Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Alright. Welcome, everybody. It's Friday, January 30. This is House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. And we are taking some time this morning to engage in our practice of making sure that every bill that's referred to our committee has at least a ten minute opportunity or fifteen minutes for the bill sponsor to come in and give us a little overview and tell us what the bill's about. So we are starting out today with, rep Monique Priestley. We'll introduce ourselves real quick. I'm Kathleen James from Manchester.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint John. Richard

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Bailey, Lamoille too. Chris Morrow, the Windsor, Bennington. Southworth, Caledonia too. Christopher Howland, Rutland Ford. Dara Torre, Washington Dune.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Who do

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: have? Windham Chittenden.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. I'm You rolled away. Who do we

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: have in the room?

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Dana Lee

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Perry with the grassy roof. Yep. Paul Shortuno, Jeffersonville. Super. George Putnam, Cambridge.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Alright. For the record,

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Monique Priestley, record.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Thanks for being here. Take it away.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Well, thanks everybody. I try to not read off a screen when I'm doing bill introductions, but I'm probably gonna have to look at my screen for this because it's an area that is new to me. You are utility experts. I'm more of the, you know, the data side of things. So I'm gonna

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: look at this a little bit.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: So the cloud of computing utility acts basically like this is introduced an idea that there is infrastructure that whether where we're storing files, where we're, you know, using our email and everything that we're doing online is stored in the cloud, which is in servers and things like that. And that reliance is like critical infrastructure, which if that just if we assume, just like for a moment, pretends that all of our cloud utility services went down, we wouldn't be able to function as a legislature. Small businesses wouldn't be able to function. Hospitals wouldn't be able to function. Our government wouldn't be able to function. Emergency services, non profits, farms, like everybody. And so thinking about that as an essential infrastructure which we would cease to be able to operate in all of those different spheres. Also thinking about the fact that the pricing of all of those services that we so heavily rely on, whether it's government or business or independence as people, those prices don't have any current regulation right now. The stability of those services doesn't necessarily have any oversight into it. And there could lead to actual harm that comes if those services went down, Whether it's reliance on the services that are no longer operational, or loss of data and all kinds of stuff. So, despite the fact that we all, at all levels of everything, rely on these services, there's nothing that actually regulates them as the servers and the cloud providers that host all of our stuff that we all rely on. And so unlike electricity and the other kind of infrastructure, phone services, communication services, this is a space that hasn't been regulated in the same way. I mean, I'm not saying that this is like the same exact same thing as like those other utilities that are in a lot of times physical infrastructure, but it's the we use them in the same we rely on them in the same type of way. So this is like a new this in Bill, in a lot of ways, I'm introducing this as a way to start the conversation around, like, if this is something we rely on, are we concerned with stability pricing and the ways that we rely on it, and that we don't have any accountability, transparency, and necessarily fairness built into it that we can see. So, what's broken? Pricing is difficult to understand or predict, and when I'm kind of like thinking about this, especially I think of like small business, municipalities, nonprofits. So pricing is difficult to understand and predict. Sudden fee increases or new charges can happen without little notice. Excessive data or termination fees can make it costly to leave those services or switch to other services. Limited ability to move to another service. And no clear standards for service reliability, uptime, or consumer protections. This bill does not assume that anybody's acting in like bad faith or that there's bad actors, just that the markets are highly concentrated on a few big providers often, and those kind of like well intentioned systems can produce unfair outcomes because of that. So the problem is not cloud technology itself, it's just the absence of any type of guardrails at all. At a high level, this bill brings cloud services into a regulatory framework that Vermont already knows how to run, our public utilities. It does three core things. It recognizes cloud computing as a utility like service affected with public interest, gives the Public Utility Commission jurisdiction to oversee large cloud service providers operating every month, and it creates targeted, flexible oversight tools focused on fairness, transparency, reliability, and competition. How the bill works in practice? The bill places qualifying cloud services under the PUC jurisdiction, similar to other public service companies. Thresholds are set by the Commission so that small or incidental providers are not swept into this. Second, providers are required to file rate schedules and terms of service. This allows the Department of Public Service and the Commission to review pricing and contract terms for unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory practices, especially in markets that are not truly competitive they're the big guys. Third, the bill authorizes the PUC to establish minimum service and reliability standards, including uptime and continuity expectations, data security and privacy requirements, transparency around service changes and outages. Fourth, the bill directly addresses data portability and lock ins so that customers must be able to retrieve their data in usable formats without excessive fees, and termination fees are prohibited. This restores basic market mobility and choice. Fifth, the bill promotes open access and competition, allowing the commission to intervene if the cloud market is determined to be noncompetitive and to adopt additional safeguards when needed. Why this bill matters for Vermont? For small businesses, local organizations, this bill means clearer pricing, fewer surprise fees, protections against discriminatory treatments, and real ability to switch providers. For state and municipal government, it means more reliable infrastructure for public services we cannot afford to have bail on us. For state economy, it lowers barriers for smaller and regional cloud providers to compete rather than locking Vermont into permanent dependence on a handful of dominant firms. For the public interest, the bill requires the PUC to conduct a regular statewide cloud infrastructure needs assessment, including energy use, environmental impacts, capacity, and long term demand. That allows Vermonters to plan rather than to react. The bill does not regulate content, it does not dictate specific technologies, it does not assume all cloud providers are utilities in the traditional sense. Instead, it says, when a service becomes a central infrastructure, public oversight must catch up. Cloud computing is no longer optional. It is foundational. This bill ensures that foundation is stable, fair, transparent, and aligned with public good.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do we have rep Campbell?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, this is interesting. Yeah. What are other states doing?

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: This is a this is a like I said, this is kind of starting the conversation. This is something that was talked about at different conferences I was at this summer, and it's something that a bunch of other New England states and I were all coming together to be like, Do we wanna start this conversation? Is it too scary? And basically everyone was scared of starting this, and I said, well, start it. And so they're all looking to us. Let's go do it. But yes. Yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I I mean, I can I can see I can see an argument certainly? But I'm also thinking about sub cloud computing is is just is just it's just storage. Sure.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Totally. Yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Access to that is on a different order than access to online functionality. If you need functionality in order to provide a service or something, then you need you need access to it. Of course, you also need access to the Internet to get to it. Yeah. Yeah. So that's that's that's that's another dimension. And and and how does that interact with this with considering the inter basically, the Internet as utility. Yeah. It's a big conversation.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Yeah. It's a huge conversation. And, like, I think a part of that is, like, who accesses the Internet anymore without probably having to access some kind of cloud storage files, something. Like, our whole life is, like, one way in one way or another stored on something that we're using the Internet in order to access those. And if we most of us are, like even our email and our OneDrive or things like that, like, actually, other than shopping, and even then, like, the stores are reliant on cloud services. So, yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right, right. Yeah, it's a very big topic. Yeah. It would take probably five years of sessions.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Okay, we're starting to see the conversation. Rob Saffner?

