bottle returns. It charges manufacturers in their PRO to make redemption more convenient. H nine fifteen does not increase the deposit amount nor does it add in additional containers beyond what already exists. Further, its goal is to enhance the bottle redemption program, increase the percentage of containers returned, provide easier access for processing, sorting, and collecting containers. One more break, madam chairman. Thanks. I didn't need a recess for that. With the increasing the percentage of containers returned, provide easier support and processing for sorting and collecting, a redemption bottle redemption businesses and their employees, it would provide redemption opportunities in underserved areas of the state. We heard from the executive director, Vermont Public Interest Research Group, waste protection advocate in the Lake Champlain Committee, director of waste management and prevention division, department of environmental conservation, the president of Container Recycling Institute, principal of Breezeway Consulting, Beverage Association of Vermont, the owner of Beverage Baron, executive director of Vermont National Resources Council, owner Putney Road Redemption Center, Government affairs manager, Thomas Collectible Solutions. Deputy chief counsel, office of legislative counsel. A lobbyist from MMR. Vice president, government relations for the Can Manufacturers Institute and the owner of the Lindenville Redemption. Director of Legislative Affairs and Business Development from Clink. If you haven't heard of Clink, that's the bag collection that they have stores around New England, and the owner of the Vermont Redemption Incorporated. Madam speaker, H915 was voted out of committee on a nine two zero vote and we ask the members for their support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on ways and means, member from South Burlington.

