Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: We're live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome back everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Thursday, January 29, and we are here with the Department of Public Service to talk about their FY twenty seven budget, the numbers that are in the governor's recommend, and also to hear about some legislative asks that they have of our committee. So we'll just go around and introduce ourselves and then turn it over. So, yep, so I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington. Michael Caledonia two.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Christopher Howland, Rutland Ford. Territory, Washington two.

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: We're a civilian owner two.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Great. For the record. Great. Brittany Wilson, deputy commissioner.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Hunter Thompson, director of telecommunications.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: TJ Poor, director of regulated utility planning.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Excellent, alright, well thanks for

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: being here. So I know you have some written testimony and we are all ears. Great, well thank you for having us in. As the chair mentioned, we had some technical correctionshousekeeping requests, maybe minor policy, but they're not large policy asks that we wanted to ask of the committee. These requests currently do not have been home any bills and are looking to move them forward. So, there's some of those asked and then just a couple of items on the fiscal twenty seven budget. So, as you all have in front of you, this is an outline of what we're hoping to talk about today. I'll start off with the fiscal twenty seven budget. Not a whole lot here, as most of you probably know, this department is gross receipt tax funded and our operating budget, operating within our meetings and the revenue that we collect. But a couple of things to point out. One that's big for the department is we've got a conversion, one limited service position to a permanent position. That's a fairly sizable budgetary ask. That position is technically the financial director for, but it'll be the position that oversees our administrative services division. And it's limited service, we're looking to make that permanent. Wanted to call that out for the committee that's a need for us.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I have a couple questions.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, My question was gonna be to you, madam chair. Do you want us to ask questions as we're going on?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think we should because there's we're gonna be switching topics. We're done. I have the feeling pretty just pretty in a pretty defined way as we move through. So to stick on the budget, I am not sure we've ever talked to

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: you guys about how you're funded, unless I've forgotten from last year. And

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: our the House Appropriations Committee is kind of developing they've got a different approach to the budget process this year. And so they want to make sure that they're really doing our due diligence and that we understand kind of the ins and outs for the departments that are in our oversight capability. So can you just, I actually did not know that and I wondered if you could just talk a little bit about how the department is funded.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Sure. So as I mentioned, primarily gross receipts tax. So that's on the income collected from utilities. We have roughly a $12,000,000 operating budget and there are about 400,000,000 federal dollars that we expect to flow through the department over the next several years. That includes the roughly 300,000,000 through the CBD.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, so it's a good gross receipts is coming in from the utilities and those are your revenues. Aren't like, you said you live within that,

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: so there's not additional general fund support? No general fund support. Not usually, there was a little bit of general fund support with clean heat standard positions. That was at a point in time for a specific reason. But generally no general funds for the department. There's other funds too. There's a little bit of energy efficiency utility, EU funds. There are little bit of the nuclear compact funds that come through, so, back for work the department does related to NT Cap and our compact with Texas. What are the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: funds that I miss from you guys?

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: There's special funds for build backs.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. Right. So some build backs in specific cases and dockets, like if we need to, those are largely done for when we hire a consultant and don't necessarily don't usually cover staff. We also have there's a a fee on generation citing, like a per KW fee that is split between the department and the commission. I think it might be sixtyforty.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sixtyforty, yeah.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That's a good distinction, that The sixtyforty department, do you see? Correct. For GRT and the net metering?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. Okay.

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Only the gross receipt taxes on utilities, not the grocery seat taxes that come from such things as a business, I don't know, based grocery seats, but constituent auto dealer. The tax goes up as his income goes up, so finally it's a bottom line that he notices other than

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. No. It's well, it's anybody that pays the gross receipts tax, and TJ can probably better articulate who all the entities are that pay that, but it's generally the utilities.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So the business grows from ZStack was not included with that revenue.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. General, right? Yeah, like a mechanic or a little business does not. Well, I'm

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: not sure

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: what they pay,

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Cell communications too. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Right. Utilities too. Right. Retails too. Everything everything that's on the phone. Yep.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yep.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. Rep. Sibilia and then Torre.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yep. I am just wanting to get specific about who is paying. So it's the and, actually, rather than, like, try and do this here, can you guys provide us with a list of who was paying the gross receipts to us and how much they're paying, if it's a percentage, etcetera? And

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I'm hearing utilities, but I, like, I I would like some more specificity. So, electric utilities, are the efficiency utilities paying? But

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: could you give

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: us just a little bit more specificity about it to be

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well and it is, outlined in statute. I don't have the statutory reference memorized, but it

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: it exactly the percentages are in statute. So we could review that. Sure.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes. It will provide you the reference as well.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So Sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Have you guys had to do your have you been to a probes yet? No. So this could actually be a good, like, preview.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I was gonna

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: say I

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: was not prepared to come and talk about it in-depth, so