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: Thank you. So you're looking to define cloud services as a regulated utility? Mhmm.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: K. So everything's through the Internet, like

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: As

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: people said. It's it's not. Yes.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: So wild west.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. Seems like a steep curve.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: For family and then now

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Has has there been an issue? Have you had is it true to say, I'm having problems with this area?

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: You know, I like, this is

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Or nationwide.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Yeah. Yeah. You know, it's actually it kind of feels like data privacy in a way that, like, until like what's happening federally, a lot of constituents wouldn't have come forward to say like please regulate data privacy because they don't they know what they rely on but not necessarily like what that means as far as regulation goes until it's, like, in the headlines and things like that. So this is, like, a really technical thing that is hard for constituents to be like, I'm having a problem with Microsoft Word, or, you know, whatever. Please do something about it. It's so this is trying to get ahead. Well, I mean, kind of trying to catch up in a way, but also getting in front of the fact that if we had something happen, we have to know kind of where to write any of can. Thank you.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Ruppelins and Kleppner.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: The term plow isn't really plowed. There is some electronic data stored on hardware somewhere. Yeah. And that somewhere may not be located in Vermont. Mhmm. And I would have a hard time seeing how Vermont can regulate somebody else's data and data in a separate you know, not physically located in Vermont. And secondly, I think that there's something of this scope. We mentioned what are other states doing. There's isn't this why we want the FCC to get involved? It's a they're not a state issue. Mhmm. It's and you don't have to use the cloud. They still they still make memory sticks.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Sure. Right. And I haven't

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: found anybody to appeal.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: You're you're using the cloud right now. I don't know. Oh, I am now. Yeah. Right.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yep. Well, it may or may not be. Yeah. Yeah. It may it may go right from some server here and not go Yeah. Yeah. Internal to this Yeah. Device I'm on. Yeah. And and but I don't know. To as a personal user, I don't get a cloud fee in my Internet Mhmm. Connection, but I would imagine perhaps municipalities and businesses do. Mhmm. This is the rope you in program Mhmm. Of getting you to start. And then I And don't know at what point fees are incurred for use of cloud service. So I I just think it's a big piece for a little Vermont to to chase, and we already have some issues with energy requirements of data centers. It goes

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Yeah. No. For sure. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I think it is fair game because Vermonters I would probably bet that every single Vermonter in some way or another is reliant on these services, so it is, does feel fair game. We we did a lot of, digging into making sure that this was, wouldn't violate, like, the common Commerce Clause and things like that. So that, like, they definitely dug into whether or not this is actually something that had legal bounds for being a Vermont bill.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: R. Kwebner and then Sibilia.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Touching on points made by both representative Bailey and Howland. So having run a small to mid sized business with an e commerce presence and retail stores heavily reliant on the cloud, it's a problem when they go down. Amazon Web Services goes down and takes out e commerce stores all up and down the East Coast to the point of it not being housed here. Yeah. All our stuff was mirrored in data centers in Texas and California with the big providers hoping that they won't have simultaneous natural disasters, although it seems more and more likely that there will be simultaneous disasters in Texas and California. Yeah, yeah. And on the point of regulating this outside The USA, outside Vermont, I agree, very difficult, but I think we do, there may be a way to require that web service providers doing business in Vermont commit to a certain level of reliability in Vermont.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Brilliant. Yeah, and actually, thank you, Rutland, and also just thinking about more examples of the things we rely on, you mentioning Amazon Web Services, like, every single app on the iPads, the computers, and the phones that are in your pocket are cloud hosted somewhere else. So just imagine no access to any app unless it's, like, self hosted on your computer, which many of us are not reliant on purely offline apps.

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

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Just, a comment about the, concept which, gets pushed into these debates every time that I have participated in in them in more than a decade I've been here around the ability of states to regulate, it would be optimal for the federal government to regulate. But we have an ongoing and accelerating demonstration project federally where these types of companies are, investing heavily to prevent federal regulation and then to come here and tell us we can't have 50 regulations. We really need it at the federal level. And so I think we just need to be clear eyed about that. I the chair has time. It would be great to indulge in learning a bit about that. We have taken some time to talk about that here during net neutrality discussions. I'm guessing that the chair probably does not want to indulge that conversation, but, I have heard this repeatedly. And so, the failure of the federal government to act repeatedly does not actually block the state from consumer protections. And so the question is, you know, is there a consumer protection issue here, I think? So thanks, management. Thanks.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Now we're we wanna try to stay on time. So Torre and Southworth, and then we can move to our next presenter.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: R. Torre and then Southworth. I I find this really intriguing, and it fits with a lot of the issues we've been grappling with in this committee around talcum of thumb. But I'm curious when you say that the markets are not truly competitive because if that's really the case, I'm wondering about antitrust law.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Yeah, and I think kind of what R. Sibilia was just getting into is we see the big monopolies should be broken up a federal level, yeah, and at the lack of that happening, states, there's maybe an opportunity to say like, hey, or at least protect ourselves, yeah.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: Thank you. So I heard a lot about consumer protections, pricing, and would it be beneficial to go through commerce and economic development first to start addressing those concerns before we bite into a bigger process, which is gonna take a lot longer time.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: I think so this is written, so I totally hear you, and I do think it probably need, like I don't know how that all works, like probably makes sense to do consumer protection stuff at some point in commerce, but this was written under the public utility guidelines, that's why it like starts here. Yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Great. Thank you.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Cool. Thank you. Thanks, representative. Appreciate your time and your thought leadership.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Thanks, guys. Alrighty.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Representative Campbell.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, cute.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: He's promised. He's promised.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Oddsie. Scott, you want me to tell

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: a story to buy you

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: some time? Yeah. Got any jokes?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I've got a joke. I'm gonna

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: do something on screen, so you have to let me handle it. Okay. I have a link to it, please.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Can send it to your account.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I'll let Alex go and ask you. Is H First of all, I'm Scott Campbell, representing Saint John's Ferry. This is building for H-six 31, which proposes to establish energy storage goals for Vermont. These would be goals, not mandates, just sort of intentions. Idea is that Vermont is one of only two states in New England, New York and New England, that doesn't have any goals, other being New Hampshire, goals or something, goals or requirements. We've heard from Department of Public Service that, oh, here's a link, that Get this on without K. Get a seat belt.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, right.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So and then

