Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Hi, we're live. Alright, welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Friday, January 16, and we're continuing to work on H527 and Acts relating to extending the sunset of 30 BSA 248A. And we are here with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. So I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four. Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington.

[Speaker 0]: Great. And in the room.

[Unidentified committee member]: Dara Torre, the crossing room.

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: Serena Knight, don't be in our seat. Great.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I'm Greg Favor. I work for the PUC.

[Speaker 0]: Claire Buckley, liaison public affairs for CTIA.

[Josh Hamper (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Josh Hamper, Vermont Legal Cities and Towns.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Great. And Samantha Sheehan, Vermont Legal Cities Towns.

[Speaker 0]: Great. Josh or Samantha or who's testifying? I am. Great. Thanks for joining us. Thank you. Yeah.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Good afternoon. My name is for the record, my name is Samantha Sheehan, the municipal policy and advocacy specialist for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. And I'll share my screen. I'm sharing this.

[Speaker 0]: There

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: we go. Okay. So if you remember, we were here probably about a year ago, discussing ground mounted solar and a certificate of public good process, before the PUC, for that type of, renewable energy project. And so today's testimony is gonna be really aligned, maybe a bit of a refresher about existing municipal authorities related to planning and zoning and how elective leaders and leaders at the municipal level interact with the existing public utility commission process for the siting of telecommunications infrastructure. Just a reminder, VLCT is a nonpartisan nonprofit established in 1967 to serve and strengthen local government in Vermont. All two fifty one municipalities in Vermont are a part of VLCT, so certainly all of the places where you live and the communities that you serve in your districts are part of the VLCT organization, and all municipal officials are members, so that is elected, appointed, and professional staff. So part time summer lifeguards, police officers, select people, members of citizen commissions, including DRBs and planning commissions, as well as mayors. We have eight mayors in Vermont are all members of VLCT. We offer members educational workshops and trainings. We're about to launch a big three year technical assistance programming for the newly passed CHIP program, community housing and infrastructure. We also offer confidential legal guidance to municipal officials through our, team of municipal law attorneys. We have the Vermont Municipal Data Project, which generates a lot of important information about what's going on at the local level, which we share inter municipally, as well as with state partners and other organizations. And Josh and I and some members as appointed serve on a long list of legislatively created committees, task force and working groups in order to represent a unified municipal perspective in the sort of ongoing policy work of this building. I think relevant maybe to this conversation, here's some information about kind of the size and scale of the communities we serve. So there are two fifty one municipalities. Eight have mayors, two are what we consider a strong mayor. 66 only 66 have a city and town or village manager. And 73% of municipalities in Vermont have a population under 20 five 100. Most communities, most town governments are run by, just a gritty, hardworking group of volunteers, many who serve in more than one official position on behalf of the town. I'll skip over the rest of that for now because I'll come back up when we talk about plans. We go through a bi annual or every summer before new biennium, we go through a policy setting process where a number of committees made up of VLC team members develop what we call our municipal policy, which are basically a long list, thirteen, fifteen, 17 pages of policy, we as an organization support legislative action on our leadership from state government. We then, before a new session, sort of refine those into a much shorter list of our highest priorities for that year. And here are some things from that really long list of our adopted municipal policy, which was approved by all present and voting members at the 2020 So five annual at the very first page of our adopted municipal policy, we have a list of guiding principles. One of them is, and as far as I know has always been, to support local discretion to pursue sustainable housing, economic development, recovery, resiliency, including substantial deference to municipal planning, zoning, and citing decisions. So, the preservation of what we call substantial deference is an important guiding principle of how VLCT approaches policy work. We also have under, I think relevant to this discussion, under our adopted public safety policies, we have to ensure statewide access to affordable state of the art telecommunication services that benefit public safety and first responders and builds the economy. And so, of course, first responders are our members. They're EMS, paramedics, police officers, and they rely on functioning telecommunications systems in order to provide that really critical lifesaving public service. And then under our learning's priorities, we have to base development decisions upon adopted municipal plans and to use adopt regional plans as guidance documents. So that's a way of saying we who represent the municipal governments look at the town plan first, regional plan second. So all municipalities in Vermont have broad regulatory authority over land use decisions. The place where that is derived from in the state law is the municipal plan. So basically, you adopt a municipal plan, the law says you can then adopt zoning and permanent bylaw. If you have zoning and permanent bylaw, you can then adopt ordinance, which is the local enforcement tool for zoning and bylaw. There are broad preemptions in state law to this regulatory authority. One you're very familiar with, which is renewable energy generation, also cannabis. I'm gonna put agriculture aside because that's sort of open for discussion following a recent Supreme Court decision. There are also a number of preemptions that say a municipality may regulate this thing, but up until the point at which it would interrupt its intended use. So that's things like hospitals, places of worship, state owned buildings and facilities, etc. Municipal zoning does not apply to telecommunications infrastructure. What the municipal plan and local zoning and bylaw has adopted does provide is clear guidance for the elected officials and appointed town officials who engage the CPG certificate of public good process.

[Speaker 0]: People have some questions. Yeah. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: Just to clarify where the line is between what municipalities are are empowered to do without going through a charter change that has to be approved by the legislature? You could go over that just a little bit in more detail.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Yes. So some municipalities have achieved unique regulatory authorities over certain types of development or land use decisions. You may have heard of one kind of famous, kind of even famous nationally, which is Burlington achieved through charter change and approval by the legislature and the governor, a unique authority to regulate thermal heat for buildings. So then Burlington was able to adopt an ordinance which limits the type of fossil fuel powered heating systems that can be used in certain types of buildings. I think in Burlington, they currently say over 50,000 square feet. And at the time of replacement, you have to switch to electric with some, practical ways out of that. So that's a unique authority that only Burlington has.

