Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Thanks so much. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Friday, January 9, and, we are continuing our practice of making sure that all sponsors have at least a few minutes to introduce us to their bill as soon as it lands in our committee. So we've had a number of new bills referred to our committee and we are going to start out by giving some time today to Raph Campbell, our vice chair, to give us a quick little overview of h five ninety seven, h 599, h 609, and h six ten. I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And I represent Scott Campbell from Saint John's Grace.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Bailey]: Representative Richard Bailey, Lamoille too. Bruce Morrow, Windham and Windsor, Bankton. Christopher Howland, Rutland four.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington. Laura Sibilia, Rutland two.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Representative Southworth, joining us online. Are you able to unmute? Or

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth]: Yep. Representative Michael Southworth, Caledonia 2.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Thanks for joining us, remotely on short notice. Appreciate it. And in the room, we have

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Dylan Swickey,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Emma Regan, the crossing group. I'll check out the acts of legislative council. Super. Okay. So, just as a as a reminder, the bill intros are are just a quick, a quickish pitch from the sponsor. So a little bit about what's the problem, what's the proposed solution. And as we dive into various bills and really start taking testimony, you know, next week, couple weeks from now down the road, that's when we would have ledge counsel come in and do more of a formal walk through through the legislative language. So this is more of a here's my bill, here's the problem I think it's trying to solve, and here's how I propose solving. Alright. Scott.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Something out here to fix.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Take the hot seat. Take

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the hot seat. I take advantage of where Mike's not here so I can spread it out. We need

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: a pop up table to extend another eight inches here. Just a little A 11 inch depth for a piece of paper. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Alright. For the record, I've got Scott Campbell from St. Johnsbury. Have a couple of bills to talk about. H597

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: is a proposal to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: request the Public Maternity Commission to do a study and a report on an overlay, a map overlay, between preferred renewable energy siting places, places preferred by municipalities or regional planning commissions, overlay that with places where existing distribution or transmission infrastructure exists. The point being to identify sites that would be relatively easy to develop and preferred by municipalities and and and RPCs. The geez the preferred siting areas arise out of act one seventy four from 2016 that provided for the opportunity for RPCs and municipalities to identify these new sites. If they did so and they updated their energy plans in accordance with PUC standards, that the municipalities and or PVCs would then be granted Oh gosh, what is the term? No. Substantial difference. Difference. Thank you. In in any any proceedings on on the granting CPG certificates of public good to projects that we that we've built in these areas. That's substantial deference as opposed to what is the other thing is just much much less much less standing in in those proceedings. It gives it gives municipalities, RPCs, a lot more control over over or a lot more input, a lot more control over these projects. If they're being cited outside of these preferred site areas, then it gives them more teeth to be able to prevent this. So by having the preferred sites, it's intended to channel development into these areas, and where these areas are near or adjacent to or inside rights of way for existing electrical infrastructure, it makes sense that we would try to highlight that in order to get more renewable generation built. So that's the purpose of that. I think it arose whole cloth out of my own head. I don't know if anybody had suggested this, but I sort of hit upon the idea, and in the course of meetings this summer and fall with advocates and community leadership, it just seemed like an idea that it's worth pursuing. So that's where it came from.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, Scott, would it essentially I mean, from our conversations, what I took away, and I I think this is a really interesting idea, it would essentially ask the PUC to compile a list or maybe they already have a list of all the preferred sites

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And flag or highlight those that are located in areas that already are near to transmission or distribution lines. In other words, these might be doubly preferred sites.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: In effect, yes. So the language is, the PUC will study and report on how to expedite renewable energy development by examining municipal and regional preferred sites identified in the enhanced energy plans and their proximity to existing electric energy or energy distribution and transmission infrastructure. So that's what we're asking. There is is no corporation.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. So I would imagine that if the infrastructure has constraints, that would also be indicated on that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That is a good thing to have constraints.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That is a good thing. Yeah. When

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: we get to the village.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then I think rep Kwepner had to stand up first, then I see you, rep Southworth.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: So

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: who do you imagine is going to use this overlaid map of double preferred sites?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, merchant generators or utilities. Utilities themselves. So we have limited, at the moment, group net metering facilities to utilities, to the electric utilities. But there's there is an opportunity. Well, if if such a site turned up that was adjacent to a a Right. That it could be it could be a that be site as well. So, for example, a affordable housing complex or something like that. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I wonder if it's necessary because it seems to me the utilities and the private developers of generating capacity do this research themselves and know where the preferred areas are for zoning and where the transmission and distribution lines are and where the substations are and they talk to utilities about the capacity and all this stuff. So it seems like the people you mentioned as who would use this, the utilities and the developers, kind of already they didn't ask for this. I mean, no. They called up and said, hey. This would be really helpful to us.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. It's worth asking now.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yes. It would be worth asking.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rep Southworth?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth]: Well, Rep Kleppner actually beat me to the punch on that one. I would echo what he stated, And it just it seemed redundant to me because they would be doing their own research and would be less likely to try and put anything in in an area that didn't have the infrastructure. Thank you.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Rick Bailey?