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alex, do you mind hitting a little okay button? Oh, thanks.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: There's all kinds of choices here. Screens to pick, but Can't tell which one. It should be. 30. Shared problems. Trying to screenshot. Is that is it is anything you're doing? No.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Not the.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sorry, guys.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Can I add on to Carolyn's fun little history lesson this morning while we Yes? Yes. Yes. Henry Knox dragged tandems down to Framingham, Massachusetts, which was founded by Nicholas Danforth, whose descendants started Danforth Pewter.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Mhmm.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And if you take the Framingham town seal if you take the Framingham town seal and you blow it up, there's, like, sheaves of corn. If you look carefully in there in small letters, it says, Danforth Farms. There it is.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, wow. Oh, here we go. Okay.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Good job, Ben. Perfect timing.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: All right. So, yes, are states. The states in dark blue have some sort of goal or policy enacted around storage. We heard from so as you can see, all the New England and New York states have our goals except for Rhode Island, New Hampshire. Is from the public service annual, whatever it's called, report. This black is my screen. Annual energy report, where they told us that we have about 85 megawatts of storage deployed, which is around 10% or between eight hundred and nine hundred megawatts per year, if you put the annual load, which is a lot more than other states have. And there's another, they say, 18.9 megawatts under construction or permitting. So we're doing pretty well for storage. In some of the testimony that we've heard about this, I have asked about, well, there a maximum? Is there a ceiling on how much storage we would want to have? Maybe you all recall, the answer is basically no. We want as much storage as we can get because it gives us a lot more flexibility in terms of when we have to go to the open market to buy power, when we, the distribution facilities. So it's very beneficial to have as much storage as we can. This bill would just start by setting out some goals. The goals that I put in the bill, which are admittedly pretty arbitrary, I don't really know what the right numbers are, think we would want to hear some more testimony on that. But the goals that I put in here were 200 megawatts by 01/01/2030, and we have close to, let's see, 20, I guess, or 30, I guess, this year, looks like, four fifty megawatts by 2035, and 800 megawatts by 2040. So, that would start to get to be a meaningful proportion, probably, well more than half of our annual load, if we got to that level. That would be, again, beneficial in terms of stabilizing rates and reducing upward pressure on rates from utilities having to purchase power at high use times. So that's basically the idea. Happy to take questions.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Rich Southworth?

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: So does this number include personal home storage battery banks? Yes. So we're already ahead of the curve. We're already on our way.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, ahead of we're ahead of other states anyway.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Okay.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: Uh-huh. So based on what utilities have told us, they're actively seeking more and more because they realize they need that for shaving the peak. Right. So I guess why would we have to put this in the form of a law if they're already actively pursuing it?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's just a matter of putting into words state policy, advocating state policy. That's, I think, the point. Then this would become what is cited in future comprehensive energy plans and that sort of thing. Would be the point. Oh,

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I'm sorry.

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

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So two questions. One, we set this as a goal, and do we do anything to encourage people to achieve that goal? Well, I

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: didn't get that far with it because it is the next step, but generally that would require money, providing incentives of some sort. There's no money now. I was starting with just setting a goal. As a matter of state policy, probably that's it.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And would setting the goals run into the danger of becoming ceilings?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I suppose possibly. We like to exceed goals when we can, more than the minimum. And the goals that I put in this bill, which I say, as I say, are somewhat arbitrary, as the goals are, are pretty high compared to where we are right now. So I don't think that's going be a problem. Yeah, I don't

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: think it's a big danger either, just imagining us doing a smashingly good job of hitting the goals and then saying, okay, so we don't need any more.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Well, I asked specifically of utilities and the public service people when they were in, do we have to worry about that? Do we have to worry about there being a ceiling on how much is too much? There's probably a point at which it becomes uneconomic. We're nowhere near that. It's out of, to me, like, we don't have an idea what that what it might be yet. So it's we just need more storage.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Couple questions. One is and I'm I'm sorry. I haven't this may already be in the language. What might be the process for setting, you know, thoughtful, meaningful goals? And then just a comment, is that I actually, I do, I like the idea of having kind of policy in writing to refer to just because I've seen in our own committee how often it's helpful to me in thinking about how urgent something is or how much time or energy we wanna put into it. Like, when we take testimony on weatherization, and we see how many homes we wanna weatherize and where we're falling short, or when we look at how many homes we wanna build, and we can see how on track we are. So I'd be curious about the process for setting some kind of meaningful database to realistic goal. How do we get to that right number so that then as the years go on, could say, Oh, we're falling behind, or We're moving ahead.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I think that would be a matter of testimony.

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

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: As for the mechanics of it, this just adds a section statute in Title 30. A section two fifty six in Title 30 that just says energy storage goals, and These are the goals, and that's it.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's Southworth and then Howland?

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: How do your proposed goals compare with other states? What are their goals set at? The ones that have goals

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: or Well, are some goals listed here. Example, Connecticut is 1,000 megawatts by 2030. How do we get rid of this thing that's covering the screen?

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: And they're waving high, right? So would you think that having a goal set would eventually cause an impact to rates as far as the cost to expand the storage? Will that cost trickle down to ratepayers?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, think that there are two factors here. One is yes, it costs to build storage. The other is it, it, it reduces pressure to cost pressures from have utilities having to buy power at high rates when power is scarce. But if they

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: haven't met their maximum goal, it's still not going to be enough to-

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, again, these are goals. Just These matters of policy. These aren't environmental requirements. Think that's the balance. We need to add storage in order to minimize our dependence on purchasing power on the open market at spot prices. You know? And then how much does it cost to power? And, of course, battery technology is is still evolving. And as we saw with photo booth panels, price of the panels dropped 95% in ten or fifteen years. So I'm anticipating maybe hopefully, but this is what I read. I'm going to possibly just offset that cost to Yeah. We're we're in destruction. So we're anticipating batteries getting better and getting less expensive Good. Thank you. Over the next few years. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Director and then Kleppner, and then we'll roll over our next bill, I think. Okay.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So you mentioned it being helpful for the comprehensive energy plan.

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: Mhmm.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And I see it also being helpful for the regional energy plans and for talent enhanced energy plans. So it it tends to go that way. Right? We have state goals and Yes. So it is it does feel like it's missing in terms of the planning funds.

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

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Good. So I appreciate your

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: help. And

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I also just wanted to add on the subject of the cost benefits, and in addition to allowing utilities to avoid buying power at higher rates, also allows a smaller transmission grid, so you don't have to keep building more and more transmission at the same rate that you would have.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So it it it also dovetails with intermittent transmission or intermittent generation, like solar and and and wind so that you can store store power when the sun's shining, and and then in the evening when when power demands are high highest really right now, then you can stop the power under under the grid. That's what we're we're seeing with with the load curve in the summertime. It used to be peaking during the middle of the day, and that was peaking between five and eight or something like that, people get home and crack up the air conditioner. That's the value of it.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Sure. So back to Rick Southworth's concerns about adding the ratepayers cost, decommissioning, do we when they have to decommission these batteries, which are huge hazardous waste right now. Well,

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: they also have valuable materials in them, so they can be just simple. I'm all about reducing waste, and everything that we buy ought to be recyclable somehow.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah, but I just make sure that's going to be factored into the cost down the road, I know we'll need to take testimony to Completely

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Everything agree. We buy ought to have the disposal product built into the price of it by it.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Torre, and then we gotta move on. Quick question. So when you're saying storage, are you only thinking batteries, or are you also thinking car batteries,

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: hot water? So far, car batteries aren't a factor because the vehicle to grid technology in automobiles is not very well developed. There are a few models that have that, but not very many. But that is certainly potentially a big

