Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And do want Good morning. Yes. We're live. Oh, great. Great. Great. Good morning. Brandy Schulman, office of legislative council. And today, I'm doing a side by side comparison of h seven thirty nine act related to bananas of paraquats in the state. So the first thing you'll notice in the senate version, the proposal of amendment removes the findings. And the senate proposal of amendment starts at the the ban itself. So section numbers are a little bit different, but the ban itself is largely the same. Excuse me. It's largely the same and with the changes that are highlighted. So the first change is that the senate added berries in USDA crop group 13 dash zero seven, the berries and small fruit group. So it gets your berries and strawberries. And so I had that pulled up here. And of what kind of berries and strawberries are So you see cranberries. There's the blueberries up there. I'll scroll down to the strawberry strawberry. And so you get those fruits.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: How many total fruits? Are a lot that I've never heard of. I

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: have not counted the number of fruits here, but they are. Okay. So a number of fruits, but the berries, great also. And then the date, the effective date where the you can get a a permit up to 11/01/2030 in the house bill. Your permit is effective up until 12/31/2030 in the Senate bill, just to change that to the end of the year. And so the permit itself, so apologies. This section talks about when you can get a permit to use paraquat. So as a reminder, paraquat is banned when the bill is effective, except for permitted uses, which are orchard crops in the House version. And then the Senate version would be orchard crops and the berries. So now we're talking about the permitted uses. So after the ban takes effect, you can get a permit for these uses. And here's changes to that permit process. So, they're changing the date, the types of fruits. So, the permit is still once you get a permit, a farmer gets a permit, it's valid for not more than three years or until 12/31/2030, whichever comes first. The House Bill, it's 11/01/2030, whichever comes first. The Senate clarified the wanted to add some clarity to specifying the paraquat. So, kind of the name of the paraquat, so the name of the label of the paraquat, just to add that kind of specificity there. And then they added include permit conditions that minimize drift based on drift mitigation measures identified by the EPA, require adherence to label directions to minimize applicator exposure, and exclusively limit applications to tree rows or vine rows for necessary weed control. And then so it adds an additional condition to the permit and some additional restrictions there. And I did look at the drift conditions, the drift measures for the, the EPA, and and they are are very technical. And and so incorporating this by reference, you know, gives the, secretary of agriculture some some ability to add those conditions to the permitting process without having all the technicalities into the statute. If the committee is interested, I can research those technicalities a little bit more. Suffice to say that it does restrict the spray and the spread of the use of paraquat. And sometimes Vermot Law restricts the kind of application of the use of that pesticide more specifically anyway, but this puts those requirements into the permit itself.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We had a couple questions. Why don't we just finish the Yeah. If there's anything more.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so there is not much more. They took up the study the idea that I I don't wanna testify on behalf of someone else, but I think on the idea that farmers might be able to identify an effective alternative themselves. And then the effective dates, the effects take place as I said earlier, the ban on ParaPot takes place when the bill is effective. So 11/01/2026. The house version is a little bit different because it has the study. And so that was going to take effect a little bit earlier to get peep to get the folks involved in the study going on that. That was taken out of the senate side because that's not in the senate side. And that is the bill.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. So the November November 1 dates there there were a couple in our version, and the effective date is still this November 1. Going forward in 2030, the date is just pushed back.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Yes. So it's important to kind of keep those two distinct. So the ban goes into effect 11/01/2026, except for the permitting requirements or permitting option is in effect through 12/31/2030. Let's see. I think, John, you were first.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Yeah, so the universe of what's allowed for permitting are fruit orchards and berry growing. Essentially, fruit orchards and then berries list that we look for. Berries and small fruit list. I noticed at one point vineyards was part of this and it's somewhat referenced in the second section there that you showed us.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You mean Oh, yeah. Yeah. Fine. Yeah. Rows and fine rows. But as far as

[Rep. John O'Brien]: the very specific language goes now, you couldn't use it on a vineyard.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You could use that on grapes. Can? So Yeah. It's under the berries. Okay. Yeah, it's berry and small fruit.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah,

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: berry and small fruit.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Kiwis. John, let me look.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: I'm pretty sure I saw that on your show.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep, kiwi fruit.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It's very comprehensive.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Didn't even know if we had

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: a kiwi in this city. Somewhere in

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the store. So representative Nelson was next.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So I can understand the date change. The the taking out the study, I thought it was really important that we had the AIB looking into this and not leaving it up just to farmers to their own device. But AIB maybe, you know, you

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: know, Heather

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Darby would would get a crack at it and and turn her expertise to it as well. And I think it's real important for the industry to get all the help they can get. The effective dates don't bother me. And as far as you're talking about drip mitigation, and Rick Burtt could talk about this as well, it's using surfactants, droplet size, the amounts we apply. You know, I'm out at 90 feet wide, eight, ten miles an hour, 10 gallons per acre, I'm making a very fine mist and I have to be very you know, I'm low to the ground, but I have to be very careful of wind speed for drift. Whereas if you're applying 20 gallons of water per acre, say, in a defined space, you'll get a bigger droplet size, and they use surfactants in it in it and drip mitigation, and it just goes it goes right to the ground. Different different ballgame. Totally different ballgame. So I just wanted to give some clarification. Because that's something

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we didn't take any testimony on or hear about. I

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: guess I have a question that kind of goes almost exactly with what Richard was talking about. Can we, as a committee, ask the agricultural innovation organization that was going to do the study, Can we just ask them to do that as as the house ag committee? Or does it have to be law in order to do that? Because I feel very strange, honestly, about taking out the study that was supposed to help the farmers find ways to adapt. And I know we have written letters to other entities before. Is that possible or not?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think so. And I believe that we can certainly have a conversation also. I think that Richard was probably right in thinking that farmers are going be working on this anyway. They're going to be looking to the agency. They're to be looking to UBM for suggestions, whether or not we include the study group. I mean, I'm inclined to think we were on the right track when put it in, but I also feel like this isn't something that should hold up the bill.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yeah, I don't think that either. I'm just wondering if we can still ask what we can do to help give more information because we've got a three year or four year lead time.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Perhaps, unless the product disappears off the market fairly.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Bradley, the stipulation about tree rows or vine rows, would that include strawberry patches?