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I gonna go back apologize about that. As I'm sure you guys know, you know, the budget present the the that letter went out from, you know, joint fiscal and the chair of approves whenever it went out over the summer. And, you know, requested new ways of presenting the budget information, and I know you guys are probably very familiar with that. And then we have been asked as policy committees to get a little bit deeper into understanding big picture budget stuff so that when we write our our memos to approves, we basically can demonstrate that we've done some due diligence, that we understand the money coming in and out, and that we get a little bit to the meat of any changes. So obviously, this is not a big requested change, but I do want to ask a few more questions about it. Sure. But, we've been specifically asked if, honestly, as policy committees do a better job of understanding the recommendations that we're making to approach. Yeah. So, you know, understanding how you guys are funded, I realized I didn't know. So so

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: and if we can is it possible for you to provide us, like, how much? Like, these equal I mean, that's gotta be public information. Right? It's yes. It's gotta be public information. It's funding government.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Oh, well, I think Is there any kind of So there's there was so we used to have the a report that came out after we got all of the gross receipts taxed, and the supreme court actually decided that those were tax returns and confidential. So, and I wanna just say yes. Not sure we I'm sure we can provide the total our total budget, of course Yeah. And, like, how much comes from the gross receipts set, but from individual entities or Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Roll it down as much as possible. Yeah. So, I mean, you know Yeah. We'll have utilities, it's x.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Folks who know those tests a little better, like, far we'll roll it

[Unidentified Committee Member]: out as far as we can.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And I mean, I'm really interested in what all the sources of revenue that are coming in. It's been my understanding in past, I mean, that there's it's tight and the PUC's tight and there's some conflict around that, and we ask you guys to do a lot of things. So I think it's really helpful for us to understand where your revenue comes from and what it looks like. Think that's the chart.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sure. And then oh, sorry, R.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Torre. Yeah. My question was more about trends over time. Electric sales are going up. So, is your budget going up

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: over time?

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. It's like most government departments and agencies, our budget is growing roughly three, three and a half percent. But within within the existing revenues and within the projected revenue collection from gross receipts tax, yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then, I was just looking over the description of the position.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah, I can provide a little bit of context here. Yeah. This position, we haven't had a director of this division for a few years. Another director was kind of co leading two divisions. We had a limited service position open up that allowed us to take a look at the division and the needs. So, we decided to reclassify that limited service position into a director level to help manage and oversee. And so, that division does everything from contracts and grants administration to the financials and budgeting.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, the position has been, so the division has been co led by another director for a couple years, and you guys had, I'm sure I'm gonna describe this improperly, but it sounded to me like you had an unfilled limited service position kind of hanging around. Did I misunderstand that? It And you decided to confer

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: was vacant. The individual had left and once that individual left, I was able to take a look and be like, okay, are we gonna fill that position as it is or repurpose for the greater good of the division and department. It wasn't vacant for too too long.

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

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Obviously the reclassification takes a little bit of time and advertising. We actually had to advertise twice as I mentioned, it is limited service right now. And so that's why it's in the, that language is actually in the governor's recommended budget to convert the position from limited service to permanent.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Sorry. I just have one more before I lose my train of thought. And so does that raise the price tag a little bit? Like, when you go from limited service to is it conversion doesn't thousand dollars or something.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That conversion doesn't really make a difference, but obviously reclassifying it from the level and position that it was, elevating it, that obviously was a little bit of an increase. Okay. Okay, sorry, go. What was that position? Before, the title was Financial Controls Manager.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's the position that was vacant, that you're not filling? Correct. That the person left.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Correct. And those functions will be part of the director's responsibility. Okay, great. Thanks.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, we'll hear back. Do folks have any other questions? I'm just thinking of like, what do we need

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: to know to write our budget memo? Right. So the next one is is one more item that you should know for the memo. If folks still have any other questions on

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the physician's. I think I'm good. We might want need to know I mean, if it just cost, like, $10,000 more. What, like you said it costs a little bit more.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Give you a full week. Okay. Just send them. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That would be great. Yeah. I just don't know what they're looking for this year. I wanna make sure we're ready and that we do a good job. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I believe the the guidance from approach was to sort of understand

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: why. That's

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: for any of these requests. What is the goal? How is this going to help us serve Vermonters and those things? That's very helpful. Kind of a word or two of why this is a good idea because Appropriations wants to know.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah, do want me to send that along as well as go through it shortly? Yeah, quickly now.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, read one. Sorry, I was putting this late. I didn't it made me say this before. All these items on this memo, are are you gonna assign dollar figures to them in in essence at some point to give us idea of your impact on on the budgets?