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Bailey]: Same follow-up to Rutland in Southworth. Wouldn't the PUC ask these questions when they're looking to issue a certificate of public good?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, they would. The purpose here is to be more proactive about it and identify these of doubly preferred sites as chairquisite in advance so that they would be highlighted. But it may it may be this that it's unnecessary. I think we should be a problem each of these and developers. Rutland? Yeah. I

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: was thinking of an energy shed and energy shed planning, which is across towns and how this type of information would be helpful in that effort. I don't know that the PUC is the right organization to pull that off or if it's something I mean, I guess that could be part of the study Mhmm. To figure out who. But I think that It would be good for communities to have a tool like this, you know, beyond developers but for planners.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm. K. Great. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: And how do you envision these maps being kept current?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't envision that right now. This as I said, it was it was almost a short it's almost a short form, though. There is a clause in statute, but it's really it's really an idea to explore, and so we'll see. But I think these are all excellent questions. Yeah. Alright. And we haven't even talked about the bill. I mean, gotten a read through from those companies or anything.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Oh. Oh, yes, Brett Howland?

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: I think the utilities already have this mapping on their websites. So enhancement to this is the Regional Planning Commission's citing. Right. So to enhance to what the utility maintained. We heard from Velco about their need in updating. And so with a little bit of past experience, and this is the large capacities of the system for the recent 20 megawatt plants that have been approved since we last met. And so they're large capacity plants that tend to be and not the community type plants that, I guess, all maybe utilities get the. So there's some error to an overlay to the utility's GIS system or or and I don't know if it's on a state site or not. I would have to refresh how to find that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Great. It occurs

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: to me that several of these things might be addressed at once if there were a way to automate this So if the maps lived online and as the utilities updated their grids, it automatically updated the maps. And as regional planning commissions updated their zoning, it automatically updated.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Everything's automatically updated. Putting the world out on a pilot right now. Yeah. No. I these are these are excellent questions already. Yep. So Alright. Excellent.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I think so. Next. Next.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Next. What is next? H599.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: The

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: purpose is to allow for modifications to a net metering system without needing an updated certificate of public good if the change does not increase the capacity of the system to more than 25 kW. This originated, actually, out of my own experience contemplating adding to rooftop solar at my house. I have not nearly enough between that and membership in the community solar field to run two electric vehicles and two heat pumps. So I was attempting to fill up my barn roof with panels. And I learned that there's a limit on how much you can add to an existing CPG, the CPG being the one that I received when I put the original panels on my roof. And that CPG came with whatever the net metering adder or negative adder that existed at the time that I obtained the CPG. There's a limit to how much I can have before I trigger needing to get a new CPG that would then come with the current Adder or negative Adder. In fact, a much greater negative Adder now than it was three or four years ago, that limit is 5% of, if I add more than five percent of what I have in the original CPG, or 15 kW, whichever is greater, then that triggers a new CPG, and therefore, going from the original adder, which is greater than the current adder. So that would affect the economics of the whole project, obviously, if the adder is reduced or the negative adder is increased. Looking into that, I looked up the, this is in, what's called rule 5,100 in the BUC, and there is a section of that rule that specifically says, what I said earlier, an amendment or series of amendments that increase the capacity of the net metering system by more than 5% or 15 kW, whichever is greater, will trigger the application of the most recently adopted site and rec adjusters to the entire output of the amended met metering system. Recalling So that last year we moved the ceiling for an automatic CPG just on application from, I guess it was from 15 kw to 25 kw. And also recognizing the 25 kw is actually about what a household would need to run two electric cars and two or more heat pumps, it occurred to me that 25 should be would be consistent to make 25 the trigger for a new CPG if you're adding to a system. So this bill proposes to make that make that make 25 kw the the trigger.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Instead of 5%.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Instead of 5% or 15 kw, add it to your existing system. Does that make sense? Did I explain that?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I get it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You know, like okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. Okay. Questions about that? That does seem like a a follow on to some of the work we did last year, so I'm understanding where it fits in. Respiratory? Then oh, and then I I see you rep Southworth. Mike, do you want to go first representative Southworth?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth]: I can. Sure. So would this additional kilowatts being added to the existing be included in the net metering? So basically you would be increasing the net metering allowance for that person?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: How No.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth]: Would you differentiate what would be covered under the net metering and what wouldn't be?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. So

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth]: you would be allowing the totality of what the additional panels would be to be covered under the net metering?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Well, it's all net metering, right? Well,

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth]: the original CPG is for X amount of power, correct? And that was what was covered under the net metering, correct?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. But if you're adding to those panels, it's still net metering. Question is whether the addition triggers a requirement to obtain a new CPG with a new, what do they call it, the rec requirement.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth]: Right, but what I'm getting at is that adding power that is gonna cost rate payers more.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, yeah, marginally.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth]: But it's still gonna cost more.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. I think we heard last year that the impact of net metering on electric rates generally is small, 2%, 3%, something like that. Is anybody- I can't remember. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth]: Yeah, but it's still above what market rate is.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, it's above what wholesale rate is. Right. That's my

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth]: concern. It's just adding more cost to rate payers. That's all.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. Okay. That's valid.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth]: Thank you.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: R. Torre? My question is about what a modification entails. Does it if you want to modify, do you have to get updates to utility zones? What's involved in modifying? If you want to get your what's the process for modification?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm sure you have to be in touch with the utility, yes. But not And there's probably certain capacity constraints. But, yes, you do have to clear it has to be coordinated with the ELD. I don't know all the steps involved because this is what if you're putting the panels on yourself, if you're going through a contractor, they handle all this for you. So I don't know all the details about that.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And then and then is there a fee at all for modifying the CPG?