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: True. It's true. Yeah. It's it's true. It should it should include the strawberry patches because I I think that that was specific testimony that the committee took that they did want the exceptions to to be able to to incorporate into strawberry patches.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: So if there has the language exclusively with applications to tree rows or pine rows Roses. That allow. Yeah. I'll be enlisted. It's listed in there, but that's like not because that's language that was crafted by a bunch of.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Are you struggling?

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Now that you mentioned it. So yeah. That is a that is a question I can look into.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The practical Yeah, so strawberries don't grow on vines, and I'm not sure that technically they do or don't, but if strawberries don't grow on vines, what this is saying is that the we need to back up maybe Bradley to see what's above this one, two, and three, the context.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so the authorized uses so the secretary may issue a written permit for the sale, use, or application of peri pot within fruit producing tree orchards or for growing any crop listed in the crop group that we showed you?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Very small group. So I think it's covered there. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Then a written exemption. So the last sentence, written exemption shall include permit conditions.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Berry patch could not beat that.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Well, it's a small fruit. It's But a there's no

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: application to tree roads or pine roads. This part is a permanent condition. The permanent condition is fine.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The way I'm reading this is that it actually, it's actually silent on strawberries. So it has to include permanent conditions, minimizing drift for trees and vines. But it doesn't say anything about

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: other other ways. Exclusively limit applications to tree roads or bodies. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: it just doesn't have to have permit conditions. So this is, I think that this number three is making it harder, right? If you're using paraquat on strawberries, you're now going to have permit conditions that minimize drift. If you're using it on So I'm suggesting, this is my interpretation, and Bradley, you can tell me if I'm wrong here. If you're using it on grapes, you're gonna have, it shall be permit conditions. But there's not a requirement that there be permit conditions if you're growing something that's not vines or not trees, so strawberries. Yeah, Representative Lipsky. Yes, thank you, John. But I wanna make sure Bradley has a chance to digest the question, if he's not sure, then that's fine too.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, yeah, I'm not

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: so I read this as include permit conditions that minimize drift based on drift drift based drift mitigation plan identified by the EPA require adherence to label directions to minimize application disclosure and exclusively limit applications to tree rows or vine rows for necessary weed control. So I mean, I think these permit conditions There's a reading of this that the permit conditions do limit it to tree rows and vine rows regardless of the fruit that you're growing. I mean, there is a reading of that. And so if the committee wants to add clarity to it, I think that that might be an amendment.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: That next page up. Go back one page. Yeah.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Right there.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: For the growing of any crop list in the US Department of Agriculture Crop Guide 13 dash zero seven, very small fruit crop on or before 12/31/2030. So that allows it to be used in blueberries and and and strawberries. I mean, that's how I read it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It it allows Rep yeah. Representative Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Just to visualize the testimony we took and the different string of strawberry crop, which may be as high as this laptop, may be as high as this water jug, But the runners that were coming out and the application was within inches of the target as it went along. It was shielded. It was shielded and it was directed. So the drift issue is pretty much mitigated. Whereas, all been to many blueberry farms and some bushes are chest tight, some are head height. I've grown raspberries, and they they can be waist high or chest high.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: No. Remember, they're they're just they're just burning down now what's at ground level.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. But getting that shielded direct application is superior in strawberry or easier easier to achieve, I believe. So I just want us to understand that there are differences between those small fruits.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Representative Bartholomew? Just going back to the study, the Senate is so good at messing up our credit cards and I think the study is important, also I really think that there's nothing that would preclude the agency from doing this if the farmers are needing this as a tool as far as I know. So just because it isn't in the bill doesn't mean they can't do it. So that gives me some comfort. And I can never understand why the Senate shakes out findings. I mean, is it just because they don't take enough testimony that they've never found this out? I always find that weird. Does anybody know why the Senate takes out every time you put in findings, they take them out?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I feel like this pretty clear that if you scroll up this a little bit, at the bottom of part C, a written exemption order under this subsection shall include. And even exclusively limit applications to tree growths or vine growths. So somebody putting it on strawberries could see a lawsuit. So somebody applying it They would not be putting it, using it under warmer

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: conditions. So if they're using it on runners, that's not weed control,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: arguably. And that also is limiting the scope, they're using it on runners.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So, okay, here's one way to think about this. This is not our language. Senate has proposed this language. It was never our intention to allow it to be used on strawberries or blueberries or anything else. They've added this language for better or worse. And they may or may not have realized what they were doing. We may not be clear on what it's doing. So I think that's probably where we are. Bradley, any other thoughts on this? Mean, are feeling like you would need more time to I look at

