Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Welcome, everyone. Hi. Hi. This is Oops. Yeah. We'll see. Going on with Oh, nice. Yes. I

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: think probably have, I guess, six or seven there.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: All Well done. Thank you. Tough. Welcome. This is House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee. It is 01:00 on Friday, 01/30/2026. And I am Scott Campbell, representative from St. Johnsbury. The chair, Seth James, is on her way back to committee. So we will go around and introduce ourselves and then go around the room as you've got the meeting. Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four. Dara Torre, Washington two. Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington. R. Sibilia, Windham two. And around the room. Dana Lynn Perry with the Crassing Group. I'm Paige Hardiff with the Chamber of Commerce.

[Landon Wheeler, Deputy Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Landon Wheeler, Division of Fire Safety.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Matt Cuddenden, Meadow Hill representing the Heating and Cooling Contractors of Vermont. Paul Shortino, Jeffersonville, Vermont. George Putnam, Cambridge. Great, thank you. And our witness? I'm Mike Nerocher, the Executive Director for the Division of Fire Safety, and appreciate the time to come in here and speak with you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, appreciate your coming in. Welcome, and good morning to hear from you. This is regarding Bill seven eighteen, H-seven 18, a bill that would stimulate, intended to stimulate compliance with Vermont's energy codes. It away, Mike.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: All right. So before I dive into this, what I thought I would do is go through each specific section, and I'll kind of explain what the challenges are that we're facing on these. And certainly, at any time, ask questions. And if I can't answer them, I brought Landon Wheeler. He's our deputy director, and he's pretty much involved in the golden standard development process. So I've leaned on Landon for some of the technical aspects here. Just to start off with the division of fire safety is responsible for plan review and permitting for all construction and renovations of public buildings. Ensure everything except your own single family home and some farms. We have code enforcement, code management of rental housing health and safety code. We started doing that work on 01/01/2024. We're responsible for fire service training for a career and volunteer. Our fire academy is also a pro board accredited. I have the urban search and rescue team, the hazardous material response team, fire investigation, and we also have the electrical licensing board, plumbing board, the heating cap access board, and the elevator safety board. And I also chair the legislative governance committee that oversees a number of issues down there at the training facility in Pittsburgh, access and use contracts, that kind of stuff, and capital construction down there. See if I can get outside of this. K. The Division of Fire and Safety has inspection and permitting authority for buildings defined as public building in statute. Public buildings include everything except your single family home, your occupied homes. At this point, we don't have any interest to expand our regulatory authority in the single family owner occupied homes. And the reason I mentioned this is because in the landscape of energy efficiency, there'll be some discussions if there hasn't already been, whether the division fire safety at some point, whether it's a couple of years down the road or not, whether they expand that jurisdiction into single family home to increase compliance with the R. B. There are I I wanna explain that there's two major co development entities that are that exist in The United States. One of them is NFPA, which is the National Fire Protection Association, and the second one is the International Coal Council. These these two entities develop all the safety codes that you see going across country, whether it is earthquake design, seismic design, floor loading, roof loading, how you construct buildings. So there's two of these co development entities that work in that arena. And Vermont has been and is a NFPA and ICC state. So we adopt both standards from NFPA and ICC. This is also the way that most states across the country do this. Through rulemaking, we adopt standards from NFPA and ICC. And to best serve and protect our citizens, we amend those rules while being also mindful of the economic impact we're putting on on people versus the safety enhancements that we're providing. And I'll give you a small example. In Vermont, we have some pretty strict carbon monoxide laws in place. And that was because we were having way too many carbon monoxide fatalities. And so the legislature has really supported us in efforts to improve our protection of people with carbon monoxide and smoke alarms. We have gas certification requirements in our rules and so forth. These are specific amendments to these national standards that we use here in Vermont to protect our citizens.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Can I ask a question about that? Yeah. So carbon monoxide alarms, as an example, are Vermont's requirements stricter than than the national model codes and and the FAA and That

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: they are all about land and speed to specifically to Historically,