[Unidentified committee member]: Does that extend to the energy usage of the building?

[Unidentified committee member]: The energy Like how

[Unidentified committee member]: BTUs? Use intensity, I guess, is a metric for, you know, basically, how many BTUs per square square. It

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: doesn't limit how much energy the building can use. It does

[Unidentified committee member]: It's just about the source.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: It's about the source. Again, with some, like, qualifiers to that. Like, you know, when you walk in a building, blasts you with hot air. Mhmm. Or certain types of kitchen equipment. There's like Okay. Yeah. You know, it's a very specific regulation. But

[Unidentified committee member]: It's not the efficiency of the building. It's the

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: No. But Burlington also has weatherization and ordinance. And other municipalities do as well. That in certain ways, regulate energy efficiency in new buildings.

[Unidentified committee member]: Well, but do you I'm sorry to be so specific about this. Do you know whether this special exception that you mentioned about building this heating equipment covers those other ordinances.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: It's a different ordinance.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's a different ordinate. Mhmm. K. But

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Burlington has I don't know. Maybe there's some, like, nerds in the room that like to learn about these things.

[Unidentified committee member]: We're all Yeah.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: All municipalities can set fees. The fees cannot generate income. The fees can be punitive if they're derived from the ordinance. So, in the case of the thermal

[Unidentified committee member]: That's a general rule.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Heating for building. That's a general rule. Okay. So, then Burlington got this unique authority to regulate thermal heat. And they have as a part of their ordinance a penalty, which is an impact fee. So the builder of the building can choose to follow the ordinance and go the electrification route as a heating solution, or they can choose not to and to use a fossil fuel system. And there are reasons to do that. Sterilization in healthcare settings is one. In which case they pay an impact fee. And then the ordinance also says, what does the impact fee go to? In Burlington's case, it goes to the fleet electrification and it also goes to low and moderate income programs to help those folks electrify. Exactly. But so that's sort of the complete circle of life of municipal authority over development broadly. You can plan for the future, you can plan in a specific way what types of buildings, at what density and intensity can go where and why, how wide should the street speed, do you need projected bike lanes, is parking required or not required, that zoning and by law, and then you can enforce. You can have through ordinance enforcement systems, including permit requirements, inspection requirements, and punitive fees.

[Unidentified committee member]: And all those things are are zoning and and and particular to municipality. Municipalities have the power to to create and enforce those, and that those don't involve charter campuses. Correct.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Except for in the case of the preemptions, telecommunications and renewable energy are preemptions. I wanted

[Speaker 0]: to get back to that. If you have all that in place, telecoms, which is what we're focusing on, is preempted.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Correct. Okay. That is under the authority and oversight of the public utility commission with this sort of path for municipal input, which is a certificate of public. Okay. I'll skip over this. We've had a lot of conversation already, but this just explains like who does this stuff at the municipal level. And I think it's important to know it's not the legislative body. The legislative body has to take the final act action to adopt the municipal plan, but it's developed as prescribed by state law beginning at the citizen commission level. In most communities, that's the planning commission. There are some exceptions to that where they're called other interesting things. If we use Burlington, for example, their sort of electric commission, I think is actually called the electric light board. So there's different names for these types of citizen commissions, but they're non elected officials who volunteer, are appointed, and they begin sort of the hard work of setting forth the community's vision and local regulation for the future. Then the legislative body acts and their state oversight in every every scenario. The planning and or zoning and or bylaw goes to the appropriate place in state government to be reviewed. I think you learned about, for example, the municipal utility rates go to the PC. Those are governed by the PC. So, what is the municipal role then in the 248A process, or the certificate of public good, specifically for telecommunications? This is sort of boldly paraphrased from the law. This is not copy and pasted from statute. But this is basically what it is. The municipal bodies, so the appropriate municipal panel will say it's planning commission, and the legislative body will say, in this case it's a select board, will receive notice from the applicant, the person seeking to fill the cell tower, sixty days prior to their going for the CPG. At that time, those legislative bodies, or sorry, those municipal bodies can host public hearings and meetings and receive public comment on the proposed project. And there are open meeting law requirements that say how long an action or a meeting must be warned for and how many opportunities the public has to engage in those meetings. But really in in the sixty sixty day period, a sort of practical limit would be like probably three public meetings for each of the body and then a fourth that they could fit in with action. Like, but they would have to warn action at the third meeting, if that makes sense. So it could be one meeting, it could be four, but they would certainly have the opportunity to warn those meetings and have the public participate in them. Also at those meetings, they can require the attendance of both DPS and the applicant. That's a shall in the law. And then there are other additional notices received by those same public bodies related to filings of the Certificate of Public Good modifications or waivers that may be sought depending on if or when those things happen, the municipalities are also notified along with other statutory notice requirements to other parts of government. The municipality also has a right to appear in the CPG process at the PUC, and they may request DPS to retain certain experts. So if concerns arise through the local process at the local level, that the municipality feels the PUC should understand better, they can request that experts, be retained by DPS. This is the balloon test thing. This is like how the town would request the balloon test.

[Speaker 0]: I have some questions. I just want to make sure I really and I know we've received a walkthrough on this from the PC and I'm just still trying to make sure I understand how it how it plays out sort of in the real world. So the company's required to notify the municipality. And is that a letter that arrives in the mail or an email they get?