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: think representative Burtt is correct that the permit conditions do limit to tree rows and pine rows. You know, I I think there's an argument to be made on the flip side too. And and what does that look like if someone decides to ask for a permit for a strawberry patch and the agency denies it and they appeal the permit and then go to court and and then a court determines whether or not they're using it. The the vine rose or tree roses, applicable to to their operation. And so I I think that that's that's what that looks like. But, I also think it's it is correct that this bill also permits the the uses that the committee this committee passed in the as passed by version. So it does broaden it in some ways, and it doesn't restrict it, from what this committee passed.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Remember, the definition of a weed is any unintended, unwanted thing growing. So, runners and strawberries,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: if you don't want it, those are weeds, technically.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Know, cornfields and soybeans popping up from the year, or soybean field and corns popping up from the year before, because you harvested it, you picked it, and those corn plants are weeds in the soybean patch. So anything that's unintended or unwanted by definition is a weed. So runners and our strawberry by definition are a weed. Ox reflection. But if this, know, I read it up above saying you can use it means, you know, we never took testimony. We kept asking who else uses it? Who else uses it? We never took testimony from, you know, we no one came forward and and which was too bad. And, you know, by because they don't have a log of who uses what, so we didn't realize. So we've learned that there are some commercial conventional fruit growers that find this as a valuable tool to them. The the senate added it in, I think that we want to continue, but now reading that up above and this down below, I do find these two statements conflicting. Robert, I agree with you that it says exclusively limit application to tree rows or vine rows. Well, raspberries are not vines, they're canes. You know, strawberries, you can make an argument or vines. Maybe, I don't know, but it it's so I don't know if we you know, the drift is a good thing. We're required adherence to label directions, that's law anyways. But if we struck struck out exclusively limit applications or tree rows or vine rows for necessary weed control. I mean, it still says that you can't use it as a desiccant. Correct?

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There there isn't a limitation on using it as a desiccant. So it's just you can use it.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Use it for anything else except

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You can only yeah. You can use it for I mean, yeah. Use it for these things. We had For weed control. For Brent.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: I think I mean, this last twenty minutes is truth that its legislative intent is unclear here. And since we're dealing with important language, we could make this a lot clearer. Yeah. It's just a matter of time or I don't want people to have to go to court to fight about And we all have intent, I think, that we could make very clear would change a few words.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Did the agency testify in Saturday on this?

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not 100% sure.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. What we, I think, should do is, is our next witness here? Who's that? Patricia?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah, I don't see this. In the Zoom room? He is coming in person.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, right. Well, think what we probably wanna do is give Bradley some instruction now, it sounds like. What is that instruction? Is it to add a word between tree rows and vine rows? Do you include something that covers strawberries?

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, I mean, it depends on what the the committee does want. But now now that I'm looking at this, it it does, I I think, exclusively limit applicators to tree rows or vine rows for necessary weed control. And so representative Nelson is correct that it might not be able to be used as a desiccant either, And so it's for necessary weed control. And and so those are conditions that would be included on any permits. And so if the community doesn't want that, then it could strike or amend.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: We'll certainly limit application for necessary weed control. Strike out tree rows or vine rows. Does that work? Right?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So what would the effect of that be, Bradley?

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: About tree grows or vine rose. So it expands the scope of the use to other crops that are not growing in tree grows or vine.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So it would still have to be the crops that are listed That's correct. If not expanding it to soybeans. That is correct.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: What if we do exclude it? Only say that because we're getting into the weeds no pun intended in terms of what's a plant that's part of the thing that we're trying to, you know what I'm saying? The runners coming off the strawberry plant could be argued, it's not could be. If it's just not being used as a desiccant, then we know it's being used for purposes, not to burn down the thing that we're harvesting.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, we were pretty clear earlier that we didn't want Richard out there with his patriot at 10 miles an hour, 90 people I'm going. And, you know, I, you know, I can see that I

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: can Or you put a may in there instead of shell. That could get hairy too. So we want to make sure that strawberry berry patches are given the same

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: exemption. I think what we probably want to do is break here, break from this topic when we have a chance. I know I'm move right into the next subject just so we're keeping on schedule, but you may want to consult with, yeah, and find out whose language this was and what their intent was, because if we're just gonna change it and have, no, that's not what we intended, we're gonna re amend it. That's other than not.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: John? Just one quick final thought. You could change it also to something like limit applications to management of the above mentioned crops, because you're not going to use it as a desiccant on strawberries or apple orchards or beets or whatever. And that would include desiccants then too.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Say one more?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, John Fisher.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: I'm

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: not sure why we're so concerned about being able to use it in strawberries. When we passed it under this committee, you couldn't use it in berries at all. And we're not talking about something that just is, you know, bad to use. We're talking about something that kills people. We're talking about banning something. So I'm not worried about if someone can't use it in their strawberries personally. That we're heading towards a ban of this stuff.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Michelle? I actually am just wondering, I mean, know we had Bob Gray come in here and he talked about how he utilized Charles. Oh, Charles, sorry, Charlie Gray. And so I called somebody in my district just because I did the same thing last night when we started taking testimony on paraprocote. And they said, oh, it's only used in this one county. And I was like, oh, so then I called somebody in my county and said, What do you use? Because I heard they only use it on just in Addison County. And they said, We use paraquat, but only on our apples when we're growing apples. And I was like, Oh, okay. So then we started to learn that actually paraquat was more widely used in Vermont. So I called the same guy back and I said, Oh, you use paraquat on your apples. Do you use it on your strawberries too? Because they actually grow more strawberries than apples. And they said, No, we don't use paraquat on our strawberries. So I'm wondering how widely used it is. It seemed like Charlie Gray seemed to think it was really essential for his production, but there are definitely other, because this is a conventional grower that I contacted. There definitely are ways that people can grow strawberries without using parapot and be very successful. I mean, this is a very the person I contacted is like a thirty or forty year farm business. So, yeah, so I guess I'm kind of wondering in the way that John is speaking. Like, is this enough? I mean, we named berries. It's going to be phased out in a few years. I don't think anybody's going to sue one guy using if he if he uses it and gets the permit. I don't know. I'm just concerned that if we send it back to the Senate, it's going to take so long. We may not get it back. And then we're going have to start over.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The door opened a minute ago, somebody looked in.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: We need a camera out there.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: A weed is a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered. What's that? What did you say? A weed is a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: It's true. Good