[Landon Wheeler, Deputy Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: they have been. The rest of the nation has caught up to where we are. We are currently adopting with very few amendments on the nationally recognized code and standard at this point. I see. But starting in 2003, we were very progressive because of what the director mentioned. But at this point, we are about the national average Yeah. With the exception that there is state legislation that may have found maintains smoking carbon monoxide detection in properties when they're in Fredericksburg. And I do believe that that's where we excel. That would be above the national average. I think that's great. Thank you.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: On section one under the findings, the statement and two states that Vermont has not adopted a residential building construction code, which means there is no administrative infrastructure or enforcement mechanism for implementing energy codes consistently and effectively. So my response to this is the division of fire safety does adopt the international building code for residential construction. The broad statement that Vermont has not adopted a residential construction code, I wanna clarify that. The division does adopt through rules of the IBC. This international building code, applies to all new residential construction of three units or more. So what we're what we're having is a cap on a residential building code for one and two family dwellings. So duplexes. So for everything above a duplex, three units enough, we do have a resident we do have a building code for those structures. I just wanna clarify that. So it narrows the scope down to these specific entities of one and two family dwellings. Buildings under the authority of fire safety, we do not adopt the international residential building code, which is referred to as the IRC, which applies only to one and two family dwellings. I just want to let the committee know that there is national debate going on right now with the ICC and other states in the rulemaking process where they are trying to raise the number of units that would fall under the international residential building code. So they're they're talking about allowing up to four units, and you could build that in compliance with the IRC, or maybe you could do six units and build to the IRC. That is debate is going on right now, and I don't know whether ICC will fundamentally amend the IRC nationally to say, if you adopt this standard, the applicability of an extension of more multiple story buildings. I don't know the answer to that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Does IRC only apply that just to clarify, IRC only applies to to single family and duplex? Correct. I see. Yep. Thank you.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: And so on the one or two families and the reason I'm bringing this up is because there's gonna be discussion about whether Vermont should adopt the IRC and enforce the IRC as a building code on one and two families. So I just wanna lay out, like, the foundation here. So on a one and two family dwelling now, we do require construction permit applications, electrical and plumbing work notices. So the so all our infrastructure work is being done by certified folks. We structural and floor and roof assemblies are cert are stamped by usually lumber companies. They're they have engineers that stamp the truss designs and the floor designs. Normally, on a duplex, we get that documentation in the planning process. And and then we require certified gas and oil heat techs to do any of the heating system installs in those one and two family dwellings. So those one and two family dwellings are inspected by our electrical inspector, plumbing inspector, and our fire marshal. So there is oversight on the one and two family dwellings. It's that we do not have a residential building code specific to one or two family dwellings. And so that is accurate. So section two, the adoption of the residential building code. My response to this was the division opposes, number one, creating an exempt building code administrator. This is the first I've heard of this. And I'm not I have no idea what this position is or how we would fund it or what it what it means. I I just I don't I I don't know what it means. So I can't. Maybe it's to say we're trying to help fire safety with any potential workload being added to us. I don't know. The right now, the division strongly opposes the adoption of the international residential building code by 01/01/2028. That would be where buyer safety in this bill requires us to adopt the IRC. We need more time to assess and evaluate. There are major business flow issues and many amendments that would have to be made before considering this. Now I'm gonna take responsibility for the slowness in the evaluation of adopting the IRC because this process has been going on for about a year now, maybe even a little longer than a year. I assembled a group of stakeholders. And just because of the workload, it happened lagging on making this a real heavy priority. But we have done a lot of work in this area. We have a document now which shows if I adopted the IRC, here's basically what the format of that particular standard would look like. And it's just not ready for prime time. It still needs some work to be done on it. So behind the scene here and conversations with Brett Campbell and public service, I would be willing to commit to a time frame on getting a recommendation on whether we should adopt the IRC into this committee by January no later than January 15 to twenty seventh. Right?

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

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: So that would give me a year to get the stakeholders and allow me to spend a little more time to focus on this. I could spend the next three hours just talking about the IRC and what the challenges are with this. But it's very complex and it's not as just as easy as saying fire safety, adopt this. For example, all the the whole entire energy efficiency standard would be deleted from the IRC because of conflicts with the public service board's energy efficiency rules. Because we're both an NFPA and ICC state, the whole entire standard, the IRC has numerous references to the NFPA standards, and we would have to mesh all this through the IRC and make it so that people understand that. Another major hurdle is the IRC requires sprinklers of one and two family dwellings. The IRC requires our plants be submitted to us by a design professional. Under 26 BSA, architects don't opt to stamp drawings until they get to three units or more. I'm sorry, director. Did I understand you to say that the IRC would require that a single family home would have to be sprinkled? Yes. Thank you. Yeah. One and two family.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But if I could interject that, that is the kind of requirement that's in IRC that might be adjusted in the process

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: of Vermont adopting it. What it would do is be evaluated and then there's conditions in the IRC that probably say, Landon, you may chime in. If if you're not gonna put the sprinkler in, there's bill that doesn't come out and say that. But what it does is it offers equivalencies like you don't have to sheetrock the ceiling of your basement. You don't have to do A, C, and D because you put this residential sprinkler in this duplex. Well, if we exempt that, are we gonna go back and enforce those other equivalencies that are no longer there because the building's not sprinkled? And the sprinkler was required for two reasons, mainly because we were having a lot of premature floor ceiling assembly collapses and to protect people from fire. Yeah. So that's just a touch, a little touch on what has to be evaluated in the big picture.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: This is the process that you're that you would be going through in the next year. Right? It's it's it's figuring out what the conflicts are and what's and what would need to be made in order to adopt the IRS the IRS. And and the next line in this section is the residential building code. I'm in section 2A. The residential building code shall be based on the international residential code. Is that accurate? Correct? Wait. Could you I'm sorry. The second line in section two a is the residential building code that that DFS would be adopting shall be based on the international residential code. Is that accurate to say? Right. Yeah. Okay. And I'm sorry.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Can I ask one more thing about sprinkler systems? Would this only be for new construction, or would we be looking to enforce? It would be for new construction. And there I mean, that's another whole presentation on the benefits of having domestic sprinkler systems. Lower insurance rates, a lot of the rural developments that are occurring right now when you have twenty minutes, thirty minute response times by the fire departments that are struggling right now with resources. You're putting very minimal gallons per minute out. We've actually had some huge saves here recently in these two high rise buildings here in Vermont just in the past three, four months. We've had sprinkler head activations because of fires down in Rutland, 10 story high rise down there in Brackbrook. Yeah. Where single sprinkler head or two sprinkler heads have extinguished the fire, saved the occupants, and the buildings were allowed to be reopened. So with hundreds of units and capacity. So, of course, we're we like to promote sprinklers, and then there's the economic component to that that we face too. Sure. In section three, there's grant funding language. The commissioner of public safety shall seek grant funding, federal and private, to support the adoption of the IRC. The division doesn't need funding to pursue or assess whether to recommend the adoption of the IRC, and we don't need funding to adopt it, should we? A little side note is we have been very cautious not to build programs off grants because as you all know right now, federal grants are a disaster. And I'm just thankful at least in our division because that's the avenue we've chosen. We're able to survive through all this delay of federal grants and all that stuff. We did receive a grant of of $1,400,000, and we did receive the award announcement. However, that 1,400,000.0 was taken back by current administration. There's been lawsuits. There was recently a court ruling that stated that funding had to be released. That, of course, that's being appealed. But the 1,400,000.0 I did budget in the makeup of that grant, there's, like, 400,000 or something toward training. And my vision at that point when we did this grant application was that we would help with awareness and education and training for our inspectors and energy efficiency contractors and that kind of stuff. So we could pretty easily distribute educational material and build partnerships around that. I would love to get my hands on that grant. There was also some record management system upgrades that would also be beneficial for the energy efficiency sector. Okay. Section four, residential contractor regulation task force. Well, I'm not a huge fan of task force. Okay. I understand where everyone's coming from with this. And so out of this, I'm not gonna uphold this. I'm just gonna I will add that for awareness. The structure of the task force does not reflect a member from the associate of general contractors. I think there should be

