Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. All right. Welcome back, everybody, to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. Is 1PM on February 4, and we are here continuing to take testimony on H. Spot seven fifty three, an act relating to utility service disconnections and ratepayer protections. I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from St. Johnsbury. Richard Bailey from Mobile two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Christopher Howland, Rutland four.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara Torre, Washington two.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And here with us, Charlotte May's intern. Great.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Dylan Dylan's with you, Rina, Public Affairs.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And you're representing who today, Dylan?

[Attorney Jim Dumont]: Green Mountain and VGS.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Green Mountain Power and VGS.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Dana Lee Perry with the group.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Super. You should always be asking me that too. Alrighty.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think we can turn it over to our witnesses. If you

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: could

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: identify yourself for the record, and we're anxious to hear your testimony.

[Earl Hatley]: So should I just start? Or

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Earl, just introduce yourself.

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

[Earl Hatley]: I'm first of all, I'm Earl Hatley. I'm an enrolled citizen of of a Yankee nation of the here in Vermont with Shawnee and Cherokee heritage. I live in West Hartford, Vermont. I'm originally from Oklahoma as you can probably tell by my voice. I've been in Vermont for about eight years now here in Queechee in West Hartford area. I own a home in West Hartford, New. I served as Grand Riverkeeper for eighteen years back in Oklahoma. I'm president of Otakuchi Water Protectors Association here in Vermont and serve on several boards such as building a local economy bail, rural Vermont, White River Land Collaborative, among others. You can see that in what I sent you. I I don't wanna take up too much time. The reason well, first of all, I wanna thank you for considering this bill, seven fifty three. It is one of the most important ones for my work within Abenaki Nation and the Environmental Justice Steering Committee that I serve on. Just transition has been the focus of my profession as environmental community organizer and tribal consultant for thirty five plus years. Climate change and a just transition are the key focus for me. And just transition takes two forms for my work, and that is being a tribal consultant and working with tribes all across Turtle Island, what we now call North America. I'm finding we're finding based on information that we get from industry and what we've seen from the previous federal administrations and and what we see now is a rush to mining on Indian lands across Turtle Island. Most of our tribes well, research that we found and that is provided industry also shows that 70 to 97% of the minerals needed for wind, solar, and battery storage are found on native reservations and within 35 miles of our reservations and in our sacred sites and public lands. We're asking that the states and federal government minimize the need by mining through energy use reduction, conservation of natural resources, and recycling or a circular economy to recycle these minerals from the equipment that they come out of so that we we can reuse that and and minimize the the need for mining. And this would help provide a a more just transition for Native Americans as a result because we're all already wallowing in the contamination from mine sites that are still ongoing or that are now abandoned. And so the this most of our our tribes located on reservations also don't benefit from the energy that's generated from the minerals that are mined. And so they get the pollution without the resource. And a lot of them struggle for electricity and have to travel for water. So that's just transition number one. Number two, here in Vermont, A lot of folks, I guess everyone, most everyone wants to transition away from fossil fuels and onto wind, solar, and battery storage, but that's very difficult for us to do because of the financing involved. One of the things that we're asking for is that there be a a maximum percentage of their income that is paid toward their utilities and not exceed that. In some states in New England, 6% or 10%, I think Jen will will be testifying about that in our indigenous and BIPOC communities. This is very important because, you know, that after spending all the money for the transition, then where are they at that point? If if it's 50% of their income is is for the electricity, then, they're we're just gonna be propagating more poverty plus they'll be in debt and and that's my situation. I'm a service connected disabled veteran. My only source of income is VA and and Social Security disability. I finally was able to find a fixer upper house for myself that I bought in a rural area here in West Hartford. It was the only thing I could afford the first you know? And it really needs a lot of work. And so what I'm facing is 50 to $60,000 to get this place weatherized and and electric upgrades and everything necessary in order to get heat pumps and and electric appliances and and and get weatherization, new windows, siding, need siding on the outside of the inner roof. So I I filled out the application, went through the process with the state of Vermont to get assistance with all of this upgrade and was turned down by efficiency Vermont because I make $5,000 annually above their cutoff. So I'm having to pay for all of it myself without an opportunity for low interest loan, without anything. I say that because there's a lot of folks that I work with through the Environmental Justice Network and and other BIPOC groups and and, Abenaki Nation Coalition, finding folks that are worse off than me, way worse off than me. And so I'm just illustrating the struggle to even get to a point where we see how much our electric rates are gonna be. So I wanted you to have that background, knowing that, yeah, we could maybe pass this bill and we we could get some relief, and that's wonderful. And I fully support it, but there's a lot more that needs to be done. We lost the help from the feds. So that's, kind of the mess that that we're struggling with. And so I I really appreciate, the opportunity to speak, to visit with all of you, and I appreciate, especially, your consideration of passing this bill to help low income and and middle income Vermonters modernize and and, electrify and and, reduce the need for fossil fuels. Kasuiulini, thank you very much.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you, mister Hatley. And I I think it's always really helpful to hear from Vermonters who can provide kind of a broader context for energy burden and the struggles that a lot of Vermonters are having in weatherizing their homes and paying their utility bills. And so I I appreciate your testimony. And what I heard you say was that, sounds like the communities you represent support this bill and see it as a good first step that is not going far enough?