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: morning. Are you our next witness? Stay right down there. Yeah.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Thank you, Brad. Absolutely. I was thinking she was it. This one? Yeah. So much land support during the pumpkin patch. You know, they're always tall.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: When it's young, it's like, it's

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: all dandelions for everything. Good morning,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Greg. Thank you for joining us. I don't think we've met. We're unlikely to have you back in the room ever on a regular basis anyway. Maybe we just do some quick introductions. Representative Bos-Lun, do you want to start?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Sure. Michelle Bos-Lun. I represent Windham three, which is Rockingham, Westminster and Brookline.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Greg Burtt, I represent David Caledonia. John O'Brien represent Royalton and my hometown Tundra.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: John Bartholomew from Heartland also represent Windsor and West Windsor. David Durfee from Shaftsbury represents Sunderland and Glossenbury too. Richard Nelson, Orleans one, that's Derby. Jed Lipsky, 101, so.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: Jack Brigham, Franklin eight, St. Albert's Town and City.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Again, I'm Gregory Fever. I work with the Public Utility Commission, so.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Where are

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: you from?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: I'm from here. I'm from Mount Fulier.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, okay. Good. So earlier in this session, we had some conversation about ag land. I guess this is in the larger context of land use and agricultural land, good being converted or used for other types of things that's always on our mind, and particularly for solar, since there's been a real push to expand our renewable energy resources and in many cases build solar. And we took some testimony to better understand what statute says, but thought it would be helpful to have you come in and talk a little bit about how, when Commission is evaluating a proposal, it looks at agricultural soils?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: That is all we look at. We look at the Act two fifty criteria, which is ensuring that there's no undue adverse impact on primary agricultural soils. That would be the only nexus between agriculture and siting of electric generation. I mean, than just solar, obviously. Any electric generation. Yes. It would come under Section two forty eight of Title 30. We use basically all of the Act two fifty criteria to cite those things. So it's not just primary ag soil, it's everything else. Streams, wildlife, aesthetics, wetlands, you name it. All those criteria are considered when we're reviewing an application. But the only thing really specific to a farm would be the prime ag soils. And the applicant has to demonstrate that they're not having an undue adverse impact on those ag soils. Typically, if they are digging some up, they'll conserve it on-site. They'll cover it with a tarp. So if and when the project gets decommissioned, they would restore

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So it's physically covered with an actual tarp?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Sometimes, yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And I think projects have a life of 25?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yes. So in the case of solar, it hasn't been around that long. So they're starting to get to that twenty year mark, some of them. But they could easily re rack the panels and upgrade them with newer photovoltaic technology and just keep the project going for another twenty years or so.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: In the meantime, the soil would still be sitting on-site.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: It would be preserved. Yeah, that would be a condition of the CPG.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Go ahead, Richard Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I've driven by a few, these projects. I've seen no bounces of soil covered by a tarp. I got a feeling that soil sold for $17 a yard to to landscapers or garden centers. And and and to be fair, in a solar site and project, you know, they they bore a hole, they put in cement, they put in a pipe, they put in a stand. The simple roads they need, they're simple. They probably just put stay matter, track travel right over the top of the soil. My question is, does if a solar signing is going on our precious prime mag lands, do they have to mitigate that just like a housing development? You know, the three to is it three to one, Jack? Four to one? Three to one. Three to one. So if I was to sell house lots in Derby, I would have to mitigate out the value of that prime back land. It would cost me 3 to one, so roughly $14,000 an acre, which would go to the, I believe, the conservation housing board so they can buy and conserve in perpetuity primetime land. So do the solar people have to do that? And you just said that they can rerack these with no new photo, like, cells or whatever to keep them going in perpetuity. That sounds like they should have to mitigate out the cost of that land just like a developer for how it's.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: So so you're saying like

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: that that there is no automatic mitigation in February. I have seen some projects. I did one problem, a hearing officer knew some of these cases. There was one project, it was down in Middlebury, I believe. And there was bobolink habitat in the hayfield. Bobolink. Bobolink or we would go bobolink. We're gonna go bobolink. Alright.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: That's an invasive species for bobolink.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: That's it. We wanna protect it for some reason. But, anyway so they they they entered into an agreement with ANR to conserve other baba lynch habitat in the state. So something similar to that, but that doesn't happen in every case. That was a that was a stipulated agreement that that became part of the case, but it wasn't an upfront requirement. Yeah.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: I guess I'm wondering if you if you know of all the solar arrays that are on, you know, that are on flat land that could be agricultural land. Do you know we've had testimony from people who have like sheep that go around and and utilize the land or other. I've gone to conferences where I've seen, you know, solar arrays, and then people are figuring they're trying to get how they learn how they can plant and actually utilize the land. That's not that, you know, so that the land isn't exclusively the solar array, but it's also being utilized. Do you know how how much of of where the large arrays are there's some kind of agricultural process being involved?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: No, no, I don't. That might be something that the owner of

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: the land or the owner of the

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: project is allowing and doing We do have landscape mitigation requirements, typically, which require them to do planting, but that's mostly screening, aesthetic screening.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yeah. I mean, because like where I live in Putney is the only big array and it's all hayfield around where the solar panels are. And they actually do utilize it for hay. But I

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: don't

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: know of other examples in my area.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: I know they usually sometimes they'll use sheep or goats for mowing in between Yeah. The Sometimes they

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: just mow. Yeah. Yeah. Not goats, goats jump. Go ahead,

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: On that point,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: it was we heard significant testimony. They actually get paid by a solar company to bring their sheep legs in and because it cuts down. It's gonna cause them to mow and it's gonna cause them to graze, but the grazing has other public good than just mowing or brushing on the soap. That seemed to be an expanding collaboration from the ag community.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: I've seen it in some projects, but I haven't seen it in others, so