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: I don't know the answer to that either. I don't think so. There's something with the $200. Earlier, we saw something labeled around $102,100 on another bill.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, that was representative Morrow's bill that increased the PUC fees. And I don't remember if one of them was to modify or whether that was for new residential solar.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Categories for each.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Oh. So we increase the Yeah. But we increase the fees for modification as well. Right? Correct. Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Just Can

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I ask a general question if anyone knows? What is the effect on the grid and or the utility of solar that's generated behind the meter and used behind the meter?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh. That that is not as simple. Yeah. That's that's what I was I just had that with at lunch yesterday.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: If it's not if it's being used as it's generating, those amps are now flowing back through the meter. They're flowing through your net. So you generate with your solar cells. You those those amps flow through your net metering, come to a connection called the bus. And from there, it either runs avoids your revenue meter for the utility of revenue meter, spends that meter backwards if you were pulling it back into the grid, or I don't think it would register that you're using that to run while you're operating. But in in this case, he explicitly said he's doing his cars. He wants to do his cars. And let's assume you want to heat the house and not cool the house. Generally, you do that after the sun goes down. You wanna heat your house in the off off season. And when he gets home, wants to charge his cars. So he wants to generate while the sun is out in the morning, back peak the utilities using them as storage and then draw back at night. I just did some quick calculations and 5% of a 16 megawatt system is 800, if I did my calculation. So that's an addition of one panel to put your limited presently to the 5% limit. Well, or 15 kW.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, The greater the greater Oh, you could

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: do the greater. So if you had 10, you could add five. Yeah. Okay. I thought I was doing 5% of the lesser. Yeah. Well, but anyway, so the utility will have to come in and talk about that. And in the area, they were explicit in my later years of work of limiting to five kw because of the burden that net metering was putting on the rest of the co op owners. They were getting more energy than they can use. There's a lot of pieces to this standard offer stuff and what these utilities are required to take at rates that are above what they're selling they're getting. Yeah. The the I did a conglomeration of the projects. They're paying as much as 30¢ a kilowatt hour, twenty eight cents a kilowatt hour into the systems. And so these munis have to take that their percentage of low, 11.7% of high powered electric is percentage of the growth. They have to take that, and they may not have had the the growth, and they may have other obligations of procuring energy. We're getting a little

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: bit beyond that. No. No. But they

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: I apologize. But Anyway, we need to address this, and the utilities will have to come in and and make their their cases. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. If if we move forward with this bill. Right. Rep Sibilia, just just a reminder, these these bill and throws are what I see is happening here at the beginning of the session is that we're assembling a a salad basket of ideas.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: A salad basket.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you. Salad bowl. A salad bowl of ideas.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: A bread bag?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. Bread bag.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: A bread bag.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And so in my mind, I'm starting to try to make connections, you know, like, okay, we've got a PUC. We've got an idea to talk about the PUC fees. I think we've got a net metering bill coming. We have single plant that we're gonna hear about tomorrow. So, you know, I I'm just trying to make connections in my mind between Yeah.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Topics that might be related that

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: are Controversial.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Simple and easy.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. Rip Sibilia? Madam chair, I did not have my hand up. Oh. Oh, weird.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's weird. Strange. I'm sure that I have trouble. Wish I

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: could hear you. It's not weird.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: It's a feeling it doesn't sound like

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I know.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: God bless you when it goes to an auction.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But the reason the reason these infros are so important is that they surface questions, things the bill sponsor, you know, has thought about, not thought about, where does this fit in, where does this not fit in, you know.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And there may be connections to other bills.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Connections to other bills. Yeah. And in my mind, I'm always thinking, alright. If we move forward with this one, there were some questions about this and that, so we're gonna need to make sure we hear from x, y, and z. Right. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Do do we ever consolidate

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We do.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: A bill?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So and that was another thing I was thinking about, and you don't need to you're not saying. But but sometimes or often, we could do a committee bill. And, basically, that means we start with a blank sheet, and we all say, alright. We're gonna do a committee bill, and it's gonna be, you know, three or four related topics. Each of the things in and of itself, you know, they kinda all hang together. Sometimes they don't even hang together. But we could if if there's interest, you know, we could at some point before crossover or even you give a little extra time. Don't you like me?

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Like, a mini bill can be submitted anytime, I believe.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. They get No. There is a third party

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: bill. Senate.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They have to get the senate, so there is a

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But, anyway, the answer to your question is yes. You know, we don't if if we like three related ideas, we don't necessarily have to move three bills. We could create a committee bill, put them all on the same plate. You know?

