Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. We're live.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alrighty. Welcome back, everybody. Brief break to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure on Thursday, the twenty second. We have some time set aside for a committee discussion of h 05:27. And I do note that ledge council is not here because we said we're starting at 11:50. Should we should probably take a break. Sorry about that. It's helpful to have ledge council here because if people are having thoughts about, can we do this? Can we do that?

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Unless we wanna do level setting first and then ask those questions.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We can. Let me make sure. Could you can you confirm that Ellen is coming at 11:15? See if she might pop over a little bit earlier. Yeah. Maybe just let her know that we finished early. So so so 05:27 as introduced would simply I don't think there's anything I'm not looking at it right now. Would simply I don't think there's anything else in there. Extend the sunset another three years. That's right. It'll your bill. Right? It's So we've talked a little bit about the, you know, the different paths we can take or, you know, what the ramifications are of the different paths that

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we could

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: take. So we've learned through all of our testimony, and you guys can all correct me if I get anything wrong, we've learned through all of

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: our

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: testimony that, 248A is an alternative path, that the legislature set up, legislature set up that, was intended to provide a more expedited or streamlined process for telecommunications facilities to get cited and approved. So it's like an alternative to act two fifty. So if if we take no action, essentially, and the sunset comes and goes, then two forty eight a, I believe I'm not sure that it goes away, but I believe no no further applications will be accepted. So, essentially, we're shutting off the pipeline to that two forty eight a process, and towers would go through act two fifty. So that's one I guess that's the context. So our our choices are to do nothing and let that happen. We could pass the bill as drafted. Just keep going as things are going. Give it another three years. We could give it another three years, four years, five years, ten years as it's currently working. Or, I think we learned yesterday in testimony or discussed, we could extend the sunset, keep the 248A process alive, but direct the PUC, and this is where we're going to need Ellen, either through rule making or through order to change that process. Make it work better in our opinion. Or, and I don't know how conversations are going over in the Senate, but my understanding that the Senate bill's starting point was to eliminate the sunset completely and make February a permanent without any without the legislature needing to return to it and review it every three, five years. And I've not been following how those senate conversations are going, but I think that was their starting point. So I think that it is definitely time to hear from folks about what they're thinking. So why don't we start with Rutland?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I think we certainly need to do something, and I well, I think we should just let it. My initial position is let it sunset. Let it let it stop. Let it decide where the two fifty.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I think I would rather do an NRI step of perhaps the directive to the PC and also maybe a study or a report from LERB, the land use review board since they're kinda new. But I have to say, I found the testimony yesterday compelling that that's the better venue for our towns and communities. So I just don't know that they're quite ready considering where they are in their life cycle. So, I don't know if it would be helpful to the future legislature to have something in writing from them about, with some recommendations. And then in the meantime, we try to make the current system a little better, more accessible, and maybe that can happen through order or we'll make you guess you suggest.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Seems like we have two processes, neither of which are great. We have not heard from any citizens or towns who like to flirt the day. Heard from a handful for whom it has been a very difficult and painful and expensive and long process. Have not heard from any telecoms companies who don't like two forty eight a, which sort of suggests who that rule is helping and who it is not helping.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: no. I mean, there's a capacity issue. I would love to fix both two forty eight a and two fifty. Although I mean, we've all heard so much from people in our districts about how Act two fifty is best in the month. And yet, then you hear testimony that only one out of every 500 cases gets rejected, denied. One out of every 500 applications gets denied, it's hard for me to square those two things. And the explanation they offered yesterday is coherent that, hey, People blame act two fifty for delays in other parts of the processes. We're not allowed to issue conditional permits, it's gotta wait till they get the storm water and that gets hung up, and they think it's a two fifty thing. So it's it's hard to reconcile. I'm also so I'm uninclined to extend two forty eight a in its current form without figuring out a way to build in more more deference. I mean, substantial deference only works if you actually give substantial deference. And, you know, ensuring that these towers meet local zoning and planning, local and regional zoning and planning feels like a possible a possible path of work. The last thing I'd say is legislation designed to keep people from discovering a truth that legislators or those who influence them would prefer not be discovered irritates And these ag gag laws, you're not allowed to take pictures of meat packing plants because the meat packing companies are worried that people will be horrified by the animal conditions. Those things irritate me. The fact that there's a federal law prohibiting taking health effects into account when citing towers irritates me. And I love to empower the Vermont health authorities to take into consideration and we'll get sued because it's contrary to federal law,