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, myself, may not.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right, yeah. I think obviously the position, we can give you the number on. The next one is budget savings and then the others do not have any budget implications.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay, yeah, so it's a budget issue. Yep. I heard you said, you outlined the savings on that.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah, yeah. Just try to call that out so

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: that Yep, we'd

[Unidentified Committee Member]: like to know that.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Okay, Okay, great. Well, I'm gonna let Hunter talk about the reasons for doing this, but I will just say that the recommendation is that, I'll start off, the recommendation is that we extend the renewal of the ten year telecom plan update from three years to five years. Hunter can talk about the reasons why, but I would just mention in terms of the budget, we built our fiscal twenty seven budget on the assumption, perhaps hope that this would come to fruition. And so, if this does not pass or come through, we'll be needing to take a much closer look at our budget and where else we could potentially trim so that we can fund the update, which is roughly a half million dollars.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: On a per year basis, you're saying?

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: On a per update basis. Per update basis.

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

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: the going on the third year, so we would have to do this update in fiscal twenty seven. Okay. We can do it two years from now and and budget for that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Perhaps Sibilia? Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So we talked about this briefly when Hunter was here. I think it's only the last two that have been contracted out. I think they used to be done in house. Two or three, yeah. Yeah, think it was pretty laborious. I also think there's, personally, that there are a lot of work that needs to happen in the section of statute that directs the tech telecommunications. So I just I'm wondering about the has the department had the discussion about whether or not this is something to be done internally and decided that we should continue with contracting out?

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I guess I'll let Hunter speak to that. I mean, I I would just say we didn't get into discussion whether it should be internal or external, it still costs money. And so if staff internally are doing it, then there's something that, there's other work that just doesn't get done or we have to hire somebody to do that work. So I think at the end of the day, it's still gonna cost money just which, who's doing the work. So, from my perspective it's more about timing. Do we need to do one? Is it necessary to do it every three years? Hunter can talk about the justifications for doing it every five years. Then which made sense to me, asking to push it out a couple of years. And then that's the ability to save the department money and balance our budget for fiscal twenty seventh.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Does does the department have any suggestions for cleanup

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: on that language?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Or are you guys satisfied with the language around ten year telecommunications plan?

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think we would probably have some recommendations for changes, but we didn't get into that in this session or with this ask. Nor did we.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Well, you know, I I think it you know, if we're pushing it down the road, you know, and it's anyway, just it's been a fairly contentious piece of statue. So

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. I think there are certainly some cleanup that we had talked about, but narrowed our focus and asked for this year.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: In the interest of moving on, I would just say that this legislator would be extremely interested in seeing any suggestions that you have or talking about. Thank you, Madam Chair. I

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: can per se, so I came into this role two and a half, maybe two and a half years ago, just twenty three years ago. And I came in as the ten year plan. My leaderships thought the RFP had been issued and awarded, and I came in and I found out that it had not even been issued yet. So I got into that process of there's been no discussion about moving it internally. I will say that it's a monumental amount of work that when we had hired a vendor to do it, the cost came out to about $450,000 and it would need a full time employee, probably two solid years to do all the work and the associated work with the outreach, the public outreach, the engineering study, the statistically significant survey. It gets a lot of person hours that go into this plan, and it's more personal hours. Would be nearly a full time job, the wrong thing to do this on a recurring basis, to do it at the level of granularity and detail that we've done for at least the past two sessions. I know we talked about this, I think Tuesday, Wednesday, one of those days. And I just this is some rationale. I know I kind of glossed over it before, but, you know, first, it's the but the rationale of every update is roughly half $1,000,000 with the next update during fiscal year twenty seventh. We talked about the cellular deployment and the completely new tower infrastructure is relatively small compared to the updates. The full 248A petitions for 2324 for brand new full towers were in the single digits. Wireless technology has largely remained unchanged with advances being evolutionary rather than revolutionary. In Vermont, the five gs deployments continue to be the prevailing work being done, and six gs is still a spec that's being written. It's not something that the industry has even started to explore, like let's make equipment work. The mobile drive test that we conduct biannually shows a similar improvement, and it's shown that it takes more than the three year cadence to actually see the improvements from the initial application for the petition for a new tower to getting it through the PUC process, to getting it constructed, to getting service spun up. That cadence is longer than the three year telecom van. So we find that that is another reason to bump it out to five years. With the rate at which powers are approved and constructed, takes more than a grand three year cadence and significant improvements are not realized and able to be evaluated. The other upon the horizon technologies that people seem to talk about a lot, like the direct sell to low Earth orbit satellite, as I mentioned, are still mostly an advertising campaign. They're not useful for day to day work. Can act you make it your open call to a low Earth orbit satellite. You can send a text on occasion. And the enterprise providers within the state, and I think you've heard a lot about this with the VCBB, have made huge strides in the migration to fiber networks as newer technology is expected to have a thirty year life span or more. And the changes to that technology are again going to be incremental with improvements in bandwidth and electronic capacity underlying that fiber optic technology. We also largely defer to the BCBV and to that plan when it comes to fiber to the premises. So we're left again with telecom, the ten year telehealth plan, focusing focusing primarily on wireless technology. The other pieces are the cost, and I just mentioned this, the cost and time taken to perform a statistically significant survey and corresponding engineering study or a large financial ask of the department. We often find similar responses on that three year cadence because there hasn't been a large change in the teleprompter. And that five year cadence would allow those changes that do occur to be reflected in responses from the public. I bring up this statistically significant survey. I'll bring it up again because that's increasingly difficult to do because that involves direct telephone outreach. Like an internet survey is not considered statistically significant. Less and less people answer their cell phone now with a number they don't recognize. I will answer my work phone whenever it rings, but if my personal phone rings and I see a number I don't recognize, I hit mute and fill burst. That particular piece is getting harder and harder to achieve because less and less people are answering the phones, seeing a decline in landline telephones, and an increase in cellular phones, and less and less people are willing to pay the number. They don't recognize because we all need to refinance our student loan or save a 10% on our car insurance, which seems to be mostly in the schools. Right. You use the Medicare.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right. Yeah. Is that still a useful survey for you guys? Or do you once it does get statistically relevant?