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

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Right. I would just look at this and yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Salad basket.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Per se, but the provisions necessary to this one affect another bill. Right. And if you're the first one, how do you lay problems on the other thing?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So which is probably an argument for the point for the approach you're bringing up, which is that we hear everything early. Everything's kind of flying around. You've got a bunch of ideas circling the runway. And then when we feel like we've got a handle on all the things that are related and how they might impact each other, we could try to pull together one bill or not.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Lots of good answers there.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Next one?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, next. Yep, what's next?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: H609 is about thermal energy networks. This arises out of a request for the PUC report about thermal energy networks and what the appropriate regulation would be for them. First of all, I guess we could And the PUC gave us a report dated 10/20/2025. This is pursuant to Act 142 of 2024 that we heard about yesterday. Was it yesterday?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Uh-huh. It was. And I'm just looking to see if that's posted.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It was paused?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. The is it posted yet? Yes. On our reports tab, if you scroll down under public utility commission, and I'll ask Joe or Alex to rename this if you can. But you'll see on Tuesday, 10/21/2025 on our reports tab under Public Utility Commission, it says TENS report 2025. So that Thermal Energy Network report is posted. And Joe or Alex, if you guys get a minute, if you could just rename people don't necessarily know what TENS is. So thermal energy if you could just rename it. Thermal Energy Exchange Network Development Report. So folks who see that know what it is. So we do have that report on our website and if we move forward with any bill related to thermal energy networks we'll be sure to have go over this report. So, back to you, Scott.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. Well, just a couple of things from that report that are useful. First of all, defining what TENS are. Thermal Energy Exchange Networks is the official name. It's sort of abbreviated to Thermal Energy Networks, or TEN, tend to be defined as, quote, All real estate fixtures and personal property operated, owned, or used, or to be used for, or in connection with, or to facilitate a distribution infrastructure project that supplies thermal energy to more than one household dwelling unit or network of buildings that are not commonly owned. That leaves out single unit situations where somebody's putting in a thermal energy, basically ground source heat pump, for their own house or their own building. It also leaves out buildings that are in common ownership that might be cooperatives or- Campuses? Universities, yeah. Universities, leaves those out. And another category that is left out is thermal energy networks that are owned by municipalities. So for example, Montpelier, there's a thermal energy network run by the jet plant, Frost Street. The commission was charged with coming up with a report on how to support the development of thermal energy networks and what regulations would be appropriate. There, just to cut through Chase, their recommendations were basically to add TENS to the permissible purposes for the establishment of a fire district to create another category of eligible entities that could develop and operate at TENS and exclude fire districts from commission regulations. It'd be another exception to the types of TENS that fall under jurisdiction of PUC. Another point was to only require a public utility company, quote unquote, certificate of public good under appropriate statute to operate TENS for private networks not otherwise excluded from commission regulation. These are privately owned, whether by a single person or by a company or nonprofit. I'm sorry, sorry. Back up

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: to fire districts. Can you

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: give an example of why a

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: fire district Well, is a field

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: let's see. They did talk about fire districts. It's not strictly fire, but fire districts also operate water Yeah. Water systems. Yeah. Water systems. Yeah. So I think that was the that was the thought. Got

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: it. Thank you. Yeah.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I was just gonna add to that, I was very excited to see fire district references. Another idea I was having. Fire districts are a great way for municipalities to team up on something because they have the ability to lend taxes. Yeah. So it it's a great tool for regional cooperating.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So Yeah. Cross talent or multi talent municipalities. In fact, because the fire districts and municipalities can raise money. Let's see, they also had some other technical changes that they recommended. Basically, they advocated for as light of touch regulation as possible in order to facilitate the development of TENS, and if there's further regulation that becomes apparent, then deal with it at that time.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So this, they did recommend actual language per statute, and this bill just reflects the language requested by the PUC. We also, in the course of talking about this this summer and fall, heard from, actually it was in this group or another group that we heard from, people who have been advocating for TENS for some time about questions they had about some of the PDC minor. So we will hear more about that if it was to tick up the tail.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. That's a feeling, Scott. And I apologize.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I've had some conversations with some of the advocates for this. I know that there's a town in my region that isn't just for this.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Can you remind me what is the problem this

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: is trying to solve here?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, this the PAC was was asked to come up with a report recommending a level of regulation that would be appropriate for for TENS and for facilitating TENS and and and and regulating TENS. And so that's the genesis of the language that they suggested in their report, the statute language they suggested in the report, and that statute language is exactly what this bill includes as far as scientific numbers. Is that right? You got a chance. Yeah. So the so so the problem is if if it's a request that we made in the PUC. The legislature made in the PUC in Act 142 in 2024. So we're actualizing their recommendations. I'm trying to remember the problem we were trying to solve. Yeah. Oh,

