Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You're live. All right. Welcome everybody to House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure. Today is October 30, and we are convening today in a special pre session hearing to spend the day trying to get a little preview about how changes at the federal level are impacting Vermont's energy landscape. So I want to thank everybody, especially our committee members who have come during the off session to the State House to hear from our witnesses today. I want to thank all the witnesses who have shown up today when we're not in regular session. And I especially want to thank our committee assistant, Megan, who just worked her tail off to pull together what I hope is going to be a really productive and interesting and helpful day. So the only caution I want to give is that we only have one day, and we worked hard to pack a lot of people into the agenda. So I'm just going to ask everybody to really keep an eye on the agenda and keep an eye on the time, not only our witnesses, but me, who likes to ask a lot of questions and committee members. Let's just be mindful of the clock. All right, so I'm representative Kathleen James from the Bennington Ford District.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm Scott Campbell, a representative from St. Johnsbury. Richard Bailey, a representative from Lemoyle II. Chris Morrow, Wyndham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia II.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Christopher Howellin, Rutland IV.

[Unidentified committee member]: Territory, Washington II.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Graham Klevner, Chittenden 13, Burlington.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Or civilian, Wyndham 2.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great, and in the room with us quickly. Thank you, Nana, supervisor of community services. If I could

[Unidentified committee member]: just ask if you are on the outside of

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the room and speaking, if you can

[Unidentified committee member]: speak loud and proud because the only microphone is right here in the middle of the table, and sometimes it's hard to hear if you're not

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: at the table. Super. All right, everybody, we are going to start at the federal level, and we have forty minutes to hear from three witnesses. And first up, I believe, is, Brian Long.

[Brian Long (NCSL Associate Director for Energy)]: Hi. Good morning. Chair James, Vice Chair Campbell, and ranking member Sevilleia, and members of, the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee. My name is Brian Long, the associate director for energy at the National Conference of State Legislatures. Thank you for this opportunity to come before you. You have a great packed agenda today, so congrats to your staff and your and your team. I wish I could stay all day and listen, but to be expeditious I'm going to share my screen and move into presentation. I'll hit the highlights and we give you

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: a larger slide deck so that you can study it

[Brian Long (NCSL Associate Director for Energy)]: later and follow-up with us. I'll just hit some highlights so we can be expeditious with your time. Can everyone see my screen okay?

[Ethan Hinch (Policy Advisor, Sen. Bernie Sanders)]: Yep. Okay, great.

[Brian Long (NCSL Associate Director for Energy)]: Alright, so in terms of general trends we're seeing, we're gonna start the state level and then we'll move into the federal component. But it's important to know what's happening in the other states and CSL closely tracks that information. I just want to make a note real quick. I'm apologize for my lighting. It's 6AM here in Phoenix, so. Yeah. Early morning here. So states what we're seeing our biggest churn right now is the AI data center phenomenon that is changing the energy landscape. Basically, states are having to realize, especially since states handle regulation of generation and distribution and and somewhat and transmission states having to all across all across the board approach to handling the energy demand. So large load energy demand is the top theme we're seeing. Grid modernization efforts as well. Split efforts on national on natural gas, either either promoting it or trying to decrease it and reductions in emissions remain a top priority among most of the states that that we've been tracking and then pursuit of new technologies that could be advanced nuclear or hydrogen or different types of of of carbon capture. So if you see this pie chart, it's kind of hard to read, but the big purple slot is still renewable energy remains the top legislation that we're tracking. As I mentioned, AI is the top trend. Currently, we're tracking 4,000 or so data centers that have been set up. These are small to large scale to hyperscale, so think in terms of the spectrum. Data centers currently make up well, could make up over 9% of electric electricity consumption in 2030. Currently, it's about 4.4%, and we're we're anticipating overall power demand in The US to increase by 1.7% annually. It had been flat for the first part of the twenty first century, but we're going to see that annual growth, and that's going to put a demand on you as state lawmakers to figure out, one, how to accommodate that growth but and to meet it, but also how to deal with the cost of it and affordability for your ratepayers. As of October 2025, 20 states have considered over 60 pieces of legislation addressing data center energy consumption. I will note NCSL this past, I would say it was in the spring or in the summer when there was a lot of debate around the federal government prohibiting states from regulating AI. NCSL did step in. Our members voted and we did advocate against that and that was removed in the Senate. That prohibition that that moratorium. So states you still have the power to regulate AI and data centers at the state level. What we're seeing legislative wise is incentives for efficient technologies, whether that be related to cooling or different types of ways to reduce or minimize energy consumption at a data center, energy reporting requirements to a utility or an RTO or grid operator and impacts on utility and rate regulation. For example, in Texas and a few other states, they've set an actual rate that the new ratepayer class for these large loads so that they pay their fair share per se. The other thing I was gonna notice, it's not just data centers, automation of manufacturing and continued building electrification. Also, our increasing electric demand. Grid modernization. I'm not going to jump too far into this, but basically, if you look on the two bullet points there, states are essentially taking different piecemeal approaches to dealing with modernizing the grid and making it more resilient. So they take mitigation approaches, which try to reduce damage