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: That was really interesting testimony

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: we heard.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm just trying to back up for a second to the initial point you were making about primag soil. So if a project is, and a solar project specifically, if it's being built on soil that is determined to be primag soil. And I guess I think we heard earlier in the session that there's a map that establishes that. It's not somebody going in and sampling. It's you know. So if that's the case, is it a choice for the developer either to pay something not three to one, but one to one? Or is it you just have to save the soil and then cover it with a tarp?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: They to ensure that there's no undue adverse impact to the primary access. Typically, they'll enter into negotiations with the Department of Agriculture because they're a party to all these cases. And they will sometimes suggest conditions to ensure that there's no undue adverse impacts. Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes it's fine. There's so little soil being disturbed, as you can imagine, in some cases, you were saying, they're just boring holes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: it's right off the road, there's no real driveway. They're not really disturbing that much actual soil. But in many cases, agriculture will suggest specific conditions. These land swappings, no, I haven't seen that in relation to prime ag soil. Definitely the bottling example, but others, no.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, yeah, thank you. Representative Burtt. Windsor?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: The example you brought up of the one case where there were those bobbly birds found on the land. Could you speak to that a little bit more? I'm curious about that and how was that something that was stipulated in Section two forty eight and that's the reason why it triggered a process with the ANR? The agreement made?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Well, under the wildlife habitat criteria, that's something ANR is gonna weigh in on. Just like the Department of Ag would weigh in on primary ag soils. So when they looked at the site, they went out to do a site visit and they say, Well, this is bobble lynch habitat. So we think you need to conserve some other land. And in that case, there was disagreement between the parties. But eventually they worked it out. And in the end, they stipulated to conserving, buying and conserving other lands for bottling habitat.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: So is that part of the PUC process too? Would you be looking at wildlife habitat? All

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: the Act two fifty criteria, wildlife habitat, streams, wetlands, all of those things, endangered species, for example, plant species, animal species. Are there

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: cases where you didn't give a permit for an array based on something to do with wildlife?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yes. Yeah, sure. Yeah. There are some cases where I had to tell this is a telecom case, very similar criteria. The developers wanted to put the telecom site directly in a wildlife corridor, a migration corridor. This is down near Stowe and Waterbury.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: And we ended up rejecting that because the developer refused to move it. And so A and R refused to sign off on it, and we ended up rejecting.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: You realize that once that tower goes up, next year's fund doesn't know that hasn't been here for a million years.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: What what do you mean?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I'm sorry. You put that tower in this year, and the fawn born next year doesn't know that that tower hasn't been there a million years. You know, it's just another tree in the forest that I Mhmm. Some some of these things I find incredibly silly. You know, we will worry about the bobolink, which there's thousands of acres of bobolinks habitat in the state of Vermont just depends on how you crop your your land, but we don't worry about our dwindling supply of prime ag soils. And if there's only so much of it and and you just don't make it. And but we'll worry about the other things. Not

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: sure have it's a follow-up question. Yeah, ahead, I'm sorry, I'm I you.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: I'm still hearing this.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I'm along those same lines, have been cases where because of wildlife habitat corridor, something to do with wildlife, where the PUC had a decision where they had to do something with regard to that.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Are

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: there any cases of that with farmland?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Not that I know of.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Is there a reason for that?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Typically, in my case, my experience, and I've been there a long time, they come to an agreement with the Department of Agriculture on how to fix it. Either avoid that primatic soil or conserve it in some way that's meaningful. There could be a buyout of other land, something like that as well. But in my experience, I don't recall anything being rejected just for that You would only not issue a

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: permit if the agency had made a clear case slip.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: If they objected and said this will happen, undue adverse impact on primax oils, it'd be very difficult for us to approve that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So undue adverse impact, and that's the agency of agriculture that's making that valuable. They

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: will definitely weigh in if they think it's going to have adverse alone. If it's just going to be adverse, they're going to definitely take a look at it and then say you need to do x, y, and z in order to make sure that it's not an undue adverse impact.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sorry, I'm breathing. So

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: when we're doing hearings involving prime ag, it's all the Department of Ag determining that soil mitigation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And and and you're speaking from your experience as an act two fifty? Yes.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: I believe what you're talking about, the nine criteria, that's actually 50

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: Going going through the project. Now there's been two. One was built over my border five years ago in Saint Albans and one on top of the hill, and they're not the best of ground. So that wasn't a We're also in

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: the Addison Hill.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: Yeah. That's that's that's in pretty good ground. And I don't know what went on there. But

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: That's not

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: in your conviction?

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: Yes. It would have been, but I think if it was done as minor see, when when COVID came in, all the hearing stopped, and everything went in as a minor. So if if they keep let's see. What a coordinator we've met all the stuff that and then probably was mitigation there. I'm quite sure.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. I'm taking it offline.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Did you have a hand up? I did, yeah, Representative O'Brien.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: So just to be clear, what we're talking about is a certificate of public good, right?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Exactly, CPG, yeah.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: But you're using a lot of the same permitting triggers as Act two fifty.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yeah, it's imported directly from Title X to Title XXX. There are some differences, but basically the same criteria.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: But the environmental board doesn't get involved. It's really the PUCs that's listening to That's the same right.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Because for electric generation, it's just us. We can get appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court, but it doesn't go to the environmental court or

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: the environmental board. Nothing like that. Right.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: But it's interesting you're borrowing there, the triggers do that. What I was wondering about is, it seems like according to the PUC and maybe because of what you're doing with solar specifically is that it's not destruction of prime egg soils, it's just sort of putting it on pause, for example. So there's not mitigation required because in the eyes of the PUC or perhaps the developer, at some point that could always go back to I mean, the prime egg soils are still there, it could go back to farming. That's the thinking involved in this. So I don't want run on land use or conserved easements, considering that have to stay in agriculture. You put arrays on that because it's still considered to be prime ag soil. Say you have a farm that's conserved with the land trust as an easement for one hundred years that has to be agricultural. Can you still put an array on there?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Don't know how that would work if you try to pull