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Rectory knows Yeah. Yeah. So that was our PUC housekeeping bill. And at the time, we weren't sure if we had to actually give the PUC authority to regulate because it's not electric, it's not gas. It's different. So we weren't sure if that needed to be addressed as we did we had a bill that gave the municipalities the authority. And so the PUC suggested to us, we don't need to decide this now. Why don't we come back to you with any, you know, thoughts? So that's why it came

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: up with the the report.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Who does that send your report? Do. If you Yes. I think that's I think that was exactly it. They did say something in this report about usually, they're asked to regulate monopoly each other. And and this is not that. So what the story is kind of, I guess, the reason for requesting the report.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Yes? There's no Yeah. No provisions for the source of the thermal energy or prohibitions of the Yeah. The thermal energy, like, you mentioned, the chip plan.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Could be chip. Could be thermal, I guess. Yeah. Well, I don't I I think the the the question is how is this is a this is a district heating system. Right.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: But I don't foresee the outlay of a district heating system being thousands of feet between customers, more like hundreds of feet between

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: customers. Right?

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Yes. And so the consolidation so if you're talking about your little development, you don't want the rope dug dug up three times for three different thermal companies coming down the road with with, hey. Take mine. Take mine. I mean, that's why they have the fire districts or water company that they

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: cover. Exactly what exactly where this issue would intersect with with with the with public concern. Right? Well yeah. But yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But the sort

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: of one thing to add is that Vermont Gas has done some thermal energy network.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: So

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: because they're a regulated utility, there was the question of could know, and they did it as a pilot. Mhmm. Just what what they would be able to do as their business model. That was that was part of the thinking about That's right. I think inviting the POC.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You should have introduced this book.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, and I I support in that. Am I remembering, Scott and or Dara, if if we move forward with this idea, I feel like I actually feel like I'm now remembering that BT Gas had that we would definitely wanna have them come in to testify. They they had something they wanted to see changed. Or am I am I making that up? I feel like BT Gas I had some comments on the report or wasn't totally

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I mean, formally, I spoke with Neil Londonville Yeah. To say, how do you feel about the report? Yeah. And Scott.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. At a conference. But that's I might be thinking of something else.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: K. Alright.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I I I Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Great.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Next one, last one. This one's pretty easy. This is h six ten requesting creation of a community based energy navigator program statewide, or at least an extension of a pilot. There currently exists a pilot. First of all, an energy navigator is, the idea is that there's place for consumers to go to, to help them figure out what efficiency programs, what incentive programs, what energy programs are out there that would be appropriate for them. And as we know from our conversations here, over the course of the whole session last year, there are a lot of programs. It can be confusing for consumers to figure out what is appropriate for them to access. Addison County has an energy navigator program that they served as a pilot, and this bill would extend the pilot, I think he told me, to Rutland County. Although it does I should say also that this bill is a companion bill to the bill introduced by senator Rutland on the senate side, and is, in fact, verbatim per bill. Actually, we should have her right here to talk about it. But R. F. James and I decided that we would introduce a companion bill in order to facilitate gimpanzees through the process as quickly and efficiently as possible. This bill would set up a program and ask for a report from Efficiency Vermont. So in collaboration with an existing community based energy navigator program such as the Climate Economy Action Center of Addison County, EDT shall design a Vermont community based energy navigator program that will provide in person and remote coaching services to residents, consumers, and communities statewide. And there are energy navigator programs in neighboring states, in Massachusetts and also in Connecticut, that have set up systems for providing these services. This legislation asks to consult. Actually, think Connecticut has a whole website set up and everything that ads accounting program makes use of. In fact, they probably contract or subscribe to it or something like that. That may be the quickest, easiest, and least expensive way to do something like this. That's purpose for consulting with them. The program is intended to provide guidance to residential consumers, which includes homeowners, landlords, and renters, particularly those with low and moderate incomes, to better understand and navigate energy efficiency and clean energy investment options, and advise on grants, rebates, financing, and other resistance programs, prioritizing opportunities, look at contractors, and analyze contractor recommendations, and provide basically hands on coaching. And then provide ongoing state funding to support the operation. Bill would provide state funding to support the ongoing operations. There is an appropriation in this bill. This is the only bill of the four that has an appropriation. It's $165,000 total from the general fund, 15,000 to EVT, just to design the program and, or actually, to do the report, I guess, and 150,000 work with for EBT to work with the Climate Economy Action Center within Addison County to do do something. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, I can add only a titch of background to elaborate on Brett Campbell's intro. Bunch of us went to the VCAN conference in October. And VCAN is the that's the Vermont Energy and Climate Action Network. And it's a it's an umbrella organization for all of Vermont's town energy committees. So I don't know if folks here my town has a really active energy committee, a lot of communities do. And so this is a group that brings together all the town energy committees to share information and share best ideas and they do a conference once a year. There was a lot of interest at that conference in this energy navigator program that's been up and running in Addison because it's been successful and it helps Vermonters get kind of individualized, personalized information about, I live in this leaky old farmhouse, or, you know, I'm thinking about heat pumps. Are there incentives? Would this be a good idea for my home? And so it's like coaching, basically, or consulting. And so, you know, it's an interesting idea. It does have money on it this year, which is interesting. So I think that Scott and I wanted to put forward the idea on the house side, especially because so many folks from reached out to us and asked asked if we would just get the idea out there. If we're super interested in it, could have senator Hardy in, and we could have the Addison County folks in and learn more about the the program that's up and running. You know? Or we could wait and see if if the senate gets it out. Because it is primarily senator Hardee's

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Bill. Oh, we could just wait and see if it makes

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: it over here. Yeah.