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: to

[Brian Long (NCSL Associate Director for Energy)]: the grid, or they take liability protections for utilities or financing mechanisms to help utilities or grid operators better manage if there's a wildfire, natural disaster, things like that. NCSL has been working with NARU to develop a wildfire workbook, and there's other resources that we're trying to put together for states to help figure out your policy options in terms of both your need needs needing to modernize the grid and resilience. Just one quick note on natural gas. As I mentioned, some states on one hand are trying to define it as as clean energy or promote its use or increase its use as a generating source. Other states are trying to limit that, and reduce it and relying on it. You know, for example, and, I I used to work in Rhode Island. There's efforts to move away from that as as the main energy source. Other states are trying to increase it or move away from other things like coal or or other sources and move towards natural gas. So wide variance in terms of natural gas policy. Renewable energy. Like I said, that's our top trending. The AI is catching up with it, but, over a thousand bills were introduced in 2025. So by far, our largest, type of energy legislation introduced at the state level. Kind of the main trend there is distributed energy resources, also known as local energy assets. That's that's where you have on the distribution side a a solar panel or some type of of micro grid that operates independent of of the grid and is self reliant in ways. And so the idea is this is technology that can communicate with the utility or can share information, but essentially it's off of the grid per se and providing localized energy generation and distribution all in one place. So, states are looking at this. How do utilities manage this? How do we protect the security of the technology? How do we ensure that the products that are used and they're providing that energy meet certain standards. So there's a lot of regulation and legislation around that area, including virtual power plants as well. Nuclear, I know that since 2014 you've not had the nuclear plant there in Vermont, but this is a trend we're tracking in The States. So 15 plus states have now dedicated boards or commissions or some type of state entity towards nuclear. The trend is to move towards nuclear as a clean source of energy. Also, there's movements to and legislation to recycle spent fuel rods, not store them, and use the recycled fuel and nuclear energy. And then we're also seeing at the federal level, there's continued support for nuclear development, both in funding of fuel and reactor pilot programs. Storage remains in high demand. Storage is critical in terms of for renewable energy sources that are intermediate intermittent, excuse me. And so those sources have to to to when the sun's not shining, the wind's not blowing, how do you store that energy when there's excess? Storage is also used to help shave off peak demand during certain times, and so there's different various uses of storage. Also for data centers, for example, how can storage be used to offset their energy use, especially during peak hours? And so we've seen a lot of states either encourage or use incentives to either promote manufacturing of storage battery storage in their states or also mitigate ratepayer costs via storage pilot programs or storage types of programs. And then, like I said, in Texas, specific to data centers or large loads, there was was a requirement to during emergencies or during other types of of peak demand to use storage technology as a way to come off of the grid. And that's about it on that, but it's storage is all is a big component of that renewable energy legislation pie chart I was showing you earlier. That's at the state level. The different trends we're seeing quickly moving into the federal energy portion for Vermont, you know, you're very unique in a lot of aspects in terms of your percentage of renewable sources, larger share than the other state, your sources of generation, hydropower to wind to solar, and your importing of energy into your state. Also as well, your energy economy and your clean energy jobs are also tied to that they're linked. And so, you know, you have a larger percentage in terms of total jobs compared to other states. And you've also received federal funding from two previous bills of roughly 200,000,000. So let's jump into the federal actions, and we'll start with the executive orders. We listed just a couple. As you know, there's been numerous ones, but specifically related to energy. There was executors relating to reducing subsidies for certain sources of energy, at least promoting other types of energies, particularly fossil fuels or known as traditional sources, and declaring different emergency actions to try to speed up energy production or drilling or leasing of land and accelerate permitting for data centers. So you can see at the state level when the federal government's pushing certain things, you know, that obviously impacts, you know, so states are dealing with new data center infrastructure. They're obviously going have to deal with how do we deal prevent congestion or how do we have more transmission or how do we have more generation to meet that demand? Just to highlight two projects. So so far from the Department of Energy, 7,600,000,000.0 has been canceled for two twenty projects. We identified two in Vermont. You may know of there may be more, but that's the two that we identified here on the chart at University of Vermont as well as Beta Technologies in Burlington. So that's that's some initial impacts of previously submitted funding. And then when the one big beautiful bill passed this summer, the main impact on energy was the tax credits and the structure of incentives. And so wind and solar projects placed in service after 2027 are ineligible for for those credits. And then that goes along with the executive order as well that I mentioned. Then energy credits, though, were retained for nuclear, geothermal, hydro, and energy storage. And so you can see there's been a bifurcation of the source of energy gets different credits, and they expire at different times and go away or sustained. And then clean hydrogen on its separately is extended through 2028. So it's important to keep track of these different sources and generally especially at the state level in terms of financing for for generation sources. And then just a few other things for residential specific from the act. Residential rooftop credits expire at the end of the year. So no longer can you get those incentives as an individual person putting it on your roof or however you can put on a pole, can put on a carport. I've done that myself. EV tax credits terminated September 30, so those are done. Those just ended, and then EV charger credits remain until June 2026. So you can see those those type of things for individuals are expiring more quickly than the larger ones, the larger credits previously on the previous slide. And then environmental reviews are being expedited, so the act allowed for advanced payment to speed up the assessment or impact process under the environmental review act or process. And then there was also a time limit put on environmental assessments as well as notice of intents when they're sent out that those have to be completed in a certain amount of time. So we put a time limit and is seeking to streamline and put a timeline on permitting. And then finally, this is not in law, but we're tracking federal legislation that would drastically streamline and move environmental standards and assessments to happen more quick, to happen more expeditiously, and also limit judicial reviews, either that be challenges from groups or states. So we're watching this very closely. Of course, NCTL is always concerned with if states lose certain powers and rights in terms of court actions or challenges or input into a federal process. And this is always at the federal level where the federal agencies require department or if it's the federal government itself taking an action that requires environmental review. I did want to highlight that NCSL has an executive order tracker. Just type in NCSL executive order tracker in Google or your preferred search engine. It'll pull up, you can monitor these executive orders that include summaries. Then also, we're always available to serve as a resource if you have any questions on either executive orders or anything I presented in this presentation today. So I hope I got in everything quick enough. There was a lot to move through a very short amount of time.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Brian, it was very impressive for 6AM. Very impressive That was very helpful. I have a quick question just for follow-up later by email. Sure. I would just be curious to hear more specifics at some point in the future about how you define clean energy jobs. You had a number for the amount of clean energy jobs that exist in Vermont, I'd be curious to know how you guys define that.

[Brian Long (NCSL Associate Director for Energy)]: Absolutely, that was a third party source. So I'll send you that link, but we'll follow-up more extensively with the definitions.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Law? Brian, thank you. That was very helpful.

[Brian Long (NCSL Associate Director for Energy)]: You're very welcome. Thank you for the opportunity and good luck on your very thorough and comprehensive energy day.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: All right. Next up.

[Rebecca Ellis (State Director for Sen. Peter Welch)]: Hello? Gonna see if this work. Okay. So, hello. My name is Rebecca Ellis, and I'm the state director for senator Peter Welch. And also, as a way of introduction, I served on this committee when it was known as the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee from 2011 to 2015. So I am very sympathetic to the plight that you find yourself in today. And what I'm going to do in my time is just briefly give you some foundational overview of the federal legislation that's been passed in the last four years, and then particularly the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, so that you will have this information for the rest of the day. I know you're gonna be getting into a lot of specifics as the day goes along, and I thought it would be really good to go back to the basics, because I always get confused about the names of the bills and when they got passed and so on. So I'll do a quick overview and then happy to answer questions. And I'm going

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: to see if this works. Exciting moment.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Promising. Yep.