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: a member of that association on here. Although this bill is really pitched at residential construction, and AGC is principally concerned or involved in commercial, but there is overlap, certainly.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Yeah. I just raised that. Section five, requirements for registrants. This is really out of my wheelhouse, but I just I wanna bring this off. So a person registered under this chapter shall prior to executing a contract pursuant to subsection b of this section provide a client with a written disclosure of any prior criminal convictions, adverse civil judgments, and violations pursuant to section five five one zero of this title. Although not my wheelhouse, I would think this might discourage contractors from registering. I don't have expertise in there. The only reason I mentioned this is a number of years ago, we were here at the legislature debating whether electricians, plumbers, gas techs, oil techs, and all these folks should have criminal background checks done before we could issue them a license or certification. And and those bills those bills just never had a whole lot of movement to them. So I don't I don't know what the impact to that is. I don't I don't know whether that's gonna be somehow tied into licensing certification language, or it's pretty broad in its context, I guess, what I'm getting at. I just since I licensed and certified thousands of trade professionals, I just wanted to raise this because I don't know if there's a nexus behind here that I'm not aware of. That's obvious.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I would just comment that section fifty five ten in title 26 is about prohibitions and remedies. A person who does not register is subject to sanctions. OPR may discipline a registrant for unprofessional conduct, and there's a list of certain conduct that would that would that it would constitute some professional conduct. And I think that's it. That would be.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Section six, required education for specified licensee state energy goals. Okay. This is gonna take me a couple minutes to explain. The current energy goal module is housed in the division of fire safety. In 2020 legislative session, s two twenty was signed into law requiring many trade professions to complete a Vermont energy goals education module. The law required the Department of Public Service in consultation with the agency and not the resources to develop an educational module describing Vermont's energy goals. The new law applies to the following trades listed below, licensed electricians, licensed plumbers, oil and gas appliance technicians, and commissioned boiler inspectors. Back in 2020, I made a recommendation not to include commission boiler inspectors in this because the boiler inspectors inspect boilers and pressure vessels. They do not inspect hot air furnaces. And boiler inspectors are different than heating technicians. Right? They go in and they look at the boiler from an explosion hazard. So they're looking at relief valve capacity, you know, in relation to the BTU input ratings on the appliances, making sure everything is in compliance with the national boiler code. I I don't know what the nexus is to the to the commission boiler inspectors and the energy efficiency component. They are they are very tuned in to the pressure side of these pressure vessels. And I don't know, Landon, if you wanna add to that or

[Landon Wheeler, Deputy Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: I think that's a great summary, sir.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, the the next is probably pretty narrow, but it could be a combustion air required by a combustion appliance by a boiler that is then potentially depressurizing the space in which it's located. And the effect that would have on So

[Landon Wheeler, Deputy Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: they that that would be covered by the line above that, by the oil and the gas technicians that service that equipment Okay. Or the manufacturer's instructions or by state law every two years. Okay. So or by our rules every two years. So maybe we

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: could remove the boiler inspectors from this requirement. I

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: just wanna toss that out there, though. I see the opportunity here. But here's just a little all the trades impacted by S two twenty from the 2020 law, all these trade professionals have education requirements. When this law was passed, we had very little time to push the module out to the thousands of trade professionals. The only way we could accomplish this without creating a wholesale failure of our licensing program was to incorporate the module into all our continuing ed classes for renewals and provide a standalone module for all our trade professionals, including those who have reciprocity and universal licensing with us, including military. This initiative required all the continuing education providers to amend their curriculum, and we had to run this through the boards to make this work. Real quickly, oil and gas technicians, they renew every three years and require eight hours of continuing education. Two of those hours must be carbon monoxide prevention and the energy efficiency module. Electricians, fifteen hours every three years, must take the energy efficiency module. Plumbers, eight hours every two years, including the energy efficiency module. When all these trade people take continuing ed classes, most of them are code updates. So if we're doing a good job, we amend our rules roughly every three years. That's when the codes by ICC and NFPA are amended every three years. The industry likes us to adopt these standards when new ones come out because of all the new technology and the difference in systems and equipment. In this particular bill, the initial bill in 2020 had a two hour maximum timeframe on that. Well, we couldn't fit a two hour education module in the timeframe we had in order to make sure our thousands of trade professionals were going to renew their license in time. So the existing module is outdated. I support it having to be redone, and it should be redone. My concern is that since there's no more maximum timeframe on this, we could end up having to expand the continuing at hour requirements on our trade professionals depending on the longevity of this energy efficiency module once it's redone. And to go through rulemaking and the pushback that we're going to

