Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Copy.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good morning, everyone. This is the Brevard House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is, thank god, Friday, 03/27/2026 at nine in the morning. We'll use our half hour for the floor to hear from our legislative interns. Abbott, Bailey, who would like to go first? I'll go ahead. Okay. Sounds good. Good morning.

[Cabot Sales (Intern)]: Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Abbott Sales, UBM Turn. Today, I'll be talking to you a little bit about H837, an act relating to rounding cash transactions. So what this act do is it would round cash transactions to the nearest amount divisible by five. So $01 $0.2 round down, those would round up. This bill, if a business rounds a transaction and there is a refund so these are some protections a refund amount would be the amount originally paid, so the rounded amount. And the tax implication, which I

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: know we wanted to talk about,

[Cabot Sales (Intern)]: is that tax should be calculated on the pre rounding amount. So businesses would have to track the pre rounding and the post rounding for tax purposes and for their own accounting. And I also looked a little bit into the economic impact of this and did some estimates. So for Vermont specifically, if a rounding went all the way one way or all the way the other way, the total impact would be about $90,000 per month or $1,100,000 per year. Again, assuming it goes either one way or the

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: other way.

[Cabot Sales (Intern)]: And that average impact for Vermonter would be $0.14 a month or $1.68 per year, which wouldn't translate to every Vermonter because people who are lower income tend to use cash more. So there would be a little bit of discrepancy there. And I also looked into what Canada's results were for rounding in a couple of studies there when they got rid of the penny. The big finding there is that there appeared to be what they call a rounding tax. So stores would price things that end in nine. So if you bought one item or two items, the transaction would typically round up, and then the stores would get a little bit extra money for that. And that would be the rounding tax. This one study found that it generated an additional $157 in Canadian dollars on average for grocery stores in Canada. After three or four items, the rounding tax kind of goes away. Also in Canada, they found that individuals with with an income under 45,000 Canadian dollars were more likely to use cash, thus more likely to be impacted by the rounding tax. And there was another study based on US consumer data into the potential impact of rounding law in The US. And their estimate for the total US would be just over $6,000,000 impact of rounding, which would be about $02 annually per American. That study used consumer data in jurisdictions that don't have any rounding laws. So any potential rounding tax wouldn't actually be factored into that. So that would be the big question is what potential impact would this have on people? And would there be any kind of rounding tax? Is that something you should think about? And then the other big takeaway, I think, is how will this affect businesses who might have to change their point of sale system to calculate the pre rounding amount and the post rounding amount for their own accounting and for tax purposes? That's what I have. And if you want

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: to look, there are some sources on the document as well.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Great. I'm

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: sure, I don't know because off the top of my head, I'm wondering, I'm sure you saw it in your research, when did Canada ban

[Cabot Sales (Intern)]: I believe it was 2013.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: So they've had more than ten years.

[Cabot Sales (Intern)]: They've had ten years, Chris. Okay. Yes. That's really helpful. Yes, this study was from 2018,

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: so at least five years after that. And the point of service has changed a lot since then too, right? Like the systems that businesses use. Okay, yes. Great. Michael?

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: So Canada did this on a national level, on State state. Province by province. Province by province.

[Cabot Sales (Intern)]: Yes. Correct. And the change in the site will consist across all provinces.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That do the Canadian reports indicate what the what the reaction was from businesses and and purchasers? Or and and was that was, you know, something initial? And then anything on,

[Cabot Sales (Intern)]: any feedback? The study that I mostly looked at was not qualitative. So there wasn't much data on the actual reaction, but that would be interesting. Yes, okay.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Other questions? I mean, did

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: you check to see if there's any other states that have done this? I don't believe there's any states in The US.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think there's states that are looking at it. Yeah. And we're waiting for some some guidance from the federal government as well. I think we may hear from Chris Dealey from the bankers on the federal side of what they're looking at. But I think we're being asked by retailers in Vermont to have something that they can rely on. They can show their customers that this is what the state has said. That's where the impetus is. Yeah. So we were going to go through the bill this afternoon, but

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Yeah, the floor is too long.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think at least 02:30 is the estimate, and I didn't think you'd all wanna come back here after the floor was asked to talk about pennies. We can do it next week. You're getting something to wake me up. I'm sure we can stretching, burrs, drag us back. Yeah.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: 2¢ in.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: You you wanna put your 2¢ in?