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think the survey is extremely useful. I think the statistic significance is less useful. I think that if we used other mechanisms to collect this information, we would be able to get a better purview of what the public thinks as opposed to relying on this telephone survey. And is that delineated in the statute that phraseology? That's statistically significance. I think it is. I know that the auditor has mentioned it before. So if it's not, we get called out. If it's not statistically significant by the

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: But it doesn't dictate that it has to be found because there's other ways to achieve that statistically significant without

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: just phone phone. Right. But phone's a primary method because, like I said, the Internet communication is not considered a good enough surveying methodology. That's the piece I have on the ten year telecom plan. And the other piece I'm was sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Go ahead. Are you moving on to a different one? Because I have a question about this.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yep. That's right. Thought it was yep.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Okay. Cool.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So you built the $500,000 savings into your budget already for FY '27. So if if this change doesn't make it across the finish line, what will you cut or what work will get done if don't, if you have to cut $500,000 out of your budget to pay

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: for this? Yeah, that's a good question. Also, what we do have budgeted is a $500,000 comprehensive energy plan, which happens every six years that TJ and his team do. I would say we probably need to look at cutting down the costs of those plans. What that specifically looks like, we can follow-up on. I would also say it depends a little bit on a few other factors. Staffing, whether or not we're able to fill vacancies, if we have more And vacancy it also depends on federal funding. We've had some wrenches thrown into certain things, some of our federal funding dollars and plans being approved or caps on rates that we can plan into the federal budget that we've received, the SEP budget, which you probably heard Melissa Bailey talk about. So there's a lot of moving pieces and things that could change over time. And so, what that ultimately looks like in six months could look different than today, but those are a few of the levers that we would be looking at.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But the comprehensive energy plan, that's required work. Right? It is. So how would you realize savings there? I don't understand.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That that money is would be allocated to in two broad categories, public engagement on it, and and leading up to it in particular, and technical analysis in certain areas, whether it's, something we want to evaluate, the electric grid or more broadly related to energy usage, reliability, affordability, etcetera, and that engagement on that technical analysis. So that's what costs. So, you know, that's what a lot of that money is allocated to. And so we would evaluate whether we can really do those technical analysis, which we're we're considering now. We're you know, that plan is due in January 2028. So a lot of those analysis would happen in fiscal year twenty seven. So and and the engagement. And so that's that's why we're kinda planning for it now, And we're gonna have to reevaluate, given all the other uncertainties, what we can continue to do, how much engagement do we do as a focus groups like we did in our last successful engagement, or do we need to pull some of that back and do a different sorts of engagement?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, would not be in favor of that happening. I mean,

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah, that's great. And

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I think chair's question is a fair question. And I just wanna come back to something that I had said earlier around the telecommunications plan. So you're you're asking it feels a little bit like we're just kinda taking a problem down the road as opposed to with telecommunications plan, as opposed to potentially, like, how much of this do we need? And should we kind of shrink the obligation there? Which, again, I would say I would really welcome suggestions from the department about the statutory language there, maybe to accompany this notion of maybe we just don't need to do this as often. So, both pieces would be helpful for me.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That's good. That's good to know.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And definitely not looking for us to shortchange the comprehensive energy plan in this moment.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Correct. But I'm curious on the flip side whether you guys had conversations around taking the safe bet and putting it in your budget. I'm just curious to know about the decision to Well, there's