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: get

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: on extending our continuing ad hours, that's going to be a tremendous pressure that's going be put on us. This is my and I testified on this in 2020. My personal opinion is that this energy efficiency education module should not be connected to licensing and certification. That is an extremely heavy lift. It's a lot of work for us. And we would support participating and creating a new education module. And we can definitely, through our partnerships with our stakeholders, disperse an educational module that people can take, and they would get a lot more out of this four slide program than looking at right now because I'm actually embarrassed that what we have up there right now. So I'm not supporting the one we have now. We just have our hands tied on where our business flow operates within all our trade professions and the sheer volume of our continuing ed providers and stuff to make this system work. And I don't know, I'm not going to put you on the spot. Not. But if you wanna join then, feel free.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I have one comment before you before you do. And and I'm wondering if maybe it it would make more sense to have that an energy an energy module, energy energy efficiency module, delivered by a training organization that already does some sort of thing. So Efficiency Vermont perhaps, AGC perhaps. Efficiency Vermont might be the best locus for something like that.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: It's okay with the chair of Matt Cotto with Meadow Hill about the heat cooling contractors in Vermont. We are that training agency. We train over a thousand heating techs every year. We train them on the energy efficiency module as required by law.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But the idea that we are going to add more than eight hours, think about it.

[Matt Cota, Meadow Hill / Heating & Cooling Contractors of Vermont]: If you're in Bennington and you're coming to our classroom in Montpelier, you've got

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: two hours on the road plus eight hours that you're required to be in that classroom.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Your employer is paying overtime, and you're spending ten hours not fixing things.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, the bill doesn't specify a time amount for the energy model because as written, it just removes the two hour maxillotine. Don't know what the appropriate amount of time is. It probably varies from trade to trade, But it's such

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: I mean, the other thing

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't have a physician. I mean, I certainly don't want to add to the burden. But the point is to make the energy efficiency modules relevant to the work that is being done by the people who are out

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: in the field. A lot of these folks now receive energy efficiency training in their continuum head now. And especially for manufacturers of equipment and so forth that they're out installing. So by default, they're picking up this energy efficiency education. What I'm trying to relay here is when you take and make this a nexus to licensing and certification, when you're dealing with, I think across the whole landscape here, you're in that several thousand folks. And you've got to imagine how we're trying to sync this with our renewal process in our RMS system to ensure there's a certificate, they've attended this class, They've done a, b, c, and d.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: that that's why initially the the two hour max was put on there. And our existing module that sits now on our homepage, as much as I don't like it, it was deliberate. It was set up the way it was so that our continuing ed providers, and we have a lot of them, could build this into their existing continuing ed curriculum without submitting all new curriculum to us for approval and all this stuff in a very short turnaround time. And you all didn't get complaints, so we rolled this out pretty seamlessly.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But it was not an easy lift. So I just Suppose we strike the two hour the section that strikes the two hour maximum, would that be take it more acceptable?

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: What I agree to is that the existing education module right now is a waste of time. It made in 2020. We've already gone through all our renewal cycles. People are taking the same exact education module again. It's outdated. Will sit here and say it needs to be redone. I language would that would allow working with your constituents that know the energy efficiency, public service, whatever, and just allow us the flexibility to redo this existing module and let us determine through all our stakeholders and constituents the timeframe so that we don't have to go through rule making, try to change the hours on continuing ed, that we can do this as seamless as possible for the sake of all our trade professions, but provide them a much better education message than what we're providing now. I think we're on the same page here. No. And we can do this by providing links Yep. On our education module where on their time, we can provide links where they can go and learn more. And we're we're more than happy to hell with all this stuff. I'm just trying to make this as smooth as possible for our trade professions and and to meet your intent also.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Representative Kleppner?

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Yeah. So you're suggesting that it gets pulled out of the requirement for relicensing, pulled out of the in person daytime session, can be delivered remotely online somehow or other at you know, I'm just wondering. Some people will do it If it's not incorporated in something they have to do otherwise, some people won't. Do you have any thoughts about how we ensure the most up to date energy efficiency information gets to all the people doing the work? If you allow us the flexibility and the time on this and allow us to work with our trade professions, and we could come up with a educational module that doesn't disrupt the current system like it does now, I would support that. If we can't do that, or or I guess if the legislature is not willing to do that and they wanna see more a longer and more emphasis put on the delivery of an energy efficiency module, then I would say, just be aware of what the consequences are on my end, please. And then we we're gonna have to do some rulemaking to address that. I would rather do it like we have now, use the same RMS setup we have now for the most part. We're building a new RMS system, so things will change a little bit, but be able Record to management system. Right. To be able to deliver this without disrupting the whole entire continuing ed process.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So could I ask about specifics? So if I'm looking at section six in the bill, this is on page 80 of the bill. If we just eliminated where it strikes out on line 18 shall not be more than two hours if we eliminated that strikeout and then at the bottom of the page where it says the module shall then new language is explain how the work of the profession or trade intersects with the energy codes and affects the energy airflow and moisture management dynamics of the building as an integrated system And that's the new language. Is that new language acceptable?