[Earl Hatley]: Yeah. I'm here speaking for myself, but you're actually right. All of those are supporting this.

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

[Earl Hatley]: Thank you.

[Attorney Jim Dumont]: I'll go next. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Jim Dumont. I have a law office in Bristol. Thank you for inviting me to provide testimony about 8753. I've been working on energy equity issues in Vermont on behalf of clients and as a private citizen for about two two decades. I'm here today strictly as a private citizen. I represent no one. I have no clients involved. I've been involved in this issue because, frankly, it really needs help, it needs work, and I have some experience I can bring to bear to help with the issue. The big picture lesson that I've learned over the last twenty years is that without legislative directives, Vermont Public Utility Commission is very unlikely to engage in any meaningful reforms to better protect vulnerable Vermantras. It's not going to happen. One can debate whether the reasons for that are legal, political, or something else. Whatever it whatever its cause, that inertia is a reality. The recent report from the PUC in response to act one forty two is a case in point. The states of New England have the highest energy burden in the country, And Vermont has the weakest protections for low income ratepayers of any New England state. Every other state does significantly better in protecting low income ratepayers than Vermont does. The number of disconnections in Vermont is rising. The Department of Public Service noted this rise in its submission to the PUC in preparing the Act 142 report. The DPS submitted to the PUC that this is a problem that we need to investigate. The PUC's act 142 report, however, concluded that other ratepayers should not be asked to subsidize low income from operatepayers anymore than they do now despite the experience of other states in New England that have programs such as tiered discount programs. I'm gonna depart from my written statement right now to respond to what mister Hatley just say said about the 6% and the 10%. In other states in New England and across the country, the states have adopted programs such as a tiered discount program that are designed so that no family spends more than either 6% or 10% of their household income per month on energy. So, the tier discount program such as, Connecticut is now implementing does that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mister Dumont?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Question about that. Other states that do a tiered discount program, and I know that this bill does not contemplate the broader question of rate design or rate redesign in Vermont. But I do have a question about the tiered discount program. Does that phase out in a particular income level or what does that look like?

[Attorney Jim Dumont]: Sure. A tiered discount program is a program that has very small or light administrative burden as compared to say what Ohio does, which is a percentage of income payment plan. Ohio looks at each individual household and says the amount you pay for electricity shall be no more than x percent. But that is fairly much places of a substantial burden on whether it's the state agency or the utility to figure that out for each individual rate payer. So instead, what many states have done is they adopt what's known as a tier discount program. And it it's sort of like an income tax. You have brackets. If you're in, say, 100 to a 150% of FPL, this is what you your discount is. If you're a 150% to 200% of FPL, this is your discount. 200% to 300%, this is your discount. So it's relatively easy to administer at low cost. I don't know if

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Rex Sibilia. Thanks. Mister Dumont, you talked about, Vermont having the weakest protections for, ratepayers. And I'm just wondering if you have looked at the relationship to that and the fact that Vermont is fully regulated, unlike, say, Connecticut, which is not fully regulated. And so their utilities have, a lot more leeway in terms of what they're charging, than Vermont. Vermont regularly, is the has the lowest rates in New England. So I wonder if you've looked at any relationship, or thought about that in terms of the weakest protections, but the lowest rates.

[Attorney Jim Dumont]: With the assistance of a Vermont law and graduate school intern, we looked we spent the summer looking at the programs in other states, particularly in New England. And the fact that you've mentioned did not seem to be relevant to addressing the burden or how each state's utility commission is responding to it.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So did you look at how rates are regulated in each of these states?