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I don't know. Does anyone in here know that they mail it? I would assume it would be an electronic communication, but they both

[Unidentified committee member]: electronic filing. Yeah.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: It would probably be an electronic filing. Would Like, to

[Speaker 0]: the town manager or to the so chair of the select board?

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Select board and the planning commission.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Okay. Those are it it's required to go to the select board and the planning commission.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. And then is the and this may be I I so you you get you're the chair of

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: the planning commission. You get

[Speaker 0]: an email says, hi. I'm x company, and we wanna put up care in your town. And No.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Just just to clarify a little bit. We we have rules designed rub around what's it in that advance notice.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Yeah. They have to notify also of the municipality's rights.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: And there's some specific things they need to include in that. That was not

[Speaker 0]: That's right.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Just a letter saying, hey. I wanna build a tower. It's

[Speaker 0]: I I wasn't trying to be flip, but and you talked about what was in the letter. Remember, I'm just trying to boil it all down. So you get the notice, and it goes to the chair of the planning commission. And is the chair of the planning commission required? You said opportunity to hear public comment and warrant action. They're not required. Optional or is that mandatory? It's optional.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: So the But optional optional under two forty eight a, separate from that, there's open meeting law that requires all public bodies that are non advisory to deliberate in public. So if I'm the planning if I'm the select board chair of the town of Hancock, that's where I live, and I receive this notice, in order to decide what action to do, it has to be discussed at the meeting with my select fellow select people. Right? So there's not an explicit requirement under two forty eight a, but the tap the select board at that point could do nothing and then there would not be a a meeting or a public discussion. Or if they're going to do anything, there has to be a public meeting and a public discussion because of the other requirements of title 24.

[Speaker 0]: So the chair and I'm sorry to really dive. I I just wanna make sure I really understand. So the the chair of the planning commission could then go to the next meeting. And so there's a couple folks sitting in the room and maybe one person watching on YouTube and say, oh we got this notification, We have to decide what to do. Do we wanna and if the folks sitting around the room at that time say, looks good to us. We don't wanna do anything. Then is that it?

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Well, if they had warned an action fifteen days prior to that select board meeting, then they could vote to take that action. Someone could motion to do whatever to, hold a public hearing. Someone could motion to but the the action would have to be formed for them to make that decision. Also, I'm not an attorney, but

[Speaker 0]: That's yeah. I'm not

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: an attorney. But this is, like so you you see what I'm saying? So it wouldn't just be, like, hey. Does anybody know about this thing? Yeah. There's nothing we should do anything about it. That's not like a legal way that Select were to operate.

[Speaker 0]: Right? So it has to be warned.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: It has to be warned. The materials are posted. The discussion is had. And then there could be a motion and there could be a vote on the action. And the action could be any of these things here. It could be to direct the someone, that works for the town. There's a planning director We are we actually direct the planning director to do these tasks in order for us to consider this in two weeks at our next meeting. Or we direct like, there's a they they they they are the general managers of the business of the town. Right? The select board, the legislative body, the city council. So that but that is the venue where if they chose to warn a town hall on this project or ask a member of the select board to go talk with the abutters or they, choose to warn an action that they are recommending at their next select board meeting. Right? Like, that that all happens in the public meeting. Same with the same at the planning commission level.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. Can I follow-up with that?

[Unidentified committee member]: Mhmm. Unless I missed this, but it sounds like what you're saying, the select board have to take some action. If if they if if when they would proceed notice of of of proposed projects, they have to do something. They do they have to does it have to be an affirmative? Let's say they don't wanna do anything. I'd say, yeah. I want let's we're gonna build a tower. That's great. How do we need the towers? Do they have to take a vote on that, or can they just

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I don't think they do. I

[Speaker 0]: don't think they do. I can double check with our

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: if they choose not to They

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: don't have to

[Speaker 0]: oppose it

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: or Oppose it, communicate to DPS

[Unidentified committee member]: Or take any request.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Right. Like, there there are these actions that they can take. They can require DPS to come to a meeting. They can require AT and T to come to their meeting. They can they can seek information that's under their authority already for further discuss. Like, to do those things, that has to be done publicly. It has to be warm, posted. The meetings are available. The minutes are available. The recordings are available. I guess. Right. If they are not going to engage the certificate of public good process, I don't know if they have to do anything. But but they're not the only people notified. I didn't list out. Like, are notified as well. Right.

[Unidentified committee member]: Mhmm.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: So there's also the next slide, which is substantial difference. If the select board chooses not to, or the planning commission or both, choose not to further engage the PUC process for the certificate of public good, there's still the substantial deference requirement, which does refer to the municipal plan. So even in the absence of, action at the local level at that point, right, there's 200 municipal plans. So if there is a municipal plan, then the substantial deference applies. This is copy and pasted because it's that important to us. I don't want to put it the wrong way.

[Unidentified committee member]: Well, I guess the other question is, does the PUC then engage with town officials on on the town's land, or do they just go by what's written on paper?

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: My my understanding of the, DPG is that the RPC must certify consistency with the municipal plan. Oh. So it's the other professional planner, from the region will look at so if the project's proposed in Hancock, Two Rivers out of Queechee must certify the project proposed in Hancock's consistent with Hancock's municipal plan for those. That's my understanding.

[Unidentified committee member]: This is only if the town gets advanced notice in this process.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: The town must get advanced notice.