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: I had to do it. I mean, it was right there.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I would be surprised if you did.

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Well, I'm disappointed that I did because it was kind of Yeah, it really was. It wasn't hard.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: They're all punchy.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Yeah. It's been a

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: long trip. Yeah. So thank you, Cabot. I mean, came at a good time, your report. I think it's helpful. And it gives us kind of a an eye the committee an idea of what we're going to look at. Appreciate your work. I don't know if Kirk is out today, but he'll be in touch with you, I think. I don't know if he had any idea about anything that we might be able to look at for next week. Okay. Sounds good. Good. Thank you. Bailey, good morning.

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: Good morning. My name is Bailey Davis. I'm the committee intern from North University. My assignment this week was to look in the medical devices, right to repair. I'm gonna make a lot of comparisons in this to things like smartphones, for example, because we see some practices that are carried over from medical devices to, you know, our everyday consumer electronics. So first and foremost, generally speaking, right to repair for medical devices requires that equipment manufacturers or the OEMs provide entities such as hospitals or general technicians with the same resources they provide to their own technicians. So that includes service documentation, so instructions, you know, parts, manuals, schematics, wiring diagrams, diagnostic tools. So, you know, tools to make sure that, you know, they're identifying the issues that arise with, you know, whatever device they're working on. And then replacement parts, and those include especially, you know, on your iPhone, you know, getting third party parts is one thing. But with medical devices, it obviously would be hoot for you, you know, to get OEM parts, genuine parts, especially when the the risk in the you know, the you you wanna you want quality when it comes to the stuff like this. And those are to be offered at a fair and reasonable price, so not a huge markup. And then this is an important thing as well, and I'm gonna compare this to a lot of repairs you see in iPhones. Security bypass, that's kind of what I labeled it here. A big thing that some of these manufacturers do is if you use parts that aren't necessarily OEM, the software will lock you from using specific features. So for example, on the iPhone, what Apple does is that they detect a third party display. You aren't allowed to use, like, certain features like auto dimming, high dynamic range, stuff like that. And that's something that that's a practice that was carried over to some of these medical device manufacturers. And so part of a generalized right to repair regime would be the idea that when you repair using these parts, you aren't gonna get software locked out of certain features or, you know, just completely barred from from using those parts. So it allows, your general technician to, take those parts and and perform the necessary repairs without, getting locked up. So then I'm gonna go over bills and laws that were that have been implemented. Obviously, the first one there, the the subject matter of of this right now is h one sixty here in Vermont. And, of course, that's the the bill basically states that hospitals must be given the parts, tools, information they need to fix these medical devices and, you know, when it's fair and reasonable, including software and codes, like I said before, related to that that that's software lock that that sometimes occurs. But and I mentioned this federal bill here because even though I think this was in 2020. Even though this federal bill never actually passed, it wasn't it was it was killed. This is actually the the bill that a lot of these state bills are are generally modeled after. So for example, the Colorado right here, house bill 22, It's one of the first, industry wide bills, and this specifically relates to wheelchairs. So motorized wheelchairs, obviously, that'd be important because if someone's relying on that wheelchair and they don't have they can't get the parts to to fix that, if they're waiting for a very, very specific person with specific parts to fix that, then, you know, ultimately, their mobility is affected. You can see here California has done something very similar. So power wheelchairs must include an owner's manual with a detailed list of parts and instructions that goes back up to that that that standard set for right right to repair regime, which is service documentation. And then Maryland, again, very similar. Right to repair for power wheelchairs. It's it's a very general scheme similar to both California and and Colorado based on those criteria I laid out at the top of this document. And then I also mentioned, although these aren't, you know, related to medical devices, think it's important to point out just generalized right to repair because, again, you can, generally speaking, model, some of these, you know, more specific medical, related, right to repair bills, based on some of these more general right to repair bills, which typically target consumer electronics. So, in Colorado House Bill 24, this bill, would, deal with, like like I said, consumer electronics, parts repairing. So, like I said before, for a lot of third party parts, if you don't use specifically the OEM part, it'll lock you out of certain features. And so it's like I said before, this doesn't address medical devices, but it is, something that we could look at for guidance for for, you know, such a bill. Minnesota, this is, generally speaking, when it comes to broad right to repair, it's the gold standard because it hits all three of those criteria, at the top of the document. But, again, like I said, this one doesn't include any type of, like, you know, medical devices, specifically regulated by the FDA. But there's some talk that in the 2026 session in the Minnesota General Assembly, they're they're set to, you know, modify some of those exclusions for for nonlife critical devices. And speaking of, like, you know, life critical devices, Maine currently is is, you know, drafting a bill that require manufacturers to repair electronic devices and then, you know, the electronic manufacturers to supply parts and information, you know, and even some devices that are, like, life dependent. So, you know, with the more emphasis on, you know, stuff that people really, really need, you aren't allowed to then, you know, restrict the access to those parts and and, you know, repairs, documentation, information on how to repair those devices. With that being said, I guess I'll open it open it up to any questions.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you, Bailey. Any question? Seems like there's a recurring theme with everything, and and it it's all computerized pieces that are, I think, the biggest challenge for any right to repair. Certainly.