[Rebecca Ellis (State Director for Sen. Peter Welch)]: Oh, you already got that. So the four big bills that I think you'll hear about a lot today and probably are already in your mind are the American Rescue Plan Act, or ARPA. That bill passed during COVID in March 2021. And as you may recall, it allocated 1.2, a little bit more, billion dollars to Vermont, and of that to Vermont state government and local municipalities. So the state government and the legislature had $1,000,000,000 to spread about on public purposes. And I believe that the legislature allocated around $59,000,000 to, energy purposes, weatherization, and so on. So that was, a big influx of federal money to the state infrastructure. The next law that really brought in a bunch of money for Vermont was the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, BIL. It's also referred to as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I I call it the IIJA. But a couple weeks ago, somebody was talking about the IJA, and I had no idea what they were talking about. That's another name for that bill. It has at least three names. And that bill, again, it brought in a bunch of money for Vermont in more specific programs. So there was a big amount of money that went into weatherization programs that they are, I think, just finished spending out. And then a lot of money into, also federal agencies that had projects in Vermont. So that was another influx. And then finally, for energy purposes, what was really important was the Inflation Reduction Act. That was from August 2022. That was not a bipartisan bill. It had over 100 pieces of climate legislation. So when people ask me, oh, what did that bill do for climate? It's like, well, there's a lot that it could do. Or I actually got a call from a town recently that said they wanted to do a project, and they were getting an IRA grant. I was like, oh, well, do you happen to know which provision of the IRA? There were so many things in there. And what I'll show on the next slide is it was really a transformative piece of legislation transform our energy economy, to, electricity and to renewable and clean energy. Then that was followed, as I think folks know, since you last met here, by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act or OBBBA, as I usually refer to it, which passed in July, which basically repealed or rescinded most of the energy provisions in the IRA. So I showed this slide a number of times when we were talking about the IRA, because this slide shows the impact that the IRA would have on carbon emissions. And so you'll see that the purple line in the middle shows where our energy emissions would go with the passage of the IRA. So with the passage of the IRA, it looked like we would be projections, but roughly, it says 42% below 2005 levels by 2030. So not quite on the track to meet 50% reduction or to get to 0% reduction by 2050, but certainly getting us a big chunk of the way in terms of meeting our carbon emission goals. And what the OBBA did in basic terms is just moved us back to where we were before. So we still we'd go up to the orange line. So we're what would basically be called current policy with the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law. We're still making some very small gains in our carbon emissions based on the projections of, 2022. We're not, at least as far as this projections, were were being seen then, not going up, but not really going down either. Based on the testimony that you just heard about the increase in carbon, sorry, energy load from data centers, you know, this probably is no longer accurate, that we're putting now a lot more pressure on the energy grid than we were in 2022 even. But part of, showing this slide also is, you know, I was thinking back to where the committee was when I sat on it, 2011 to 2015. We weren't even at the orange line. We were still at the black line. So in some ways, it's a setback, and it's not an impossible place to be, but it really, I think, highlights the role of state legislatures and your work in terms of meeting energy and carbon emission reduction goals. And then just talking a little bit about what happened in the last year. And this was already covered, so I'll be quick here. But I think as folks know, on his first day in the office, President Trump issued executive orders to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, expedite fossil fuels, freeze funding for renewables, and halt all offshore wind. And that was just on day one. There were a number of other actions in the spring. And then in the summer, with the inflation reduction act passed by congress, that really put folks, well, the country back again, at least by a decade. And then I thought, again, you've seen some of this already, and I think you'll hear about it all throughout today, but some of the highlights of things that were cut. Again, there were about 100 pieces of climate policy in the IRA, so these are just the highlights of what got cut. But most significantly for renewable energy development was early expiration pushing back the sunset date for the investment tax credit and the production tax credit for, wind and solar projects. And I think you'll get a lot more testimony about that, about where that's putting renewables, but, certainly, we're not gonna meet the projections, the long term projections that we were hoping to meet under the IRA. On transportation, there were also a number of programs that got cut in that area that you've already heard about. But electric vehicle tax credit, that's already gone. The used clean vehicle tax credit, that's already gone. Commercial vehicles, already gone. And EV charging stations will expire next spring. And I would like to point out that's, and I think you'll hear about it. But, in Vermont, we have incentives for EVs and also some utilities are stepping up to the plate to meet some of their renewable portfolio standard requirements. So you can see that some of the state policy here in Vermont is continuing to promote EVs and there's ways to continue to promote, that, transition to electric vehicles. And then finally, something that senator Welch has worked on quite a bit is, home energy efficiency as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. That incorporated some legislation that Senator Welch had been working on for about ten years, both in the House and in the Senate, which was called the Hope for Homes Act, and created incentives for both weatherization and for electric appliances like heat pumps. And so that was in the IRA, and then most of those energy credits also got cut. So if you wanna buy, an electric or an energy efficient, appliance, try to do that before December 31 this year, when the credits are cut. And I won't go through it one by one because you have it here. But just so you know, these are just examples. When I was creating these slides, was like, oh, I don't want you to think this is everything. I was looking at the bill, and here's a list of all of the programs that were rescinded. These were all, for the most part, grant programs. And my colleague from Senator Sanders' office, Ethan Hinch, is going to talk more about grant programs that were cut. But just to let you know, it's a long list. And also what the word rescinded means is, subject to litigation. And then for Vermont, this slide and the next slide are from the Vermont Department of Public Service. I just thought it was a great, summary of where some of the grant programs for Vermont that we're going through the department, are right now. And to highlight for you, the first three rows here are from the Hope for Homes portion of the Inflation Reduction Act. So the $29,000,000 that was for weatherization and inefficiency, that is on pause, but it hasn't been cut yet. And we're hoping that the U. S. Department of Energy does not pull back that money. The second column is $29,000,000 for appliances. Again, that's been paused. And I think the department is a little more worried about what's gonna happen for that money because they have aren't hearing anything, basically. The third column is for energy, contractor training, which, again, is in the same place as the electric appliance rebates. And then the 4,400,000.0 on pause for energy code updates, and staffing for energy code. And then the final column or final row here is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Solar For All. Vermont, was supposed to get 62,000,000 and EPA terminated all of that. So, you know, basically, from this chart, there's 35,000,000 that's a little bit up in the air, 62,000,000 that got cut, and we're hoping that we can pull that money back. I I added another slide. I'm not gonna go through it, but it's just helpful from the Department of Public Service talking about some of the previous, bills and what money came through. So all of this money has come through. So this includes some of the money from the bipartisan infrastructure law, also known as AIJA, and also from, the American Rescue Plan Act. So, you know, we we were able to pull in a bunch of money through those bills as well to directly help Vermont. So with that, that's I'm happy to answer questions or turn it over to Ethan. Do we have questions?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Sure.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: You know, I do

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: have a

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: couple What of for

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: is senator Wilkes' role in working on getting some of those funds that have been frozen released?

