Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: We're live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: All right. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It's Wednesday, February 4, and we are here diving into testimony on H-seven 40, which is an act relating to the greenhouse gas inventory. So we'll go around the room and introduce ourselves, then we'll turn it over to you. I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint Johnsbury.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille too. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Whitefield, Southworth, Caledonia too.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara Torre, Washington too.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Bram Kleppner, 13 Burlington.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And who do we have in the room?

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Lauren Ashbrook, climate action office agency of natural resources. Great. Zoe Thomas, senator back

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: in white intern. Super. Allison Descatecy

[Allison Descatecy (Monarch Berkeley Environment)]: from Monarch Berkeley Environment. Great.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Jared Duvall, member of the Vermont Climate Council.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Alright.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: For the record. For the record, I'm Julie Moore. I'm the secretary of natural resources.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: And for the record, Jane Loserczak. I work in the climate action office for the agency of natural resources.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Thank you. So thank you for having us in this morning and allowing allowing us the opportunity to provide some input on H740. I wanna start by just offering kind of some high level feedback on the overall approach. We do have a a small number of requested edits and then really wanna talk about funding for the work. Okay? So as discussed when we were last here a couple of weeks ago, the climate action plan update that was adopted by the Vermont Climate Council in 2025 did include this following request to ANR asking us to develop a framework for the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions data. And that was delivered to the council, but also to the respective legislative committees in December. Just in terms of the overall approach, we are supportive of the idea of amending section five eighty two to add a new section two to provide that clear authorization for our reporting program. As we talked about when we were previously having that clarity and direction from the legislature, we feel is really important, and thank you for including that in the bill. In terms of of proposed edits, there is one piece around the the secretary's authority. We have suggested an edit here, but also can talk about what what the concern is and are open to alternative approaches. But as drafted, think there is concern that this would actually capture all greenhouse gas emitters of any size and any scale as opposed to allowing us to focus on sort of the the most significant of sources. I think that that gets captured in the the final sentence where you're directing at a minimum what types of information should be collected. And by saying, instead of the secretary shall adopt rules that create this, the secretary shall have authority to adopt rules, provides them the flexibility for the agency to figure out sort of where we draw a line around de minimis sources. Can we start right here?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because we had a good, you know, good starting conversation about this bill just an hour ago or whenever it was. And so I have some questions about this. So my first and and maybe language later in the bill, you know, will remove this concern. But my question about that is shall adopt rules seems very clear to me. Like, you will you will do the rules. Yes. Shall have the authority to adopt the rules. Sounds like, well, you have the authority, but you can do it or not if you want to.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: So that I I actually asked the same very question of, our counsel in that I'll be right here.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: Okay. For you. Oh, I got it.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Okay. And she said, you know, another approach would be to alter that final sentence that that currently says the information collected shall include at a minimum to say the secretary shall adopt a rule that at a minimum includes. So if you want to make it is not our intention in offering this edit to make doing this work optional. It is to provide us the ability to, as I say, draw draw a line below de minimis sources. And so altering that that final line and happy to to send that proposed language to you as well, chair James, could maybe accomplish both goals of both giving us flexibility to determine what is actually in to create a manageable program and ensure that it is clear the legislative intent is for us to to proceed. I'd yeah. I'd love to

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: see that because that was my first concern. It makes it sound super, you know, like, if you feel like it, and that, you know, that's not Mhmm. Certainly not my and that would be my intent.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: Gotcha. And okay. Just that one other edit at the top even moving forward, but we can send these this to you. But our general counsel suggested that it the top change to the secretary has authority to adopt rules, which gives us that that clear authority in this instance. And then further on, as the secretary just alluded to, the change then becomes at the bottom and clarifies. The secretary shall adopt a rule that strikes information collected shall and goes right into at a minimum includes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Would love to see that. And then Mhmm. Rep Kleppner has a a comment that probably gets to all sources of emissions. Mhmm.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yes. Because I also read the bill and was concerned about the Yeah. All sources. As we have discussed, we do not want to interfere with someone throwing some split wood into their wood stove when it gets cold. Correct. And it would be spectacularly difficult to collect the data, and if we did, it would be all kinds of bad implications of doing that. So I think being clear that we're not trying to regulate that. On the other hand, as we look to a greenhouse gas inventory that's meaningful, whatever the reporting format is, it feels to me as though we should include the generating sector as well, particularly McNeil and Rigate as our largest source of CO two. And we did hear earlier that you already get emissions data from them. Is that accurate?