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: but

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: that everything's.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I am not inclined to get rid of the sunset. We've been inclined to go with three years. I do think rulemaking, improving the process for the public through rulemaking or order is important. I think we're hearing that the public process people are not feeling like that's working as well as the PUC. Yes. It's working. Right. In terms of going to two fifty, I would note that I because I did yesterday, I am not of the opinion that it works well. I have recently had the experience of having critical infrastructure, electric lines from the woods to the road, seen multiple cases of that be held up for multiple years through the district commission, not through ANR, and that's troublesome. I'm hopeful that the LERB is going to help sort things out over time. I would say that they certainly have a point of opioid that will be taking up a lot of their time over the next years. So, I don't think adding this to a process that I don't think actually consistently goes well is a good idea at this point. So, I would be in favor of extending three years, directing PUC through ruler order, to look at the public process. And I will just offer, for information that there is a study that is posted on the legislative website from 2020 that the legislature required the Department of Health to do related to RF, that I would be happy to circulate for folks. It's up on the finance page and the findings that were made there. So I just wanna reassure that this issue has been heard in the past and has been taken seriously by the legislature, and it was 2020. So Last year.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sent that to us.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I thought I did. Yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sorry. You did.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I was gonna say, I thought you sent it to me, and I sent it to the committee.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So,

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: short, three years, and I do think we should look at some means and and would like to hear from Ellen and and the PUC if they're willing, you know, what is the best means of examining the public process and and maybe one or two other items to see about proving that through. Go on, mister chairman. I'm

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I'm worried about. I'm thinking about the need for communication infrastructure and how sparse it is. And one question I have is, well, what is the public good served by radio towers? Is it is it anticipate in anticipation of of self transmission being introduced under those towers? If so, that that seems like a that would make a difference. One of the reasons why people have brought up that that we have fiber going out across the state blindly, and that's great. But one of the things that I think about as far as that goes is there are are folks for whom fiber is not affordable and who rely on on on their cell phones or connection to the Internet, act of good services, access to government services, and not building out. So infrastructure is an equity matter for them. And it's also it's also an issue for anybody who might be thinking about moving or or staying in in state, especially the younger generation. So those are my concerns about about getting rid of a process that is that seems sort of industry friendly. And I would also be very concerned about loading onto the f two fifty process an additional set of of permits that they have to consider at this while they're in this process of transitioning to a different way of managing these these things. Same time, I think it's important that the public has access to to the process and perhaps that the criteria for a substantial deference be made more explicit in this, for example, has actual zoning that is explicit about requirements for conditional uses for towers. And after the after the health issues, I just think that's that's a that's a that's a lose situation if we include health as a as a a as a criteria a citing the government to first time that gets that's relying on for a for a a denial. The developer takes takes takes it to court and and gets it over. Because we we lose forecast. It's just sorry. Yeah. Or not. So that leaves me being in, I think being in favor of continuing continuing this process for three years. I was thinking earlier extending longer, but, I see a need for going back and looking at this sooner rather than later, and also including well, we need to talk with Ellen about ways that we can include some parameters for the PDC to to examine the the public participation process and and and make it more robust and and not leave people feeling like they've been shortchanged. It's easy to solve. Everybody's, yeah, sort of nibby nibby. Not don't don't build anything feelings if that if that's if that's part of it. Yeah. But there there does need to be some due consideration to people's concerns. So sorry about that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Richard or Ruth Bailey.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So I'm leaning towards letting this sunset as well, but I I'm open to discussions. I really have a serious problem with the towns having to take on attorneys to fight this stuff, which ends up coming back on my property taxes. It is they don't come cheap, and and then the process could be improved somehow. I'm not sure how I'm open to listening to possible solutions, but the act two fifty, they thought they had the capacity to deal with it from that committee, and I'm not quite sure what the LERB has to do with it because I thought that would go right to the commission to directly to the commission and work on that.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: The LARP is in charge of the commission's all of the commission. Okay. It's like the Yeah. Board.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So but the other person, the executive director said they thought they had capacity to deal with it, and maybe the towns that don't have zoning should go through the act two fifty branches. My thinking on it, but I wanted to look at some option.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Hard balancing act. I am concerned about about the participation and the substantial deference to the municipalities. My takeaway from the two fifty testimony was that they're not ready for this and that they have their a few years to work out their response to one eighty one and get get that all in order and maybe switch the appeals process out of the courts to the. So I think we need to give them time for that. So but 2020 so that's three years. So I I was originally thinking about extending it further and then forcing some more rulemaking, but I think three years would be a good time to bring it back with this committee to potentially shift it to act two fifty. I'm wondering if