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: it out of the trust. Don't know. Or if it stay in

[Rep. John O'Brien]: the trust if the prime ex oil is still there essentially?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I don't know. I'm not sure.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: That wouldn't be our call. That would be the land trust call. It won't be disqualified. I don't know what the restrictions would be on that.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: Representative Reagan? My Firearms can serve in that state to no solar.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: So it's in the easement. Interesting.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Not sure who is next, but go ahead, John.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: You mentioned covering the soil with a tarp. If there's a soil to preserve, I don't know of any tarp that's going to last twenty years. Anyone go out and actually see Are there sites that have actually done this? And does anyone actually go see if in

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: fifteen years if that soil is still

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: there and covered by a tarp?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Well, you're required to conserve it. And if you violate the terms of your CPG, you can get in trouble. We can fine you. We can revoke your CPG. So you want to follow the conditions of your CPG. Now obviously the tarp thing is for very minor minimal impact on climatic soil. And again, it's something that the Department of Agriculture would accept or reject as a need to mitigate any impacts on the soil.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Okay. But what about checking to see whether that Yeah, you're getting in trouble if you speed down the highway, but only if somebody checks.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: It's true. We we don't we don't go out and check. We don't have that kind of manpower to go out and do that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. Now, George Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I have a level lived experience with piling topsoil. Never used a tarp, but every pile that are still existing, they so are weed or sod, and you could have a windstorm. You could have anything that that's a permanent mound of weeds until you get ready to use it, sell it. Or

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So it's gonna stay intact because of this?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: They stay intact. Yeah. Putting a tarp, whether it has PFAS in it or not, is not necessary. It's not necessary.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Within hours, that's gonna get green, and, yes, there'll be yellow thing called golden rods. They'll emerge up there. It it's a vast complex planet. It's the Maybe. Represent a very few years.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: So in your construction, if you're disturbing the earth anyway within twenty four hours, it has to be mulched or seeded and mulched. A pile of topsoil or any any Actually, 50? Or if any construction you're doing. Although if it's a cornfield, that doesn't apply. It do you know what? The silt fence, that's all out the window if it's already a cornfield. But if you're tearing up sod to do something like a solar array, any development, there's a whole Vermont law book on seeding mulching within in the towns, you have to do the same thing if we're doing a ditch. Yeah. Get it exceeding the mulch that day.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Doctor. Burke?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: So I think there's a little bit of a concern that agricultural soils are one thing. I believe the word's primary agricultural soils is used. It's not just primary.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Primary ag, that's the criteria.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I have a few questions if

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: you don't mind if you Do go

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: back to back. So what is the definition of primary versus prime?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: I don't know. I don't know what that is.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I know it's not part of advocacy.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: There's a map and it'll map primary and then less secondary soils. I know there's gradations gradations of it, but I'm not an expert in soil.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: No, that's fine. Is there any, so I see when I hear of ANR weighing in on a situation where there's a wildlife habitat corridor, it means that there's a corridor which means that the wildlife passes through it. It's not wildlife habitat,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: it's a border.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: That's the word.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: I mean it's a little of both.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Habitat, border, you might be getting to hear the same thing. To me it signals the activity of the wildlife being hindered. And the ANR will do a signal on that and the PUC responds to that, sounds like. Sure. Is there any concern within the PUC that maybe agricultural activity should also be included, not just agricultural soils, looking at whether or not to allow a certificate of publicity.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: It's interesting. The

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: agency of Agrippa will weigh in on that.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Well, I mean, the agency of Agrippa, they could weigh in on something like that. It's not definitively a criteria. So they would have to make an argument that, hey, this is pretty closely related to conservation of prime axolotl. They could certainly make that argument in a case. Just like a neighbor could make any argument they like. I mean, we have hearings on this. And then everyone brings all of their arguments. And then everyone responds to everyone's arguments. And then eventually we make a decision. But nothing would prevent the agency of agriculture for doing.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Maybe you can speak to this, but when I hear the word agricultural soil, I think it's soil, it's farmed.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Sometimes. Sometimes it's soil that was farmed many years ago. It's just a vacant hayfield.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Right. Or the potential to be farmed.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: It could be farmed in the future, yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: think some of the testimony we took was surprising, the amount of the state that was classified as primary. That's quite a bit. Quite a bit

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: out there, just like quarries.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: There's a lot

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: of quarries in the state. You'd be surprised. A lot of quarries.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien. I just wondered if there's some of

[Rep. John O'Brien]: the same criteria for forests. If it was a 100 acres, could I clear cut a forest to put in a solar installation in that? I remember the former commissioner of FPR said even when you clear cut a forest, solar forest, for example. So that in that way, it hasn't changed. And potentially, I think I bet even up to twenty years, it would probably come back as a forest pretty quickly if you decommission the solar. But I didn't know what the PUC, what guidelines you use on that.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Again, you're going to look at wildlife habitat. You're going to look at erosion, wetlands, endangered species. So the less you clear, the better as an applicant, obviously, because you're going run into problems. If you're clearing that mud, it's likely you're going to run into problems with wildlife habitat to your wintering yards. And then ANR is going to come in and say, wait a minute, you got to set different boundaries, can't clear your fear, you can clear your fear.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: It's interesting that even it almost incentivizes solar arrays being in Cleared areas. It absolutely does. Yes,