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: it needs to be defined in the statute, or what do you mean by storage?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It probably does. It probably is. And it could be right. Could could be stationary batteries, car batteries, could be bunk bunk hydro. Alright. Thank you.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks, Rob Campbell.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Morrow, h seven sixteen.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I always love I feel like filling projections are like a potluck or a buffet. Next.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Moving on to the salad or.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: My like, the mushroom. Right?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. I didn't wanna say you know, I should've just stopped myself. I was like, alright. If I say main dish, we have pipes. Pronus beef. Like, what is you know, never mind and all of that. Alright. Rep Morrow, h seven sixteen on net metering.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Okay. For the record, Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. So the genesis of this bill is because I wanna promote distributed solar in Vermont, and I'm worried about the future of it largely because of the the loss of our federal tax credits, which was 30, which was the main driver of of installation. But also over the, as you heard, the the PUC over the last four years has, introduced a negative rate adjuster. So it was 2¢, and then last year, it was 4¢. Or two years ago, it's gone down to 4 it's 4¢. And this summer, they'll boost it up to 6¢. So that's a negative rate adjuster. So that's less money that the homeowner gets in the net metering process. So it makes it much, difficult to pencil out, installing home solar. So there are two elements of this bill. One is capping the, negative rate adjuster at 4¢, and a second element of the bill is about behind the meter consumption. So I feel like the the energy that a homeowner produces and uses internally shouldn't be subject to any kind of state, anything, including the name the rate adjuster. You know, if you grow your own tomato, you're not paying taxes on your tomato. If you build your own table, you're not paying sales tax on the table. You know? If you produce your own energy, you shouldn't be paying taxes on your own energy. And and part of this discussion, I mean, we've heard talk of the the cost shift, so that would be something we wanna get into. But I I I feel like a lot of the benefits of distributed solar aren't really factored into our discussions of cost shift. And there's there's the homeowner building resilience of the the homeowner. There's the solar with batteries virtual power plant that we heard representative from GMP discuss very favorably yesterday that that Lake representative Campbell was just saying adding storage to the grid adds flexibility and saves money at peak times and it's just builds, you know, this in state resilience, reduces transitions costs, etcetera. Having distributed solar lowers distribution and transmissions costs. We talked about that, and I'd much rather see having solar panels on buildings rather than in our ag fields and on our forests. So the way it's going now, residential solar is under threat, which is also a workforce issue, by the way. The the the companies in Vermont that have done well over the last ten years and developed their business, that is all under threat. So this is a jobs issue as well. The the larger systems which are put in fields and on our forests and as part of their purchase power purchase agreements with our distributed utilities. You know, they have an important role to play, but I wouldn't wanna see us go all in that direction and remove the ability for Vermonters to cost effectively put solar on their rooftop. A lot of these, the people that are doing this are also electrifying their house. So with this the stated state goal to to migrate to less polluting or not not polluting sources of of power for their vehicles or their hot water or their heat. So, you know, if people can't produce their own solar and hook up to these batteries, then they they the migration might slow down, in terms of adopting heat pumps, vehicles, heat pump, hot water heaters, etcetera, where appropriate. And on the you know, another element of the behind the meter issue is that if we got rid of that, then right now you need to install a separate meter on all these systems. If we got rid of that buying the meter issue, then you wouldn't need a second meter, and and solar installations would be cheaper. So the anyway, just to summarize, there's a lot of benefits to Vermonters both individually and collectively into the grid, for promoting distributed solar, and I'd like to, in light of federal policy, not to to help support that and to help support the solar industry as a whole.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I'm sorry, Mara.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I really I actually really like what you said about the larger rays in our fields and forests having, you know, having a role to play. But I think, you know, residential rooftop solar is I I agree with you. It's something we should be supporting. I I need you to remind me, if you don't mind. So if you go to put a a solar on your garage roof or whatever, you receive a separate net metering rate that is lower than regular rates, and that has just become less beneficial over the years, right? I'm remembering it right,

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: right? Yep,

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: It used to be actual net net. So whatever they're charging you, you know, you're you're getting. Uh-huh.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And then

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: it went down 2¢, and then it went down 4¢. And then this summer, they'll be putting it to 6¢.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I mean, that's not official yet. There's a PUC proceeding, but it they've clearly indicated that that's the direction they wanna go.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. So are the less beneficial net metering rates still a little bit lower than the rate you would pay if you didn't have solar? Do you understand what I'm saying?

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Can you rephrase that?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I let me take a minute because everybody's looking at me. Let me think about that. Ravel?

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: So after net metering 2.6, which puts this 4¢ charge on the meter, that person let's just say, is generating a 100 kilowatt hour per hour. He generates a 100 kilowatt hours. He uses 10 kilowatts in his home or building. He export back to the grid, 90 kilowatts. He pays 4¢ a kilowatt on that 100 kilowatts even though he used 10 of it. He then at the end of the month has a positive generation. He gets credit at the average municipal average residential rate, which is about 18 point something cents now. When he buys that power back from the power company, that 90 kilowatt hours he exported, he buys it at the retail, at the residential rate that he's under from the utility. So it's like buying stock. You're selling at eighteen, you're buying back at twenty one. I'm buying high. Sell it at twelve. Isn't that the way the stock market works?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: No. Well, it's it's where it worked for me. No. But

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: so so and on top of that, he's paying efficiency charge on the first 10 w he used internally. And then when he buys back the 90, he's paying the in my territory, 1.1¢ efficiency. I'm very supportive of your paragraph three here of not having to pay for putting my tomato on my bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich. Well

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: said, mister Morrow.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So thank you. So if, you know, I I I'll just put this bug in your ear right now. So helpful to me from whoever can generate it, you know, maybe our folks at Renewable Energy Vermont or something, would literally be like a graphic one pager that shows how net metering rates work right now for folks who have rooftop rooftop solar because I have it and find it to be very confusing.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. Well, the bills are very confusing.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Yes. They are. So Peter's listening. You know, just something about here's what you just said, you know, in a style that we can all look at would be so helpful to me.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Right. Yeah. The PUC modifies this every two years. And so 02/2006 was '24, like July or August '24. So it's coming up again July or August 26, and I think this is a very important topic for this committee to consider. Okay.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I wanted to ask you about other fees that are on a per kilowatt power basis. Efficiency for a lot of the EU fee, the energy and I'm looking at my bill now. Energy assistant. That's a flat rate. I guess it's the energy efficiency charge, which is 1.1¢ per kilowatt hour. Yes. Would would this affect that that charge as well? I notably pay that that energy efficiency charge on the on total consumption, which is not the number that show I'm looking at the GNP bill, not the number that shows up at the top of the screen, which is some I think it's adjusted by by your by your generation, but it's it is very confusing. But and especially because I have not only rooftop, but also I'm in a community solar field. So Mhmm. Two different sections that makes it very confusing. And then I also have EV. I have an EV charge and all the stuff that That's ups and downs. Right. But yeah.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I it's not in the bill. We we could look at that and take testimony on it. As a side note, I was looking at my bill last night, and there's a bunch of storm bit charges on there. Right. You know, extreme weather charges. And we kept hearing that the price the base price of electricity was going up because of storms, but they're also tacking on all these other fees. So, like, is it in both places? Or, like, I've forgotten about those extra storm charges. So that might be a a question the next time, Dara. Yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's a good question. Current energy major storm adjuster, $21. Yeah. Extreme storm restoration fund, $2.92.90. Yeah. It's not insignificant.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rick Southworth is next.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: So it's no surprise I voiced many times I don't like net metering. Just a thought, is there a way that we can put the cost and price paid of the energy out of this home producing solar to make it a level all the way through. So they gain just the cost coming in is the same as what they're producing going out. Put it on a level playing field rather than having those ups and downs, which drive calls up for other rate payers. Put it at a level that makes sense that they're getting coming in, they're paying, and they're going out. They're getting being, quote, unquote, paid for that, but it's still on the level playing field.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, that's what the PUC is trying to do with the negative rate adjuster. Right?