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: this

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: might be an Allen question, but I'm wondering if we can split the difference here. It doesn't seem like there's any issues with the submit a miss applications, which was, what, 90% of the applications. And then there's certain of the non de minimis applications that, don't get contested. So I'm wondering if there's a way that we can just say any application that is contested in the, February a process gets bumped over to acting 50. That would be a handful of cases a year that they would have to deal with so that shouldn't overly burden them. I'm just trying to figure out how we can, you know, engage the public properly and municipalities in this process if there's a contested case without putting all of it onto them. So that was just something I'd like to know if it's possible and what you guys think about that.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So I hadn't thought initially, but that thought has changed. I do believe that the process is flawed. I do believe that process needs to be made better, especially for public facing, so people have a better opportunity to voice and be representative or represented themselves during the process. I think that sunsetting would not be in the best interest. Think we should extend that sunset, and we need to look at it again. I do believe we need to enter into some sort of rulemaking for better guidelines for to follow. At the same time, I don't think active 50 processes as smooth as what it was laid out to be yesterday. I think it's more cumbersome than we were told. Well, there are wrong activity, but from what I know of active 50 and it seems, I don't think it's as soon the process as people may end up to be. But listening to representative Morrow, representative Billy, there's some ideas there that

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I think that can work. I

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: think it's gonna be a a hybrid of what everybody thinks. But my opinion is extend the sunset or some rulemaking, make it more user friendly for individuals and make it less cumbersome so that you can actually be heard during the process.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, yeah, my opinion has changed listening to testimony as well. So, I agree with a lot of what's been said around the table. I'm concerned. I I don't think that the time is right to move all this over to active 50. I think they're I think they're in transition. And another three year extension of February a would give them enough time to get through, you know, to the new world of active 50. I've I've not engaged with the active 50 process. Like, I doubt it's, you know, sitting around grandma's kitchen table, which was yeah. I kinda sounded yesterday. It that just can't be right. But it a couple of the things that that we've heard yesterday really stuck with or not yesterday, but through the course of this testimony really stuck with me. One, the consistent testimony from folks who tried to engage with 248A and have found it to be confusing and cumbersome and very difficult to influence. And I think that may, you know, simply be because of, you know, one thing we heard in testimony was that, you know, PUC is a quasi judicial setting. Know, it's not come come everybody to be to the to a meeting. It's a quasi judicial setting. And so I think that just the way it's set up makes it harder for folks to engage. There are some I I, you know, I I agree with you, R. Kleppner, about the health impacts, and I agree with you. I I don't know if there's any interim step we could take or something we could look at that maybe we just need to take a look at the at the 2020 study. I don't wanna put Vermont in position of getting every cell tower siding decision overturned, you know, by the FCC. Because I agree, then we lose. Then we all lose. And so I don't wanna put us in that position either. But I I you know, I will tell you fundamentally that while I agree and understand that cell infrastructure and telecoms infrastructure is critical infrastructure, and that it's very important for Vermonters and for public safety and the folks who, you know, rely on cells and just for all kinds of reasons. I understand that. But I also believe that citizen voices critical infrastructure and that class one wetlands are critical infrastructure and the thought that a company might be, you know, putting up spec towers that aren't a clear public good and bringing in their corporate attorneys and that a town like Timmith has to raise money from a donor to hire an attorney to fight a tower that's against their town plan enrages me. So I'm gonna go past irritated. That is not right. So I I think, you know, reluctantly, that our best step right now, which seems to be some sort of consensus around the table maybe or close enough, is that we could try to get a draft going that would extend three years. I would absolutely not support any longer. And see if we could either by rule or order, and I don't understand the difference. I mean, I understand the difference. I don't understand the different impact. Try to make steps to make the process easier for citizens to engage. Try to make sure that folks know what's going on, that municipalities can engage better, that town plans are adhered to. And there are some other things we need to think about as well, I think. So I don't know how how people feel about that, but if we think we could get you know, it comes down to the votes too. If we think that that would be the path that would get enough votes to get this out of committee, it sounds like it's not gonna be unanimous. But Question. Yeah. Then that's then that's where we go. Right? We yep.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So what my understanding from the testimony is that is that public service department has a role here, and I don't and I and I don't know how how formalized that role is. It it sounded like their role includes, a less