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: know if some of these services are available through Brock or rather than Bennington County Action Committee? That's a great question. And They're very they they had Brock had a individual that was recognized at their annual meeting who was very energy targeted.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do you know, Rip Howland, that is a great question. In the interactions I've had with I thought that those services were largely targeted at income eligible, low income Vermonters

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. It's certainly

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: living in the Brock Service region. This would be available to anybody.

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Okay. So maybe just a spin off of a community action, a fair type situation that they were R. C. There, it was mentioned particularly with the heat pump retirement benefits. Oh, okay. He pumps it. So, yes, he may not have been advising because of income, but just with a general knowledge. But that might be a a more efficient way of Well, they if if he had right. If he if if that person with that knowledge helped that branch spun out with a portion of his time, because if you're only talking a 150,000, you're not that there was that request of Yeah. Of a 150. Yes. Work program design, basically. But there are no there are no man hours and there are no excuse me. There's no employee hours in this

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, yeah, I don't I don't think it's that's not it's for it's for operations. There may be It's a

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I thought it was for I thought it was for to expand the the Addison County program to Rutland County. As an expansion of the pilot. For

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: FY27, 150,000 to the Climate Economy Action Center to collaborate with DBT on the Energy Navigator Program designed to continue to develop its community based energy navigator resources, programming, and expertise, and support the expansion of its energy navigator program to a neighboring county. That is the Rutland connection.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Perhaps I'm not supposed to mention Rutland County, although I thought that was what they were tarp I thought that was where they were interested. But it's you know, I mean, I know my name is a lot of these bills too. And as a a way of just putting an interesting idea on our radar, you know, or a successful program on our radar that's currently operating in in a limited way, you know, for in one kidney. Yeah.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah, and I like the report aspect because I think we are realizing we have a lot of different programs and there's kind of a need for coordination for maximum impact. I just wanted to add that the Department of Public Services is going to be looking at, like, energy assistance and the whole the whole realm with that lens of coordination. So that will be good when we have someone from the department in to kind of discuss that and maybe mention this because it seems like this could also be woven into the report they're working. So coordination's the name of the game right now.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Coordination, not duplication.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Right.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Bailey]: So what is it DBT needs to do? I mean

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, they're an expert, if I could consult it. They they would write the report, and they have a lot of experience, obviously. So realm But are we aren't they

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Bailey]: getting but this is getting out of their perfume, isn't it? I mean, they're supposed to be doing electrical savings, not

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: just all the other stuff.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, they have several programs as well that are quite Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Well, I mean,

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: I was trying to figure

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Bailey]: out why they're in that business when they have the OEOs that should

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: be doing all that stuff.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, the OEOs are are are limited to low income. So 80% of it's very service all of. Yeah. And EBT can provide services to moderate income and market rates, they're called. The reason why they're involved is because there isn't there isn't anybody else that does this really on a

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Bailey]: But if because Addison already got it done, why did I need to get in there and do whatever they're gonna do?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I mean, no. Are

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Bailey]: we gonna use the?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, let me I think these are good questions to ask. We'll we'll know. Let me definitely take up the bill. Right? Because I they're certainly valid valid points. Somebody mentioned a minute ago, maybe the community action agencies may be expanding their role into non law income for this particular service. Might be a more efficient way to work.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: One thing I don't know, that kind of goes to R. Daley's question is, it's been a while since I interacted with the efficiency Vermont because I did my weatherization so long ago to the point where actually recent we heard recent testimony that needs to be revisited every

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Ten to fifteen years, and I was like, oh, god. But I does any, do we know, like, can you call Efficiency Vermont and, but they won't send somebody to your house.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Well, they have the contractor network. Right. They have some online auditing. But what I I think one of the things this would get at that doesn't currently exist for the average person is the road map. You know, the homeowner road map. Right. The order of operations. Because we don't tend to do everything at once. And I think that you're when you're working with and and on a discreet project that you get hooked up with

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: A rebate for it.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. Necessarily get that roadmap. Okay. So I think that's that this is an ongoing relationship, and that's why it's so community based. And right now, you can pay someone to be an energy coach. This is kind of a sounds like it would be a little more accessible or maybe less costly to have that handholding for the long term Yeah. On your overall household energy manager. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, and there's certainly that dimension to it, which is important, but even just initial contact with these programs or initial contact with, Where do I go? Where do