[Attorney Jim Dumont]: Not in particular. No.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I mean, that's so that's what I'm pointing to. I think you are looking for relief from rates, which I appreciate. But I think the fact what I'm trying to point you to is that Vermont's rates are already much more heavily regulated than our neighbors and lower. And so these other states that have higher rates and are less regulated, it doesn't surprise me that they would have stronger protections for their ratepayers.

[Attorney Jim Dumont]: Well, pardon me. I don't quite follow the thread because these other rate programs are aimed at capping the amount of income, a disposable income that is spent on electricity. So whether the rates are set the same as the process in Vermont or whether they're higher or lower than Vermont, what they're looking at is how much is the customer paying. And that's what these these that's what these programs address.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I understand. I I was commenting on noting that we have the lowest, weakest protections and just commenting on the difference between us

[Attorney Jim Dumont]: and others. And I'm I'm sure that's, very relevant. But on the other side, I would say it seems that Vermont has the oldest housing stock of all the New England states. And so people are using more energy in Vermont. So there are many factors that go into it.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And, if I might, one

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: more question.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. You talked about the rising, and I think we're gonna have the PUC in in the department. Oh, yes. We're good. Yes. So just in terms of the rising disconnections, do you have the data on that? Have you looked at, like, post COVID and pre COVID and where we are in relation to all of that?

[Attorney Jim Dumont]: Yes. I can get that for you. The Department of Public Service came up with assembled the data, and submitted it to the PUC. It's in the department's report to the PUC.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. And you've seen that? Yes. And so are we higher or lower than pre COVID in terms of disconnections?

[Attorney Jim Dumont]: I don't recall the answers yet.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I can look that up really

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, and the department is Yeah. Let's let's go straight to the source and get that info from the department. Okay. On we go. Thank you. Not thank you. We're done. Back to your testimony. Thank you.

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

[Attorney Jim Dumont]: So before we started talking about tiered discount programs, I was mentioning the department's recommendation to the commission. And the commission's report that I think you all have rejected the department's recommendation to investigate how to address this problem. Instead, the report states that it basically that if there's to be any more help for low income from our rate payers, the legislature should appropriate funds to subsidize their rates. We all know that this is not going to happen. The PUC report did not address two substantial reforms that will not impose costs on other rate payers. I should point out that it was the concern about imposing costs on other rate payers that the PUC was most concerned about. But there are there are ways to better protect low income from monitors than just having a cross subsidy from other rate payers. One of them is overhauling the rules governing disconnections. Attorney Karen Lesson, who's with us from the National Consumer Law Center, will address that in detail. I've also posted, thanks to your, committees staff, a 2023 report, on what all the states are doing and and making just as in how to better protect low income rate payers from disconnections. They have suggestions in the report that are not incorporated into h seven fifty three, such as, stating that families with small children below a certain age will not be disconnected, which some states do, but that's not in a seven fifty three. The other reform has has two report has two parts. The other form that the PUC has not addressed has two parts, but both neither of these raise costs for the ratepayers. Every every utility in Vermont has a service quality and reliability plan. Whether you're a municipal or you're a coop or an IOU, you have an SQRP. These are submitted to and approved of by the commission. These generally deal with subjects like waiting time when you call the office or the number of outages, that kind of thing. H seven fifty three proposes to add to that list. It proposes that to add to the list by including in each SQRP whether that service territory whether in that service territory, disconnections can be reduced, and if so, how to do so. The second part applies only to investor owned utilities. One IOU provides service to about three quarters of Vermonters as you all know. That utility has an alternative regulation plan. If you've ever read Green Mountain Paris alternative regulation plan, you will never forget it because it's massive, complicated, imposing. The alt red plan makes the in theory, every alt red plan makes the rate setting process smoother for utilities, and in theory, it incentivizes utilities to reduce costs and emissions. H seventy seven fifty three proposes to add reduction in the number of disconnections to list of goals that are incentivized by an alt red plan. That is already the law in Illinois. Their alt red plans already include that. Attorney lesson will address that as well. Again, this costs other rate payers nothing. But if, for example, an IOU doesn't make progress in reducing this disconnections, the rate of return allowed to that IOU can be reduced. It it can really be effective and it's nothing that other rate payers have to pay for, and that is an h seven fifty three. To understand the need for legislative action, I wanna bring to your attention just some of the data that's available. In one winter month last year of 2025, one out of every six Green Mountain Power customers received notice of disconnection. One out of six. Most ratepayers took whatever drastic steps they could to avoid disconnection. She's in Vermont. We found these typically include pleading for help from local churches and you're going to hear from interfaith, light, and power later this week on the people that come to them desperate for help. Help from community action agencies. We had community action agencies testified to the commission about, the tremendous need that they're trying to meet. Or the Vermont Parent Child Center if there's a child in the household who's at a parent child center, I believe you're going hear from the director of Vermont Parent Child Center later this week about the tremendous need that they see and why they pay to keep people from being disconnected or to reconnect them because having a parent child center isn't going to do much good if there's no electricity in the home. Another way that Vermonters keep from getting disconnected is is they cut back on food and medicine. The national data is really solid that people cut back on food and medicine to keep the lights on. In Vermont, according to the data, hundreds of families had their electric service cut off in 2025 by GMP because they owed $300 or less. All of this data I'm referring to comes from GMP's reports to the PUC. This is true even though GMP has an energy assistance program or EAP. Unlike states such as New Hampshire and Connecticut, GMP provides only a 25% discount, which does little to address the need. The department hired a consultant in 2018 to study Green Mountain Power's EAP, and the report concluded that only about 30% of eligible customers use the EAP, and it appears that one reason for that is the discount is just too small. It's small compared to what other states do like New Hampshire. Note that the number of disconnections each year by GMP is the same now as it was before Green Mountain Power adopted its EAP. We are not making progress. H753 is an important step in the right direction. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Attorney Musan. Did I pronounce your name properly?