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: So what what is the issue with putting it on the same cost plane and payment plane than it is for driving us the rates. Say cost per kilowatt is 12¢. Well, they pay 12¢ going out, or they get 12¢ going out, 12¢ coming in. There's no difference in what they pay or get paid. Does that make sense?

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, that I'm not quite sure I understand you, but if if I if I do, that's what the the negative rate adjusters

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: So

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: trying to manipulate for. But

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: So why is it that

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: What I'm saying is the benefits aren't factored in. There's corollary benefits to net metering that aren't being factored into the equation right now. Right. And and as I mentioned the other day in testimony, no one's been able to give me a a real definitive, formula for calculating the cost shift.

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

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And as we discussed, it might be different in different regions, different utilities, whether you have batteries tied in or or your different rates and whatnot, smaller Yeah. So

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: So installing solar panels on your house, the idea to do that is to you don't have to pay electricity. Correct? It's not a income producing

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: No. Nothing. But you wanna be able to recover your some of your costs over time. Right? Because there are public benefits to it. Okay.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: So that brings me to the next thing. If some of these are put on with subsidies, where does that come into play to the degree? Because if they've got a $20,000 subsidy to put panels on their house, why are they getting a benefit above and beyond other ratepayers? It was their choice to put it on their house. Correct? Mhmm. Just saying that I think there's a lot more to this than just, you know, getting rid of

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: the negative rate. Yeah. Why don't we talk about that in the ask a lot?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Bram Kleppner and then Torre?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Bram, I think what you're suggesting would make matters worse because the power companies right now are buying power from the grid at a low wholesale rate, like half the retail rate. The individual selling power is now selling it at the retail rate, say, minus 4¢. Right? That's the negative adjuster they've removed. So the utility is now getting a discount on retail when they buy it, and if they pay full retail so it matched going in and out, the utility could be paying more, so they'd have to be more of a cost shift.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: But if they are paying retail going in and retail going out, they're getting paid, doesn't it level it out?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Does better off by paying below market for the stuff they buy and then getting paid at market for the stuff they sell.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: But if they are still producing more than they use If the household is producing more than they're still offsetting that cost.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So and I'm talking about for the utility and for the other ratepayers. It would be worse if the utility had to pay full retail with this solar from me. Yeah.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: I'm not saying retail. I'm just saying there could be a better formula rather than the higher price that's being paid for that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I like what Rutland is saying about when we have these conversations we need to factor in the broader benefits of encouraging Vermonters to put solar on their roof. And if we basically, a lot of the tax credits are going away, these are expensive systems. So, if we agree that it's a public good for Vermonters to be investing in these expensive systems, even as all the discounts and benefits and tax credits go away, then we want to consider the cost that they're paying to install them.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. I was just gonna say this bill would be a great opportunity for us to learn because this is a dynamic space. Mhmm. And I think a lot of us don't have a very good understanding about net metering to begin with. But I just wanted to add that, you know, dynamic pricing is really happening. Time of use rates, the value of solar fluctuates during the day. People are getting much more there's more sophistication in how you can get credited for what you're producing, and that's kind of the future. So net metering is just kind of an older, clunkier gateway to try to get the market to move initially, but it's not really the the tool anymore. So but that doesn't mean your idea to try to prop up our solar industry for now. I understand that. And I do think that it's it would be really good testimony for us to take to kinda get a picture about the future, some examples of other states that have taken this on and where the so and where storage is starting to come in and resilience value of rooftop solar. So I personally, I'm excited that you brought this forward.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sibilia, and then we'll people move on to

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: our next bill. So I am not I'm not opposed to us taking this bill up, and I think it's really important that we continue to help, and promote Vermonters, you know, using using renewables when possible. I also think that we are seeing the effects of in some of our utilities of, you know, an imbalance here with particularly our our rural utilities, which need because the climate is changing and the winds are measurably increasing, which we could take testimony on, our grid is vulnerable and needs work and investment to be more sustainable. And so promoting renewables and hardening our grid and protecting, you know, Vermonters in that space is not an easy question. And so if we were to take this up, I would wanna hear from a lot of different perspectives. And given how dynamic the energy space is right now, I think it would really be important for us to make sure that we understood the balance that we are trying to strike. You know, this a bill like this brings in similar amounts of stakeholders that the renewable energy standard does. So Quick

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: statement.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. Not against solar. I think it's good. What I'm against is the energy produced by it, driving up rates for other Right. People, ratepayers. That that's the only thing that I like to work on to make better. That's it. I'm not against solar at all. I'm just against the higher rate than we have today.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: R. Morrow, you wanna wrap it up?