[Unidentified committee member]: 60 No. I thought they didn't have I thought they weren't necessarily

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Under two forty eight a, they must receive, and others. I don't know what they are because I don't

[Speaker 0]: We had I think I think the PUC provided us I I know we have a list of everybody that has to be warned that we heard that testimony. Greg, I think.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. Would you like to know who Yeah. Noticed? So town, of course, regional planning commission, the town planning commission, the select board and the town planning commission. Right? A and R, DHP, the Department of Historic Preservation, Department of Public Service, of course, all the adjoining landowners will get notice.

[Unidentified committee member]: And I think that's it.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: There's other agencies.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, DHP, ANR, DPS, AAFM, I don't think that they are a required party but I think that's it. The bailer agencies. And again that's just the the advance notice and then sixty one days later it's a minimum of sixty days. So potentially on day 61 the actually files their application with all the same people. And then the actual comment period begins.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Mhmm. Okay. And if there's modifications, I think it's a fifteen day notice.

[Unidentified committee member]: Right.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Right. Within fifteen days of the modification. So I guess before I get to the punch line, I'll pause here and, I don't know, point out, caution, whatever. Folks tend to use the word town interchangeably with community or people or Vermonters. Same thing with municipality. Right? Like, the project the project proposed in Hancock was, you know, the concerns of the town were, the concerns of the community were, whatever. We use it in the legal sense. There is a municipality corporate. It is the the local government. The actors of that local government are only the elected and the appointed officials. And so concerns may be raised by a number of parties or stakeholders. Those concerns may vary. And the elected officials and the appointed officials on the planning commission must hear those on balance and then make a decision. And the way in which they engage or don't engage with the certificate of public good process, just like through the adoption of the municipal plan or other local regulations, that is the formal action of the town. Right? Mhmm. So I know you've heard from AT and T and then other testimony. This is a, I think, a great example of that, of the telecommunications project proposing Granville. The Planning Commission and the Select Board had meetings back in 2021, and chose not to oppose the project at that time before, and then it was moved and there was sort of a second process. They also took up a telecommunications ordinance at the planning commission. It failed on like a tie tie abstain vote, like two two one. So the ordinance was not adopted, but it was considered notice, warrant, discussed. There was public comment. So it went through a planning commission process to consider an ordinance, did not take action to adopt the ordinance. And then they went even further. And after that, the select board chose to warn an advisory nonbinding question on the town meeting day ballot, and there was a townwide vote for for a nonbinding question. I don't. I tried to find the exact words for it, but I couldn't. But that went in favor of building the tower. So that was the town's position. Right? The town government, the the body, the public bodies given the authority in this process by state law, the planning commission and then the select board for Granville took the position of allowing that proposed tower to go forward.

[Unidentified committee member]: But the

[Speaker 0]: nonbinding advisory vote was in favor of the tower. And that became the,

[Josh Hamper (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: sorry,

[Speaker 0]: which one was given substantial deference then, I guess? The plan.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: The municipal. The plan. Yeah. The municipal plan gets the. So the LCT supports h five two seven to extend the sunset of 30 VSA to forty eight eight a for the citing applications of by three years to 2029. I wanna I was like me I, like, wasn't sure if I wanted to say this, but whatever. In other areas of the law, the word used is appropriate municipal panel. In two forty eight a, it's planning commission. So I just put that out there. I don't wanna, like, open some can of worms that you're not interested in getting into, but I think as you're taking up this bill for the sunset, maybe you wanna clean that up and make it consistent with all other parts of the block. Because like I said, it might be the planning the appropriate municipal panel panel might be called the planning commission. It might be called something else.

[Speaker 0]: Town by town. What if it is called something else? Does it go by the appropriate

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: body anyway? Yeah. In in land use right. In land use law, in land use prop in local land use processes, the word used in other parts of Vermont state law is appropriate municipal panel. That almost always means planning commission, but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes they're called the planning and zoning board. Right? Which they do the same thing, they carry the same authority under state law, it's just a different official name of a good body. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: R. Powell?

[Unidentified committee member]: But Vermont legal cities and towns said they support this h five twenty seven. Did you call all your members, or is this a executive decision by the VLTC's management or whatever organization governs your body?

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Yep. Great question. So remember, so back at the beginning, I said we we go through a member driven process that develops our municipal policy for the next biennium. Every town gets a vote. Those were adopted in October 2025 unanimously at the annual meeting. Then we, Josh and I, operate under the auspices of that adopted policy. And we have as a guiding principle in that policy, to advocate for substantial evidence.

[Unidentified committee member]: I

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: don't know. Okay. The department did a survey recently, at the request of the legislature to gather community input from individuals and towns. And and one of the takeaways in the report was that municipalities are confused about what sub substantial difference actually means in February a. Did have you been getting that kind of insight or feedback? Or

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Josh, did you hear the question? I have

[Unidentified committee member]: I did.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: We so those questions typically go to our MAP. We call them MAP, our municipal attorneys. Mhmm. We don't hear that confidential legal advice, But MAP does regularly report to us top issues and concerns by topic. Like, we're getting this month, we had this many questions about open meeting law, this many about elections law, this many about municipal ethics law, this many about town highway budgets, whatever. And in that way, I did not hear that that is a regular concern, point of confusion, or or a thing that comes up.

[Josh Hamper (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: So so in this this space, Josh, mobilesignally, the citizen channels, the official policy, which is broad, may not speak exactly to that or your exact question, but it's ensure local input and control over siting and permitting of energy projects, telecom projects, including decisions about building close to where the energy is and used. So they want they want to be considered. Whether this process is the absolute best or not, I think, is very much open for debate, but they don't want to lose this as a way to provide input without an alternative being discussed for something else, I think, is the best way to put it, our position.