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: I start?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Just from my experience at three d Thermal, we had incentive money to offer to landlords, and that was usually what got their interest and got them in the door. But what we've what we found, what they found was actually the most useful service, the most important service was that handling. Most people are just conversant with the the all the issues as doing energy upgrades. In fact, many landowners structures, all landowners aren't really intimidated by a construction project. Helping owners through the process and giving them unbiased advice, or advice that is biased towards helping them reduce their costs and improve the quality of their buildings is really valuable, even more valuable than the money, really. This is not exactly that, but it is related to it in that it's providing consumers with, So what do I do? In the answer to the question, What do I do? That seems like the value in Bennington.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Scott, thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. You're welcome.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Say surprise text at 08:00 in the

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: morning. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: What are you doing this morning? Alright. Representative Sibilia. Alrighty. Representative Sibilia, you. You are h 5. I'm trying to see Cross Room 593. No. Yes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Cross is Yep. 2. Yep. 593. This is, members will remember our hearing this fall and discussion from and the department about long term study looking at interconnection to between the ice and New England grid through New York to Right. Now it's That's the PJM grid. Yeah. The PJM. And I was concerned about that because of what's happening in that PJM territory and how fast things are evolving with large loads in including data centers and other other, entities. And so, this

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: bill. Sorry. Just to, stop right there. Yeah. I just wanna remember some of that testimony and have that conversation a little bit better. And because I know that you've also then done since done a lot of reading and research.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: A lot of reading and research.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So the idea Yes. Is that currently the ISO New England grid is discreetly managed. Yes. And there's a pitch or proposal or an idea to interconnect to this neighboring Yes. Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: New Jersey.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: New Jersey grid.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's up into

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: yeah. And It's connected. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That is my that is my question. You know, it's not like our grid. And I know we took testimony on this last year, I apologize. But, you know, it's not like all power lines stop. So when we say we're thinking about interconnecting, what does that actually mean?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So this is

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: or do we need to just get testimony? I think we

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: need to get more testimony.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So This is about agreements to buy and sell a load or power.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. This is about

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the availability of power. And so it is my understanding from the research that I have done. It's my experience that these the transmission folks and energy planning folks are pretty sober, serious people who look a long way out. And that this is something that has been thought about for a number of years to solve some problems that we have in the New England grid, where we're really constrained and we have a high winter peak. And so in PJM, for example, they have a lot more renewables that could be helpful in addressing our winter peak. I that's about the that's about the about as much as I'm going to be able to say about potential benefits, you know, and I would defer to a lot of other experts. But there was a sense in New England that we should be looking at how can more interoperability with this other neighboring regional transmission organization. And that is something that they've been thinking about and talking about and working towards for a long period of time.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: It adds flexibility. Yes. Most of you know

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's what you said. Say it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Adds flexibility. Yes. Ability to manage

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Load. Load. Okay. Yes. Most of you are probably aware, like, we are seeing pretty significant dynamic changes

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: in

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: in demand for power from data centers and other and and in a way that is not matching up with these, at least from my perspective, with these long term planning, sober planning things. It's kind of getting ahead of that and changing things faster than maybe is anticipated. So a lot of the summer work that I have done, I've been to conferences with R. T. O. R. And others. I work on some committees in NCSL. I've heard a lot of concerns from other legislators in the EJM territory about what is happening there. And so you'll recall, I was concerned when I heard this in our hearing, like, oh, we should really understand what that means and if how that might impact our grid through this interoperability. And so and Maria was there, and this is working with Maria a concept of how to just take a pause and make sure that we are doing our due diligence when these type of connections are made. So talking with TJ, very informally, you know, he said, I'm not sure how many times we will make these types of connections. Again, these are really big deals that take a long time, a long thought. But this proposal changes in title 30. It under section two, it talks about the Department of Public Service and what powers they have. And so this proposal adds to the end to sec to to letter a small g in their powers and duties that any of these types of agreements that were going to be entered into by the department, interregional transmission projects and interconnections, would be subject to PUC approval, which is a public process. And so, as a you know, Marie and I talked about the legislative sign off, which seems very ill advised Okay. For a lot of reasons, including, you know, our level of knowledge, the timing, etcetera. So I think it would be important for us to make sure we understand for Vermont ratepayers, you know, how this may be coupled. That was the question that I asked in that hearing, you know, how will this benefit from our ratepayers? And so I think it would be good for us to understand. And there's a tremendous amount of work that has been done by the department and the transmission, utility, and others. So so I would just like us to know more about this.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. And testimony on this, I am hearing I'm thinking ISO Mhmm. The depart the department Mhmm. You see

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm. Velco. Velco. Mhmm. Sorry. Question.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Maybe NCSL, madam chair. Well, I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: was wondering. Yeah. Have other do you do you have any idea from NCSL yet if others other states have done this?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: There are. Yes. There are interconnections that happen all the time. No.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean required I don't know. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Who makes the grievance for trading power across ISOs. Is that done by by the ISOs? It is I do not have enough detail about how that is done, but it I I mean, it's led by the administration here because it's part of the quick service. Right. So I I guess what I'm wondering is And we are a small piece of Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Getting brought along for