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The committee on ways and means reviewed h nine one five because it may affect the revenues of the state. The joint fiscal office prepared a fiscal note regarding h nine one five dated February 26, which can be found on the ways and means committee page or on the JFO website by searching for the bill number. I will walk you through the highlights of the fiscal note. As described by the member from Springfield, the bill requires manufacturers to to create a producer responsibility organization or PRO by 01/01/2027, submit the first stewardship plan to ANR by 04/01/2028, and implement the first five year plan in 2029. As a result, most of the fiscal impact of the bill begins in fiscal year twenty thirty. The biggest part of the fiscal impact of the bill comes from transfers between the Clean Water Fund and the Waste Management Assistance Fund. From fiscal year twenty thirty to fiscal year twenty thirty three, up to $3,500,000 could be transferred from the Clean Water Fund to the Waste Management Assistance Fund in the form of grants to support infrastructure improvements and equipment upgrades outlined in the PRO stewardship plan. The transfers would mean there would be less money available to fund clean water projects during those years. The Clean Water Fund receives approximately 12% of its budget, an estimated 3,800,000.0. The 12% is about 3,800,000 for fiscal twenty twenty six from unclaimed bottle deposits, which are also called sheets. More readily accessible redemption centers could mean fewer sheets, potentially lowering revenue available to the clean water fund. The potential reduction in a sheet revenue that could result from the bill is small and has not been modeled at this time. There are two different potential models for the PRO outlined in the fiscal note and in the bill. If the manufacturers create the PRO, ANR would receive compensation for overseeing the program. If the manufacturers do not create the PRO, ANR would receive compensation for overseeing the program plus a recycling market development assessment equal to 10% of total stewardship plan costs which would be used to make grants to improve recycling. Stewardship plan costs would be submitted as part of ANR's budget each year. Finally, another small potential fiscal impact of the bill is that the Department of Liquor and Lottery could see some savings if the PRO can pick up liquor bottles from redemption centers more efficiently than the vendor the department currently pays to perform this task. No estimate has been made regarding these potential savings. We heard from a senior fiscal analyst from the joint fiscal office. We heard from the deputy chief counsel, office of legislative counsel. Your committee on ways and means found the bill favorable on a vote of nine one one, and we recommend that the bill ought to pass. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Underhill.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Underhill)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Your house appropriations committee reviewed H915 with legislative council and the joint fiscal office. There are no general fund appropriations in this bill. However, there are future transfers as noted by the member from house ways and means. The house committee on appropriations favorably recommends h nine one five as amended by house environment on a vote of eight three zero. We ask for the body's support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Next is house bill nine thirty seven which is an act relating to miscellaneous judiciary procedures. The bill was introduced by the committee on judiciary. The member from Burlington, representative Rachelson will speak for the committee and affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the bill ought to pass the member from Burlington, representative Odie will speak for that committee. And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations which also recommends that the bill ought to pass The member from Underhill, representative squirrel will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk]: Page nine thirty seven. An act relating to miscellaneous judiciary procedures.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. H nine thirty seven is the annual judiciary miscellaneous bill. What members may not know is that each year, it alternates which chamber initiates the miscellaneous judiciary bill. This year, it's the house's turn. And as it does every year, the bill contains several minor or technical amendments related to judiciary procedures. The tradition in our committee is to involve as many committee members as possible. You'll all be happy to know that given the length of the bill, which is shorter than usual, not all of our committee members will be presenting it. So we will have about half of our committee help with this presentation. So let me start with section one. Section one was requested by the Center for Crime Victim Services, and it simply relocates one chapter of Vermont law from one place to another. Vermont's profits from crime subchapter permits the attorney general and crime victims to bring a legal action to prevent a criminal offender from profiting on the offender's criminal conduct. For example, if a person convicted of murder intended to write a book about the homicide. Currently, the profits from crime subchapter is located in the crime victims chapter of Vermont law. However, since the program is administered by the office of the attorney general, section one merely relocates the language to the attorney general's chapter entitled three of the Vermont statutes. And both the office of the attorney general and the Center for Crime Victim Services have agreed to this change. Section two was requested by the community justice director in the attorney general's office and makes a minor change in the statute that prohibits minors committing various alcohol offenses. It is generally a civil offense when a minor older than 12 or younger than 21 possesses or consumes alcohol, uses a false ID to purchase alcohol, possesses less than one ounce of cannabis, or operates a vehicle with any amount of alcohol in their system that is less than the DUI point zero eight limit. The minimum age of 12 applies because that is the minimum age for a minor to be charged with a juvenile offense. If the minor fails to complete the youth substance abuse awareness program, then the minor is subject to a civil penalty and a driver's license suspension. However, due to what was likely an oversight, the driver's license is automatically reinstated after the suspension period for the driving offense, but not for the possession or consumption offenses. So section two makes the penalties consistent by providing for automatic reinstatement for those offenses as well. Moving on to section three, this was requested by the judiciary and makes a technical change in the statute that prohibits minors from committing various tobacco offenses. These statutes parallel the alcohol statutes related to minors that were just discussed, but the tobacco provision lacks the language establishing a minimum age of 12 that is contained in the alcohol provision. As explained earlier, this age minimum is necessary for consistency with the minimum age for juvenile offenses. So it is added in section three. Section four was introduced as h five seventy two, and it repeals the statute that prohibits public Internet access to criminal case records maintained by the court. Section five also requires the court to promulgate rules to establish the procedure for how this public Internet access will operate in practice. Section five was originally introduced as h six two nine and amends the statute of limitations for actions to renew or revive a court judgment. Currently, such actions must be brought within eight years after the original judgment and filed in the civil division. Under section five, the family division has exclusive jurisdiction if it is issued the original order. Section five also establishes specific procedures and timelines that would apply when renewing judgments for money or property in the family division. Section six is a technical change brought to legislative council's attention by a member of the Vermont bar. Vermont trial courts are now called superior courts rather than district courts, which no longer exist. So section six corrects this outdated language. Section seven makes a technical change by repealing language that exists in two statutes. Identical language was enacted in a different statute in 2011 when the mortgage foreclosure chapter was reorganized. So it is no longer necessary in the statute and section seven therefore repeals it. I will now yield to the member from Castleton.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Burlington yields to the member from Castleton.

[Representative Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, member, and thank you, madam speaker. Section excuse me. Sections eight and nine concern stocking, which is a criminal offense and can also be the basis of a civil order against stocking. Both sections came via bills introduced this year. In both cases, stocking requires proof of a course of conduct by the defendant. Course of conduct quote is defined as two or more acts over a period of time. However, short in which the defendant commits the prohibited conduct. The judiciary committee understands that in some cases, courts have required that the two or more acts occur on separate calendar days. Sections eight and nine make clear that the acts can occur on the same calendar day both for criminal stalking cases in section eight and civil orders against stalking in section nine. Section 10 is purely technical and was recommended by the office of legislative council which works each year with the publisher to reissue four titles of the Vermont statutes so that they remain updated. During the course of that work, a number of needed technical corrections were identified including the one in section 10 which corrects an inaccurate use of the term section. I now yield to the member from Pittsford.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Castleton yields to the member from Pittsford.