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: that's the prime spot you want to be. The less clearing, the better. I mean, obviously it's less money too, because you're just driving post into the ground. Not a whole lot you need to do. So yeah, you want to locate in an abandoned hayfield, if possible.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Would be Chastuary qualifies that. I mean, was farmed, right, at some point? Was farmed, was hayed,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: yep. Actually, and you might not be able to talk about this, Greg, but there's a you might not be able to talk about it because there was a comment. There are several comments filed within the past several days, it's in Shaskervary. Nothing to do with a project that is proposed and is distributed CPG that hasn't been built yet. An existing project where over the winter, in bad weather, some of the panels were torn off by wind from their moorings and broke. And a neighbor saw it, or maybe it wasn't a neighbor, maybe it was somebody else saw it, but eventually got somebody filed a comment saying they were concerned about leaching or some damage to soil because broken panels were now on the ground. And the agency actually filed a response yesterday. Ag.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And ANR also filed a separate response.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: To who?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: In EPUC. Oh, to us. Oh, okay. Alright.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yeah. I'm not aware of that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Good. Well, that's why I was saying maybe you can't comment on it. But and if you're not aware, then it's probably okay. I think public service also filed a comment, so you can see all of them. So this is a different situation, because the soil wasn't disturbed in the construction of the project, but the concern that's being raised is the soil may have been impacted, may have been impacted, by now no longer intact equipment that is now in the ground. So I'm wondering from a technical standpoint, is that a violation of the certificate to have non functioning broken material?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Technically, yes. Everything's supposed to be constructed as to the diagram you present when you apply. So if it's different, it's not it's out of compliance. So what we would do in a case like that, generally, is if someone sees something like that and they file a comment with the PUC, we will send that comment out for comment to all the other agencies, as well as the petitioner, to see what the remedy is or should be. And then based on that, we'll go forward, whether it's an investigation, whether it's a fine, what have you. That's the typical process though. Folks would file, then we'll ask for comments from everybody else to see what the recommendations are for going forward or something like that. But if it was something, a windstorm, something they couldn't

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: prevent, you'd have

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: to take that into account as well.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Is wind ever considered in citing approval? So a solar panel on the top of Mount Washington, for example, might not be a great idea because of the wind. Is that something that you have to consider?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: You have to consider public safety. Yeah, that is criteria. So if something's gonna blow over, so in a case of wind turbines or telecom tower, people have that the tower might blow over in high winds. So it's something we take into account

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: and we're

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: looking at It's too windy.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: What's that? If it's too windy, so it's counterintuitive. If it's too windy, it would be dangerous.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yes, yes, for a wind turbine. Yeah. But they put in safety features to mitigate that. So these are all things we look at.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Did you show me a photo that they thought

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: they had collapsed in snow too? Like very heavy snow? Yeah, turns out it was probably wind. Oh, okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah, there's a notion of the act of God, you know, when things happen, and during a phase of climate change, we were experiencing more severe, whether it's rain, higher volumes over shorter period, and the wind events in in the adjacent Sheetsville Hill or extreme of Platton or like Michael Burtt's in in the last decade. But I'd also it's not off topic, but it has to do with the citing for public good. That was a telecommunications tower. I sat on the land trust board and was the one on the only vote that supported that tower for public safety, that would have brought cell service to Nebraska Valley, Barnes Hill, Valley Of The Shadow Of Death, where I go out to work and logging. And if you got in, you were dead because you didn't get reception until you got out to once a little intersection in Moscow. So that was you capitulated, but that was because of high density of activist conservationists that had a million reasons why that tower was devastating, but it really served the public good. I you don't It's still You know what? A dead zone of When

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: was where is this?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Chiefs Hill on the snow it was in Waterbury on the snow.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Oh, the one on the border. Yeah, that was because of the wildlife corridor.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Well, it was because of the outcry from mom.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: No, it really wasn't. I was a hearing officer in that case. It really centered on the wildlife corridor. If they had moved it in 10 yards, it would have been fine. They would have moved it out of the corridor, but they refused to do so. I really thought that project couldn't go forward.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: You still can't, every time I go anywhere near there, get it dropped.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yeah, that's it. That was

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Shadow a of death. Gonna call them now. We'll go.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: See if we've got one

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: more question that's more on topic here. Just

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: wondering, the PUC involve itself in suggesting sites or is it only responding to proposals for sites? Where I'm going with that is, one of my pet peeves is why put these things in Primax oil until we've covered every Walmart parking lot and every warehouse. How do we get the panels in more logical places? PUC involved with it or do you just respond to it? We want to

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: be here.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yeah, we respond to applications to see if they comply with the criteria, obviously. But you folks obviously put in different criteria.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Bartholomew bill like the Burtt and

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: I mean, that's all up to you guys. You could say, look, we want sighting here. We don't want it there.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Mentioned forays. Is there something in the statute that says quarries should get priority abandoned forays? You had mentioned quarries.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Yes, there are areas for certain types of installations where And obviously, that has to do with the net metering adders and subtractors. So I don't wanna get into that, but we try to push things towards gravel quarry, for example, for net metering at higher rates. But that doesn't pertain to every solar installation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Also wanted to comment on something, I wanted to correct something about bobbling, because it was said earlier. It's just on the record, and that is that

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: they're not invasive. They migrated from the West naturally as we did more agricultural soil, and an invasive species is pretty much defined as an introduction that's likely to cause harm to the environment, economy, human, animal, or plant health. So I would argue that the bubbling is not invasive, but it belongs here. Not a weed.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: It's not a weed.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Non Okay, native, Richard. They've been here a couple hundred years. How long have they exploded? In Vermont, I think even a human for a couple hundred years might be considered a Vermont.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm gonna call the point of story here. And ask if ask if you can find your questions and comments to