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: We we have emissions information from them through their clean air permits, so they report to our air quality and climate division right now in DC. And I believe the last time we were in here, one of the main arguments for giving the secretary discretion to consider sources beyond the transportation, residential, commercial, industrial is to consider facilities. And our mitigation team within the climate action office continues to do research on the facilities that have, over the last five to ten years come on and off that tracking with the EPA tool to understand who those facilities are that would meet some minimum threshold to be potentially considered under a recording program and to understand if there are entities where we would learn more about their use around emissions that we aren't getting through fossil fuel suppliers, understanding that most of those facilities that are reporting through GREET are in large part reporting there because of their fossil fuel use. So much would be double counting.

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

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: That said, there are entities such as global foundries that we would have different emissions that would trigger a threshold around process emissions, and we've been trying to understand the value in a recommendation to consider those entities and at what threshold. EPA is a 25,000 metric tons per year threshold. New York's reporting rule is a 10,000 metric ton reporting for facilities. And so we don't have a clear recommendation to the secretary yet formed about that, but our team just met yesterday to continue to investigate the rationale for why we would include them.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And that's 10,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalents? Yes. And that would then I mean, if there were a minimum facility requirement like that, it would capture the facilities that produce at that level, sort of regardless of the fuels.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Exactly. That would make

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: me really happy, which I know is your main reason for coming here.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: I would encourage the committee to hear from representatives of those two generating facilities. I think this introduces complications with some of their renewable energy credits and other components of their work. And so just before proceeding in that space to make sure I can't speak to the ramifications, but just know that they Yes.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Thank you for that. We did discuss earlier the possibility of including it in a separate section of the report or, you know, something whatever is required to avoid those problems just to so that we can get the data without screwing anything else.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: I also understand and that those the two entities, McNeil and Rigate, do not meet the 25,000 c o two equivalent annually, and there's been variation back and forth whether or not they even met the 10,000. So they're just to flag that those based on how other states and if we were to consider facilities, we would want to do it consistent with our neighboring state, New York. Those two those two entities would not be captured unless there was some other thing beyond that facility's 10,000 or 25,000 threshold. Got it. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So so how would this inventory compare with what you have been collecting for greenhouse gas emissions already, which captures wider spectrum of sources, right, than the sort of all the is the idea for it? Yes. Would implementing this reduce the the efforts you have if the other side the other inquiry? Because it sounds like that that would cover more more sources than just feeding and transportation. But if we're doing this, then we wouldn't have to collect heating and transportation if if the other system

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: I mean, in that the system right now is that we get that data through DMV and the tax department. And then there have actually been, most recently, actually inconsistencies and, like, a timestamp on when we get that data. And so this would create one system consistently used on those to calculate the emissions from those, creating less challenges around sort of, like, the time we get that data and when partners get that data to calculate emissions. So that's one. The other big challenge has been that those entities do not collect detailed information on biofuels and the biofuel content of fuels used in transportation or home heating. So this that has been one of the big arguments or considerations for how we would then be able to require and ask for that data, and that was probably perfect. But I

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: just to add to that though, I I don't believe as currently structured, our data collection would replace some of the need that DMV and TACS have. We did mention last time this ability to look at reverse harmonization. Right. But that is is not anything we're prepared to to recommend at this point. So it would be asking entities to file a second separate report with the agency of natural resources that we would then rely on for the inventory, but it they would continue to need to report to tax and DMV.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. And what are we getting at? And I did I I say it very well. You are collecting data now for the the GHD inventory, broadly speaking, that includes processed fuels and and and other sources. Right? So by by implementing this system just around heating and transportation, is that is much more rigorous and would require you setting up your own sort of data input to collect that. He wouldn't have to then translate data from DMV or from other sources. So that would save you some time there. I I guess I'm just wondering what what I What's your estimate you have?

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Not not necessarily. Right? It it's we're still gonna have to do the same kind of work. We're just doing it on our dataset as opposed to using a DMV or tax based dataset. Right? Like, I I think the workload remains for the agency and may actually increase because of some of the granularity of the information we've indicated would be supportive of a reporting the type of reporting prep program being envisioned here. So so I don't know that it it produces any time savings on our end and and does currently require a second report from the fuel producers or suppliers. Okay. Nice. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And Southworth?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Where does Vermont rank currently in greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: On a per capita or a net case total? Total. Total? Do you know

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Last fiftieth.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I was gonna say,

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: I think we're at the bottom.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: Highest in New England.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. Closer to the top of. Yes. Sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Rip Kleppner and then Southworth.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: On the subject of of data.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Or I'm sorry.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So I think I heard you say that McNeil might not emit 25,000 tons a year.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: C o two equivalent. Mhmm.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Which which struck me as odd. So I did a quick search, which reported it's, like, 400,000 tons a year. It