[Representative Alicia Malay (Pittsford)]: Madam speaker, section 11 was requested by the Center for Crime Victim Services and involves the existing requirement that a crime victim be provided with certain information by the law enforcement agency investigating a crime. Section 11 adds that if the defendant is held at a correctional facility, then the victim must also be provided information concerning the victim's right to know where the defendant is held, if the defendant is released, how to locate the Department of Corrections Vermont Offender Locator website, and how to register for automated notifications when the defendant is released. This information is already in the form that the center provides to law enforcement agencies for distribution to crime victims, so the change in Section 11 is conforming the law

[Representative Wendy Critchlow (Colchester)]: to current

[Representative Alicia Malay (Pittsford)]: practice. Section 12 concerns the change made in Section one, which reenacted Vermont's Profits from Crime subchapter in the chapter of law that governs the Office of the Attorney General. Section 12 is the first of several instances where the existing law under which the program is located in the crime victims chapter is repealed because it is being moved to the Attorney General chapter. Section 13 was requested by the Victims Compensation Board which rewards compensation to victims of crime and by the Center for Crime Victim Services. The Board consists of five members appointed by the governor, one of whom must be a physician licensed to practice in Vermont. The Board and the center agree that this too restrictive and that other licensed healthcare professionals should be permitted to serve on the Board. Section 13 expands the language that licensed healthcare providers such as nurses and physician's assistants may be appointed to the Board. Section 14 is another instance where reference to profits from crime in the crime victims chapter is repealed because it is being moved to the attorney general chapter. I now yield to the member from West Rutland.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Pittsburgh yields to the member from West Rutland.

[Representative Thomas 'Tom' Burditt (West Rutland)]: Thank you, member. Madam Speaker, before I start, I just want to say that Chuck Norris doesn't follow the law. Chuck Norris is the law. Section 15 and several other sections that I will mention shortly concern the $5,000 cap that exists on advances to crime victims from the crime victims restitution special fund. The restitution unit collects court ordered restitution from persons convicted of crimes and then deposits the money collected into the restitution special fund. Victims are then paid the restitution out of the fund. The fund is also able to make advanced payments of restitution to crime victims, but those payments are capped so that the fund is able to remain solvent. Several years ago, the cap was lowered from 10,000 to $5,000 but that change in amount was not made in several corresponding statutes. Section 15 enacts that change in three different places. Section sixteen and seventeen are two more instances where references to profit from crime in the crime victims chapter are repealed because they are being moved to the attorney general chapter. Section 18 is another instance where a conforming change is made from 10,000 to $5,000 for the cap on advances to crime victims from the restitution special fund. I now now yield to the member from Sheldon.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from West Rutland yields to the member from Sheldon.

[Representative Thomas Oliver (Sheldon)]: Thank you. Member from West Rutland. Madam speaker, section 19 was requested by the community justice director in the attorney general's office. This section relates to confidential records obtained during pretrial risk assessments and needs screenings, which currently must be retained for three years. The general state policy provides a minimum of two years for records retention. So section 19 amends the statute to be consistent with that policy. Section 20 repeals all of Vermont statutes related to a type of guardianship called a spendthrift guardianship. These guardianships were once used when a person could not manage the person's own affairs, specifically on account of excessive drinking, gambling, idleness, or debauchery, these statutes are archaic and no longer in use, so the judiciary's advisory committee on the rules of probate procedure ask that they be repealed. Section 21 is purely technical and adds a missing conjunction. Section 22 is a continuation of the day is a day initiative begun by the judiciary in 2017, which adopted a system where all calendar days are counted for computing court deadlines rather than just business days. The system also consistently uses multiples of seven for purposes of court related time periods, and the amendment in section 22 continues this approach by changing the number of days within which the court must schedule a hearing in a contempt case from fifteen days to fourteen days. Section 23 was requested by the judiciary and repeals the requirement that a certified copy of a child custody determination be mailed to the court administrator. The statute is no longer necessary because these types of documents are filed directly into the court's electronic case management system rather than being mailed. I now yield to the member from Brattleboro.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Sheldon Yields to the member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'll be covering sections 24 to 31, which is the end of the bill. Sections twenty four and twenty five are purely technical and correct an inaccurate cross reference that appears several times. Section 26 was requested by the Vermont Bar Association and involves the transfer of joint jointly owned property. This is done most commonly in two ways, either through a joint tenancy or through a tenancy in common. The primary difference between the two is what happens to the property when one of the owners dies. In joint tenancy, the property passes to the surviving owner. Whereas in tenancy in the common, the property passes to the heirs of the owner who died. Section 26 responds to a recent Vermont Supreme Court decision holding that certain deed language should be interpreted to mean that the property is owned as tenants in common. The Bar Association, the Vermont Title Company, and the Vermont Bankers Association all agree that this language has instead always been read to establish a joint tenancy. So section 26 is amended to make that interpretation clear. Section 27 provides that section 26 will be applied retroactively to to the interpretation of all deeds whenever they were created unless they are already the subject of litigation. Section 28 repeals language in the lease assignment statute that requires such a deed to be sealed and witnessed. Deeds no longer require that kind of requirement, so the language is outdated. Section 29 relates to an old statute on the books that requires any person who finds property valued at $3 or more to post a notice describing the property in two public places. This has apparently been an issue for the Capitol Police when they find such items as a forgotten water bottle or other lost property. Section 29 amends the statute by only requiring that kind of posting if property is valued is found that is valued at $50 or more. Section 30 is another example of judiciary's day is a day initiative changing a court time limit to fourteen days because multiples of seven are now the rule for purposes of court related time periods. Finally, madam speaker, section 31 provides that the bill takes effect on passage with one exception. Section four, which requires the court to promulgate rules governing public Internet access to criminal case records, has has a delayed effective date in order to provide judiciary with sufficient time to draft the rules. The current draft of the bill sets the effective date at 07/01/2026, but it was intended to be 07/01/2027. So you can expect an amendment will be offered making that correction. And now we'll yield back to the member from Burlington.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Brattleboro yields to the met member from Burlington.