[Attorney Karen Lussen (National Consumer Law Center)]: It's actually Lussen.

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

[Attorney Karen Lussen (National Consumer Law Center)]: That's all right. Good afternoon. My name again is Karen Lussen, and I'm a senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, where I focus on energy and utility matters that affect consumers and appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today in support of House Bill seven fifty three. As the other speakers today have indicated, taking action to protect continued access to essential utility services on behalf of a state's most vulnerable customers grows more critical by the day. Households across the financial spectrum, but in particular, households with low income, face daily affordability challenges that often require difficult choices as to what to forego, including food, prescription drugs, and other life essentials. Maintaining the uninterrupted access to essential utility service is vital to protect the health, safety, and economic viability of households throughout Vermont and indeed in all the states. House Bill seven fifty three, otherwise known as the Vermont Equity Law, if enacted, would trigger important first steps to ensuring the continued access to essential gas, electric, and water service for the state's medically vulnerable and financially struggling customers in three important ways. First, House Bill seven fifty three improves existing inadequate serious illness protections against utility disconnections. For medically vulnerable populations, a disconnection can be the difference between life and death. House Bill seven fifty three would allow for physicians and importantly, other licensed healthcare providers to certify that a resident must remain connected or be reconnected to essential electric, gas or water service in order to avoid suffering an immediate and serious health hazard. Currently, Vermont administrative code protections are inadequate. Under rule 3.301 capital G, physicians are listed as the only healthcare provider that can issue protection certificates. The expansion of those permitted to certify serious illness or vulnerabilities to licensed health care providers beyond only physicians is critical to allowing access to this important protection. In addition, the current rule provides that certificates are valid for only thirty days or the duration of the haver hazard, whichever is less with renewal being permitted only once. Use of a physician certificate by a customer to prevent disconnection or to trigger a reconnection is limited to two consecutive 30 periods and must not exceed three thirty day periods in any calendar year under current rules. House Bill seven fifty three corrects those deficiencies and recognizes that medical protection certificates should correlate with the health needs of the individual, not a random expiration date that's untethered to a person's health challenge. These amendments to the current PUC rule should be enacted to protect medically vulnerable customers. The second important protection that House Bill seven fifty three offers is a critical first step in protecting vulnerable Vermont residents from disconnection during, quote, extreme heat, the definition of which would be defined by the commission. Over the last several years, punishing heat waves have occurred across the planet, and indeed, heat and other climate change impacts are affecting communities throughout The US. Extreme heat is the leading cause of weather related deaths according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. The frequency, duration and intensity of extreme heat waves has significantly increased over the past several decades as reported by the EPA. The public health consequences of exposure to extreme heat require specific action by policymakers and regulators to address the unaffordability of and need for continued access to essential utility services, particularly for vulnerable populations at increased risk of heat stroke and even death during intense heat. Currently, the state of Vermont includes no protection from disconnections relative to seasonal extreme heat occurrences. At a minimum, protecting customers from disconnection during extreme heat is an important first step in protecting the health and welfare of Vermont residents during these extreme weather events, akin to cold weather disconnection protections during winter months that exist in most states. House Bill seven fifty three constitutes that critical initial movement toward protecting Vermont's physically and financially vulnerable residents during extreme heat weather events. The phenomenon of extreme heat tied to climate change highlights the importance of uninterrupted access to essential utility service, particularly when increased electricity usage for necessary cooling is needed to remain safe. Finally, the third important customer protection included in House Bill seven fifty three would create a new rule requiring gas, electric, and water utilities to file new plans to significantly reduce residential disconnections. House Bill seven fifty three would require these utilities to submit a quote service quality and reliability plan, end quote, for