[Unidentified committee member]: Does was there also a do you have a reading on on whether you would support eliminating the sunset altogether and just having two forty eight a be the process?

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I don't we we would not oppose eliminating the sunset. We understand I mean, it's nice to be here now. And there's good outcomes of this sort of good hygiene, right, of bringing the discussion back and bringing the parties involved in to engage the legislative oversight process. So, we also don't oppose extending the sunset.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: No no no position really on that.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So

[Unidentified committee member]: it seems having served on a select board for a while, a A lot of boards in smaller towns might not even be aware of substantial deference until someone comes to town trying to study, you know, a project, at which point it's too late because you're working off the plan. Correct? You know, unless you the plan adoption happens to coincide with this, but that's you know, they only get rewritten every, what, eight years or something. So Yeah. What is it? Eight years. Eight years. Yeah. So I'm wondering if you guys have normal kind of trainings or outreach about what substantial difference is and and, you know, some of the things that have happened across the state. And if if this is a, you know, something the town wants to engage in, it should go

[Unidentified committee member]: in your plan. You see that sort

[Unidentified committee member]: of thing.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: So the the planning resource is the RPCs. That's who provides the direct a direct and really high level of, technical assistance through the planning process, through the update to the new nestable plan. And if you remember back last year when we were talking about backyard solar, I don't remember the number, but the majority of municipal municipalities in Vermont have adopted the enhanced energy plans. Okay. And sort of core instruction by the state and by the RPC planners in the enhanced energy planning process is, I mean, the reason to do that is substantial deference for citing. And so that definitely is a conversation that happens in the planning commission process and when the select board and the regional planning commission go all the way through the adoption of the, the plans. That said, only 200 municipalities have a municipal plan. Many of them are out of date. A lot of municipalities are waiting, in line to get their RPC planner, to get their forum and to go through the plan update. So it definitely happens that a municipal plan becomes stale. And it is also the process prescribed by state law to set forth the guiding document for the, for these decisions as well, you know. It is the process. Is what the select board and the planning commission have. In considering the views and the comments of the community, the goals of the project, the project as proposed, you know. They're not just looking at the telecommunications ordinance, if there is one. They're looking at language in the plan that talks about ensuring public safety and the number of traffic deaths in the last census block and the economic development goals and should the town be taking actions to encourage remote work opportunities or hybrid work opportunities in town. Right, like they're looking at the whole of the vision of the people of the community when they think about these things and decide how to engage on behalf of the municipality.

[Unidentified committee member]: Of course. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: Great. So the alternative to two forty eight a is act two fifty and direct engagement with the municipalities. Since the LCT supports extending two forty eight a, so that means you don't support, everybody seems to be using two forty eight a. You don't support going back to the two fifty and direct engagement with municipalities. Is that correct reading? Yeah.

[Josh Hamper (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I I I don't think we were prepared to answer that question about the sunset here. I mean, this is the process that we have now. We want it to continue. It would be fair to also say there are municipalities that wish there was a better process, that they had more say. Whether that was the way to get there or not, we haven't had a policy discussion to say what that is, but you hear occasionally about news stories in communities that are of in challenge with with different whether it be telecom or or energy sightings and and feel that this process is lacking something for them to engage in, but we're not prepared to take a different position than this at this point. Wait. Did you

[Unidentified committee member]: is it your perception that municipalities would have more or less leverage under an act two fifty with municipal direct municipal engagement versus two forty eight? Do you understand what I'm asking? I am. I

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: can say we're engaged on questions related to Act two fifty in an intense way through the implementation of Act 181, and our members are not I'm not finding anything in my inbox asking for more Act two fifty Yeah. Application.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's what I'm wondering whether whether Yeah. It's the act two fifty with direct engagement might be too much.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Yeah. And you know what? Just in case, I tacked this on, which is so act one eighty one creates a process for location based jurisdiction, an opportunity for municipalities to identify an area that could be act two fifty exempt in the future, presuming they may meet a really strict statutory threshold to achieve that. And other areas could be exempt for housing up to 50 units. In other of the location based Act two fifty jurisdiction areas, so tier two and tier three and under something called the road rule, there would be new location based jurisdiction that would be triggered by where a development is on the map, not the intensity of the development like we did in the past. The thing that I think this committee may want to know and flows somewhere downhill from this discussion is that the current draft rule at the Lurb to define development considers utilities.

[Speaker 0]: Say that in another way. Okay.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Act 181 tells the LERB to make these maps and adopt And it also tells the LERB define the word development. Because the law says development in these areas will be subject to Act two fifty review. The areas are to be determined by the LERB, the word development is to be determined by the LERB. The current draft of the word development includes utilities that are more than 50 feet away from the existing roof.

[Speaker 0]: Draft being, for me, a really keyword. I so, I mean, just to opine for a minute here, and I wanna do that with you guys here. It you know, Act two fifty is in a significant multi year transition.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: And I mentioned this earlier in our conversations. I I think it's really important that towns and people be able to engage in the in the process of signing cell towers. I I think it's important. And I believe equally that this would be a very catastrophic time for us to allow let this lapse and push the siding of cell towers to an act two fifty process that has is cumbersome, that we hear nothing, you know, that we hear complaints about, that is in a major multiyear statewide transition, I think that we would be making a big mistake. Mhmm. Because, you know, my concern is that I and I mentioned this earlier, is that we become the state where you can't get a cell tower built.