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: an ag related Yeah. I I to me, on the solar sightings, and I think of the one in Sheldon across from the Addison, and that that field is just as flat as the floor in this room. Wow. Wow.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: A little bit of this.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: That's my that's flat. You and You try to plan it all on that. You know, I always say, you know, if I can run the big bendy tractor on it, it ought to be firm. And, you know, a lot of firms have these south facing slopes, hills, stuff, especially you get up in the kingdom. That or a great place for solar because you've got that exposure for that southern winter

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: sun and

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: you can't you know, people don't pasture cattle like they used to anymore, but you could cheat the hell out of them after you put the solar out. And, you know, I realized the benefit, the solar side and some I don't know what they're paying right now, but some of them are $2,000 an acre per year. They're paying to a landowner. Yeah. Superdent. I was You can't you can't there's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: no

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: well, we allow too much marijuana to be grown in this state now for even not to make that much money per acre. I mean, that's just, it's a crazy amount of money per acre that can be generated out to me solar site. So I understand. And, you know, on on $18 milk in today's world of everything's more expensive, like, you know, having corn. In today's market, you're lucky if corn will make you $200 an acre.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Clear.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I don't even know if you can

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: right now. I don't even

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: know if you break even. And so I understand the lucrative of it. But does it pay? Is it really does it does it pay back enough to cover their carbon footprint? Does it pay back enough to justify the added cost of the electricity having a solar? I like what the Saint Pierre's did at at Pleasant Valley Farm where they're they're methane digester and capture and all that. You worked on that project, I'm sure, and your agency did.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Our agency.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And, you know, in in the amount of hassles they went through to do that. Mhmm. The company did it and does them in a lot of other states. They said they'll never come to Vermont again. That's a shame. Right? That's a shame. And I don't know I don't believe it was because of your agency that they won't come back to Vermont again.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: might have been. But there are criteria, and we we we enforce those criteria. You folks make

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the criteria.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Okay. I I

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: thank you for that. Maybe that's something we should look at to consider more cogeneration from the materials that we have at hand like methane.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yep. I just have a follow-up on that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, yeah, I think representative Breiden.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: I'm just scratching.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, go ahead representative Breiden.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: The

[Rep. John O'Brien]: follow-up to this, which we've never had him would be who at the agency of ag say when they're a party to these discussions, like what criteria and what thoughts they have about?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, Patricia, can you make a note of that? Yeah, yeah.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: They have a lot more. I think A and R has a lot more, goes way in, so it's interesting. Yeah, the Abbey.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Virgin and Burtt. Just curious about, you had experience with roof mounted products on like, say a box store like Walmart? Is your experience with that in terms of, is that something that we could try to shift policy toward easily or what the potential barriers for that? Is the roof system are they oftentimes not able to hold the weight? Are the reasons why we're not heading that direction? What can we do to head that direction?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: We are. There's tremendous incentives to build on a roof. We just don't have a lot of roofs. There's a lot of residential, but as far as large, I don't know, factories, corporations with large and large roofs, it's Vermont.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: No one is nine ninety nine Southern exposure.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: And are you you say that there aren't many roofs are so, you know, are most

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: of our box stores competent?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Certainly a bunch of them that I've had experience with, but there tremendous incentives to do net metering. That's what a box store would do. Typically a roof mount is net metering. And you get much higher rate for your power. The solar plants out in fields, they're typically, the large ones at least, they're typically negotiating a contract with the utility. So it's a different rate. It's lower than net metering. So there is an incentive to do that. It's up to folks to take advantage of that and pencil out the economics of it and see if it works for them.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: It looks like more often than not between the cost of construction. It still looks like the farmland is chosen as a prime spot for

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: If you're going to build a large project, if you're going to net meter, a rooftop is great. But again, net metering only goes to 500 kilowatts. So if you're building something in the megawatt level, five or 10 megawatts, you've got to be on field somewhere. You need the space, you need the acres and lands to do that.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Are triggers for incentives from whether it's federal government? I don't know about the state level, maybe you can't speak to this, maybe you can't. Is there a reason why they're trying to get five megawatt because of an incentive, financial incentive from say the federal government or others? I see, for me, 500 megawatt might be smaller, but if you have 20 of those 500 kilowatts. 500 kilowatts might be smaller, but if you have a lot of those and you have this efficient system for making those happen and you get paid higher levels for net metering, it seems like that would be the common stories. There goes another one rooftop, the common story we're getting is there goes another one on the farm field.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: We see both. We see a lot in that metering and we also see ones in the farm field. The reason they contract with utilities because the utility is incentivized to buy renewable power. Again, you folks have incentivized that behavior. So the utility needs to fill a quota for their renewable energy. So as a developer, I want to fill that quota. I can build a five megawatt in field and know I'm going get a contract.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Stability, financial, it's a lower risk to know we're going to get that contract. Essentially, the legislature has created that system. Exactly. So

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: there's various incentive programs. There's net metering, the standard offer, which is kind of ended. And then you have the regular folks contracting with the utilities.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right. Yeah, let's take one more question.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: With the change in the federal government policy, are you seeing less permits right now, less applications?

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: I think that'll trickle through in about a year. I'll know better in a year what it's really impacting.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Okay. All right. And I'll touch upon a little project, but I won't go there.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: It was an open case.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And I

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: am the hearing officer in that case too. So I really can't talk about any issues. I mean, you want to know procedurally where it's at, I could tell you that.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: That's also the best land in Moll, arguably. Pretty flat. Pretty flat

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: out there.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Good soils.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: Well, the snow covered when I was out there, so I couldn't tell.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Great in the village. Great

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: sighting. Great talking,

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: guys.

[Gregory Fever, Vermont Public Utility Commission]: If you ever have any more questions, I suggest you hear from the Agency of Agriculture and more to fill you in more on these details.