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: I mean, I think you can see that I mean, I I I try to compare it a lot with consumer electronics because it's something that people, I think, would understand more. I think a lot of times, when you talk about medical devices because it's such a wide spectrum of of things you could possibly be talking about. It's kind of hard for people to understand, but, the same thing that, you know, happens with, you know, big companies like Apple is happening with these, you know, health care manufacturers. And it's it's it's typically, especially with, like like you said, more computerized devices. A lot of times, it happens in that software lock. So if, you know, it detects a part that's not OEM third party, It'll just lock you out of certain certain features.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. Really interesting. The consumer purchases a a device and it's theirs, but it's not.

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: Yeah. You know? And I know I mean, again, I'm gonna compare it to Apple once again, but they I know particularly, like, anti repair design. Right? I mean, you could look into that. It's something I can look into in the future as well. But they, you know, build stuff specifically so it can't be repaired. It has to be replaced. And I think that's, like, an important piece of it as well.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yep. Turning turning the tech world into a throwaway ecom. Absolutely. That riles up my anticompetitive juices too. Yeah. It's turned us into a throwaway society, for sure. Monique, go ahead.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: So, Bailey, it looks like Colorado was the first one to put this in place. Is that right?

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: Yes. Based on the generally speaking, a lot of these bills are based around, like, you know, in a generalized way, that failed federal bill Yeah. Because that didn't get enacted on the federal level. But, yes, Colorado enacted that in 2022. They were the first to, specifically target, medical devices. So

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: And do you know if they've done any updates since then, or if there

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: I can certainly

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: work being done to like, is it working there? Is it you know?

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: I can certainly look into that and see if there's any data, and follow ups on that, but I can get back to you on it.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: So, yeah, Colorado says enacted in '22. I don't know when it took effect.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Is that there's another one that the medical one just took effect.

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: Think, yeah, HP 22 is specifically the medical version of that, and then house bill 24 is the more generalized right to repair that targets consumer electronics.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. Yep. So But that's so does that did they exempt medical devices in in that general one or does that also include them?

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: So one second. I'll be pulling the text up from there.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Yeah. Wheelchairs, I I talked to the that was we've been talking about that for a couple of years, and so I'm just so curious.

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: Yeah. So, yeah, so, h b twenty two was specifically targeting, repair technicians of mobilized wheelchair motorized wheelchair manufacturers. Meanwhile, h b let's see. Where is it here? H b twenty four is is more focused on consumer electronics. So it focuses on, some of that, like, soft lock stuff I was talking about, the software locks

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: Where if you're, you know, using third party parts, you're, you know, you're locked out. But medical devices were it's medical devices weren't specifically targeted in that bill, like, you know, to basically put it bluntly.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. But they didn't they didn't exempt them either. Right?