[Unidentified committee member]: Mhmm.

[Speaker 0]: And that is very problematic. So a lot of my questions earlier were aimed at, know, from my this is just my personal opinion. Do we just go another three years or five years and then Act two fifty settle out, you know, and the legislature is going to have to return to this down the road? Or is there some limited, thoughtful, very targeted action we could take now to do a better job with municipal notice and public engagement in the February process? So any thoughts that the league has on that if you wanna get back to us or or think about it? He said, I'm in my mind, it's very important to stay on a balance beam here. Yeah. And if there are ways to and and it was why I was asking so much about, like, what does that actually look like when the town gets notification? I you know, as somebody who's an elected official, I'm sure you guys are super familiar with this. You know, we think we're out here warning things and notifying things and doing things. And projects happen all the time that it's people it's too late. You know? It's it's been warned or it's been done, and and folks don't like to hear, gosh, we warned that. Sorry. You didn't pay attention. So I I'm just curious whether there are limited strategic levers you think that we might consider within the February a process that could improve that without upsetting the apple cart for people who want to engage and providers who want to build cell towers that we all want. You know, this is a this is an economic issue. It's a public safety issue. I didn't mean for that to be such a monologue. No.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I I really appreciate the comments, and totally agree on the timing part of what you said. We're in this transformative moment when it comes to local authorities and processes for planning for the future at the community level and in how we understand the impact of Act two fifty statewide, how that might impact the ability to put up telephone poles or frankly even take them down, is one of a long list of concerns that we have and our members have as the act one eighty one implementation process goes forward. So it is very easy to agree that we don't think this is the time to throw another major Major. Major piece of infrastructure planning, siting, and and construction into that cruise ship, which is way out in the ocean right now. Right? Which is the act one eighty one process. So totally easy to agree with. Similarly, we would we would not want to, like, change up. I think I don't I don't know. I can't think of a a thing that affects municipal planning that we would throw out there right now. Like, that's all going in this very intense way right now. The regional plans all the regional plans are being redone and will be by the end of this year, as of last month, and they have until December year. You could change the hearings to from May to shall. I would say that the hearings should be hosted by the legislative body. I don't think it should be that DPS shall host Right. Or the applicant shall host. Right? Because in all sorts of scenarios that never works as good as the town using its normal systems for making consensus decisions. And

[Speaker 0]: we heard, we've heard testimony as well. Yeah. Even just that for me. I I'm just yacking here. I I'm just talking about how I feel considering a switch from Shell to May. Because my questions earlier were aimed at this thought of like, what if the planning commission decides looks good to us, you know, and then I I realized that there are many other entities that have been warned and that have received notification, you know, maybe the maybe the abiding landowners don't care, but everybody who lives half a mile down the road really does care or something. I I don't so it that's that's it. I'm I'm done. Those are my thoughts. Good.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I mean, remember the Granville example, right? Like, there's new stories about it. There was a lot of process. It was contentious. Neighbors were disagreeing with each other. There were a variety of concerns raised, in favor of the project and deposing the project and the public process unfolded.

[Speaker 0]: Mhmm.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Oh, a lot. There's a lot of unfolding. Know? Like, were many meetings. There were many discussions. There were meetings at select board. Were meetings with the planning commission. You know, like, there was a vote. Town Meeting Day vote. Pandemic era vote. It was an intense time to be talking about telecommunications infrastructure in the in March 2021. Right? Mhmm. And that's how that's the magic. That's that's the magic we've got going on here in Vermont. Right? Get together. We make really we have hard conversations. We and a couple people that we ask to do this really hard work of of administering government make make a decision at the end of it. Mhmm.

[Unidentified committee member]: Self government.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Yeah. Mhmm.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's what we

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: do. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Anybody have it? Mhmm. Yeah.

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: I I just I know we have a lot on the wall, but I would like to hear from an RPZ on this topic just because the plan on Yeah. Their role. They have a big role. They have a big role. Yeah. And they also have insight from working with municipalities. Wouldn't that be a heavy lift of more testimony?

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: And they have energy planners. I

[Speaker 0]: don't wanna put you on the spot. Is there an RPC you would recommend that's had particular

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I don't know.

[Unidentified committee member]: We could get back to you on that.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Okay. That'd be great.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I honestly, maybe the PC could say these are the four that have done it the most recently.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Because that'd be great. I you know, because I've done this. Yeah. Thanks for letting me pontificate.

[Unidentified committee member]: So, Chris, being on a planning or a select board, my concern is that if it's not a concern, particularly to somebody and no butter raises the issue, that the letter may be just administrative. We see we received an application to place a tower in town, and it's that length of time in the town. It's like where it's meeting, and it's done with. And there's no follow-up meeting? And and well, but there's no there's no yes or no. There's would there be a vote to say to put a come up into an issue in the select board, or would it just be a administrative issue that we received a letter?

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, it did. You know, maybe about the nine members all get notified. Right? So if someone in town came to the select board meeting, then it would

[Unidentified committee member]: be a much more of an issue. But it may be the no more than a reading, and then we received a letter.

[Unidentified committee member]: Right.

[Unidentified committee member]: And then if the butter didn't talk to his butter, and then the two or three butters down, talk to the guy that's the butter to have them raise it. Too many butters there. Yeah. Okay. No. But Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: They were required to hold a hearing, though.

[Unidentified committee member]: They shall. They may. They it's not they shall. They may. So

[Speaker 0]: That's what we were just talking about. Think, yeah, that word changed.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: There's public meaning and then there's public hearing. We all understand that. Right? Those are two different No. Legal types of meeting.