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Yeah. I mean, I I guess what I would you wanna chime in?

[Landon Wheeler, Deputy Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: I do. I I really think that the director is trying explain the the position of these tradespeople are when we adopt new codes and standards, they are put through continuing education Mhmm. That captures new innovations, new technologies, new energy efficiency goals that are nationally recognized codes and standards that are built into each one of these trades. So there's from a trade perspective, is there an an intersection where they have to work together and they have to have more general knowledge with, say, a building's development, there is. But the director stating that they're already getting this in a form of their regular required training. What we're doing should either be something specific, to the needs of the state and the constituents, or, the understanding should be made that we're already capturing this through updating our codes and standards for each one of those individual trades, plumbing, electrical, gas, and and oil, and boiler really doesn't belong there.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I I hear you about boiler, and I certainly would like to make an amendment that would remove boiler, commission boiler inspectors. But I guess what I was trying to get at with this added language was how the work of each trade affects the the the building as an energy system as an integrated energy system. And that's that is a little different. It's it's not trying to make, you know, energy auditors out of every out of every, heating tech, but it is trying to expose them to, to what an energy auditor might see when they go on-site to a building and and the kinds of things that they look at. So that's what I was trying to get at with this language. If there's a better way of saying it, would certainly be open to that.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Yeah. I think there probably could be some a little different language. I don't have it on the top of my head right now, but what I'm seeing here is you have the envelope of a structure, and there's a building science component to the construction of the envelope of the structure.

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

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Not an electrician's not going to be involved in the construction of the envelope of this building as it relates to ventilation.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No, but they might be hooking up the range hood or the downdraft, the generator downdraft, the second four fifty cubic feet of air at maximum airflow. What effect does that have on some other part of the building? The apocryphal story is it sucks the fire across the from the fireplace across the rock. So that that that's an example of of the dynamic that perhaps an electrician might not be aware of. Really, that's all I would try to get at was, let's make folks aware of how the work that they're doing affects the whole building. I try to get out with

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: this language. I'm open to- Yeah. I'm open to

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

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: like the fact if you take out and put back in the two hour maximum at least. Am certainly willing to work with a group of folks and sit down and design an energy efficiency module that doesn't disrupt and then force me in the rulemaking and adding continuing that hours onto all our folks. Our licensing and certification programs are complex. We are accepting licenses through reciprocity to bring more trade professionals in here. We just signed an agreement here not long ago with the New England National or the National Reciprocity Electrical Association, Eight, nine states have the same codes we do. If you're an electrician in that state for more than a year in good standings, we can accept their license here during natural disasters. We can bring these people in. It's a huge benefit to the citizens of Vermont. And so when we tie these energy efficiency things in all this, it is a you know, we have done a tremendous amount of work to keep our license renewals going in in in proper order here for the for the trade profession. So Yeah. That's all I would have. Let's get another question, Director. In the example that Mr. Coda gave us, someone driving up from Bennington to here to do eight hours of training, Does that include the current energy efficiency module that you don't love? Yes. Yeah, it would. Yeah, okay. So it includes that. So what we did is we didn't change the continuing ed hours for these trade professionals. We didn't add hours. We allowed the continuing ed providers to build that in. We couldn't make this a long energy efficiency module because it was taking time away from specific safety training that those trade professions were receiving in that class to start with. Got it. So an updated one that delivered up to date useful information you feel would take more time than the one that we're getting now? Well, I'm skeptical whether it would or not. If the language allows us to redo this education module and update it and fit it into our existing business flow process that we have right now, then I don't have any really any objection with this, but I would just go back to the fundamentals of this too. So what I'm saying is I can support that. But on the other side, I think, since I'm here in front of the committee, is to take a look at this nexus to the license and certification as we move through this energy efficiency discussion, whether that's where it should sit. Is that what we should be doing, tying in the education module to licensing and certification? I would throw that to the committee as a question. Well, And I guess what I'm getting at is, if we're going to stay the status quo, let's get this module redone, so at least our trade people aren't feeling they're sitting down and wasting their time by going through this, that we provide them a meaningful education module that I'm more than happy to do all the logistical stuff to make sure this thing will flow, but I'd be more than happy to lend a hand with them.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Along those lines, topic, page nine here, it says that education on any state or utility incentive relevant to the profession, the operative words there being relevant to the profession, that the next A and B are struck out in the bill because what they're talking about is, general information on the base energy goals and, and updates on the energy goals and, and any energy programs. Those kinds of and in fact, what I did go and look at the, module as it exists now, and I agree with you and your characterization of it as as as really inadequate. And what it what it discusses is actually the statute. And, of course, statute is difficult for people who aren't familiar with reading statutes, difficult to read and sort of make sense out of. So I was, in my proposed bill here trying to just eliminate that language and just let's just say it's it's gotta be, information that's relevant to the work of the of the of the the person in the in the profession. So how do you feel about eliminating those A and B on a tough to pay for nine?