[Rebecca Ellis (State Director for Sen. Peter Welch)]: Well, you'll hear a lot about SolarFallon. I don't want to steal Ethan's thunder. But in terms of that, there's the state has sued the administration, with senator Sanders' help. On some of it, it's just a conversation with the US Department of Energy with our contacts who are still there, you know, trying to support it. But, you know, beyond sort of gentle nudging and lawsuits, there's not much in between those two things at the moment.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Next to you.

[Unidentified committee member]: Mentioning the LE. Do you have a sense of how many staff lost?

[Rebecca Ellis (State Director for Sen. Peter Welch)]: Well, we've been hearing about a lot of potential cuts. And also, there's a lawsuit to prevent those cuts from happening. But some of the cuts in staffing that we've been hearing about would really affect DOE's ability to get money to the states, like, even to the, Vermont Department of Public Service, because they'd be cutting the whole office that oversees the grants to states.

[Rep. Rex Abele]: Just a quick comment. I know this has been a really disruptive time for Vermonters. So thank you, Rebecca. As a staff person, I'm your office is very, very busy and even for all the service that you provide.

[Rebecca Ellis (State Director for Sen. Peter Welch)]: Thank you. And I should just mention again, I actually didn't know this when I was in the Vermont legislature. I'm embarrassed to admit, but our offices, so Senator Sanders, Senator Welch, and Representative Bailin's office, we all provide constituent casework services. So if you have constituents who are having particular problems with the federal program, whatever it might be, I encourage you to contact our offices. We coordinate it on our side. So we're not triple covering, but, we divide them up and make sure that we're responding to all constituents who call us. Thanks.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You've been very helpful many times. Thank you. Have. I

[Rebecca Ellis (State Director for Sen. Peter Welch)]: don't know how to unshare.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Megan can help you with that. Excuse me. Yeah.

[Ethan Hinch (Policy Advisor, Sen. Bernie Sanders)]: Could I just you said the last page is money that you've gotten? The last page is money you say it has gotten?

[Rebecca Ellis (State Director for Sen. Peter Welch)]: The final page. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

[Ethan Hinch (Policy Advisor, Sen. Bernie Sanders)]: Everyone, thanks for having me here today. My name is Ethan. I'm a policy adviser for Senator Bernie Sanders covering energy, environment and climate. Appreciate the opportunity to come here today to testify about federal energy policy and how those changes will impact Vermont. So I'll start by saying, as Rebecca mentioned, president Trump's one big beautiful bill has canceled hundreds of billions in clean energy funding and incentives, that will substantially increase carbon emissions, raise energy costs, and kill many thousands of jobs across the country, including hundreds here in Vermont. And senator Sanders believes that those cuts represent an unacceptable abandonment of the fight against climate change and of Trump's promises to cut electric bills for working Americans. Rebecca also mentioned, in addition to this one big beautiful bill, the president and this administration has frozen or canceled tens of billions in energy funding that was appropriated by congress, signed by the president, and legally obligated by federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Energy. In total, the president has frozen or canceled more than $412,000,000,000 across more than 100 different federal grant programs. Just in terms of funding from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy for clean energy, energy efficiency and grid infrastructure, the president has frozen or canceled more than 100,000,000,000 in grants and incentives. Together, this accounts for cuts for freezes of more than $95,000,000 for Vermont just from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. And I want to be clear on a point that the rescissions that Rebecca mentioned that were contained in the One Beautiful Bill Act are separate from these freezes and cancellations. Those rescissions were passed by congress. They're legal, unobligated funding. These these figures I'm referring to here, 412,000,000,000 across the entire federal government, 100,000,000,000 for just DOE and EPA, 95,000,000 for Vermont, obligated funding that was not legally rescinded by the one beautiful big beautiful bill act. And I wanna share two particular examples that demonstrate the impact of these funding freezes and cancellations here in Vermont. First, in early August, the Environmental Protection Agency officially moved to terminate the solar for all programs, which is a $7,000,000,000 program that senator Sanders created and passed as part of the inflation reduction act to provide loans and grants to lower income and working class families so they can install solar panels on their rooftops or participate in community based solar projects. Nationally, this program will help almost 900 more than 900,000 households reduce their energy bills by at least 20%, and in many cases, will help households install rooftop solar to reduce their energy bills by up to 80%. And here in Vermont, we are set to receive more than 62,000,000 to install solar for about 8,300 households. At a time when energy bills are skyrocketing, electricity prices are up by more than 10% since Trump took office, Cutting this type of program only makes sense if you want to protect the obscene profits of those in the oil and gas industry. That's why Senator Sanders recently led 31 of his colleagues and calling on EPA Administrator Zeldin to immediately restore solar for all and put money back in pockets of ordinary Americans, not fossil fuel industry billionaires. It's also why he stood last week with Vermont Attorney General Clark, who filed two lawsuits along with nearly two dozen other states against the Environmental Protection Agency to hold the Trump administration accountable for unlawfully canceling the federal funding for solar for all. Second example I wanna share, which Brian mentioned, is that in early October, the US Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Energy announced more than 7 and a half billion in cuts for energy projects located in states that voted against Trump in the twenty twenty four presidential election. These cancellations include at least 1,300,000.0 for Beta Technologies and at least 1,100,000.0 for the University of Vermont. Those figures are a little lower than what Brian shared, and that's because some of the money had already been distributed to UVM and Beta Technologies. This was the money that, again, has been legally obligated to these entities by the federal government, but had not actually been sent into the bank account of Beta and UBM. Senator Sanders has been very clear on these cancellations. Taking away funding from the people of a state because they didn't vote for you is illegal, outrageous, and unconstitutional. These two examples demonstrate how Donald Trump is making decisions on federal energy policy. It's to serve his fossil fuel industry campaign contributors and punish his political opponents. And senator Sanders believes we have to fight back. We worked with UVM and Beta Technologies to connect them with Lawyers for Good Governments Fund Protection Clinic, which can provide legal assistance to organizations whose federal funding is at risk due to executive actions, administrative delays, termination notices or compliance challenges. Other interested parties can find more information on this fund protection clinic at www.lawyersforyogovernment.org/fundsprotectionclinic, and I'll follow-up with that URL. The committee may also be interested to understand the potential impact of Trump administration tariffs on Canadian energy imports into Vermont. And I wanna be very clear that the current Canadian the current tariffs on Canadian imports do not apply to energy projects products. However, the Trump administration did initially back in February announced 10% tariff on Canadian energy projects products, and it's possible that the administration could attempt to expand the existing tariffs to cover the natural gas and electricity that Vermont imports from Canada. And finally, as Brian mentioned, our office would encourage the committee to pay very close attention to the impacts of data centers, particularly artificial intelligence data centers on national electricity prices. Right now, again, Brian mentioned, data centers account for about 4.4% of US electricity consumption. However, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that share could triple to 12% by 2028. Unless states, the federal government, and regional grid operators take action to ensure data centers pay for the extra costs associated with their increased demand for electricity, residential electric rates across the country could increase substantially. For example, Carnegie Mellon in North Carolina University recently found that data centers could increase electric bills nationwide by an average of eight percent by 2030. Senator Sanders is committed to working with all partners in Vermont to hold the Trump administration accountable for its legal actions, expand residential solar, lower the cost of Vermont electric bills, combat the existential threat of climate change, and empower states like Vermont to have said. Thank you.