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: formal

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: judicial type of type of, hearing and and engagement with with the public. And I I so I guess I've been my my question is, how formal is that role? And if it isn't formal, should we make it formal?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is that to me?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I think so. Okay. Ellen?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ellen Chittendenkowski, I was a legislative counsel.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: You're

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at you are asking I was not fully paying attention. You are asking if the Public Service Department is required to participate?

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, I'm asking so during I don't remember exactly what testimony, but during the course of all the testimony on this issue, My recollection is that the Service Department was involved in coming to the community and conducting a public hearing of some sort. It was less formal and and, quasi judicial than than the PDC's process. So what I was wondering is to what extent is that, sort of spelled out in statute? And if it isn't, would that be a way of engaging the public

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: in a

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: less rigid or less intimidating fashion?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So currently under the advanced notice provision, the Department of Public Service gets notice of the application in advance of being filed. And then the municipality itself also is getting that notice and they're allowed to hold a public hearing on the application. And so the Department of Public Service shall attend the public meeting at the request of the municipality. Department shall consider the comments made and information obtained at the meeting in making recommendations to the PUC on the application and determining whether to retain additional personnel, like an aesthetics expert, after this meeting. Mhmm. So that is the language in the advanced notice setting. There's additional language and at the request of the municipality, the Department of Public Service shall retain an expert, regarding the colocation in the application. Within forty five days of receiving the advance notice, the Department of Public Service shall report its own preliminary findings and recommendations regarding collocation in the application.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Collocation of other like, a a cell transmitter on a on the radio tower. That's that kind of colocation.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So one of the initial criteria is whether the what whether the new facility is necessary because there are no collate colocation, options available. So I think that's the analysis they're doing is that is there available collocation that they don't need

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: build are an existing

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

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Or a tower somewhere. Okay.

[Corey Chase (Telecommunications Infrastructure Specialist, VT Department of Public Service)]: I

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: see. I see.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And then they also have authority about aesthetics as well. Uh-huh.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then we have a whole different idea from Rutland that I don't wanna overlook, which was Deminimus? Yeah. About oh, streamlining the did you say your idea again?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Whether we can leave de minimis and uncontested applications with the BUC and have some kind of mechanisms. Or if it's a contested application, it gets bumped over to act two fifty.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So can I just add to that before? So tagging on to that, at that same time, it would also give act two fifty a trial run at handling these to see what the differences are, what are they doing differently, what is working, what isn't working. I think that's not a bad thought.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: The only question I had about that when you were rolling out that idea, which is kinda interesting to me, was I feel like I I had questions that were all circling around the idea of our uncontested hearings uncontested just because

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Nobody Nobody knew? Right.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. That is yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I I would

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: take the demeanors and use that as the and any kind of substantial case gets knocked over.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I've can't remember how many.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: It's a 170.