[Speaker 0]: Can you I actually, I don't understand that. Can you

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: So all meetings of what the law called a non advisory body. Mhmm. So it's a decision a deliberative decision making body with there's certain types of authority, but the fiduciary authority is one of them. All their meetings are public. No quorum of the public pot body can meet and talk about anything that's not at a duly warned, recorded, public meeting. Yep. So any discussion of this topic would by this leg board would happen at their regular public meeting. A meeting. A public hearing follows

[Speaker 0]: It has its own warning. It has a

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: different It's different set of process. Right? Yeah. And so for the adoption of zoning and by law, you must have a public hearing. It must be noticed within fifteen days. No action can be taken at the public hearing. There has to be opportunity for public comment and, in the case of zoning and by law adoption, if amendments are made after a public hearing, you have to have another one.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Yeah. Yes.

[Unidentified committee member]: So just trying to clarify the advanced notice. Rep Howland saying or Rocky Morrow about the letter comes in saying we wanna build a build a tower in town. What was the next concern

[Unidentified committee member]: about

[Unidentified committee member]: getting the what's the word? The one that had to be done in thirty days and for for for people to actually get a public comment. Open. I

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So for the record, correct. So you got a sixty day advance notice. Advance notice. The minimum. They have to wait a minimum of sixty days before they file their application. Once the application's filed, there's a thirty day comment period. The public to the PC for public comments, for motions to intervene, request for hearing. That's when the town recommendation and or the regional planning commission recommendation would come in to the PUC. That would start potentially start an evidentiary proceeding if we receive requests for hearing. So you got sixty days. Yep.

[Unidentified committee member]: And that includes the public. It could

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: be a landowner or somebody. All public comments. Yeah. The joiners let's say the let's say you live next to a cell tower, an application or proposed cell tower. Right? You get the sixty day notice. You're thinking about it. It's day 61. You see the application has been filed with the PUC. You say, really don't like this. I want to get involved in the process. You file a motion to intervene in the case with the PUC through our electronic portal. Or you just file public comments also through the electronic portal saying, hey, I don't like this. Or maybe you like it. Maybe you go the opposite way. You have thirty days to do that. And then once that thirty day period closes, we determine what to do as far as an evidentiary hearing or any other process we need to do at that point. Let's say we don't get any comments. That happens, especially with the small ones. We get nothing. And then we go ahead and issue the CPG. That's basically how it works. So for the small ones, and most of them are small, vast majority are very small. We're talking about big towers. Right. Right. The small ones basically we don't get any comments from the public. And then we can just issue NCPUs. But in the case of large towers we typically do get recommendations of one kind or another from the town, regional planning commission, the joiners, what have you. And those need to be filed within the thirty day comment period after the advance notice. During that sixty day period, the town could decide at their meeting to have a bunch of public hearings, one or more. They also could request that the department and the petitioner show up at one of those or more public hearings.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Which if I could sort of contextualize that. So the the town select board receives the sixty day advance notice and then chooses how to proceed. So let's say it's discussed at a select board meeting. At that select board meeting, an action is taken to host a public meeting about the proposed tower and to ask DPS and the applicant to attend. That meeting happens and as a result, the select board for sake of argument chooses to support the tower going forward and and engages the certificate of public process in favor of the project, certainly someone, at least one, participant in that public process would have disagreed with that decision of the majority of the select board. They can, then provide public comment directly to the PUC. And correct me if I'm wrong, but those concerns raised in the town's process shall be considered. Right? In

[Unidentified committee member]: Those are

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: the comments we're giving substantial difference. Yeah. Exactly.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Yeah. So even if the select board says, as a town as a town municipality corporate, this is our position, all of the comments raised are considered Well, wait.

[Unidentified committee member]: One thing that Greg just said that confused me is the comments are giving substantial difference?

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: The comments of the town and the regional planning commission.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yes. They give substantial difference. The comments of

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: The joiners? The joiners. Or or other No. Those don't

[Unidentified committee member]: those don't receive us. Right. Okay. That's I I was confused by that for a second. Thanks.

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: Is it okay to ask a couple questions of Greg Barber since he's in

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: the room? I can be. Figure it down with me. Can be done.

[Unidentified committee member]: Greg is willing to help me interrogate anything.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I'm happy to answer questions.

[Samantha Sheehan (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I'm happy to hand it over.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: A good stay. Yeah.

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: One question is, I wrote down that you are supportive.

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sure.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. Sure.

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: Come and come.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Oh, that's it.

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: So I'm just looking back at my notes, and I wrote that you are supportive as well of getting rid of the sunset because of workflow problems.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Because of Workflow. Yes. It creates a number of difficulties. Yeah.

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: And and you also mentioned that the statute itself could use some tweaks. Is that something you're going to advise with some? What your thoughts are about that? Should we expect something?

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I haven't really thought about that given that it sunsets every three years. Again, it's one of the problems.

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: Well, while we have our hands in it, if there are tweaks, we would like to hear what you have to propose.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay. I'll think about that. I'll talk.

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: And, Dara Torre, my second question was well, go ahead since you

[Unidentified committee member]: Get in on this. Now that we're we're Open another can of worms. If the sunset was extended to five or six or ten years or whatever, some

[Unidentified committee member]: other

[Unidentified committee member]: number, with the PUC be inclined to actually do a rule making on this and to clarify it? Likely. Yeah. I mean,

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: we already have rules in place by order. We we haven't gone through

[Unidentified committee member]: a formal rule making.