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: only so many dollars and revenue to be collected. We've had a little bit more pressure over the last year, year and a half on the budget because of some federal changes. We've had to cover some staffing costs that we were hoping to have covered by solar for all that we're now paying for gross receipts tax. Frankly, my position is an increase on the department. There wasn't a deputy for several years and so my position is an impact. And so there's just been additional pressures on gross receipts tax. It's not all that different from the other departments and agencies that have kind of base pressures in fee for space and staffing salary costs. Like we have all those same pressures too. It just happens to be funded with gross receipts tax. There was just in order to make, in order to live within our means of the revenues we collect, that was that was what we're hoping for in terms of budget for fiscal twenty seventh.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Robert Howland?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Is the gross receipts tax then above the line in the, in a utility net revenue requirement?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Meaning that

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: ratepayers pay for it.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Ratepayers pay it, what we used to call, above the line. Right. And so that so the gross receipts tax then has an impact of effectively increasing the amount of revenue that is required usually known as being raised through rates on a on a kilowatt hour basis for a utility or

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That's correct. That that that gross receipt tax goes to the foreign collection of electric rate.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Do folks have, more questions about the dates of the telecom plan? Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Would we still get the information that you need to determine outcomes for whatever programs you wanna do or whatever legislation you wanna do, that sort of thing?

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. That's good.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. We're we're still able to collect that information. That's we get that regardless of the. That's data that we know about.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Okay. I don't know how

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: you pronounce the acronym. Do we call it the PCAV? PCAV. Okay. PCAV.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Again, like I mentioned this Tuesday, the second piece is smaller, and that is disbanding the Telecommunications and Connectivity Advisory Board, TCAB. The TCAB was established in 2015 and charged with making recommendations regarding telecommunication responsibilities. It was primarily dedicated to the expansion of wired internet services to all addresses across the state. Act 71 created the BCBV, and the purpose of the BCBV is to fund and support those policies that are designed to get wired internet services to every address in the state. It's kind of redundant in that regard. We've only met twice since 2021, I think once since 2024, and that was at our behest after we cracked them all down and sent them enough emails to be crudgingly get them together. When we do the annual report, reach out to the chair of the TCAB, and every year we ask him what his thoughts on the annual report are, and he says, we think that you should disband it. Given their primary mission has been supplanted by the VCB and the control of the connectivity fund that they used to get has been given to the VCBV, you find that it's redundant. That's just a nice piece of work and an active piece of communication and outreach we do to a party that at start if they're really engaged.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I do not have questions on that. Yep. R. Sibilia?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Just around language. Has any language been developed on this? Noted that there's no bill. You have language on this.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: We have language for all of these requests ready to go if committee would be willing to take them both. Hertz. I actually hadn't heard that.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah, no, they haven't either.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. It's fine. You wanna do the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: last one

[Unidentified Committee Member]: first before we have to go?

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That would be great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I made a funny joke. If you

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: all don't mind, I'm gonna jump to number six. To jump on. It's okay. Sorry, honey. No. It's okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do you not know I had a bunch of your time when you come to our committee? Sorry.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Have She a mug yet.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know. She does not have a mug yet. You have a mug. Right? Oh, you guys.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. I think

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Just don't leave without a little gift being bestowed. Sorry. A gift. Token of respect. Token of participation. I love the space. Charcotification probate.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That's my favorite. Okay, on we go. So, I jump into number six really quickly and I don't have a whole lot here, but Building Energy Code Safe Harbor language. This was a request by the Builders Association because of the governor's executive order on housing, which said builders and homeowners can choose between the two codes. And then some questioning uncertainty around the legality of that. And the department is moving forward with rule making to solidify that, but there's this little bit of a gray area. And so builders and homeowners and others are asking for safe harbor language to be held harmless if they did in fact, do in fact built to twenty twenty codes after the EO, but before the rules are adopted. And so, that's number six here that we would also like to ask the committee for their consideration on. And I'm sure more testimony is required to have you either come back or or Andrew would be happy to kind of answer questions that he's hearing from.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We'll be taking that too much compliance bill that I have and that this will probably be easy to add to. So, actually, if you have have light on it, that would be great to have sooner rather than later.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: yeah, I don't I don't have questions on that that I wouldn't wanna really dive into. So

