Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And we are live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome back, House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. For the next forty five minutes between now and lunchtime we're going to have some of our own members introduce some of their own bills. And just as a reminder to folks, our practice here in House Energy is to make sure that every bill that's referred to our committee gets fifteen minute chance for the sponsor to tell us why they introduced the bill and what problem it's solving and why they think you should take it up. And we go in chronological order whenever we can. So, anyway, we've got the first three bills that have been referred to our committee this year. Last year's bills already had that had that ritual. So, I'm rep Kathleen James from the Bennington 4 District.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint John's Barry.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille too. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Conedonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Graham Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And for the record, I am Laura Sibilia from Windham 2 here to present my bill and also a member of this committee. And the first bill is H5.7, which poses to extend the sunset of 30 BSA, section 248A for new siting applications by three years. This is a bill that is introduced typically every three years to move the sunset and this bill. Section two forty eight a is an alternative, citing process, and CPG process for telecommunications infrastructure. And it's easier, in many ways, more streamlined than Act two fifty. That's why it was put in place, many years ago. And, you know, why is there a sunset that keeps getting extended? Why don't we just get rid of the sunset? So, the companies that are able to benefit from this process, as you have heard in our previous testimony, many telecommunications companies are we are federally preempted from regulating them in most ways. The CPG process in Vermont is a very important way that we have the ability to check-in with telecommunications companies, wireless providers, etcetera. And so I have long advocated that we keep the sunset in and have our good friends at AT and T and Verizon and other companies that utilize this come and talk to us every three years. It's really our biggest opportunity to talk to them. So it's pretty simple. That's it. Not passing this will make it more difficult. There will be a more stringent process for constructing inciting telecommunications infrastructure. There are often the industry itself will also, as I said, often advocate for just removing the sunset entirely. And I would say, I I think we should have them come and talk to us every three years. So there we go.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. I've I've some questions.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Alrighty. So I I just wanna go back to the basic nuts and bolts.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So when a telecoms company wants to build a facility like a tower. Right? Are are we are primarily talking about cell towers?

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Primarily.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, so when a telecoms company wants to build a cell tower, we have provided for them an alternative pathway to get that approved so instead of going through F250, they can qualify for this CPG. For this CPG process, which means that the PUC has its whole public process to decide whether to approve that tower, whether to deny that tower, whether to so we're routing these towers through the PUC and CPG process. And if we So, 248A is the statute that sets up that process? 248A. It creates that pathway.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yep. And it's under Title 30, which is public service. Chapter five, state policy, plans, jurisdiction, regulatory authority of the commission and department. Two forty eight a is the certificate of public good for communications facilities language.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So that's in statute. Yeah. But it's set to time out every three years. So if we if we do nothing, then that section of statute and the two forty eight a section expires Mhmm. Basically. And if you wanna put up a cell tower, you default to we would go we would default

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: to two fifty eight. That's it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And then I would imagine that I think on the flip side, what you said is that there are folks who would like to see the sunset retired and the process just made permanent so that we never have to revisit.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: right. So I'm seeing this as a middle ground Yes. Where we don't default to act two fifty, nor do we just say, well, is permanent. You can always do this, and you don't the legislature never needs to revisit this process.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That has been my perspective in the past as well, and it's why I have a good chance assess.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So you're proposing that we extend it another three years, and I think that this done it. I just want us to know what we're because it we I seems to me like we we need to deal. I feel like we need to take action this year, but I saw an alternative bill coming out of

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the senate that Cummings, I believe.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Would what path she can It

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: remove the sunset. Just make this the permanent law.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The permanent law. Never to be revisited by the legislature unless we proactively decide to.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Questions? Yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So in your description Mhmm. You said it makes it streamlined and easier. Mhmm. For who?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: For the telecommunications companies. Does