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: was just the information I received yesterday in talking about the what they report through the GREET tool and how they don't trigger reporting in the GREET tool. And so I am happy to follow back up with understanding that, but they're not currently reporting through them, which is the federal data.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Madam Chair and Secretary Moore, I apologize for stepping in late and hope I have not missed critical information. I'm looking at the slide here and assuming that this is a request from the agency related to the bill that's in front of us. And the language on the top is the language that is currently in the bill Correct. Which says that you shall adopt rules. And the language on the bottom, have authority to boldened, changes that from making that a requirement to giving you the authority to adopt it, which then makes it optional.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We've shared we talked about that at length.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So so did we also talk about did anybody ask there's I think you have broad authority right now. Yes. Do we talk about that with the GWSA? I mean, I think you have broad authority right now with the Global Warming Solutions Act to promulgate rules. And so, is this authority, why is this authority necessary? So,

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: given the experience of other states that have stood up reporting programs, they've received legal challenges where explicit authority was not provided for such to the implementing agency. And we have a a second alternative, so language here. This is really intended to give us discretion about where to draw a line at de minimis sources. Yeah. Not intended to give us discretion about whether or not we would adopt a rule if the legislature moves this forward.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So you're open or supportive of us giving you the authority and requiring you to do it? Assuming it comes with the resources to do the work. Yes. Thank you.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I'm sorry. I didn't quite have time to grab Burlington Electric's own report, but they did report 375,000 tons of c o two emissions in 2023. So

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: I'm I I'm only being speculative, but I you know, obviously, most of those emissions are from burning wood, so we don't count those in the inventory. Right. So I'm wondering I I will follow-up because I had my staff gave me a presentation on it yesterday, and I wish I could recite, but I just the admissions they were citing in the slides were just under 10,000.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So very speed. Very likely they're just recording the diesel emissions from transporting Right. Timber to the facility and Exactly. That sort of thing rather than the active smoke set emissions, which which is the one number that I would like to understand and track that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry, before we move to the next slide, I just wanted to learn a little bit more about, because I know this has come up a lot in previous conversations in the legislature, Suppliers of transportation and heating fuels. Who is that in Vermont? Who are those companies? Who are those entities?

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: So, I could take a

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: stab at it, but I

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: think that the question put somebody like Matt Cotas. Yeah. He's coming in. Okay. That that there are a handful of of point points of entry for our fuel supply. The Port Of Albany, a significant amount of fossil fuel comes out of Montreal and Quebec. And then I think to a lesser degree, there are supply or fuel depots in New Hampshire and Massachusetts that some suppliers access. So it it it depends a bit on on who the enterprise is, where they are picking up their fuel from. But generally, the the first location that those fuel supplies make landfall in the Continental US is outside Vermont's boundaries. I don't know if that answers your your question well or not. Just

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: who who's gonna be required to report? Is it the it's not the big wholesaler in Albany or Montreal, it's the company that's importing that, bringing that fossil fuel

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Correct, in except for for one of those places.

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

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

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: So the current draft asks us to file with LCAR by 03/01/2027. We are asking that that be replaced with either a deadline to submit to ICAR, which sort of is our starting line for the process, or an adopt by date, as both of those are a bit more within our control than the LCAR timing. Specifically, we would propose to adopt the rule by 07/01/2027, but also want to be clear, any adoption date in 2027 would mean that the first reporting year under this rule would be 2028. And then generally looking at New York as an example, reports are due six months into the following year. So we would be looking at receiving reports in June, July 2029 covering calendar year 2028?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I would have to understand better the practical difference between LCAR and ICAR. LCAR is our own legislative body that would review the rules to make sure that they meet our legislative intent.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: ICAR is executive branch Interagency Committee.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So the legislature would not have a chance to weigh in on

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: the rules that Well, would through LCAR. So ICAR is sort of the starting line for any rule. The way our process works is a rule is filed with ICAR. If ICAR approves it, we then file with the Secretary of State's office the draft and start the public comment process. Once we have completed a public comment period, prepared a responsiveness summary and developed any or created any revisions to the rule as a result of the comment received, we then go to LCAR. And then coming out of LCAR, after there there is ideally confirmation, this is consistent with legislative intent, we file the final rule with the Secretary of State's office.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: I'll

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: just Just sort of midstream in