commission approval that strategically achieves, quote, the lowest prudently feasible number of monthly and annual involuntary residential service disconnections within require importantly a utility operating under alternative regulation to include a required plan for reducing disconnections as part of that reward risk structure. This shift towards performance based regulation comes as policy makers in a growing number of states seek to provide new incentives or penalties for regulated utilities to increase affordability of rates and access to renewable energy, reduce emissions and peak energy load, improve customer service, and achieve other policy goals. In the state of Illinois, where I reside, the Illinois Commerce Commission, which regulates the state's utilities, approved in 2023 a performance based affordability metric that either rewards or penalizes our two major electric utilities for achievement of a 10% annual reduction in disconnections for the top 20 ZIP codes with the highest disconnection rates over the designated 2024 through 2027 time period. The metric proposed by the National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low income client in that litigation has the potential to reduce electricity disconnections in some of the most economically disadvantaged Illinois communities by 34% or more over that 2024 through 2027 time period. And the commission is set to issue an order any week now on a renewal of that metric for these utilities. Importantly, the utilities is part of the approved metric committed to not achieve this metric by simply allowing arrearages in the top 20 ZIP codes to grow as a result of the reduction in disconnections, narrowly focusing its efforts on reducing disconnections in a select few zip codes or strategically timing disconnections for maximum company benefit. Instead, they committed to actively take other measures, such as improved outreach to customers whose arrearage levels indicate that they are struggling to afford essential utility service in order to connect those customers with financial assistance and to actively explore and adopt other measures that will approve long term affordability of electric electricity bills for these customers. Requiring utilities to reduce disconnections is a win win for both utilities and their customers. And that's the case because all customers pay for uncollected bills, otherwise known as bad debt, in utility rates. Utilities, of course, have no ability to collect revenue from households that have been shut off from essential utility service. It's in their interest as monopoly service for that providers to assist customers in making bills more affordable. Customers who struggle to afford utility bills benefit too when they can be connected with financial assistance programs that make monthly utility bills more affordable. And a critical next step for the state beyond House Bill seven fifty three, as other speakers today have referenced, would be to create more robust discounts for the state's financially struggling low income households. Illinois and other states have done just that in approving tiered discount rates tied, as others have mentioned, to customer income or percentage of income payment plans, otherwise known as PIPs, that ensure households pay no more than a maximum of 3% or less of monthly income toward an electric or gas utility bill. In sum, measuring and reducing the rate of disconnections in communities hardest hit by utility disconnection policies is an important goal and outcome in the ongoing effort to improve uninterrupted access to essential utility service and the affordability of utility rates for customers who struggle financially each month. Passage of House Bill seven fifty three is an important first step for establishing protections from disconnections of essential utility service in this ongoing battle to ensure that monopoly utilities treat all customers regardless of income with dignity and equity. And thank you again for allowing me to speak today.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you. I believe we have five minutes. I believe we have a question from representative Sibilia.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. And I'm so sorry. I hope I say this correctly. Thank you for your testimony this last time.

[Attorney Karen Lussen (National Consumer Law Center)]: That's right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, thank you, I'm sorry. I planted the wrong

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Jeez. Miss, am definitely on board with the concept. Where I keep getting hung up is this the comparisons that we're making. Like, Connecticut, I know that Illinois is a largely deregulated state, which is different than Vermont, which is which our rates are heavily regulated and our utilities are heavily regulated. And so I just I I'm really intellectually curious if any of you have looked at that and have any analysis, like, to help us understand how that equates to the proposals or to the number of discontics. Maybe that language should not work. So, I'm getting hung up because we're in very different regulatory frames, so I'm needing something to help me connect. Same same, and I'm not seeing same same.