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Yeah. I don't have it actually right in front of me because

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't have it Well, it's PowerPoint. Yeah. Yeah.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: If willing to Thank you. Which which line, sir? He said he said a and b.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Lines three through seven.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: A and b on page nine. It's it's already got lines through it now.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. No. That's what I'm saying. I I'm I'm asking the director how he feels about striking that language. The intention being to focus not on abstract goals, but on concrete work that the trade or profession is involved in. Thank you, sir. Okay.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: I mean, I you can leave it stripped out because we're gonna work with whomever on designing this energy efficiency module. Your language in that section allows us the flexibility to participate in the making of this energy efficiency module. Can steer that discussion.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So maybe we should be in touch next week if you have thoughts about a better language for how to express what we've been talking about here. Okay, that's great. So that is the last slide of your presentation and the other sections here, seven, eight, nine, and ten, are all basically repeats of this language and other sections of statute affecting other professions. Not relevant to the Division of Fire Safety. Did you have any other thoughts, Mike, or?

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: No. I know I spent some time on this education module, but I think it's important. It's just that for something that sounds so basic, that impact on thousands of people that run through our licensing program is it's a lot. Yeah. It's a lot. Might not sound it on the front end, but on the back end of this, it's a tremendous amount of work that's imposed on us, and I'm not sure. I don't like what we have there now. So I'm kind of at your mercy on that one. I don't like the program that's there now.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, and I think those are only parts of the bills that are really relevant to the division, as I say. Does anybody have any other questions? I'm sort of taking over here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm sorry. It's good. No.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Landon, do you have anything else you wanna do?

[Landon Wheeler, Deputy Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: I don't unless there's some follow-up questions that we can answer. I'm here to support. Well,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the sooner we end, the sooner we get out of the hot room.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know. It's really fun. It's not

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: I'm probably gonna get some of this stuff to me.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know. I'm so hot.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You're in the hot seat. That's it, man.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: We're gonna I I enjoy the opportunity to come up and and speak with y'all. I do. I appreciate what you do, and it was nice catching up with some of your here. It's we're sitting here. So but I thank thank you for that for the time today. Thank you, director.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you very much.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alex, let's stay on live. Alright. And we'll just take a beat for folks to shuffle along and then just I just wanted to have a quick committee look ahead at next week's agenda.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Thanks again, Mike.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And Yeah. Thank you for being here. Yeah.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. So just we're gonna get the agenda posted soon. But just so folks can kinda prep and look ahead and stay in touch with me about what kinda what needs to get done. Thank you. On Tuesday afternoon, we have our budget hearing with the agency of digital services. That's a joint meeting with senate institutions. And so we will be, I think, looking forward to their presentation for sure because I I think when we had our joint meeting and they were presenting their annual report, we definitely got some hints that there's some things that are different about the ADS budget this year and where IT spends. You can leave that open for sure. Where IT spends are being tucked away in the budget. And so I just wanna make sure folks are, like Yeah. Ready and know that we've got an important budget hearing on Tuesday afternoon with ADS. And then and then in terms of the budget, so we've heard from DPS. We have we will have heard from ADS. We heard from the community broadband board, and we have PUC coming in next week. And those are our four areas. So I feel like we're making good progress on our budget work. Then we've got three bills circling the runway here that I really like to vote out next week. So h five twenty seven, that's our cell tower bill. And last we heard on that, we heard testimony from Will Dodge. He said he was gonna send some thoughts

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That, you know, he thought might help us move forward with balancing the interests of our cell providers and our interest in public transparency and public engagement. So he sent some stuff. It's posted on our website in the h five twenty seven folder under his name, Will Dodge. And we've also sent it to Ellen, to our own ledge council. And since this is rep Sibilia's bill and she's gonna be reporting it on the floor. She's gonna work with Ellen to bring an updated draft to committee that we hope takes into account everything everybody's thoughts and everything we're trying to achieve.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: So what's the timeline for a new draft?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, that's a good question.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I mean, Allen's got it right now.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Allen's working on it.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: So I should send you my list now.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Different bill. Unless are you talking about the cell tower bill?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Yes. I mean, you know, funnel stuff through Sibilia, but we're trying to look at a draft of this on Tuesday.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: I believe life's counsel works on Mondays.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So I'm just just letting everybody know, like, that's currently what I'm thinking.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And if you have a list, absolutely.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: That'd be good to know. I'm piled from all the stuff we've heard, so maybe you've already got it. But Okay. But I have a list, which I will send you as soon as we're done here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sounds good. And, obviously, you know, if we're not ready, we move stuff. But I am really trying to, you know, kinda put a wrap on some of these bills that we've been taking so much testimony on. So I've got tentatively, you know, maybe to look at that draft, walk through it, have Ellen walk us through everything, show us all of that on Tuesday. Then the consolidated bill, the copper bill, fidium fiber bill.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Is that the committee bill?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The the committee bill. Yep. Twenty six zero seven two We are gonna have to move that, Alex. Sorry. That's okay. I had that scheduled for a vote on Wednesday, and but that's Wednesday is when we're hearing back from Hunter. So Hunter's gonna get us some thoughts. So we're gonna need to

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Not a problem.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: See his thoughts, have those incorporated into the draft, and do a walk through. So, Alex, if you could move that to see if you can fit it in on Thursday afternoon. That might be optimistic, but that might give us a chance to get some material from Hunter. Everybody take a look at it or get an updated draft? The only time slot we have is from 10:30 to eleven second. It's the only open time we have on.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: For a draft, Maria?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Put that at Put that at 02:00 on Thursday. Just we'll be aspirational. 02:00? Mhmm. Okay. Do you wanna remove the h 17 bill? Yeah. Just put it there for now, and then and then the single plant bill, ref Southworth is working for with Ellen.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I sent you an update from her.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. I can't remember what she said. Anyway