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: the process. Exactly. So it's either like exactly as the Secretary just spoke, it's a challenging date when you have it in the middle of the process, and we'd rather you either indicate when we must file with ICAR, which is typically from filing with ICAR roughly, like, six months to nine months till we complete the rule, or an adopt by date, which would signal the completion, and we would be working towards that goal and work backwards from there. And so a 07/01/2027 adoption by is not inconsistent with the March LCAR filing because it would take a few months beyond the first meeting with the LCAR to actually complete the role. So it's not largely out of step with the timing you have now. And then the the dates, this was something that we reached out and reviewed New York's rule. If folks are unaware, they adopted their rule by December. Yeah. And they're that they are now in that first admissions reporting year of '26 with their first reporting occurring in in 07/01/1927. And so our hope would be that we would complete the rule by July 27 and look at '28 as a registry year to get folks used to reporting and working with us with the first official year being '29 for the '28 emissions. That would all be spelled out in the details of the rule as we put it forward. But in order to have '27, we would have to complete the rulemaking by the end of this year with this be currently being discussed. No resources yet put at it and the amount of stakeholder engagement required by a rule in the Global Warming Solutions Act, which goes above and beyond what the APA requires. The APA for rules requiring you hold a hearing. The Global Warming Solutions Act, when rules are proposed in a climate action plan, requires statewide engagement with frontline and impacted communities, requires a higher bar for public engagement and therefore a longer timeline. So we don't feel like it is possible to complete the rule by the end of this year.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Okay. And then just to reiterate what we see is the necessary budget. This was part of the memo that was submitted to the committee back in December. It's two FTEs as well as $200,000 in base funding to maintain the platform and third party verification and $300,000 in one time money. The current draft of seven forty indicates just $800,000 in one time money. And so making clear that there is a base funding component to this request or this need, and so ensuring that that that moves forward. Also, the draft is currently silent on positions. The position pool, which is the sometimes source of new positions when they are funded through the legislature, is virtually empty. And so, in order to ensure the capacity exists, the bill would also, I would suggest need to create the positions on top of providing that funding. Can we go back to the slide? Mhmm. And so the base is for the staff time, it's for the So the the top line is it's about we estimate positions at a $150,000 and that's sort of salary plus benefits. So there are two FTEs required. One person who's essentially managing the program and a second person who's really doing kind of the compliance data verification components of the work. And then at the bottom, that third line is the ongoing cost of actually having a platform that that entities can report into and through, as well as doing third party verification. Obviously, this work, as it could support future, policy programs that have real economic consequences, ensuring, that all of the data we have is verified is important, to making sure we've provided a level playing field to regulated entities. So regarding the FTEs, what these are climate act would these be climate office employees? Okay. That is the people. What's the current staffing at the climate office? Eight. And what was it last year? Eight. And what was it in the budget this year? Eight. And so how much time, you all have just finished the climate action plan, which presumably is a lot of time. You know, is any of this work able to be, you know, this greenhouse gas work, would any of

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: it be able to be absorbed by existing staff? Have you thought about that

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: at all? We have looked at that. And frankly, there is more work in front of the climate office than they are able to do. We have worked to right size their efforts through the climate action planning process. I think Jared could probably speak to it as well. But I would say we took a step step back from the level of support we provided to the Climate Action Plan. This go round is compared to the first plan and recognition of the other tasks that sit with the Climate Action Team. And we don't have the capacity to take up this work within our existing staff resources. May just add? I'll just

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: say much of the work done through the Climate Council and in support of the Climate Action Plan is done through two ways, a contract with external resources through the Consensus Building Institute that brings agenda planning, process planning, as well as meeting support through that contract, and we benefit from that in the office. And then second, this time we had a position the first climate action plan, myself and Marion Wolse supported it almost full time. In this time, we have a limited service position that provided administrative capacity as well as support to the climate action plan through the climate planning administrator. That position is funded through the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant, which ends 07/01/2027. So, if we were even to look across the resources, that person is filling different resources now in our office, but that person who was really supporting the council is also termed out in a year from now. Cause those funds will finish 07/01/2023.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rutland? I'm just thinking back, I know you had a lot of work going on around data. You had grant funding for it. Is any of that work tangentially related to this? Like, does this support the mission of that funding? And is that funding still in your place?

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: So, we continue to seek opportunities largely through the US Climate Alliance. They've been sort of the principal grant funder we have had success with other than this Climate Pollution Reduction Planning Grant that was a non competitive grant issued by EPA to any state that effectively their hands up as a result of the inflation reduction act. So that's the funding Jane is talking about. We have had good success with US Climate Alliance being willing to fund certain initiatives, but they tend to be one time funds. Right? So they've been working with us, looking at some of the unanswered questions we had about agricultural contributions. Trying to think that there was one

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: in the forestry sector too that that might be supported our climate change forester for a period of time in Forest Park And Recreation. We currently have I might we referenced this last time we were here. We currently have a grant through them to support workforce development in the climate space with the Department of Labor and have two applications rated in right now. One looking at a sequestration adder on farms so that when you're going out to resilience planning with them, how can they calculate sequestration of the the sequestration benefits of practices they're deploying. And then a second application to look at Beauver as a food supplement for cows in partnership with Bennington, is very interested in this to think about the benefits of and if it's cost effective to add a food adder for cows around methane reduction. But I think

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: the long story short there is that they really provide one time funding and not face appropriations for this type of work.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: But the and the climate pollution reduction grant was a $3,000,000 grant that has supported a new staff member in our office and also provided a million dollars in technical services funding as well as funding that we've used to both maximize the climate policy study we did around at cap and invest that led to this recommendation from the climate council, as well as a grant that supports a thermal program manager and public service department. So they have a staff member looking at thermal program efficiency, Ben Velaskey, that's paid for through that grant. But all of those funds are apportioned out because they have to be spent down now within a year. And if we hadn't envisioned how to obligate them by now, we wouldn't be successful. So they're all spoken for.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: So, ma'am?