[Corey Chase (Telecommunications Infrastructure Specialist, VT Department of Public Service)]: Think they how many a year? Yeah. Applications?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: You gave us all these numbers. I'm sorry. De minimis was 90% of

[Corey Chase (Telecommunications Infrastructure Specialist, VT Department of Public Service)]: them in three

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. De minimis that

[Corey Chase (Telecommunications Infrastructure Specialist, VT Department of Public Service)]: middle That's right. So that's a tower up to 140 feet. Okay so that could include a new tower.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Corey Chase (Telecommunications Infrastructure Specialist, VT Department of Public Service)]: But many times that includes enlargement of existing compounds. You're bumping the fence out 10 feet to accommodate a new generator pad. Okay that would be limited size and scope. And then everything else which would be a tower larger than 140 feet and or more than 10,000 square feet of earth to serve. So that's your that's your big tower. That's your ITW tower. Right?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Uh-huh.

[Corey Chase (Telecommunications Infrastructure Specialist, VT Department of Public Service)]: Because that's going over 140 and they're building a road. They're building a compound. It's gonna be more than 10,000 square feet of earth disturbance. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. That's helpful.

[Corey Chase (Telecommunications Infrastructure Specialist, VT Department of Public Service)]: The numbers in those categories roughly? So roughly a 140 applications each year, although this year more because of the three year sunset. I'm gonna say 95, 96% are other than the larger ones. The larger ones are very few and far between. Although ITW has been pushing more towers and again everything's accelerated because of the sunset. Right. So right now I have five larger tech they're all larger. Like, one's a little bit size. Let's go back to it. But there are five contested applications right now, including the the tin that one. And I think that's ITWS.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Corey Chase (Telecommunications Infrastructure Specialist, VT Department of Public Service)]: And the Westmore was ITW. There's a couple others.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And I just wanna this could could be a really interesting pass. Yeah. And I just wanna clarify or maybe underscore something I said earlier. And I hope I can be coherent about this. But I wanna pick up on something that Greg said, I think yesterday in testimony or in, you know, in our conversations, which is that the PUC by its nature is more of a quasi judicial setting. In other words, that is what you are.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: You're you are.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And you are following the procedures that we set out for you to follow. So I I just wanna make sure that I I just wanna make sure that it what I'm talking about is a a system that we set up. I'm not talking about people or intent or good jobs and bad jobs. You know, the PUC is a quasi legal body doing its quasi legal thing and following a set of procedures that we created. So it was just important to me. You know, I feel like sometimes the issues we deal with here are controversial, and we all get enraged. I, you know, I get enraged. And these are systems that we're talking about, systems that we created. So this is about people, and I hope I hope that's always clear in my intent. I know we've had a lot of testimony that's like, you know, the PUC, the PUC, and I it's important to me that we always understand that people are most people are doing their following following along. So Let's find get back to Ellen Yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: On whether this is a structurally possible idea or not.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do think I could draft it. It's a little bit complicated. I have follow-up questions. The main one being, so the latest review board currently is not doing any contested cases. So would you be giving them the authority to do this or the District Commission, which is the bodies currently now that issue Act two fifty permits? I would also point out that currently, the PUC, any appeals of a PUC decision go to the Supreme Court. There's only one appeal. Decisions of District Commission decisions, appeals go first to the environmental court and then to the Supreme Court. I think you would need to think about that and how you would wanna structure that. I would also point out that the district commissions are also quasi judicial. There has been language in the district commissions statutes that they are to be a more a citizen friendly process with relaxed rules of evidence and procedure. You could consider something like that if rules of evidence and procedure are what you think are an issue. I do think I can draft what you were describing, but it would be I'm gonna need to think through some of the other procedures, but those are a few to start. And then I'll stop there. There there probably are a few other I'm gonna I'd have to figure out how to draft that because I have not ever had that idea raised before, but

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Could we accomplish the same thing? So if they're both quasi judicial, could could we you said relax rules of this, relax rules of that. Could we accomplish the same thing within the PUC framework? Because that would be simpler, especially right now.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you I think you could. You'd have to yes. Language would have to be added. Yeah.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Brains and skin first. So,