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: it still allow for abutting landowners and affected individuals a good path to state what they feel should or should not have it with that sighting.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: my understanding is that it is diminished from what it would be in active 15.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And how is that beneficial to Vermonters?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So in the I was not here when this was put into place. But sometimes we incent when we want something you know, we put in place incentives or programs to move technology forward. And so, I think when this was put in place, it was trying to make it easier to get cell towers up and expand, cell service throughout the state. And that's why I believe this was done. I don't know if

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I just answered your question.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So it does stifle the voice of million dollars to a certain extent.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: You need to weigh in with the PUC, but I think there's a much more robust public process through act two fifteen.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I remember this bill. My first year. And I do remember we heard from someone at the community Mhmm. And learned about what that process is. So I imagine we will be doing that together this year Okay. And and finding out more about it. It was also the same year that we had a controversial cell tower go on one of my

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, you know, I do need to get refreshed on that, I appreciate that the sunset came back. Other

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: questions on this bill introduction? Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So getting back to rep Southworth's question regarding local input. Mhmm. So that that is not a big process in this process through February.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So the PUC is a public body. Right. A public process, and there's a means of weighing in with PUC. It is not the same as the act February process.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. So the but the locals would never have a decision to say, we don't want it here. That would be the PUC decision even with the input, whether it was a great amount or a small amount Mhmm. From the local folks.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So the devil's advocate, if we do not extend this sunset, then it reverts to act two fifty and the statutory ability for people to be party is expanded so that if if we were to do if we were to let the February a expire, February would become the default, and we wouldn't need to repeat in statute all the provisions of act two fifty. So it was my opinion that the two forty eight process, and they frequently spoke about two forty eight being a subset of two fifty and two fifty being really a paragraph of VSA, 30 VSA. So that would we streamline the process? My question would be, how are we gonna streamline the process by letting the sunset take place and not extending the

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: By letting this expire? What are they streamlining the process?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We're we're not streamlining the process. We're enforcing all developers to the same requirements of land development. In particular, my concern of my constituents or my area is when the cell tower comes in proximity to individuals, residents, they're concerned about maybe EMF or radio frequencies or the like, a whole sort of things that they don't get to expect. They don't have a statutory right to be tough, a party type of people.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I don't know that I understand exactly what your question was. So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: what happens if we do your constituents have more process? If if you're if you're an abutto something, you don't have to file paperwork. You have a statutory right to become party. Mhmm. But I'm understanding that that doesn't apply in this two forty eight process when they jump through other hoops of what it announces Public Utility Commission rules. I wanna make

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: sure I don't over represent the detail of knowledge that I have on here. So we probably should have the CUC

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. It's just about to just about to And let's counsel. Wrap it. Because I I think what we'll do is, you know, obviously, we'll get this bill on the calendar. We'll take testimony. So, in my mind, I've been jotting down a list of folks we need to hear from. So, we're going to need to start with Ledge Council so

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: that

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we understand, which is what we often do on more complicated things. Right? So, we'll have Legg Council in and they'll walk us through this section of statute. We will have the PUC in to talk about the CPG process, how it works, what citizen participation is there. We're going to need to hear from the telecoms, and we are going to need to hear from other interested parties, and I'm sure there will be plenty. So, if that sounds good to you all, this seems to me like a bill that we don't have a whole lot of choice in whether we take it up. I mean, it is sunsetting, And I think to just let it lapse without testimony and action our part would be pretty irresponsible. So off we go. Okay. Bill? Next bill. Next bill