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: on we go. Right. Mhmm. So I guess I'm up on, integrated resource plans. So I'm not sure I can get there with that. I'm using the acronym, but, yeah, we'll work on that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know. You don't have to get slow.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So the the goal of this just broadly is to update the integrated resource plan statute to increase our regulatory efficiency and then enhanced outcomes on integrated resource plans. And so just as a reminder, are really utilities opportunity to transparently articulate their decision making framework. That's what gets approved by the public utility commissions, their decision making framework. Kinda sets a foundation for their actions for the next ten to twenty years. They do these by every three years. They're governed by statute now, least cost planning statute, and they have to be consistent with the energy plan. They're, like I said, they're required to be submitted every three years and they're really a significant piece of work that they take between twelve and eighteen months to do. So if they're submitted and then it takes some time in a regulatory process to get them approved, they're kind of really get one approved and really just starting to, they immediately have to start their next one. So our proposal is to make some improvements to the IRP statute to modify the requirement to, just for municipal and cooperative utilities, in particular. This would not, as we propose it, apply to remount power or Bram and Gas from every three years to be every five years. With with that to have an interim status report that is not intended to be a a, you know, a mini integrated resource plan, but more of a a check-in on the actions identified in the IRP, how they're going, if there's any changes to the decision making framework of a utility, know, change in leadership may change their framework or or change in industry trends, may identify other issues. The status report is kind of important to not go too long, but not also have to do a full eighteen month or longer process on integrated resource plans.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Why not GMP or BT Gas?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Largely because they are investor owned utilities that and they're bigger, and they it is, we feel like it's important to continue to have that updated, particularly, because they're investor owned utilities and they have a different governance structure than our festivals and cooperatives who are governed by electric commissions, the, you know, the municipalities or their members, their own members.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Brook Morrow and in Sibilia?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Comment on this change vis a vis oversight of these utilities in light of commissioner's testimony a couple weeks ago and recent happenings, you know, at the Park. But so does this is this distinct from annual oversight processes, or how how

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: do they relate? It is distinct from that, and thank you for calling that out. So this is higher level. Think of planning for meeting our renewable and maybe clean energy requirements and and how we wanna plan for resilience of our grid and ensuring that there's cost effective investments in service quality and making sure that they're reviewing the resources available to them and kind of the operations and delivery of service. So there is a financial component of that. They do some financial outlooks in that, but it would not IRPs are not a substitute for that more detailed annual book of, you know, those questions that we want to really make a formal process of for all our utilities.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So that was part of my question, so it was helpful. But I'm just I need it may be broken down a little more simply, D. J, that it seems counterintuitive to me that the two larger investor owned would be at a faster cadence than the smaller munis and co ops. And it's I just don't understand. Can you just break it down a little bit more simply about why that recommendation is in the best interest of a resilient grid? That's Yeah, I

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: think it's really, it just speaks to the governance structure where investor owned utilities, we don't really, it's not the department, but as a state, we kind of don't say that investor owned utilities have a profit motive, right? And so having that more regular cadence or not extending or changing the cadence here for those utilities made sense to us given that the governance structure and that they had, you know, municipals and co ops don't have that profit, if they have their other oversight And we don't wanna we think that IRPs are really important for that planning framework and analysis and ability to transparently collaborate, but it or those utilities, they're in a continual cycle of of planning. Those investor owned utilities are also able to move a little more nimbly when they're planning and have more resources available. So I think that the lift is not quite as big for them.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And so, thank you. That's helpful. I, you know, always think about the rural areas. And so GMP very has a lot of rural territory as do our co ops. And so can you just reassure me on this? So, you know, we need those areas hardened and resilient and and really thinking, you know, and we know that WAG you know, it's pretty expensive. So, can you just reassure me a bit with the co ops in particular about why this makes sense?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well, one of the other changes which I didn't

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. I was saying I talked about this. I think it helps.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Articulate yet two other changes. One, in the lease cost planning statute, we talk about things like affordability and environmental compliance, and we specifically wanna add the words resilience and reliability to that. So that's on our mind also to make sure. I think in practice, things are being put in other IRPs now, but, making it explicit there. We also we require, the Department of Public Service, publishes with its comprehensive energy plan and then updates in the interim guidance for integrated resource plans that really, it it shows utilities meant to articulate to utilities how we are gonna review those plans and that guidance really, has in the last several years pushed more towards those types of resilience investments. We wanna ensure that utilities are making and planning for the risks and vulnerabilities that they see coming on the system. What we are proposing to do with this language is I spoke the other day about municipals and co ops have they can come in for a 3% rate increase every year with a streamlined regulatory process. We had suggested here that we wanted to buy the ability to get that streamlined increase to having an approved IRP. So right now, IRPs, a utility submits the requirement and statutes for the utility to submit an IRP and the Public Utility Commission may approve an IRP. They don't have to utilities actually don't have to have an approved IRP unless they want certain things. And so the way that was a hook historically was, well, in a February proceeding, when they're citing infrastructure, then a utility comes in for a a February certificate of public good. They need to show consistency with their approved IRP, but utilities aren't coming in for those infrastructure upgrades anymore. The people who propose, you know, utility scale projects are developers, and so that hook is that connection is broken. And so we wanna have that hooked for their streamlined rate increases, which is, as I understand it, I think if you talk with Vipsa in particular, you'll hear that that has, been a really, useful tool to increase their regulatory efficiency and help, help stabilize rate or stabilize more, predictable rate path. And so so that's that's the other way that we're tying that to that so that they ensure that we have these IRPs. Okay. You want regular rate increases. We need to make sure you're making these investments and have an entire back to us. Like, it's a really long winded Yeah. That can be. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But No. That's okay. It's helpful. But I think what I'm hearing is we're not always getting the IRPs because they don't necessarily have to do. And so this isn't is that right?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So there all utilities have been filing IRPs, but there has been long and and drawn out processes about our guidance Mhmm. And whether we're following the guidance. And then what generally happens with a integrated resource plan is that they either have followed the guidance and put everything in the IRP, which is great. Or if there's a miss, they either update the IRP or we enter an agreement with the utility that there's this piece or a piece of work that needs to be done for any other investment decisions. So their decision making framework, well, you didn't actually talk about peak management and how that could maybe avoid a distribution constraint. I'm I'm making up an example here, but, and so we would say, okay, We can approve your IRP as long as you agree that if you're evaluating an infrastructure investment, you will, you will, analyze, like, how load management may avoid the peak.