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: you know, one of the things that Greg said yesterday was think of us as the environmental court level layer and consistent with what you just said. Like, it's the last layer before the supreme court. But in the February a process, it's also the first layer, and it doesn't have the lower layer. We heard people saying, you know, we got to the PUC, and we just wanted to have a conversation, but that doesn't that didn't work in the PUC framework. And, you know, like, it does feel as though an opportunity for whoever is proposing the tower and the people who live in the town and the municipality, an opportunity for them to have a facilitated conversation without attorneys, just talking about what we want, what our concerns are, and seeing if you can get to an agreement. Because we've heard testimony that, hey. The landowner proposed another site on their land a 100 feet away that would solve all the problems, and utility just ignored it. And, you know

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So can we get the public service department involved in that layer and make them make them involved in that layer, not just at the request of the municipality.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. I think it's I I and I'm thinking something like that because, you know, it's always better to have your spat mediated than than litigated. It's cheaper, and people generally end up happier. And to, you know, to the extent that we can help support and facilitate conversations leading to something that gets agreed upon before it goes to the quasi judicial and judicial layers. That would make me feel better. Not I would just say, jotted down a few notes of some of the things issues that we have to sort out. One is the role of aesthetics, and the other is the level of deference to town planning and zoning. The balloon test, You know, we heard about balloon test going up for a few hours and no one knowing about them is it seems like making that a more accessible Requirement. Requirement and the other two things I just mention. You.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Five minutes and we'll pick this back up, obviously. So, I do support looking at making improvements through rule of order. I think that that in and of itself will inspire fair amount of debate both in and outside of this realm. I think if we are looking at bifurcating between two forty eight and two fifty, we probably need to plan on taking more testimony because we will then have a different set of experiences that we want to weigh in.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And for sure plan on yeah, and if we bifurcate, think we could for sure plan on the bill moving from here to environment. And Which is not I'm I'm just saying FYI that Yeah. That'll add a lot more committees to the train on both sides, both the house and the senate side.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And I would say, madam chair, just in the interest of transparency, I am prepared to be really flexible, with a lot of the ideas that we've heard here. I cannot vote to move any aspect of this to two fifty.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: One person, one vote. Yeah. Brett Bailey.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Let me just get a clarification. Right now, act two forty eight goes two forty eight a goes straight to the Supreme Court.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: After the the permit is issued. Yes.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah. And and we include the environmental court as an intermediary stop?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you could.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I mean, act two fifty, you said, goes to the environmental of appeal and then on the Supreme Court.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, VT Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And and I will say part of the reason that that is true is because currently for active 50 permits that are issued by district commissions, the environmental court reviews the case de novo. They are not they're submitting what to the court what the district commission did, but the the court then opens anew the case and goes through all the evidence again. And the PUC, because they have a more formal process, a more, like, on the record, more court like, that is one of the reasons why they don't go to a de novo hearing at the environmental court. They go straight to the Supreme Court because their inquiry is more narrow and based on what the PUC decided. And so that is related to the level of formality at both groups. But you could change those things.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Having heard everything around the table, I'm still back where I was probably that if we can really improve and relax and open up the PUC process, that's in my in my opinion, that would be better for now. Okay. So I do I have to why don't we have everybody think about this? I think our next step would be would everybody be okay with the next step being to at least take a look at a list of things that we would like to make sure that so say let's just say we're gonna ask the PUC to engage in rulemaking or we're gonna do something with orders. Could the next step be with no decisions made that we could try to get a list together of things that we would want the PUC to address or look at. Again, no decisions made, but the next step could be we would want them to consider bop bop bop bop bop because I don't even know what those things are. We you started jotting some notes. You've got some notes. We've all got some notes. Maybe we could put together that list. Folks, brainstorm and jot some notes. And next time we talk, everybody try to have thoughts ready about that. We'll see if we can all get comfortable with that idea. Okay. Thanks everybody. We can go off live.