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Tuesday, she would have a wine with her.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. So we'll find time on maybe we can find time on Tuesday. I think we would have time. So why don't we try to walk through 07:10 on Tuesday with Ellen, and then we'll schedule a vote, you know, later in the week. So anyway, just so you guys know, like I said, this is could be realistic, be aspirational, but I wanna keep warning those votes and walk through so that we can just keep pushing those bills to the finish line. Then we're going to start walking through H740, that's the Greenhouse Inventory Bill. We've got, I'm the sponsor on that, so I'll intro it and walk through it. Ellen will walk us through it. And then we have secretary Warren Jane coming in to talk more about it. We are taking testimony on, the disconnections and right payer protections bill that R. T.ori walked us through today.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We're

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: going to have just a walk through and some introductory testimony on R. Sibilia's data center citing bill. And a little bit more testimony on energy the energy code bill. So that's what we're that's the current thought. We'll get the agenda posted before too long. There's still some polls to fill. I've asked Rutland if he can get me a witness list on the net metering bill so we can think about that. I just emailed you. And then on the February 14, that is when the decommissioning report is coming out on Yankee. And I had had my mind that we would start learning about nuclear power, like the current future state of nuclear power by starting with our own plant, Yankee. And so we've been in touch with commissioner Johnson and the chair of the decommissioning citizens advisory panel. And so that'll probably be that week after. And then at that point, I think we're gonna need to you know, by the middle of next week or the end of next week, I think we need to take a really hard look at how many weeks are left before crossover, our pace, how many bills we think we can try to move before crossover, and which bills are going to have to, you know, move before crossover. I've got a few of mine that I know are already we're going to be out of time. So I just want to let you know.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They emailed you about saying that more they wanted to speak with you. Okay. That's on, I believe, that's two zero two. The I believe it's 202 Affordable. For solar.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That bill's coming to us from the senate. Betsy has it now. So it'll be coming in here sooner than later. But he had some concerns he wanted right now.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Have him reach out to me. That is Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't have contact with him. He just walked in. That's why I'm

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

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, thank you. Thank you for relaying the message. Yeah. 202 s 202, I'm not feeling time pressure on because we can take it up after crossover. I I I'm feeling the crush of, like, our bills. So when two zero two gets here, I know we'll need to take a ton of testimony. I you know, I think they've I I'm super excited about the bill, but I think there's some things they didn't have a chance to work through on the senate side. Plug in solar. So everybody just be thinking about timing. Crossover is March 13. That's when we need to get our bills out. So be thinking about what you think that we need and want to get done in the next six weeks or whatever that is. And in the meantime, I'm thinking about our committee pace and whether we can move faster, but I just don't know if we can. We're not shoving out the door kind of team, so I'm

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: not really sure. We have six weeks left, and we're already finished four weeks. Yeah. So it's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: not very long. It's not very long. So oh, and the we're gonna need to think too about the 07/18, the energy code bill. That's going that will definitely go to them next. So if we wanna if we wanna get something to them in time for them to take a look at it So one thing I'll do is talk to Chair Mulholly about whether they're planning to take it up. And

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I feel like we're close with the administration and the person of agencies and partners that have to have a look at it. So we're going to hear from others. I'm hopeful that this is something that we can all agree on. This is not a big change to current practice, but you're trying to make it a little more relevant and inspire a little more voluntary compliance with energy codes, which are in fact mandatory.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I'm just I don't know if I missed anything, but that's currently what I'm thinking. Mhmm. I don't ever I I know sometimes I seem impatient, but I feel like as a team, we wanna get bills out. And so I'm never trying to cut off conversation, but I am trying to get bills out the door. So, Christopher?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Are there any other bills on the wall that you would be open to taking up and discussing?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Which one are you thinking about?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: In particular, H287.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 287. Is that last that's last year's bill?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. The clean energy standard

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Nope. That's a consortium on nuclear power feasibility. So is that UNCER's bill? That is UNCER's bill. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So let's talk about that. Sorry. I thought you were talking about the big

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Two eighty nine. I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: thought you're talking about February.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I would not do that to you because I already know that answer.

[Michael Desrochers, Executive Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's alright. '89. So, yeah, let's talk about that. So you and I had talked to Greg Southworth about this maybe being the vehicle for some of our conversations around the future of nuclear power. I have another we could do that. So here's what so here's what I'm kind of thinking. And I know we're live on YouTube, and I always say to roll out kinda unvetted thoughts. But when you when you take a bill off the wall and it moves, you know so we're we're looking for something we wanna try to move, right, before crossover. Alright.

[Landon Wheeler, Deputy Director, Vermont Division of Fire Safety]: That's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: right. The title of the bill doesn't change. So even if we strike everything in this out to make it bigger and better or whatever it is we want, it still remains conducting a feasibility study of reintroducing nuclear power generation in Vermont. And I I would like us to think broader. So so reintroducing nuclear power generation in Vermont, that would be a study on citing new nuclear power plants in our state, which I think is not only not only controversial, but it limits the scope of what this bill could do. What I've been wondering about, and I don't know if we can get committee buy in, and I don't know if we can get the money for it. But I would love to see us take really thoughtful testimony about the future of energy generation and power supply in Vermont on a broader on a broader scale. So I I would like to see a task force, not just asking DPS to look at something and come back to us, but a broader task force that would have representatives from from DPS, from some of our energy advocates, maybe a couple members of the legislature. So, like, maybe a broader stakeholder group or a broader group of, you know, maybe some technical expertise to take a look at what's the future of nuclear power period. Not just citing it, but the SMR technology. What's the timeline? What are the upsides? What are the downsides? What about spent fuel? What do we do with that? So there's so many more things. There's so many more questions I have.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So it wouldn't be limited to