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

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And you'll do that and you'll put it in your next IRP. And so it's like those discussions are, not easy and drawn out. They take a lot of time for us. They take a lot of time for the utility, and you think that these proposed changes will help to

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: streamline that?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Reps out for me.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So is it fair to say that the IRP, when it's approved, they may not see the full results of the IRP plan in time for them to start doing it again or to implement any aspects of that IRP. Yeah.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think that is definitely true. That's what I was saying with, you know, this it takes eight twelve to eighteen months, and then, you know, there's some some IRP cases after they filed, it's taken over a year. It's taken almost two years for in one utilities case to get approval with interveners and just different process that has happened. So, you know, they without further extensions, actually need need to to start again before they even know if their other one is approved.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So it gives the utilities a better sense of how it worked and also the Department of Public Service an idea of how it worked. Right.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think it'll clarify that kind of timing against you guys. Thank you. There's one other technical piece to this that actually we've been talking with a municipal utility. This is kind of a technical fix, so I just wanna mention it here is that municipal utilities are allowed to implement innovative pilots, and so they they can innovate implement a pilot tariff for eighteen months, but what happens after the eighteen months is then they need to either stop the stop the pilot, it didn't work, but if it's successful, then they need to stop the pilot and and turn it into a terror. And so there's just a timing issue there. And so we put in language to say, if you're filing for a tariff and and there's a time frame in there, you file for a tariff, then, the innovative eighteen month pilot can continue until the tariff, if and when the tariff is approved. Just so there's no stop start program issues or having, you know, potentially three different versions of the tariff as you as you go forward.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Just our congress.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: It's really a technical technical fix on that one.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Really short. So so how long typically does the tariff case take?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: It depends. So they a utility files a tariff, and the department then has thirty days to comment and request or any any party as can request an investigation within thirty days. If we do not invest investigation, then often they they get approved within another thirty to sixty days. If we do request an investigation, it can take up to seven months, and that that's

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So that's just the case.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. That would have

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: done a simpler way to answer that. No. That's great. I I appreciate the detail. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank Changes to act one seventy four.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. So act one seventy four of 2016, we should clarify. Yes. It's probably been act one seventy four since then. That act established a process for regional planning commissions to develop energy plans and attain a determination from the department, that the plans align with the energy plan and, and guidelines that we publish pursuant to that energy plan and receive substantial deference in energy facility citing decisions before the public utility commission. So if a regional planning commission and then approve a town's plan, if a town has that plan and they go to the PC and say, we either like this project, we're excited, or this project is not consistent with our town plan. The PUC gives the town substantial deference to say, yeah, you're adequately planning for your energy future, and you said, you know, no solar or wind turbine or natural gas in this area, and we are gonna defer to you. And so that's that's the purpose of act one seventy four. Last year, act one eighty one made some changes to the land use review board's process that had implications on the act one seventy four process. And so this is really an administrative fix to ensure towns and municipalities don't have gaps in having an approved energy plan, and it helps them maintain their ability to receive substantial deference. So now after act one eighty one, a RPC municipality must get a plan approved by the Review Board process,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: LERB acronyms,

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: and then they get a determination from

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: the p from the public service department. So that creates, like, a polymer of all time where there's not an approved plan and not an official receipt of substantial deference. And so the the proposal is to fix that. It also kind of streamlines, public feedback by consolidating it with the adoption of the broader regional or town plans. Often, we have a regional plan adoption, and then we have to go and have hold a separate public hearing on a portion of the, on a portion of the regional plan that's already been adopted, the energy plan portion. And I've been to a half dozen of these in the last year, I think. And there's been, I think, one total participant in, a half dozen of these hearings. So and a lot of that is because they've already had a public process with their regional regional plan. It also would help us in terms of this kinda recurrently, we need to review basically plans two different times and submit comments separately to the land use review for it. And so really just streamlining that whole process is is the proposal. So I'm there. Let's see if oh, I one obvious answer. Won't stop there. Sorry. Just we have talked with the land use review board on this and the RBCs, and they're both supportive of this streamlining.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's great if you have any questions about the streamline. How yeah. Can you explain a little bit better how you think that would work? The town wants to update its energy plan or maybe wants to create an energy plan that maybe doesn't have one that's achieved, has been approved by the regional planning commission and by public service, so they don't have substantial efforts. So if they want to create an energy plan that does achieve that, how would that be streamlined with in