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Can you just say a little bit more about program management? You have someone doing compliance and enforcement, data analysis and verification and platform maintenance already with that one FTE. What what does management mean in this context?

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: Do you wanna talk a little bit about what you learned from New York in terms of how they're Yeah. Happy to. They I mean, a lot of the work in the act of standing up the rule for the first, you know, one and a half to two years will be around the rule making process and stakeholder engagement. So developing the rule, the rule package, the economic analysis, and all the supporting documents that go into preparing a rulemaking. There's also significant stakeholder engagement with the entities to prime them for the possibility of of how this will move forward, have their feedback be responsive. And so much of that work in the early time looks at how to successfully stand up that program and link it then ultimately with the green the development of the greenhouse gas inventory to understand how we successfully transition that data into the inventory. And beyond that, it really is about how to think about what third party verification looks like, like, not enforcing for a number of years. You may recall in our memo that we put forward, we don't propose to have any formal enforcement relationship with these entities for a number of years rather than us building relationship and working to support them to enter the data. So it's that's really a program function in the climate office to think about what compliance and enforcement looks like in a not in a sort of interface that isn't always positive kind of way with enforcement. So that most of that program work would all live within that person. And then, obviously, building the tool will man that person would need to manage either an external contract or an ADS, an agency of digital services relationship to stand up and build the platform that the folks would be entering into.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: So $300,000 is strictly for the technical platform itself.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Correct. Creating that that online tool.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: But not paying for someone to do that. Right. So

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: It's the digital app the digital con the contract to build the tools.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Do you

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: have a sense

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: for how many entities or magnitude are gonna be reported?

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: Matt Matt will speak to that very, obviously, tomorrow when he testifies. And I wish I the PUC in there were roughly 40 I I don't wanna speak out of turn and get it wrong. But

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: there Yeah.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: There were the fuel there's the residential, commercial, industrial heating, then transportation fuel suppliers. Yeah. I would we have estimated it is similar to the size of Massachusetts reporting program for just the residential, commercial, industrial sector. So we felt like our information and numbers that we based here is very in line with the numbers for staff and resources needs based on what Massachusetts is doing in the heating sector alone. And ours, we think, across both sectors will be similar to Massachusetts heating sources.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Thank

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: you. I'm sorry. I just got to end that. Why why is Vermont's would Vermont's landscape be similar to to Massachusetts?

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: We think the totality of the transportations, fuel suppliers, and the RCI sector, the heating sector suppliers is similar in number to the suppliers of just the heating sector in Massachusetts. Through conversations we've had with Massachusetts and number of supply

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: of entities. To go to get information.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Correct. We we just we're trying to have something we could scale against in bringing you this

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: proposal. Sure. Right. Okay.

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

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: We have reached out to our partners in Massachusetts and New York who we base these numbers from on to just consider any reports or references they could share with us that we would be happy to send as files for you all so that you can see that these numbers are based in actualities and neighboring states.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So you're obviously totally correct in that. I just took the 800 k and dumped it into the bill because I knew we'd be having these conversations. So I I wanna I guess I just wanna emphasize how important I feel this work is. And I was I was really gratified to see that this was one of the top 10 policy recommendations of the climate action plan, that the climate action plan passed with only one you know, with 22 supporting votes and only one dissent, and and really happy to see in in your own memos.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: Yeah. Sorry. Two dissents.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: I think agency of agriculture dissented if that could. I think actually four. Okay. Yeah. I think there's a few.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I was just reading the signing statements.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, okay. So, with overwhelming support. Yeah.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Well said. Yeah. And because I was

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: just looking at the signing statements this morning, but I I'm I stand corrected. And and I and I appreciate the the memo from the two of you and treasurer position that this is foundational work. And so I I don't I don't believe there's much disagreement that this is really important. And so I feel like I I you know, I feel well aware that this is gonna come down to the money. And so, you know, I had hoped, but wasn't actually very hopeful that it would be included in the governor's budget recommend. I I know it's not. And so I wonder about the timeline. Like, how how granular can we get about the realistic, you you do not need an $800,000 check tomorrow. So how realistic can we get about the timeline of this work? You know, if you had been able to put funding into the FY '27 budget, what would you have needed right now to get started?