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: is h five sixty, and this bill has to do with adding legislative and judicial representative from the judiciary to the cybersecurity adviser advisory council. And so, as I think chair James had mentioned earlier, she and I and representative represent the House on the Joint IT Oversight Committee. We've taken a lot of testimony on various aspects of telecommunication policy, and specifically related to the communication interaction between the three branches of government for the purposes of consistency and clarity and cooperation. And this bill looks to support that communication consistency cooperation between the three branches in terms of cybersecurity and would add to the council currently has the CIO in the state.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The CIO is The chief and of ADS. Right?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's yeah. And the chief information security officer, a representative from distribution or transmission utility, appointed by the commissioner of public service, a representative from a state municipal water system, appointed by natural resources, a representative from hospital, appointed by the hospitals and health systems, person representing Vermont Business, appointed by the chair of Vermont Business Roundtable, the director of Vermont Emergency Management or designee, governor's homeland security adviser or designee, the Vermont engineer general or designee, the attorney general or designee, president of Vermont information technology or designee. And so missing from that are a need connection to the legislature, and the judiciary. So and those systems are connected and, of course, this is gonna so this would add a chair, of House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure and the chair of Senate Committee on Institutions as well as a representative from the judiciary appointed by the chief justice. I will note that I have discovered, late to introducing this bill that this advisory council is repealed effective July 2028. So Oh, okay. Chair, I think and I've spoken with legislative council about this. I'm not exactly sure about the history. I think we'll need to deal with that Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: As well. So that's it. Alright. Questions?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So I'm just

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: wondering about the where the best expertise on cybersecurity lies within the legislature and whether someone from Legit should not be in the

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: room as well. I agree with that. I

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I mean, I think that's certainly something we can discuss. And so that's who we we have heard from the IT directors from the three branches primarily at Chuck Talk.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I know that's you just found this out, but if this is supposed to be done in twenty eighth, What were the reasons behind having that end date on it? I don't recall. What they needed to? Or is there a different avenue that we could be looking at to join in that's already in place? It's a great question.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And, you know, I think we should definitely talk to this panel about it. I would say as someone who's been on Chitalk since its inception, we have not achieved a level of good communication and cooperation amongst the three branches in terms of cyber security goals at all.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Could have just been a lot of these councils and panels and stuff have Sunset advisory. Built in. I I don't know if this is that, but they Automatically. They automatic they put in a sunset date that's out in the future just to make sure we return to it.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: There's a sunset advisory committee. That panel.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's our mission. That's sunset. No. It just came in. Yeah. But

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: there may be other I mean But there

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: could be other reason. Areas. Okay.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Easy. Questions. Is there a senate version in this country? Not that I am aware of. Questions? Thoughts? Comes? Concerns? Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Could be we've got a lot to try to do before crossover. This could be a quick one.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. So You

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: wanna vote it out

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: now? Yeah. Well, that is really Wow.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That was easy. Caroline. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I don't think we we should vote it out now, but it could be some quick testimony and we just get it out. Yeah. So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So I'm sorry. But, basically, what in addition to extending the July 23 or July 28 drop dead date. I kinda questioned why that occurred. Not, you know, sometime first month after the next biennium starts. You're adding a couple of new members to this. So there's no in addition. The bill proposes to add a couple of new members.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And doing my research to talk to you all and looking at the statute, I saw the notation that this is repealed as of 2020. Right. But this this also in extending it, it also adds a couple

[Unidentified Committee Member]: of new members that weren't previously That's what it does. Yes. That's what it does.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And that's the ones that have the underlying.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Underlying. That's right. Okay. Thank you. Three members. And then

[Unidentified Committee Member]: we're gonna raise in house the IDB that we got the test. That was forget it. Yep.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Then would you also put in here and extend it for another three years, or is that was that separate is that a separate piece of

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: This one I might consider taking the sunset. It doesn't have a sunset in it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean, taking that out. You know? I think testimony. We need to find out why the yeah. But we can when the bill comes up, we can add that in as a committee if we wanna deal with the

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the date. Yeah. For that information.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Don't happen.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: It seems unlikely that cyber threats are gonna sunset any time within our lifetime. So

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Right? Okay. Good. Thank you. Great. Representative.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alrighty. Why don't we just move on? Welcome, representative Morrow.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: For the record.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: For the record?