[Rep. Rex Abele]: Rex Abele, just a quick question. I'm working on an affirmative data center citing bill. And I'm wondering if you can share Vermont, while we have the lowest amongst the lowest rates in New England, New England has high rates comparatively in the country. Are you seeing evidence of these data centers moving into New England?

[Ethan Hinch (Policy Advisor, Sen. Bernie Sanders)]: As far as I know, New England's not really a hotspot yet for new data center construction. The hotspots are really areas like Pennsylvania, Indiana, Texas. Virginia has been a longtime hotspot. They're continuing to be built there. That's due to a combination of proximity to fossil fuel resources in Pennsylvania and favorable regulatory environments. However, these things are moving very, very quickly, both in terms of construction and new areas where they're being established. That could change very quickly.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Representative Hafford.

[Rep. Hafford]: Quoted that energy rates have gone up 10% since January 21. Could you give us that calculation for a possible check? I don't see a 10% increase in my bill. And my bill only increases, the rate only increases annually. And I think the annual increase for my utility became effective maybe first September first of October.

[Ethan Hinch (Policy Advisor, Sen. Bernie Sanders)]: Yeah, so it's a national figure, not specific to Vermont, but I'm happy to follow-up with the committee on the research behind that figure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, if you could send that to all of us, that'd be great.

[Ethan Hinch (Policy Advisor, Sen. Bernie Sanders)]: Yeah, certainly.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Other questions for Ethan? We did it. Thank you so much for being here. Yeah, I really appreciate it. Great. I don't want to get overconfident, but we are on time.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: Will not mess this up for you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No, actually you have half an hour.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: I don't think I'll need the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: All to yourself. But

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: we'll see how things go.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, we'll plenty of time for questions, which is usually our

[Rep. Rex Abele]: Downfall. Not

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: downfall, that's usually our strength. Lots of questions. So, if you could introduce yourself for the record. And we do have half an hour for your testimony.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Thank you.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: Good morning. For the record, Shana Loiselle with Vermont Electric Power Company. Thanks for giving us the opportunity to come and provide an update today. As you all know, Velco is Vermont's electric, transmission utility. So we have a unique ownership as well as a unique financial model, that allows Velco's work to benefit every electric Vermont ratepayer. Our job is to plan, design, construct, and operate a safe, reliable, secure, and affordable, transmission grid for Vermont. Every three years, we provide an update to our long range transmission plan. That plan, as you all know, helps us identify reliability deficiencies on the grid over the long term. And so that's really giving us the long range perspective. And I just want to point that out in terms of, as grid planners, it's built into our DNA to look out further and understanding that administrations and policies, they shift in the near term. But for us, it's more of that longer term vision. Today, at the request of the committee, I prepared a few comments around how recent federal policy and funding changes are affecting Belco and Vermont, Some emerging regional trends that we're seeing in the transmission planning space, I by no means intend to replace ISO New England's subject matter expert information in this update. So I'll do my best to answer any questions. So hopefully, provides you a little bit of relevant information, as you get ready for the twenty sixth legislative session. So we're fortunate that the recent federal shifts, have had a limited direct impact on our day to day operations, but we are seeing some ripple effects, across the national research and innovation space. As you've likely or as we have heard, the US Department of Energy rescinded nearly $1,000,000,000 in utility grants earlier this year. But I'm pleased to report that the one Velco federal grant, still remains intact. So through the DOEs, it was the Grid Resilience Innovation Partnerships Program, or RIP. VELCO and our partner, the Electric Power Research Institute, or EPRI, we received a $13,000,000 grant. That grant is for the installation of a smart valve device. This is a piece of equipment that we plan installing on our PV20 transmission line in Grand Isle, Vermont. This is a critical link between Vermont and New York. I think we've talked about this line that goes underneath Lake Champlain. I wanna point that out, that Vermont and New York are in two different transmission regions and operating regions, I should say. And that's important. Vermont is part of the ISO New England operating region, and New York is part of its own New York operating region. And later on in my comments, I'll point to the criticality of that interregional transmission connection. So the smart valve, this is a piece of a technology known as grid enhancing technology, or GITS, which definitely got some popularity in its buzzword over the past year or so. But what this technology is helping to do is helping us control how electricity flows across that line between New York and Vermont, essentially allowing us to move power more intelligently. I always like to give the reference of think of a really smart traffic light signal in terms of how power is coming and going between that interconnection. It improves the efficiency. It extends the life of the existing equipment that we have in Vermont, which was really the reason of putting this smart valve grid enhancing technology in place, and hopefully avoids the need for more costly infrastructure, like building additional transmission lines. So not all GETS are non transmission alternatives, but certainly in Vermont, as you know, we are unique in that before we build transmission, we wanna optimize the system that we have and find the least cost way to have a reliable system through looking at non transmission alternatives. We expect that this project will be in service by mid-twenty twenty seven. So that's the great news of that project. The not so great news was that through that grant, the DOE directed that all the GRIP participants, were required to cease activities related to the diversity, equity and inclusion components, as part of the community benefits plans that also included Justice 40. And those provisions were essentially baked into our federal grant. So any related costs after January 2025 would no longer be reimbursed. That's what the order stated. So this doesn't create a financial issue for us because we hadn't incurred the costs yet. Those markers were really intended to take place over 2026 and 2027. But it just goes to show how quickly the federal shifts can affect project execution and partnerships. We had really developed a thoughtful community benefits plan with local partners, regional planning commissions, educational nonprofit organizations, to make sure that federal investment was being delivered shared value across Vermont with workforce opportunities, local engagement, and benefit, particularly for the Northwest Region Of Vermont. That work is unfortunately, I'd like to say on pause, but essentially canceled outright due specifically to that policy change. I think more broadly, as I had noted about our work with the national labs, the budget adjustments that we're seeing are also having a pretty significant effect on national laboratories and research institutions across the country. Velco has partnered very closely in the past and continues to with the Pacific Northwest Labs PNNL or NREL. Both of these labs are experiencing staff cuts and funding uncertainties, which is kind of the theme of the day here. But as a result of this delay, some collaborative research projects such as we had a planned project that was part of the ARPA funding, a collaboration with the University of Illinois Chicago. It was focused on automatic damping and grid reliability. Essentially, have an old grid. It was designed for big conventional power plants, and that really provides from a transmission grid operator a certain level of stability that we really like to have when operating a grid. So with newer resources, you lose some of that built in stabilization feature. And so the project that we were initiating with the university was really aiming to just fill that gap, reduce averages, and the instability on the system, just given our new resources that we're working with. But even so, the need for this type of work, it needs to happen. It's not going to stop because of this federal funding. We're probably just gonna have to do it in a different way that's not going to be so well funded by federal government. But our partnerships with the universities and the national labs, they remain strong. We are in weekly communication, particularly with national labs, really continuing to focus on advancing grid innovation regardless of what the policy shift is changing through. So I have some remarks on just emerging trends regionally, but happy to stop if there are any questions specific to those Vermont projects.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Questions