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: in, you know, in this in this conception? Right. So I think this that really the issue is that under act one eighty one, the regions and towns need to go through a land use review board process for the plans. Uh-huh. So once they go through that process, they then have a newly adopted regional plan. And it's actually the inverse is if their energy plan hasn't changed, for instance, then they have a new regional plan and but we're required to then go through our process again because it was newly adopted by, the region and and because they haven't And there's a break until we are able to have our public hearing and review again, which can can happen quickly. I mean, they haven't changed it, but then if they haven't changed it, then the data is really old. It creates another issue of where, well, you're maybe you're not using current enough data to to you know, we may have questions as well. And so if we do it all at once with the concept so that I think the real issue is is not in the scenario you brought up. It's it's inverse of it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They don't change their plan. So so our region would update his plan in order to to approve by the based on that January. And having updated that plan, now it's now the municipal energy plan is stale, and we we need to be Right. Refreshed and preapproved by the by the RPC. Is that

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I so once it gets through the act one eighty one process, they have updated their regional plan, but then we need to then ensure that it met our guidelines and so we have to then have a subsequent Under one seventy four. Of January. Yeah. And so once they update under one eighty one, they no longer get substantial difference. Right. There's a risk of that. They, I mean, we'll see, we would see how it played out in front of the commission, but that's the risk and we have to do a whole separate public hearing and process around it where we could do it all at once if the if the That helps. Thank you. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Like this I think you said this sorry. When's the next remind

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: me the timeline of comprehensive energy plan when

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: January 2028 is when it will be published. And so we would expect a draft several months before that in the 2027. And we expect to actually have a we do have a requirement to issue a public engagement plan at least a year before so sometime in 2026 for it. We're expecting to do that this spring.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And it I'll find that in statute. I'm just curious to see what the requirements are for that.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: For the energy plan? Yeah. Public engagement. All of it.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Two zero two b e.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. It's either

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: two zero two a or b.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. The public engagement plan is gonna be published no. Sorry. Say it one more time.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: This spring. This spring.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: This spring. Then the draft is published in fall twenty twenty seven with public comments, I'm sure, and then it's finished in January 2028. And we ex

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: you know, the public engagement plan will outline the engagement before the draft. We expect a lot of engagement

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

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Helping us to build the policies.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do you want us to weigh in too?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Just look at the legislature or you personally?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Yeah. Well, let's do one last question then. Go ahead, Shay.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: My question's back on IRP ones. Do does the PUC have weigh in on this idea? Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I I on that, we have not we have not connected with them on the specifics and exchanges. No.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: We?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I I do think you should ask them in about it. Yes. We will also be connected with them. Yeah. So the

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah. The IRFs that you called in.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. The IRFs. Mhmm.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: A p u commission requirement and not a Department of Public Service requirement?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. The commission is the one well, they're a requirement of the utilities to file them with the commission, and the commission may approve them. Yes. So So if we

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: go to a five year cycle on the and the co ops, they would be deemed to have a valid IRP from they make a submittal due, say, June 30 of one year, takes you anywhere up to eighteen months to approve it. They would be deemed to have a valid IRP on submittal of an IRP whether or it's been approved so they can get these you did mention the 4% increase in we went from 3% to 4% in that

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: But if you go to 4% and you had a 10, you still have a 10%, can apply for increases up to 3% at a time, up to 10% since the last rate increase. Would there be any increment in that going from 4% to raise that 10% to 12%?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: The two questions there. The first one, a utility would need to

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: have an approved IRP. Their last approved IRP would would set the set the time to five years. So if they had one approved a year ago, then they would need to do one and and So they have five years for that approval date. Right. Not the submission date, but the approval date And the and then you have this 4%, the 3% to 4%. And then my question on the 4% is raising 10% limit to something. Yes. Year, like, a 12% or or some some number that you people

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Thank you for the question because I overlooked that point in here in describing it. When I mentioned the 3% rate increase, are also proposing to up that to 4%. And so and the other part that's not written in the and what we filed is that we would increase. There's a cumulative requirement that those three right now, it's 3%. And then if you get it to over 10%, then you need to have a full rate increase and we're proposing change it to four and fifteen.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Only So 3%. I only said 12. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. You so much for your time. Appreciate you guys coming in. Let's see. We are looking for the info about the gross receipts tax.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That's at at whatever level of

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: transparency or opacity you can provide. And then if you've had legislative language

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Brittany made a note of same language.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Yep. And I just, you know, we're on a quick committee. So but, yeah, please send it along. And thanks for presenting all these requests, and I think that we can go offline.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're done for the day.