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Thank you for your time, committee.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Raptore.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I'll be put. K. For the record, Dara Torre from Hortown, and I wanted to walk you through quickly H753, which is a bill introduced by myself as well, and it kinda came out of a lot of work that happened in connection with Act 142 and the statewide energy assistance program. So there was a lot of stakeholder engagement in that process. The PUC ran a bunch of workshops. And the big issue is energy burden. So, this bill kind of looks at what happens in the worst case scenario with energy burden, when it's not managed and when a family ends up disconnected and loses access to power. So, this bill would, it's called the Vermont Energy Equity Law. The act would be called that. It proposes to require the PUC to adopt by rule enhanced residential rate payer protections with respect to involuntary utility service disconnections. Sometimes there's voluntary ones, though. Involuntary is when, you you haven't paid your bill, you're gonna be in trouble. So what it would do is it would amend a couple sections of Title 30 starting with section two zero nine B, and it would add a new section that would ask PUC to, it would actually, to shall. The PUC shall amend rule 3.3, and that's the rule which governs the disconnection of gas, electric, and water residential service. And it specifies that a certificate from a doctor or another licensed healthcare provider that certifies that a ratepayer or resident within the household would suffer an immediate or serious health hazard due to disconnection that or by failure to reconnect that service. That it would prevent, that that shall remain in effect for the time period specified in the certification. So currently there's a time limit and once you hit that time limit, you have to go back to the doctor. Certain chronic conditions may not really work with the time limit that's in statute, so this would add a little flexibility and tie it right back to the initial move from the healthcare providers. The other thing this does is it adds that a utility may not involuntarily disconnect service to any ratepayer during periods of extreme heat. And this is new, this is not in there now. We do have H-eighty eight, you guys might recall from Representative McCann last year, kind of elevating the issue that we're missing that here in the Great North, because it hadn't been as common to have those high, high heating days, and that's changing. So, during the process of thinking through this with a number of stakeholders and advocates in the community, I also spoke with Carol Flint at the Department of Public Service. When there is a disconnection, she knows about it. Kathy is where people take their concerns and their issues that they're having with their utility. She mentioned to me that they have a number of changes they would like to make to the rule, rule 3.3, because it has some outdated language in it, it needs a little freshening up. So, this is an opportune time to consider this. I think you may have heard in the Governor's budget address that disconnections are going up by almost a third. Yeah. So, that's another sense of urgency I feel for this. And then, the other thing that will require of the PUC is that it adopt a rule that would establish a strategic realistic plan to basically reduce the number of disconnections. So, we heard mention when we had Candice Morgan in recently for our little update on things going on at Green Mountain Tower, And she mentioned something called a service quality and reliability plan. So that is a really important plan tool that the PUC has. Quarterly updates come from the utilities on how they're doing in these different categories. Service, reliability, quality, all the things that are important in having consistent power delivered to our homes. And so, within that plan, it kind of evolves and changes over time, but it's a way for the PUC, the regulator, to see how well they're doing in accomplishing these goals. A lot of the goals can also have impact on how well they deliver the service and how affordably they deliver the service. So, we realized that this particular disconnection metric is missing right now. It's not spelled out in the plan. So this would add to a different section of Title 30. Section 218B has an existing language that says that clear incentives to provide least cost energy service to customers. We know, we hear that all the time. That's really the issue with the note hearing. Just and reasonable rates for service, we hear that. That's the big mandate. Safe and reliable service, that's part of these plans. This is all existing language. Incentives for innovations and improved performance that advance state energy policy goals. So that's why this document's really important. This is for us to all be aware of. So it would add extra one, and it would basically say, so right now the language is promote improved quality of service, reliability, and service choices, including, this is new language, including a reduction in the number of monthly and annual involuntary disconnections to the lowest prudently feasible number in a company's service territory. It would take effect on July 1. It seems like a timely thing for us to consider. Think it would also be a great opportunity for us to learn more about performance incentives that utilities have currently. And this is just a tool that I think as policy makers we should be familiar with. And I think all of us wanna see fewer disconnections. We wanna see utilities doing their best within their powers to succeed in working with people who are having problems paying their bills. And in thinking about this bill, I heard there are some utilities, some of our smaller ones actually, that are doing really well preventing disconnections. So, I feel like this could have a positive outcome, reduce disconnection, without having a cost shift to other ratepayers, because basically when, know, if I still have time, do I still Yeah, have no, you're good. One of the things that came out of that ratepayer Act one hundred forty two stakeholder meeting was another bill that's been introduced in the Senate that Becca White authored. And that included a way to actually raise some ratepayer revenue across all our utilities to fund a statewide energy assistance program that would allow lower income Vermonters to receive reduced, a reduced rate. It would be a discount, a tiered discount rate program. Complicated. PUC said in their Act 142 report that that's not something they would wanna do because of cost shift concerns. Mhmm. So Rutland and I decided instead of doing that bigger comprehensive ratepayer protection bill that Senator White envisioned, we narrowed down to just this part. To focusing on disconnection. Just focusing on this outcome that we wanna prevent and figuring out how to incentivize better performance in that area without, with a, you know, more of a carrot approach. The only step really would be for GMP because they have, they're a profit utility. So, you know, if they were to fail to meet their metrics, they could have a financial penalty. So, that's something that the PUC would determine when they do pool, how they interpret the language, that we can do that as well. But in any case, it's important. I think it's, you know, we wanted to elevate this with the committee, and look forward to any questions or reactions.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Question. Thank you for bringing this. I think it's a good idea. I noticed that in H ADA, representative McCann had did propose a definition of extreme heat, whereas your bill leaves up to the PUC to define REMS. So I'm wondering if you thought about that.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. I think that's something we could workshop together as we take testimony.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So she, as you probably know, defined a period of extreme heat as meaning that within twenty four hours following the scheduled disconnection, the forecasted temperature is at or above 92 degrees Fahrenheit, or the National Weather Service has issued, or has announced, an intense issue, a heat related alert, such as excessive heat warning, a heat advisory, And he says, if he'd watch or similar work, it's very specific.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. I was thinking it could be a great tool for us.

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

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Having that right there.

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

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: From the log.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yep. Who was six?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Absolutely. Okay. Just hanging up one millisecond before buying once again.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Oh, you're probably on the spot. The thank you, R. R. R. I I wanna make sure I understand how the arrearages would be covered here. And I'm thinking about, during COVID, where we appropriated, millions of dollars to stabilize the utilities and rates because arrearages were so open.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. So, that's the other potential positive of this in reducing disconnections. That means whatever strategies the utilities use that are successful, they are, but, you know, they're going to also be lowering arrearages, right? Because if they're avoiding disconnection, that means some amount of payment's coming in. They're working with the customers to get some amount of payment. And they're working more successfully if they're not resorting to disconnection. So I think with, with this added incentive, maybe we would actually see arrearages go down. But that's the thing. When I spoke to Carol Flint, you know, she said, some of these arrearages, some, like, a family can end up in the hole, like, $10,000. Like, if you, for example, with getting that reprieve from a doctor's note, That means you don't have to pay any, you you may not pay anything for a while, meanwhile your consumption's still happening. Right. So, you know, this is where it's the big picture of are these people getting access to weatherization? Are they getting access to replacing any electric resistance they may have in their home with a heat pump? You know, like really the whole big picture of all our services, and that's really where Act 142 was going was do we, how well do we coordinate our services so that we really are reducing energy burn as best we can. And so all of that still has to continue, really. That's gonna make a difference in arrearages. That's probably the biggest difference is if we can get the building envelope as good as it can be and get, you know, reduced Sir, how

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: long it sounds worse?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah, the problem with cutoffs is a tricky one, and the fact that they've gone up by a third is really concerning. And it's tricky for a few reasons. One, it's really hard to tell who didn't pay because they can't and who didn't pay just because they like freeloading, and we don't want anyone to die because the power got shut off and so their oxygen concentrator stopped working and they couldn't breathe. On the other hand, we don't want anyone using the fact that someone in the household uses an oxygen concentrator to just not pay their bills, and, you know, to hide behind that knowing they're not gonna get cut off. So it's that that that is a concern. You know? Like, how do we how do we make sure people aren't taking advantage of whatever we do to reduce cutoffs. And I would also say I absolutely agree as we look towards an ever warmer future that protection against heat is important. And, you know, the definition that Campbell read is a daytime high. I might be inclined to look at the nighttime low as well.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Just because of how important being able to sleep at night is to health and lowering health costs and all those things. I've been so I'm in Vegas for a trade show. At night, it didn't get below 85 degrees at night. Roof. Yeah. So it's the dry heat. Yeah. Oh. So, yes, some good stuff and some concerns.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Rapalon? We heard from Green Mountain Power about their if you qualify, you get we pay 75 percent of the going rate, and that that money comes from a a meter assessment on the customer, think, dollar and a half a month per meter and so forth. We hadn't heard this, the disconnect problem from the other utilities, but I'm afraid it's a policy that put an additional burden. The investor owned facility that serves 275,000.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Perhaps Southworth. How would we

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: prevent the disconnections from increasing because of that delta?