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah, I'll just one. How much money was set aside for that community work?

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: Yeah, roughly, I want to say it was between $500,000 and $600,000

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm wondering about the grid program and the interconnection between Vermont, Verizon, and New York. How does that work and which way does the electricity flow and how increase does the flow without changing the infrastructure? This is sort

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: of a technical question, but

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Very technical question. A high level level. Well, I

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: can answer the first question. So the line is built to be able to push power to New York or to pull power from New York. Oftentimes, I think we're typically seeing power come through to Vermont from New York. There are times on the system where New York, particularly because they have a lot of Upstate New York wind, that just naturally wants to flow in that direction onto that PB20 line. Right now, the way our terminal station is set up, it's in Grand Isle, there's a piece of equipment called a phase shifting transformer. And that equipment essentially is making subtle tap changes to allow for the increasing or decreasing of the flow that's coming over the line. It was put in a long time ago in the 50s, 60s at a time where it was more predictable of what the flow was going to be. There wasn't a significant amount of what we call these tap changes. And so essentially what happened was our phase shifting transformer had a malfunction. And you all might remember about God, may have been six or seven years ago, Velcro had to do an emergency transportation of a very large transformer from our Williamstown substation all the way up I-eighty 9. We unfortunately picked the same day as UBM's graduation, so it got a lot of media attention. But that was essentially why we had to do that. A very important piece of equipment malfunctioned, it was taken offline, and we needed an immediate replacement. We basically replaced it with another phase shifting transformer, which currently is now going through the same type of exercise that the former one did. Putting the smart valve in place will help extend the life of that phase shifting transformer, essentially taking the load off of it a bit and being a little bit It's a digital piece of equipment. It's really when I say a very smart traffic light signal, it is.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: If I can interrupt, it sounds like this is just going to facilitate more flexibility as far as adjusting the flows to meet the load. Is that

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: 100%. You have that correct.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Facility level. So I was just visiting a friend near Cornell who actually manages their facilities including electric generation stuff. And he's talking about they have former coal generation plant on Cuyahoga Lake that there's been talk about making turning that into a data center, which would then well, transmission there obviously would then create a big load that could drive up rates in the region, maybe in the whole state. I guess I'm just wondering whether data centers in New York are likely to create more load that would then have an effect on the mod

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: through that connection? That's a great question. Answer it in the way I know best, but I think I'll probably want to follow-up with a more technical response. Because our two grids are separate, we do have some control in terms of what's flowing over those tie lines. We have, I believe, two tie lines to New York. So I don't see that being an issue of large load because it's being sited in New York. But I will do a follow-up to make sure that's an accurate statement.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Okay, great. Appreciate that.

[Rep. Rex Abele]: Thanks. Thanks.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think Representative Morrow and then Clever.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: Questions. One, when is your next twenty year study due out, Maybe three year one.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: So the next one will be published in July 2027. Recall in 2024, we filed our long range transmission plan looking out twenty years to 2043. We're currently in the stage of doing the non transmission alternative study analysis, looking at various non transmission solutions to see what can make up that 75 megawatts of load that we determined was needed to avoid a build out of a transmission line in the first ten years.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And do

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: you have any update on the High Gate interchange? It seems to be the biggest choking point.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: Choking point in Well, getting

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: electricity from Canada. And it's been referenced numerous times over the last year that the Highgate facility is the next one that needs get your attention.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: Replaced. Okay, correct. Yeah. There aren't any constraints currently on that. So when you said choking point, that's what I was thinking. But in terms of the high gate converter, that is an aging facility. It operates at the presidential permit of two fifty megawatts to be able to take the AC power from Hydro Quebec, turn it into DC, and then turn it back into AC to be put onto The US system. That facility, currently, the support from the manufacturers is no longer there. It needs to be replaced. It's a 40 year old piece of equipment that jokingly, getting spare parts on it, it's like going on eBay to see what's available. So we are currently doing the analysis that is needed to determine what the next converter should look like. They don't make two fifty megawatt converters anymore. They're all much larger sizes. So we're doing the work with vendors, talking with vendors to figure out what the next best solution is for Vermont, not only in the term of sizing, but also in the terms of location. Does it make sense to keep it there in Highgate, or is there another location on the grid that actually optimizes our systems that we have today? And the one that we know we have to plan for in the next twenty years, is there a better location? So that type of analysis and discussion is happening now. Our timeline is short. To even order one of these pieces of equipment, it's a ten year timeframe to be in a queue, essentially because we're ordering them from Europe. Europe got ahead of the game and put their orders all in, in advance of the need for ours. And it's a very expensive piece of equipment. So we need to work with the region and find partners, like minded partners, find innovative ways to be able to make this a financially sound investment for New England. Hope that answers your question.