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: I I guess I would say, in in reality, you would have sought the full $500,000 of base funding increase and the $300,000 of one time money. We can't enter into a contract absent having the full resources available and found ourselves in the, I would say, unenviable position with the Flood Safety Act several years ago where we were given 15 positions, but only sufficient money for 11 saying, well, they're not gonna start July 1. So here's funding for nine months for those positions. The problem is then when I start my budget build the next year, I start in the whole. The way it works with our budget advisor directions that we receive from finance and management is they can they tell us to assume a certain percentage increase over last year's general fund allocation. And so to the extent you provide partial funding for an ongoing need, we have to figure out a way then to absorb that in our budget, which would mean making cuts elsewhere. And how strongly do you support this work? I see this is is really important to having a solid foundation for any future conversations that are desired around cap and invest, clean heat standard, all of those policy pieces have been effectively flying blind without this information. We have heard from partners in other states that you need several years of this data to have that kind of grounding to ensure you're not having disproportionate impacts on low and moderate income Vermonters. And so to the extent that remains a priority for this body, I think having a robust greenhouse gas reporting program is an essential first step. I will say in terms of our inventory, which was the the initial concern we had as as practitioners in this space, and frankly, because it's the basis of the Global Warming Solutions Act enforcement components, the progress we've made with tax and DMV on data sharing has has helped fill what was a really, I would say, significant gap or lag in our greenhouse gas reporting efforts. So it it not only depends on I think the answer is it also depends on where you want to go. Right? And what what you if if this is ultimately pushing towards designing an economy wide or a sector based emissions reduction program. This is essential work. Rep. Sibilia? I just wanna make sure I understand. Did you

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: say this was not or or would be helpful for the GWSA?

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: I I was saying, I'm sure this will have incremental value in the GWSA and improving the quality of our inventory, particularly as Jane said, because we don't receive information right now on biofuels versus fossil fuels. So we just are making assumptions in that space. But the lion's share of the game was made in the the work we have done to obtain better and more timely data from tax and DMV, including tax modifying their reporting forms to give us granularity that simply didn't exist several years ago. Okay.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And so I just want to also just wanna double check the question of whether or not you support this. Did you answer? I mean, I I think I heard you say it's important if we have objectives that do you think this is important?

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: I I do. I think the question then becomes there's a lot of important things we are asked to work on every year and how this fits. And saying that it has to be with a vision towards what the the future use of that data is. What I was intending to convey is that the work we have done with tax and DMV over the last several years has met the existing need we have as an agency, which is we didn't have the types of information we needed to have sort of the the best possible greenhouse gas inventory. To the I think it's not a surprise that this an economy wide greenhouse gas emissions reduction effort is not high on the governor's list of priorities, which is why I indicated if it is a priority for the legislature, this information is foundational to our ability to design a credible program.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And it will improve your ability to track progress for the GWSA?

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Correct, incrementally, yes.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: Just to put a finer point on what the secretary has alluded to around improvements over the last few years, PACS in particular have worked very closely with us. They were connecting they were collecting data as lump sum of fuels, and they've been able to break it out into different fuel types so that we are able all those fuel types have different emission factors. And that was something only a few years ago, three or so years ago was changed. So when the secretary refers to better data through our partnerships with state government, that's what she's referring to, the fuel. But we've gone as so far as we can with tax for them to approve their reporting fuel forms. Collecting information on biofuels is not something that is germane to what they tax, so it's not something they'll ask to split out.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I just have a quick question about this. So in your memo, you had it sounds like considered both the harmonization and the stand alone approaches and concluded that stand alone would be better. Is it that harmonization is not possible or just that stand alone would be better? I I think it's probably both.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Standalone is better because harmonization is still gonna have some of the gaps, particularly around biofuels. Just in that that that isn't anything tax is that sort of tucks into the reporting taxes already mandated to to perform, and then there's some of the sharing arrangements with tax that that further complicate that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But the sharing arrangements with tax could I mean, couldn't we direct tax to share the information you need? I'm

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: You should hear from them directly.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I'm

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: sure, but Yeah. They they they have significant concerns about sharing any additional detail beyond what they are currently providing to us.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: Namely the dealer but, namely, the the entity. So and this gets to the secretary's point about, like, your vision for this data. Mhmm. If we would the it's the regulated the potentially regulated entity down the line. Right. That that is not something tax shares Right. With us. Yeah.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Who the Currently unregulated. Yes. Right. But they Currently unregulated. We just get the numbers. We don't actually get the who. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Rip Sibilia. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm next yeah. I I guess I just wanted to observe and and make explicit that this is a fan foundational piece for future policy and the governors the kind of priority of this governor. So I should what that what that is. And the other piece I've been asking that I'm having a hard time reconciling in my own head is the need for staff positions funding on an ongoing basis. I certainly can understand a need for setting this up and developing rules and managing the contract for setting up the software and all of that. On an ongoing basis, there's got to be some reduction in in in labor for you all to be doing this instead of what you're doing now for the for