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: just It wouldn't be limited to that. And then I wonder about, like, well, as long as we're talking about that, what what's the future of offshore wind? You know, what's gonna happen with our hydro Quebec contracts?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Or next generation biomass too.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. What's up with biomass?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I've been asking around to people like, how expensive is it to get a task force going? Because this is not a big money year, right? Like, I know one of the big concerns with, I feel like the greenhouse gas registry is so important to try to do thoughtful climate planning, and we have an $800,000 price tag on it. So I'm doing some thinking about, like, alright. How can I how can can we do that for less money? Can we take that step, you know, and do it cheaper? So I'm thinking, how much does a task force cost? And if you populate it with folks who are largely doing that as part of their paid job, we don't pay for that. We don't have to appropriate for that. If you put a couple legislators on, that's a little bit of money for our per diems, but it's not much. And so this could be a really cost efficient way that we could maybe even get across the finish line this year and ask these folks to do real work, substantive work that either is due back to the legislature in December or maybe maybe their work continues. You know? Maybe it's maybe it isn't just a one time thing, a one time study. Maybe they maybe they stand up for a year or a year and a half or something. So I'll probably deeply regret talking on YouTube about just an idea I'm having. But what's occurred to me is, can we do better than this? Can we get can we rally our support behind a committee bill and see if we can get something going that we think would be of more value? So, you know, and if this is all we wanna do, we could move this too. But I, you know, I think that this has some problematic limitations.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. I I kinda like the idea that you have.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Great taking conference.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Sorry. That was a long monologue, but I've I've just been trying to encapsulate you know, I I know there's a lot of interest in this in our in this room to to learn more about nuclear power and to have that conversation, you know, so that we don't have blinders on about the future. I think folks know here, I've got a lot of reservations about the clean energy standard, about whether those savings are worth blowing the lid off the you know, whether they whether it's enough money to save fast enough. If that's something we're also looking at in a broader sense, I don't know. I I'm not trying to block conversations in this room. I'm trying to get good work done. I'm feeling like we're running out of time. So that's why I'm also sort of taking this reset to say, like, what do we think we can get out of here before crossover? What bills really matter to people? And so I can put my cards on the table. I care a lot about the greenhouse gas registry. I'm trying to find a way to do that cheaper, and I'm very interested in some kind of a task force, and I'm willing to let my other stuff fritter away into the end of the biennium.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So, I really like the idea that you put on the table. I am very sensitive and feeling the we've got a lot of things and not a lot of time, and we like to do a lot of work. I think there's a way to do this kind of simply. I think the suggestion that you've made makes sense. I I feel like it's very important for Vermont to and and I'm certain that our friends in the administration and our friends in the transmission and and utility world are are thinking about this, but the legislature needs to keep up. We are in a really dynamic space. So thinking about all types of energy, I'm not super excited about fossil fuels, biomass, noobs, and making sure that we are thinking, making sure we have enough. We're all concerned about affordability. Alongside of that, one of the reasons that this is so, feels very urgent to me is the unmitigated growth of large loads in our country and what that is doing to power supply. So, also would like to work really hard to try and land something on data center citing rather than just have that happen to Vermont. And I am cognizant that that could be a very complicated bill. So, I am working to try and really pull in something that is simple and doable. I'm working with Senator White, who many of you know had introduced a moratorium and a number of other folks to see if there's something simple that we can pull together that allows us to be proactive and not let things happen to us. So and and, madam chair, I would love to work with whomever you might want to to try and pull together this task force or proposal for this committee.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm already working on it. Well, there you go. So I So we'll give you funnel ideas to you. Yeah. I'm happy I I will take the lead on that. You've got a lot of big other bills on your page And final ideas to me. I I all I've started is talking to some people, like, about what does it take to get a task force up and running, what does it cost, you know, and what what you wanna look at is who sits on it. So right? So, like, commissioner of DPS or designee. You

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: know? That's PR. That's PR.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. So we want a list of who who's on that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You want an odd number of people. For

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Not just odd people.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. We want odd people. You want not too many people. And it's funny. I I've worked on so many bills. You would not believe the way committees can bog down in fighting over who's on the list. Mhmm. So I mean, you wouldn't even believe it. It's it makes you wanna rip your hair out. Whether we want it to be time limited or be more of a permanent thing, you know, the task force on the I I don't know. And then really tech pick picky things like if they're gonna do real work, they need some staff support. You know? And not oh, you know, it costs money, but it doesn't cost, and then we we need to think about money. But

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I like what you said before. If it's already done in conjunction with the current positions, that saves money. Right. I like that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. The legislators, have to pay for, but our per diem, as we all know, is not that not that big of deal. So that that is what I'm thinking about the next five minutes or six months.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. I appreciate your thought.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So, anyway, get get thoughts to me. I if if everybody is if no one's opposed, you know, I can draft I can just draft a drafty draft task force thing, and we can just look look at it. Yeah. You know? All I know is the broad outlines of how one drafts a task force, and we'll just do it as committee bill. Okay. So get thoughts to me on on any other things, and we're gonna have to do some hard thinking about what bills we have the capacity to move out of here and how quickly we're willing to work to move bills.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I like the idea. Alright. Good.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. We can go off live. Thanks, everybody.

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

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: What's happening now? Guess