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. We heard from the following witnesses, the state underwriting council and state manager from First American Title Insurance Company, the president of the Vermont Bankers Association, the community justice unit director in the attorney general's office, our legislative council, the director of policy at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, the co chair of the real estate section of the Vermont Bar Association, the legislative policy and records attorney with the Department of State Attorneys and Sheriffs, the executive director of the Center for Crime Victim Services, the vice president and state manager of Vermont CATIC, and chief superior judge with the Vermont judiciary. These changes may seem minor, but nonetheless, each is important. The vote in our committee was eleven zero zero, and we urge the body to support this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, it's my understanding that the member from Ludlow will not be offering his amendment today, and that will be coming tomorrow. Now the member from South Burlington, Representative Lolomew offers an amendment. My apologies, Moving too fast. Before hearing that amendment, we need to hear from the committee on ways and means. Member from Burlington.

[Unidentified member (multiple brief interjections)]: Madam speaker, your committee on ways and means focused on section two of H nine thirty seven as it relates to the revenue of the state. Section two has automatic reinstatement language so that with automatic reinstatement of a suspended license for applicable individuals, no reinstatement fee is required to be paid to the Department of Motor Vehicles. At $96 of foregone revenue per reinstatement fee per license, total revenue loss might be $8,000 yearly based on 84 violations in 2025 that required a reinstatement fee that would be waived under this proposed section in a total transportation budget of $320,000,000 yearly. Please refer to the joint fiscal office fiscal note at the House Ways and Means Committee documents on March 18. This bill is estimated to have a de minimis fiscal impact. Your committee heard from legislative council, office of legislative council, associate fiscal officer, joint fiscal office, and voted ten-zero-one and respectfully requests that the bill pass.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Underhill.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Underhill)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The house appropriations committee reviewed h nine thirty seven with legislative council and the joint fiscal office. There are no appropriations in h nine thirty seven. House committee on appropriations favorably recommends h nine thirty seven as amended by house judiciary on a vote of eleven zero zero. We ask for the body's support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now the member from South Burlington, representative alone offers an amendment to the bill that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 10:21 today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from South Burlington.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, this amendment, makes the change referenced in the report of the member from Brattleboro, changing an effective date from 07/01/2026 to 07/01/2027 to give the court sufficient time for a rule making process. And I ask for the body support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, in a straw poll in our committee, the amendment was found favorable 10/2001.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Support. So

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from South Burlington? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear have it, the ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Members, one moment. Members, that completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Barbara Rachelson (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I will make this quick. I am just reminding the body that tomorrow is nonprofit day, and, there are over 70 people coming from around the state. I know that Common Good would love to have members drop in Room 11 between twelve and one to meet with, local nonprofits, and they told me that there were snacks and other candies and goodies.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing oh, member from Burlington.

[Unidentified member (Burlington)]: Tomorrow, the Vermont businesses for social responsibility will be in the building and in competition, you

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: can you can go to

[Unidentified member (Burlington)]: both events, is in the pavilion in Room 267. We'll be hosting the caucus for Vermont's economy will be hosting a listening session with business owners and there will be pizza.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Member from Polknife, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Wednesday, March 25 at 1PM?

[Representative Patricia A. McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand and adjournment until Wednesday, 03/25/2026 at 1PM.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and this body stands in adjournment until tomorrow at ten