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: I think I would say we don't in part, we don't know what we don't know. Are relying on input from other states as well. I think the PUC corrected their own estimates of what they believed it would take to fully implement this program, and it may be worthy to hear from them as well. This is our our best estimate of what we believe is needed. And I am very reluctant given the sort of overall challenging fiscal position of the state as well as my agency to underestimate Sure. And assume we can make it up elsewhere because we just don't have any capacity. Good Yep. Afternoon. So I

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I kinda wanna I I hope the chair will indulge me. I feel like the question is being begged here. And, you know, you have explained to us that, you know, market style mechanism, which this would be critical for, as well as the Global Warming Solutions Act, we are you are required to make sure we are making progress on and have fuel making authority to do so.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: In a

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: with fossil fuels being so volatile and that sector I mean, we're seeing consolidation here in of the market in Vermont, and they are unregulated, that flashes warning signs for poor Vermonters, unregulated monopolies in a volatile market. And so the question I think that I would like to ask is, how does the governor envision we will protect poor and vulnerable Vermonters from that type of economic environment?

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: I haven't had that conversation, but to be able to to even or that kind of response to that question. I do think questions about the appropriateness of regulating these markets probably are better put to public service and the PUCs since they're engaged in that work when it comes to electricity and other components of the energy space. ANR is really there on the environmental end.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: You know, I would just say I am deeply, deeply interested in the answer to that question. I I don't think that the absence of regulation is actually going to do it. Thank you, madam chair.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And I I even wanna back it up back it up a step to say that, you know, I think this is a really important conversation. But to me, it's it's out ahead of what we're even talking about. Right. Doing here. What we're what we're talking about and what I have really hoped and and hope and will be working really hard to achieve this year is the very foundational step of getting the data that you say you need to build good policy in the future, whatever that is. And I think my sense of of urgency revolves around what what I was talking about earlier when I introduced the bills to sponsor earlier this morning, which is that, you know, we talk about greenhouse gas emissions reductions, which sounds like a number off in a science lab somewhere that nobody cares about. But how we achieve those reductions is by helping individual Vermonters weatherize their homes, get into a more this is grassroots, really important work that helps individual people save a lot of money by transitioning to more sustainable and healthy fuel sources. And so I I'm super focused on the individual people we're helping, and we keep hitting a brick wall. We try to get big policies in place to get that done. We keep running into the upfront costs. And we hit a brick wall, and we hit a brick wall, and we hit a brick wall. And so it fills me almost with, like, despair to think that we're gonna say, alright. We we can't do any of those things right now, but we can start getting the numbers we need. And, oops. Sorry. We can't afford it. Like, that is very frustrating to me. This is a major reset of like, okay, what can we do now? And to say, well, we've got this great idea and it's it's really just an emissions reporting framework, but we can't afford that either. I I just I don't I don't buy it. And I I think if we can't take this simple step now that won't even be we won't even be seeing those numbers until 2029, that that is just a huge fail on all of our part all of our collective parts, not just what the legislature wants. And I so I really hope we can work together to find a solution. I and I'm sorry. I know that was a monologue, but you guys know I've you know, a lot of us have been here in the building for a long time trying to get this work done collaboratively, and it's like I feel like this is something we should

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: be able to make happen this year.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So Along those lines, it's a could we ask you to go back and sharpen your pencils and go back and see what you actually you really you really can do about sharing the work among your staff?

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: So what we may be able to do in that space is suggest things you would have us stop doing

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

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: In order to start doing this work. But there is no capacity within my team to take on new work. And so if this is a higher priority, it doesn't obviate the need for the base funding for the tool or the one time money to develop the tool. That $500,000 or 200 and $300,000 respectively doesn't exist elsewhere. Mhmm. We may be able to create some staff capacity, but it would require you to allow us to stop doing other things you've directed us to do. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So that would be helpful to understand that. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You have a question then, Morrow?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I would also say I don't have any questions at all about you're not having additional capacity, knowing a little bit about your staffing and the workload and all the things that are asked of you. But I do wonder if sort of that model has limitations, and we can think about all of the cool stuff we can do now with automation and AI. Like, if there's a way to automate this so you don't need as many people, you know, find some teenager and ask them for a proposal because, you know, they the business world, one of the big themes this year is those who don't automate are gonna go out of business because there are so many ways that things can be automated now without requiring adding new people are expensive and hard to find in all the other things we know about humans.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: To clarify, you probably mentioned this, can you clarify that, what extra data this would get us? You mentioned the biofuels, but you also mentioned your increased data from tax. So specifically, what what data is this gonna get us that we don't have now?