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Who the heck out of that big beer?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Here we go. Yeah. Go.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Okay. So I have three or four EUC related bills that will be coming through the pipeline. This just happened to be the first one we've got through. And in my mind, I'm trying to fix with them altogether, but, they are discrete topics. So I I broke them out in just separate bills. This bill is very simple. I just took the request from the PUC that we saw last session, raise their rates, and put it into a bill. That you've seen these numbers before, and we discussed them in can't remember whether that was single plant. That's 50. Yeah. The rationale behind this is just that the PUC does very important work for the state of Vermont, and I wanna see them properly resourced. This is very minimal and only affects the people and entities that come to them for certificates of public good, and and we need to have them fully staffed and staffed with quality people to work for the state of Vermont on all the their issues, whether it's solar siding or telecom or what have you. So very simple bill, simple rationale, And, obviously, we wanna hear from the PUC about this. It might have some updates or alterations, but the bill itself is very basic.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Rutland, thanks. So, yep, I'm just trying to remind that you answered one of my questions, which is that I knew you had couple of PUC topics kicking around, so you you broke them into separate bills.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Correct.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And these are the numbers that this PUC submitted to us last year. Right? These these are their request.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Correct.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we can hear from them because I know you were looking at this too. I was thinking

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: about it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Dara. Yeah. Okay. So we can have the PUC in to talk about the rationale for these numbers and, I don't know, I guess where they arrived at these numbers and what, you know, what how much money they think it would raise for them or how it would be helpful to them. And then we'll probably also need to hear from I'm curious to hear from whoever we think might be able to comment on my my only concern, and they seem like nominal fee increases, but would be to hear whether anybody thinks this would be any kind of a drag on the deployment of rooftop solar, the deployment of solar in the state. I the numbers seem small, but I I would wanna make sure that we know that before we go on.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. Good question.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because the rooftop solar one was 100 to 200.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Correct.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And just

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: so you know, one of one of my other bills will make it more advantageous for solar. So there's there's an offset in there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I wonder if we should wait and hear the repair there. Rough clapters?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Actually, I was just gonna point out that the rooftop goes from 100 to 200, but a rooftop modification goes from 25 to 200. And putting in a rooftop system is pretty expensive, so that $200 fee is, I think, gonna be a small percent of the total cost. But modifications can be small and inexpensive, and it's $200 fee for a modification like.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. I'd like to hear more about that because I don't even know what a rooftop modification looks like. I've never modified my system. I don't know what that even means.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I think you can add another panel. Okay. For instance.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, I could but this will be a test for me, but I guess I wonder whether whether just adding a panel, for example, is a modification. If you don't have to modify the CPG, then that's that's that's the question I have.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. If when I was considering adding capacity, they recommended a new CPT to stay, to remain in the advantage of when I got my first CPT. So I kept my 2.4 or not, didn't have to go to wouldn't have to go to 2.6. But maintenance was I mean, obviously, if something shorts out, it doesn't move. Maintenance.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: But the question to find out.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Testimonial. Sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I guess so, right now, why don't we just brainstorm about whether you wanna wait, you know, and consider a couple of your bills at the same time so that

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. They're all PUC related.

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

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: It might save them time if they can Yep. Come in and deal with all of them.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Are they approved for

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. I'm working with Ellen now, but they're a little behind over there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. They are. Okay.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: They're they're winding their way through.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Sounds good. You're Alright. Well, any other questions on yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Can you refresh where the fees go? Where where does this money go? Does this come into the BUSD budget as as not budget items in the budget? It does go to the general fund.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: No. It writes the fees. So yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Well, thanks. I yeah. Appreciate the villain trial and getting a sense that we're gonna have to get in the, roof of moving faster this year. So that's good. Alrighty. I think we can adjourn for the morning.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Oh, madam. Yeah. Before we adjourn Wait. Joan, wait. Yep. I I do have some information from Rick about the sunset if you'd like.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Do want email it or

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I can just read it briefly? Why don't you just read it

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: real quick and then we'll have

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Does not have immediate detailed history. Was not here when it passed, but guess is that the policy of having new advisory groups sunset after five or so years was applied to this council. That way the licensure is forced to review it to see if it's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sounds logical. Okay. Alright. We can adjourn, and we will be back at one to walk through H 11, and then we have the governor's state of the state. We're not meeting after floor today. Alright.