[Unidentified committee member]: Representative Kleffner.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I have two

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: questions, if I may. The first is, do you have a sense for how much potential there is for enhancing Velcro grids capacity through a reconducting?

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: Through a reconducting? And sorry, could you restate the first part of that question?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Do you have a sense for what percent could you increase the grid's capacity through reconducting alone?

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: I don't have a percentage, but reconducting is certainly an option for increasing capacity. We are currently in construction of our Franklin County line upgrade, where we are using a new style of conductor. It's called a double bundle conductor, which essentially is allowing us to be more efficient with the flows that are going over that line so that we're reducing my favorite technical transmission term, lossiness. And that is the lossiest line

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that we

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: have to date. So when that project is complete, it'll be a much more efficient line. Now in terms of reconducting other lines throughout the state, have about seven forty miles of transmission lines. Normally, would be a very straightforward, easy answer. Yes, we should reconductor. However, there's a significant portion of our lines that are being, the foundation being very old, excuse me, aged wooden transmission poles. And so part of that work is we are switching out through our transmission line refurbishment project, replacing poles on a year to year basis to basically be able to continue their reliability for the next sixty years, but in some cases, replacing wood poles with steel poles. So this is new to our system, but certainly an industry trend, and definitely insects and woodpeckers don't like steel posts. That's a good thing.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: My second question is if someone were to build a data center in Williston or somewhere else, how much adjustments do you need to accommodate that, if any?

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: Well, I'm not sure what adjustments we would be making. Would be on a case by case basis If a data center were to try to site itself in Vermont, certainly they would be having very close relationships with the interconnecting utility, which I believe the distribution utilities have their own process connection for any type of large load customer. Obviously, load on the distribution system goes up to the transmission system, So we are always mindful of location. That's a pretty big message in all of our long range plans, particularly when we talk about siting of generation. But I think it's the same thing for a load center. We have a capacity map where predominantly the greater amount of capacity on our system are towards the Southern section of Vermont, with less capacity in the Northern section. So I'm not sure if that answers your question. I don't think we've gotten to the place where we have to jump into action in terms of data centers and how it would impact the transmission system at this point, but certainly monitoring, particularly how it's unfolding in other states across the country.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Great, thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Campbell and then, Sebele, we need

[Unidentified committee member]: to let you move on to the second half of your testimony. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: as I understand it, major capital projects on Vermont's transmission line, like that thing at the Shiite interface, ten year lead time thing. All expenses are shared across Iceland and New England. Is that right?

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: Some of our capital projects are shared regionally. Shared on a ratio by load.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Some, but not all.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: Only projects that have a benefit to the region will be shared regionally. If it's a linear line in Vermont that only provides benefit to Vermont, then Vermont is the sole

[Rep. Rex Abele]: So that's

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: across the repairs.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Absolutely. Is that piece of equipment at the CI interface, is that something that would be just remote repairs?

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: It's a great question. And we see that it has benefit for the region. And so those conversations are happening with ISO New England, make that distinction, and that goes in front of a stakeholder body to be approved for regional funding.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Is it then reconducting that representative Tucker asked about. Is that the kind of thing that we'd also be negotiation Is with ISO basically to determine whether it benefits only? For reconducting? Yes.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: It's part of a full project, not just reconducting, but for instance, the Franklin County Line Upgrade Project. That project was determined to be a regional funded project, but we had to make a strong case for why that was something that benefits the entire region, particularly because of its criticality connecting to Canada and Us being at the peninsula of the region. It has to get through Vermont to get to the large load centers in New England.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: My last quick question. You mentioned that the Shia is no longer a constraint or we're seeing curtailment in the region for, say, the wind farms that are in that interface. So that's not happening now, but is it a constraint on new generation in the Northeast part the state? Currently,

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: as the grid stands today, there's not a lot of new generation that's being built in the area because of that issue. This project, the Franklin County Line Upgrade Project, when that's complete, one of the benefits is giving a little bit more headroom in that area to the tune of 20 or 30 megawatts. That could be taken up with one large project, and so we recognize that it's not the ultimate solution, but there's been a lot of upgrades, particularly from the distribution utility side. Green Mountain Power has done some upgrades on their system to be able to alleviate that constraint. Combined with the work that we're doing, there is or will be more headroom in that area.

[Unidentified committee member]: Oops, Okay. Bien.

[Rep. Rex Abele]: Yeah, so I know the planning that goes into transmission, twenty year plan reviewed every three years, I mean, it's pretty extensive. I also know we're not seeing a lot of data center activity in Vermont right now, but it does seem like it's a problem and it's really exploding nationally. Is that something that was anticipated by other transmission?

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: In other regions? It's a great question. I don't have a good answer for you in terms of I don't have knowledge of how other transmission owners were considering that prospect prior to the centers coming online.

[Rep. Rex Abele]: And are you planning for there to be that kind of load added? Currently,

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: there are no plans at the table. So no, we're not at this point. I think there's a lot of reasons, and I think they've been mentioned already. Vermont is not on the top 10 list of locations, at least today. If that were to change, certainly I think it would be a more in-depth conversation regionally. But even at the regional level, from a New England standpoint, it's on the mind of everyone because we see it happening, but it's not at our front door. So it's not being talked about in the way of how do we need to prepare for incoming large loads. However, there was a recent DOE letter sent to FERC about opening proposed rulemaking around essentially preparing for large loads and basically making transmission kind of the open access network that it's intended to be. And I'm not quite sure what that'll mean yet for data centers and the transmission system. So that's something that just last week, a letter was sent. And so we'll be watching that to see what type of their advanced notice of proposed rulemaking would happen. If that moves forward, it would go to some type of proposed rulemaking. And we would likely be very active and engaged in that rulemaking.