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Well, I guess it asks the question, are there creative strategies that are not being deployed? So it's the idea of pushing a little bit on, you know, try harder. I mean, that's basically what it is.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: Unfortunately, some people are gonna take advantage of that.

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: Yeah.

[Mike Southworth (Member)]: And just we gotta have some kind

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: of safeguard so we don't increase that disconnection rate.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. I mean, that's why I think definitely hearing from the utilities on what they do now, what has worked in the past, what they may be seeing that's different and changing. You know, like, kinda need to hear we would need to hear some testimony to have a sense. And I think we could get some great testimony from Carol Flint. She, like I said, she has plans for this rule anyway, and she has direct experience working with consumers that are in this situation.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, and just call a shift, that's my only other concern too. I know you spoke to

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: that. Yeah.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Try to avoid that, but. Alright. Well, thank you, Ben. Alright. Thanks, R. Torre.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right on. Hi. I'm rep Caledonia. I've already told my committee. I have a meeting at noon. I I have to sneak out at five o, but when I do, rep Campbell's just gonna take over if we're not done yet. So I I just I apologize in advance. So, yeah, welcome to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. We give every bill sponsor a fifteen minute slot to pitch their ideas. So Okay. Over to you.

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: Thank you. I'd like to thank first, my name is Mike Paglia, representative of Orange One, Grinth Orange, Washington, and Versher. I'm here to present house bill seven six seven. I'd like to thank the committee on energy and digital infrastructure for allowing me to introduce my bill. This bill, basically, when when I'm reading through some of this, think words that we already know in this building. Harm reduction, unintended consequences. We heard testimony in our committee and and environment just about, yesterday about some of the unintended consequences on one of the bills that I'm gonna be discussing here. Vermont is facing an unprecedented affordability crisis. Health care, education, and property taxes are bringing significant and harmful economic impacts to Vermonters and the state. We have a housing crisis, and many Vermonters are struggling to cover basic living expenses. 50% rent or mortgage just of their income of some Vermonters' income is going to, you the rent or mortgage. Another 19.5 possibly going to health care. All of us care about Vermont and wanna help the situation. We need to weigh long term goals and real world immediate effects of our legislation. We must ensure we are not harming or bringing increased struggles to our constituents. There are several recently enacted laws that are contributing to the financial burden of the state and unnecessarily increasing cost for Vermonters. Unlike several aspects of the affordability crisis that are out of control, do have control over several climate change programs, and we can place a moratorium on these laws to ease the burden and reassess priorities and goals that make sense for Vermont. Laws included in the bill for moratorium, bill h six seven six seven are the Global Warming Solutions Act, the Clean Heat Standard, Renewable Energy Standard, Act 59, which a lot of people know is a 30 by thirty and fifty by 50, and Act one eighty one. The Global Warning Solutions Act. Vermont has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this law and has not been able to enact meaningful policy to achieve the requirements. Proposed policies like the clean heat standard and the cap and trade transportation programs have all been found to be too costly and not the right fit for Vermont. For example, the p o PUC spent over $1,000,000 on a study that determined the clean heat standard was not appropriate for Vermont. The GWSA demands that any programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be cost effective, technologically feasible, and equitable. None have fit this mold. Vermont has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions in the country, and 76% of our land is forested, offering a massive carbon sink. We do so much for the environment here in Vermont. We spend approximately $50,000,000 a year through electric rate fees to fund Efficiency Vermont, which allows Vermonters access to affordable products that reduce energy consumption. Weatherization is a key goal and continues to move along steadily, often with tremendously decreasing energy consumption and cost for Vermonters. Conservation Law Foundation has already brought suit against the Agency of Natural Resources for not meeting greenhouse gas reduction requirements. We're spending time, money, and resources that could be better applied elsewhere to help Vermont reduce our budget and taxes. The renewable energy standard. Vetoed by the governor because of high cost, the renewable energy standard will directly and significantly raise electric rates due to increased need for distribution and transmission costs as well as higher rates for new energy requirements. The renewable energy standard is also driving massive loss of agricultural land and forest in Vermont as industrial solar developers take advantage of this law and the incentives in place for these projects. The governor and the Department of Public Service have introduced bills to amend the renewable energy standard and lessen the economic burden associated with this law. The a moratorium would allow necessary reassessment of of best approach here, act 59. Many are deeply concerned about this law and its threat to land access and property ownership in Vermont. Vermont's conservation goals can easily be met here by passing Act 70. Excuse me. Yes. Act 70, or, I believe maybe it's h 70. H 70, which is hanging on the environmental, committee environment committee wall, allowing current use lands to qualify towards acts 59. Approximately 2,500,000 acres are in current use, which would very easily allow Vermont to achieve the goals set forward in Act 59. Many Vermonters are stewards of their property and the environment overall. Act 59 should be placed on hold while the effects of conserving 50% of our land are realized. This does not help the need for homes and the desire to attract young people to our state to help our demographics and tax base. At one eighty one. This is proving very problematic for many Vermonters and towns. It is allowing low income housing and floodplains, which seems like both social and environmental injustice. The tier three max maps are proving very controversial and triggering many Vermonters who only hold their property as their economic value and wealth. What effect will tier three critical resource areas have on property values, and why are maps not intended for regulatory purposes being used to develop tier three? And as we heard testimony yesterday with respect to a bill that came out of and was not signed by all members of the rural caucus, but fair a amount, there is a lot of question with regard to one eighty one and the road rule and the timing of approval of maps versus when the road rule and tier three mapping and things like that will be finalized. And I strayed a little bit, but I just wanna make sure I said that. Also, the road rule is sparking major controversy for those living in rural areas on farms and in camps. There is much to sort through with this newly enacted law. A moratorium on these recent climate change and land use laws would allow all of us to pause and reevaluate our priorities and direction. Vermonters deserve this as so many work hard and still struggle to cover bills in a difficult world. House Bill seven six seven would allow an opportunity for these overdue conversations and would show Vermonters that when the world shifts and struggles arise, we are looking out for them and will work for them in all ways we can. And I don't know. I I did include findings in House Bill seven six seven with a lot of, data and statistics just to give a good idea to some people, maybe lay peoples who wanted to read through the bill if they wanted some evening reading to maybe, put them to sleep or possibly get their blood pressure up, but I can stop here if anybody has any questions.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do folks have questions for representative Tagliovia?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Thank you for bringing this, Mike, or representative Tigilia. I guess one thing I was wondering about well, first of all, I should note that the items about Act 59 and Act 181 are really part of the Environment Committee jurisdiction, and so we can't really talk about

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: Well, yeah, this has kinda got dual jurisdiction here. Understand that.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So we won't we won't go into into those acts here. But pausing these renewable energy standard, findings say that implementing a renewable energy standard may result in higher electricity rates and program costs for repairs, burdening individuals and property owners with unnecessary expenses. I'm just wondering if you have a calculation about how much of an impact would have.