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: the ride.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, I I'm imagining that that agreements for the and forth of getting back and forth of power would be done at the regional operator level rather than rather than at at state level or, you know, or at the utility level.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I think the demand for power and both from these large users and the need to move towards beneficial electrification in a way from fossil fuel. It's really incumbent upon us to better understand these processes. Yes. And I think these are really good questions. Yeah. And that's us doing our due diligence. Yep. Sort of understanding how these decisions get made, particularly because of how quickly things are changing right now.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: Yep. I agree. Great. Do recall that one of

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: the concerns that our rates might go up because of all the new data center load in PJM? So

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: my questions were all all based on lack of knowledge and concern because of what I had heard from other legislators in that territory and what they were seeing. We've seen warnings of potential brownouts in the PJM. You know, they had an excess of power. And now with all of the Dave Smithers and other I mean, it's a very kind of dynamic situation. So, my concern is how will this impact us? I don't know. It may be really beneficial, and I've had a lot of conversations and in the off session trying to learn, and I don't think that it is clear yet that we know. I think there's been a request for information that was put out, and I believe those I don't know that the results have been published, but I I believe they're under consideration and due to be published or disclosed.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You. And so I was just looking at what PGM covers. It is not just Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland. It is Virginia, West Virginia, parts of North Carolina, parts of Kentucky Yeah. Ohio Yes. Parts of Indiana Yeah. Parts of Illinois, including Chicago. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: One of the things that I've learned that's interesting, I don't know if it's relevant to this, but in Virginia, that's where there's some pretty major Yes. Connection Internet connections that Yes. Yes. And so that's a really, I guess, a desirable place for a

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: lot of data centers, which require a lot of help.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Seems like something that I'm really interested in, at the very least making sure they understand.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's. Yeah.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. I was just gonna add that there's a lot of play right now at at FERC Mhmm. Federal. Mhmm. So that they can control what happens on the regional transmission level. So it'll it would

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: be nice to get a little, like, transmission update that it goes up a level too given where we're at. Yeah. I I I mean, I think we could use a significant transmission update given what's going on right now and the need for the, you know, grid to continue to modernize and our increasing needs for power. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Bailey]: So currently, if I knew when ISO is in trouble with load, we get for what you were alluding to the strange for winter. We currently get that flow from New York to back us up.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: We get a lot of natural gas, and it's pretty volatile. And for most of our neighboring states, that can have pretty dramatic impacts on the price of power. Vermont is less so because we are vertically integrated, and our regulatory frame is such that it encourage less spot market purchasing and more long term power purchasing, which means we're more stable. We're still high because that's what the mix is on the on the grid and what's available on the grid.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Bailey]: But when you originally said that we're constrained in the wind Mhmm. And if we get constrained, where where are we picking up that power to Natural gas. Don't know. You are an electric or PPMs? Are we

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: This so we're we're going over my head. And and let's let's have the experts come in and really talk more. This is exactly the conversation I think it's important for us to understand.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: They targeted this in our October meeting. They came in, they came in and said that daylight hours were exporting to Canada. So we have a tie with Hydro Quebec in Canada, we get power from New York. So what I envision this is three cell battery. We're now putting a third cell as the Pennsylvania to to share, but to share Pennsylvania's load when they're not needed. So load's gotta come from power's gotta get generated somewhere, But the the flow to the bulb at the top, where's the bulb, and they have the batteries in series. But the the implication is here is what are the cost risks? What are the because of Southern Utilities, the Boston area, that VEG was in here and said I spoke to him about gas generators. He's a seven year lead time, and they don't have the bond gas doesn't have the capacity presently. It's not enough room in their pipe. So the Boston area is actively importing bottled gas from other sources during the winter peak because it's used so much for their heating. Also, most of your.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I think

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: You can explore it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. You can explore it. Yeah. So I think a really complicated issue. So next steps on this if we move it would be to understand the issue enough that we can make an informed decision about because the heart of the bill really is that we understand this complicated issue enough to make an informed decision about whether if these things are gonna happen, whether the PUC should add a level of public oversight, transparent a level of approval that doesn't currently exist. So instead of the department, you know, making these agreements that they would the PUC would have to also take a look at that and approve. That's what we'd be changing.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And no shade on the department No. At all just because this is all moving so quickly. Feels like we and maybe this is not the thing to do, but we I really think we have to better understand this. Yeah. And, madam chair, I have spoken with the department, with Velco, with ISO New England. I've spoken with some other large renewable generators Mhmm. Or wind folks, just to better understand this. And I think hearing from Velco and ISO and the department as a kind of start would be really helpful. I think Reptori's note about the Burke rule, that's I'm sure that Velco would probably bring that up as well. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I was adding things to the salad basket. I am gonna make that

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm gonna make that a salad basket. Alright.

[Rep. Christopher Howland]: I'm not planning ahead for expert lettuce.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Alright. So that was a good catch up on some of the bills. Like I said, we have, rep Southworth on Tuesday introducing six zero one. I'll get on the schedule for introducing six hundred, I think. Yes. Six hundred. And then we got a bill today. So we're actually we're doing okay. Alright. And we can we're back at 01:00 to close the loop on our request about single plant last year. And then we're done for the day after our 01:00 testimony. And we're done now till one. So, you can go off live. And thanks, everybody. Thanks again, Brett.