[Unidentified committee member]: Obviously, we have rules and implementation right now. Right. Okay. So what would formal rule making get us or the the the process that we don't have now?

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: What does it get for the legislature? Oh, or Would it

[Unidentified committee member]: get for us? The app

[Unidentified committee member]: any all parties involved. What what's the difference between what you have now and what a formal rulemaking process wouldn't Well,

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: in formal rulemaking, the legislature gets the way in.

[Unidentified committee member]: I see. You know what

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I mean? Right. It didn't help us that much, but it helps helps you folks weigh in on the actual implementation of the statute.

[Unidentified committee member]: And and that was

[Unidentified committee member]: a dangerous answer. I know.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I know. I'm I'm getting honest with you folks.

[Unidentified committee member]: Car process you're talking about.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yes. Yes.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. So there's nothing really in in the process now under your current rules that do you wanna see change that would that formal rulemaking would enable? I guess that's my question.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: No. But there are tweaks possibly to the statute we might might suggest. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: That that's that's helpful. Perfect.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. The legislature likes us to go through formal rulemaking process. Right.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: It's much easier to do it by order. Right. It takes a lot less time. And we do have stakeholder involvement in those processes as well, but

[Unidentified committee member]: the legislature really isn't involved. Okay. Your colleagues. If this were to be allowed to sunset Mhmm. And it reverted back to the act two fifty process Yeah. The PUC lose all They're out. They're they're out of it altogether. Yep. Yep. And then it would be so if it were allowed to sunset, it goes back to two fifty, then other future bodies of the legislature would have to come back and and do something else to put it back under the PUCs. That's correct. That is correct.

[Unidentified committee member]: You wouldn't have enough to do it if you do that.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I you know?

[Unidentified committee member]: I well, I'm gonna retire in

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: a couple years. So anyway yeah. It does well, yeah, that's what what happened. We got a bit completely. Like I said, we don't think that's a good idea, but, you know, that's what would happen.

[Unidentified committee member]: Well, I think what I hear is that some of the citizens don't think that they have adequate input because they're too many properties away. You don't have to be in a butter to be in the view shed. That is absolutely true. And and it only and like I said earlier, beauty did the

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, that's why we try to have a more robust process at the town

[Unidentified committee member]: level since the town the town could have public hearings. The town's the one that has to initiate their citizens in the

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. They notify their that that their townsfolk.

[Unidentified committee member]: And then I don't know how much went the regional planning boards across the county lines or the, you know, the the

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right. And the regional planning commission is involved as well. So maybe he has a better view. He's not directly notified. You know, you try try to do the best you can, but But if that

[Unidentified committee member]: one that's one removed from the thing, any he or she puts the comment in, I don't like this. Yeah. You you you ignore it. Oh, no.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: It's public. Public comments, we we look at all public comments. We get public comments from other towns. I've had many projects where we've got hundreds of public comments from a project in, Westmore. We got public comments hundreds from Burlington. Hundreds. Yeah. So, no, it's not limited. However, you get notice Right. You could file. Right.

[Unidentified committee member]: But you're saying you only take preference from the town and the RPC? No. No. No.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So the town and the, RPC gets substantial deference to their recommendations based on the regional plan and the town plan and the town zone. Okay. They get a special category of substantial difference. However, if you're in a butter or or not a butter and you wanna intervene in the process, you can become a party to the case. You could you then get to file evidence. You do discovery. You you get to do cross examination, all that fun stuff.

[Unidentified committee member]: What's the threshold of becoming a party to the case? You need

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: to file a motion to intervene and describe your interest in the case, just like any other legal proceeding. And typically, it's based on aesthetics, aesthetic impact. Pretty low bar, honestly.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. We should talk about aesthetics. Obviously. So, I mean, I think what we're trying to do is we're trying to we're trying to balance between putting everything up to a vote for everybody to vote on every project and and getting stuff done. We all want cell coverage, but if cell coverage, you have to have cell coverage. So that's the it's it's a it's a it's a tough balance, but that's what we're trying to do here. Right? You know?

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: But, Corey? Of sudden, I think this is the process that we try to make streamline. Know, we're hearing that term a lot right now. Yeah. Because it takes too long to get the things we want.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. We all all want self courage, you know. Everybody wants to go to heaven. Nobody wants to die. Right? So

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: But there's trade offs, and and we always, as legislators, need to be listening to the public when they tell us they're having problems with the process. So that's what we're doing. But I'm also wondering because one of the things I heard and read is that the EPUC website itself is a little bit hard to use for some

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: The website or the portal?

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: The portal.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Is

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: it? There's feedback about that in the department's report. I feel like somebody said, my none of them knew that that you are looking at revising some of the e p EPUC functionality. Did I not even

[Unidentified committee member]: Nothing I know of.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Not not related to this. Doing some internal stuff, but

[Serena Knight (Department of Public Service)]: Oh, okay.

[Greg Favor (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Not the outward looking portal as far as I know. I know we changed vendors, but it it's as far as I far as I know, it's working. Like I said, I got 200 comments from Burlington a in case from. So it's working pretty well. If it hits the newspaper, then I'll get a ton of comments on on particular projects. And we look at those. There's more I could tell you.

[Unidentified committee member]: Any other questions, thoughts? I got everybody here beyond the hour. We all set? Right. Well, we can adjourn for the day and the week and go online. Alright.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you

[Unidentified committee member]: very much. You. Thank you. Thanks, everyone.