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: No, I don't, but I know that even with the regulations we have now, we're noticing that electric rates are not dropping. They're still steadily increasing. I think one of the problems we have in this state is we don't have a good, better, best policy here. Uh-huh. We we don't have enough competition. If we have if we started off with the best, which is nuclear, we're finding out so many things about nuclear power and how much it's how it's safer, how we have more options for not only, nuclear, what is it, fission, but nuclear fusion and small nuclear reactors and their capability so that we would be able to go with maybe nuclear, look at the possibility of completing natural gas pipelines. Because if we had those natural gas pipelines completed a decade ago, we would have been a much cleaner economy today than we are now. Because without the natural gas, we had to rely on either chip plants or coal or oil or something Very good. Of that matter. So, I'm sure I could very easily find some.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I I

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: If I'm lucky enough that this gets more discussion,

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I will be happy to come back with more data for you.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, so we had just I asked the We have heard I think the calculation is we should probably stand by what the calculation is because we hear different acronyms. But from the public service department, we hear that the calculation is actually not that big an impact. It's on the order of 2%, something like that. Is that what other people would recall? Anyway, there is there is some impact. There's not, as far as I understand, a netting out of a calculation of benefits because renewable energy does have a benefit by reducing need for purchasing power at peak times when power is most expensive and also delaying or even removing the necessity for transmission upgrades. Anyway, there benefits, and figuring out a way to calculate those and come out of a net up or down would be an important thing.

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: I agree with the benefits. Just so the other committee members who who may not know, I live completely off grid. Mhmm. I I take advantage of the benefits of solar arrays. I take advantage of lithium ion phosphate batteries and a generator when necessary. So I know about the benefits. Yeah. But I also know about I have three options because I know about how solar is intermittent, and when the wind is howling at, you know, at 12:00 at night and my solar arrays are producing, and I still need electricity to run my refrigerator or my Right. Freezers and possibly my backup heat when I can't keep the wood stove fired up enough. Yeah. So I think one of the things that's why I said we need a good, better, best because if we have options, I think those options because they'll be competing, they'll be the competition will help keep the price down.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yep. K. Thanks, representative. Sibilia, do you have a question?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Just a a comment. Yes. And that is, representative Taglevia, I wanna thank you for your attention to affordability. It's a really dynamic time. Climate change, as, you know, increasing large loads throughout our country with, you know, the energy transition, and I think it's really important that we all pay a lot of attention to this. Some of the concerns that you've articulated today, share, and a number of the bills that you've identified, I made sure got passed.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Noted. But

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I would say to you, I would be very happy to talk with you about that and think about what are the specific challenges, because this is not this is an ever changing space. So I just wanna thank you for your attention to affordability. I think it's one that we all share, and I think it's important that we keep an eye on all of

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: these programs and discussion fresh

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: and lively.

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: Yeah. If I could offer a reply. Affordability is one of the issues, and I've heard it from a number of my constituents, but as you read in the findings, private property rights are a big issue for a number of these acts and resolves that have come out. It's it's not just the affordability. It's also the private property rights, the individual rights that people see, like what's referred to in one of the bills. There's so many numbers swimming in my head. I can't remember the number of the bill with respect to notification, and how in some of the many planning commission meetings, whether they be regional planning or, town planning commission meetings, where people, you know, have come out and said, if I didn't have a neighbor who told me about that, I would be completely blind about this. And that's a big concern of a lot of, constituents of mine. So I we need to there's there's not just one aspect to this. There's a number of aspects that we need to consider.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Understood. But to rep Campbell's point, I think those issues that you're talking about are issues in your committee, which hopefully we will make some progress addressing.

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: Well, we could we could maybe have your committee discuss relieving the committee of this bill and go to environment first. It doesn't matter to me where

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: it goes. As long

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: as it gets from one committee to the next, I don't care which order it goes. Maybe we can do that.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Thank you, representative, and I also apologize. I have a noon meeting, and I'd rather be a little bit late for that than leave here early, so I've hung on as long as I can, but I do need to go find a room and run a meeting. But thank you for bringing this right. I think we all share the concerns about affordability, property rights, also important for all of our constituents. So thank you for bringing all those forward. Affordability I'll just say as I run out the door so that I get the last word by

[Rep. Monique Priestley]: I mean, maybe. Maybe. Or the last one that I hear anyway.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Think I'm much more concerned about supply and demand and driving higher prices than I am about many of the bills that we have discussed. And I think with data centers and AI and electrification, the demand is going up a lot faster than we're being bringing new generation onto the grid, and, that concerns me. But, know,

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: that's one of reasons Yeah. Why I brought up the nuclear. I think the nuclear helps us deal with the supply side of it.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Could not agree more, as my colleagues know. Apologize for having to duck out.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They're dropping like flies here.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yes. Reptile media, thanks for bringing this bill. Appreciate it. I've been saying all along we need a all all new discussion about all these these bills, global warming, climate change that we just need to step back. Rethink some of these things.

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: Yeah. All of our constituents, they know we're human. They know we're all going to make mistakes. I think the best thing we could do is actually just admit that we made some mistakes, admit that some of these the goals are too ambitious. The time we we in in our committee, we discuss extending timelines all the time because no matter how lofty our goals, sometimes we can't reach them. And do it not making adjustments. To me, the economic consequences for the state, us losing we're losing residents. We're losing our tax base. We're losing we wanna I wanna see our population in schools grow, so we're not closing schools. If our population in schools grow, then we know we're growing our our grand list, and isn't that what we're looking for? So We are growing our tax base. Exactly. Exactly. Yes.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We don't want we don't want higher taxes. Want a greater tax base.

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: And this is one of reasons why I say moratorium. Let's do it tap the brakes, not get rid of it. If if we study this and we come back Mhmm. And we find that it's working, great. We extend it. We maybe make some changes. We do some repeals, but this, I think, gives us a lot more options. Yep. Mhmm.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think we share a lot of these goals. Yeah. Yeah.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Would just say that, there's a big difference between the words adjustments, moratorium, and repeal.

[Rep. Mike Paglia]: There absolutely And

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: especially my willingness to work on things with, you know, how we're approaching them. So I'm very intrigued to hear adjustments.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And I also have

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Any further questions?

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: No. No. We're

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Alright. Thank you so much, representative. I Thank you for your time.