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: I don't believe so. No. But I can I can confirm that for you?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. Because then it it's kind of a generalized that that for anything. That's interesting. Yeah. Mhmm. Wonder how how their agriculture, you know, tractors and stuff we worked on a few years ago. That same thing happens to to to the farmers too. Their tractors get locked out. Interesting.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Yeah. If you wouldn't mind getting back with us on what the exemptions are in that Colorado bill. If

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: they are.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: If there are any. Take

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: some time to get some data on

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: it. Yeah.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Be interesting. Absolutely. If you can take a look just to see if any lawsuits have been filed in Colorado just on this law because it just took effect January 1. So

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: Okay. Yeah. I'll get back to you on that.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Thank you. Of course, we have one a general right to repair is 161. We didn't have time to look at that.

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: Yeah. I think, one sixty is the older, I think that one targeted medical devices specifically.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Great. Cars doing that?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: There is a is a Massachusetts was going to put something in and they came to an agreement with the manufacturers that actually covers that, not just Massachusetts. There's there's a right to repair. So your local mechanic can still work on your cars.

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: Yeah. No. Well, I'm just thinking, like, you know, if if a car manufacturer ever decided to do that where, you know, if because they're getting pretty tech Yeah. Vehicles are. I mean, that would be would be figured out the state

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: of People might stop buying that kind of car. People might stop buying that kind of car. True. True. Like, the market is is.

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: But if all of them not organized to do it, but if all of them all of a sudden start They doing wouldn't be colluding. No, never, never, never, never, never say that. But I mean, that's a, I mean, the difference in a dealership cost and a regular, you know, or even individuals doing their own work. I mean, it's significant. A dealership is like almost $200 an hour, whereas I could go down to a local auto body and do it for like 89 to $100 an hour.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Most of the dealerships, their work is is warranty work. Yeah. And so in order to to get the amount of labor costs, their rates are usually higher than the general mechanic because they have to charge what their rate is, So their rates are well over $100 an hour.

[Michael Boutin (Member)]: But if the manufacturer has the ability to lock people out, huge problem. Okay.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So Bailey, thank you.

[Bailey Davis (Intern)]: Thank you.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Cabot, thank you. I'm sure Kirk will be in the interview at some point over the weekend to talk to you about to look at next. Next week, we'll be looking at $3.13, which is a CTE bill that's come the s three thirteen. And we're looking at s one seventy three right now, which is both rehab. Trying to think, is there anything else we want, we would want them to PT, you both looking at already. I don't know, but the Will

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: rehab some kind of a deeper dive into the credentials statement. Yeah. That might be helpful.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. Talk to Kirk and have him touch base with you guys and see what we can put together for you if he'll be coming. Thursday, we have it's Manufacturers Day, so we'll be having a hearing, a joint hearing with Senate Economic Development, Room 11 from nine to ten. So right after that, I'd like us to jump in cars and go down to Randolph to to Vermont Tech to see the bright futures that the lumber dealers talked to us about last week. So we'll take a little road trip. We'll have to be back here by one for for the floor, but we're also thinking about organizing a road trip a day out on the road. I'd like to go to the southern part of the state. We haven't been there yet, so Heading down toward Rutland, I'd like to see their TIFF district. There's also some places where CHIP is happening. I'd like to go to Bennington and see the Putnam Block. Was a district that was CHIP also, and I think there's a CHIP project maybe down there, maybe over at Brattleboro. I've been to Brattleboro but not as a committee, but I think it'd be good for us to go over the mountain and see Brattleboro as well. Were you doing a field trip? Yeah. I'm talking with house transportation. We usually do joint trips together, so we get a bus and go down. Sad. I love that. I talk to the speaker about that and make sure that it works out for her. I think, you know, we'll find a day that the floor is gonna be slow so we don't have something that we should be here for. And keep this get the speaker gamed up. So with that, we will not be meeting after the floor, but expect a long floor day today again. We'll be back Tuesday, 08/07. Okay. This afternoon, we'll push that to next week. 03:13, we'll be looking at that's three '13. Do you need to look at s $1.07 3?

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: $3.27 comes today.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah, that's right. The economic development bill will be here too, so then we'll look at that next week too. Not a huge bill, it'll take long to go through it, but You get some things to add to it, so.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Economic development, wetlands, information.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It's all about academic development. Everything in. That was luck. Any questions, committee? Thank you for your work this week. It wasn't much in here, but a lot of work. We thank

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: you so much

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: for being with us again and helping us out.