[Unidentified committee member]: We have another topic. Okay.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: So just moving on to regional trends, emerging trends, I should say. We know that regionally transmission planning is changing rapidly. At ISO New England, the interconnection queue is predominantly all renewable storage projects, solar, wind, batteries, really reflecting kind of that shared decarbonization goals across the region. At the same time, as we heard earlier, offshore wind faces major challenges. Several projects have been delayed or canceled, which is significant because offshore wind has been considered a key part to New England's clean energy transition, in our reliability plans, particularly with more, distributed energy resources online. But shifting to the the other side of distributed generation, ISO New England has initiated its first cluster study. This is a new type of study that, ISO is doing in response to per quarter twenty twenty three, where they are grouping new generators, generator applications that want generators who want to connect to the transmission system. They're grouping all of those applications together to evaluate grid impacts more efficiently. So it's no longer the first come, first served approach that they used to have. It's now shifting to the first ready, first served. And so interconnection to the transmission system will require a very comprehensive system impact study with a number of generators, and all the generators have a deadline where they have to submit to be into the queue now. It can't just be any time you want. There's a two seventy day window now that that analysis takes place and that the queue opens. Not everybody will say this, but there are some positive aspects to this change. It was primarily put into place to reduce the backlogs, give planners a clearer view of the regional grid impacts, and help get projects online faster. All that remains to be seen. This is our first go around with this new process. So we'll see what the outcome here is in 2026 when that study is completed. We're also watching progress on the Northeast Clean Energy Connect line. This is the new transmission line that's being built through Maine connecting hydropower to New England via through Maine. And that talk about shifts and changes in a project. That project has really gone through the ringer in terms of we're constructing, and now it's off and back on again. It's been a little bit of a back and forth. But that project is set to be complete. And while that energy is contracted to Massachusetts, the added transfer capacity that it will bring to New England's grid will benefit the entire region, including Vermont, and that's, again, that system flexibility that we've been talking about with other resources. You may have heard, New England is engaged in a longer term transmission planning, initiative. This is, an initiative that's supposed to enable regional funding for major transmission projects that support both reliability but also state policy goals. The first request for proposals was were due this fall. And so they're focused on the main Massachusetts interface, but we anticipate that future solicitations are going to likely include impacts for Vermont, particularly our Northwest Vermont section. That was one of the four key areas that was identified in ISO New England's 2050 So we are working with the New England States Committee on Electricity to make sure Vermont has a strong voice at the table so that if in the event we have an opportunity to build a reliable transmission in Vermont, that we can do it in the most affordable way for Vermonters and New England. And then beyond that, I'll just note one other initiative that's currently underway is the Northeast States Collaborative on interregional transmission. This is a collaborative of the nine Northeast states. It's a bit of a dream project that's been considered for a number of years, and we, as states, could never get to an agreement of what the costs would look like. So the fact that all of the nine states are in agreement and are working on an action plan at how to bring interregional transmission between PJM, which is the region for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland, which can connect to New York ISO, which connects to ISO New England. Those are three different regions, and currently, you don't see a lot of interregional transmission being built because it's hard to do because of that cost allocation affordability piece. But with this collaborative and the blueprint that they've put out with agreement from the states, we've gotten further than we have before. So that could really strengthen power flow between ISO New England and New York ISO. And really, these efforts just recognize that local and interregional transmission are essential for the grid that we need in the future.

[Rep. Rex Abele]: Yeah. Thanks, Sheena. Interconnecting the three ISOs, how does that benefit Vermont ratepayers?

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: Interconnecting the three ISOs. So there's been several studies, nine to date, to show the economic benefit of what interregional transmission can do, delivering more power, avoided costs to transmission owners on a more siloed approach. And so the benefit is there's a study that has a very specific cost savings number for the region. I don't have that number on me. I can follow-up with you. But the benefit is, can we all, as a triple region, pay for a transmission line that can provide benefits to all of the regions rather than just one region paying for a transmission line? Can it be more cost effective from interregional planning? And studies show that it's very effective from a financial benefit. I'm quite interested in this, and in particular, how Connect2PGM and ISO

[Rep. Rex Abele]: will benefit Vermont ratepayers.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: Because of the large load centers happening in that area. Well, I will follow-up with that study link with some just highlighted overarching benefits from their studies.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I know we're over time, I have a very good question. You said nine states all in agreement? Correct. But when I add six New England states and Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland, and New York, I get 10.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: So maybe there's an outlier. I'll follow-up with you. Which state decided not to join?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Shana Loiselle (Vermont Electric Power Company - VELCO)]: I think I'll stop there. The written testimony that I provided went into some affordability measures. I think that's really important for this committee to understand. We have reliability projects in New England that are serving load, but we also have reliability projects that are serving aging infrastructure in need of replacement. Asset maintenance costs are continuing to rise across New England. Velco is replacing our aging infrastructure, but we're doing it in a way that is predictable and with an efficient schedule. And we are pursuing funding only for projects that are essential and justified. And that's really important because we've been seeing that not all New England states are following that approach and it's making for very costly expenses that we see rising in the future that will have a direct impact on Vermont. There's been more than a year of stakeholder work with ISO New England and the New England States Committee on Electricity to establish what we're calling an asset condition reviewer. This is an independent reviewer who will assess the need and appropriateness for these types of projects before regional funding is approved. This is a really important step toward a more transparent and cost conscious process, Because prior to this year, it's really just been the Wild West in terms of asset condition projects getting approved. So I want to note that we are especially appreciative of the Vermont Department of Public Service for their leadership and their advocacy of pushing this forward. This has been for a long time Vermont's ethos in how we do our upgrades, because we know what we do has an impact on Vermont ratepayers. We have a different connection with our ratepayers than perhaps other utilities in the state. And although Velco has a very strong voice at the table, I don't think that we could have gotten to the place that we are without the work of Commissioner Johnson and his team at the Vermont Department of Public Service. So we're very thankful and grateful for their work. So I'll close there and happy to take any additional questions today or after.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you. I think we should probably call it a wrap and take a five minute break if folks can