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: It would have us build relationships with individual suppliers. What we get from taxes sort of a a lump. Right? So many gallons of kerosene, so many gallons of propane, so many gallons of heating fuel, number two. We we don't know who provided those things. Right? And that's intentional to protect what they see as confidential information. But I don't know what came from Irving versus White versus Borns. And if we are ultimately intending to develop a regulatory framework on suppliers, we need that kind of granular information. So in addition to the biofuels piece, some of the stationary sources that Jane and her team are continuing to wrestle with, really the answer is about building that record with individual suppliers as opposed to just statewide consumption patterns.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: So it's not actually greenhouse gas emissions data. It's it's data on that sources.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: It's source and tying buckets of greenhouse gas emissions data to individual suppliers.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Okay. And the biofuel. And as there was there there, you've had you said

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Stationary sources is a piece we're still digging into whether or not that should be part of this framework, but that isn't something that we currently receive information.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: And we'll give you an example of this station where we're talking about McNeil.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Well, global foundries. Places with their own generation capacity.

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: And different different emissions. Emissions that don't come from fossil fuels. They come from process emissions. Right. Yeah. Yeah. There's something else to say, but it left. So oh, I came back. The comment I was just gonna make just to be strict and clear clear on the record is that these fuel dealers will be still reporting fuel, like, sources, not asked to calculate their emissions. And that is something that is had been talked about at the climate council at the public meeting, creating concern that we would be creating a burden on fuel dealers to actually calculate their emissions. That is not we're not asking them to report anything other than they already know their their the amount of fuel, the volumes they have, and we will do the calculation.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's actually really helpful. I forgot. You did mention that earlier. That's, I think, really important. Yes. When we talk about, you know, burden. Yes. We're asking them to report sales volume, which I can only assume is not difficult. Correct.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Foundational to their business. I I would hope so. Yeah. Yeah. Well, so

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: if tax is collecting all this data, they just don't wanna release the the big diesel. Fuel dealer for obvious reasons. But this would get that data. I mean, couldn't we just have them have the fuel dealers allow tax to give you that data and not create a whole new

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Would encourage you to hear from the tax department. I

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: Our experience has been they have a lot of concerns over that sort of approach, and it's not specific to this sector of the economy. It's that it could throw open doors that that they have worked very hard to have remain closed. It's essentially, in their view, Mission Creek to why they collect that information, and that's the throwing the doors open around data collection. And so we did run by our reporting memo that we provided to the legislature with both tax and the DMV prior to submitting it to ensure they would support a stand alone program rather than a harmonization program, and they were supported with our recommendation. But they were more than happy to speak to that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rutland and Southworth or the other raters?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I've already told, Lenny. So first.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: In other words, they feel that it may be proprietary information.

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Think it it sort of I would say it's more like personally identifiable information, but business information.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah. And

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I was just gonna ask. It sounds like you will have you will collect all the info that tax collects. They know who the individuals are and the quantities. You'll know who the individuals are and the quantities. Could you collect all that information and they get it from you instead of collecting it twice?

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: So that was that's the idea of reverse harmonization. It's something that's out there. I think it it's complicated.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: You said you looked at it and it's gonna

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: Well, we I wouldn't say we've taken it off the table, but it it isn't something we're prepared to recommend out of

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: the gate. Got it. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Rutland? Just curious, in other states, is the Climate Action Office funded differently? Like, it funded the way

[Jane Loserczak (Climate Action Office, ANR)]: the Public Service Department's funded here? It it varies state to state. I have known my relationships with my counterparts in other states are largely through the US Climate Alliance. In other states, there are oftentimes climate advisers directly to the governors. Our governor chooses to use his cabinet members as advisers and policy experts, and our secretary, along with the commissioner of public service department and others who have expertise, serve in that function. We don't have those, like, policy advisers per se. And then climate offices could and and this was something and I'd be happy to find the recommendation and the memo that was used to stand up the climate office, but there was a lot of discussion about where our climate office should sit in Vermont. Should it sit in the agency of administration as one example in order to influence policy and decisions across all agencies? And in the end, because we already had the Global Warming Solutions Act, which gave our secretary unique authority around climate and the sort of box stops with our agency around meeting our emissions reductions targets and rule making, the decision was put forward to recommend the climate office sitting within the Agency of Natural Resources. And as I think I've mentioned in the past, we have an interagency advisory board that is stood up by delegates from all the other agencies. And our work really is to coordinate and amplify climate solutions across state government, and we work really closely with our other partners to do so. But, yeah, the the funding model can be different, I'm sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I know I know we have more to talk about, but our next witness is here. And I I do wanna give folks our typical five minute break just before we hear. Is that okay, Jared?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, great. So thank you so much for that great conversation. I

[Julie Moore (Secretary of Natural Resources, ANR)]: think we can go off live.