[Earl Hatley]: May I just start by saying that regardless of all of that, it's the rate that we're paying that is would be the problem in the amount of disconnections that are serious as James pointed out for us in the indigenous bipoc communities. All of that said, the bottom line is what are we paying and can we afford it? And is it causing the issues that, Karen, illustrated? That's the point.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. And I would agree with you, but I'm not sure that we have identified the right problem to solve. Right? So the PUC it PUC may be right that perhaps the thing to do is for the the general assembly to appropriate funds. I'm not sure. Like, I really wanna understand this problem. I'd like to see it. You you all are speaking about places that are regulated differently, so I just would like to understand, like, an apples to apples to see if I agree that this is the right way to solve the problem that I agree with.

[Attorney Karen Lussen (National Consumer Law Center)]: So can I just clarify your question? So what I hear you saying is that some states have deregulated the energy supply?

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

[Attorney Karen Lussen (National Consumer Law Center)]: What I can tell you is that really doesn't matter. And I think that's what Mr. Hatley was getting at. In Illinois, yes, our energy supply is deregulated. That's about 50% of the bill. In other states, it's approximately, well, I don't know what the latest number is in terms of the number of states It's it's that are that are have deregulated energy supply. What's important is the whole bill. So the ICC, where I reside, the Illinois Commerce Commission cannot control the price of energy supply to your point, because you're a fully, a state that includes both the delivery and supply in terms of regulation, if I'm getting that correct. But in in Illinois and these other states, they have applied, these discounts, whether it be tiered rate discount or a PIP to the whole bill. The whole bill is what's important. You have the ability as policymakers to, you you know, give the either give the commission the authority to do that. I would say it's arguably easier in your state to do that because you have a fully regulated utility structure. And and so, again, the authority is there. If, you know, if I we have argued that even without statutory direction, commissions across the country have the ability to implement discount rates and pips. Understandably, commissions and utilities have argued it needs to be that permission needs to be granted in the statute. If that is the case, you do have the ability to do that with policy direction to the commission to implement these kinds of discounts. And I can tell you, they make a world of difference to customers who are financially struggling. For exam in the city of Chicago, we had now have peep tiered discount rates. So a customer we have many customers whose income falls between 050% of federal poverty level. They're now receiving an over 80% discount on their bills. It's a game changer. The direct the the deputy director of our state agency that oversees our LIHEAP program calls these discount rates game changers because they really make a difference in the lives of people that have zero to little discretionary income each month to afford essential utility service. As we know, anyone that's under has experienced an outage due to reliability or disconnection for financial reasons knows that the house is uninhabitable and presents public safety dangers for those inhabitants if there is no connection to essential utility service.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I cannot take it

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: from the National Institute. Thank you. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: are you gonna ask them?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. I was gonna thank them.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Oh, ahead. Go Yep.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I it's very hot in this room. We're we're getting baked by the sun, and also we don't have a very good ventilation system. So half of us are falling asleep. I'm not half. So I may have missed this, but I wanted to ask you, especially Karen or miss about so these discount programs are paid for by the other ratepayers presumably. Is that correct?

[Attorney Karen Lussen (National Consumer Law Center)]: That's correct. The people that benefit from them. Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Including people that benefit from them. Can you give us a sense of scale of the impact on general rates? So

[Attorney Karen Lussen (National Consumer Law Center)]: similar to LIHEAP enrollment, the the number of customers that participate in the programs is lower than the eligible population. And that happens consistently across the country with LIHEAP participation. But I can tell you, for example, I'm involved in litigation right now involving the downstate electric utility that serves Central And Southern Illinois. And my recollection, is that right now, the the cost of that program is, about, I'm sorry. It's the electric gas program. The the cost of that program is around $24,000,000. And those costs are shared, and this is important to note, among all rate classes, residential, small and large commercial and industrial.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. But what I was asking actually was to see percent impact on the rates, on the standard rates that everyone else is Significantly

[Attorney Karen Lussen (National Consumer Law Center)]: less than 5%. We're talking surcharges. So in the Amarin gas instance, the surcharge for the average or the residential customer is, I believe, a dollar $21 per month.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. That's what I was asking.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you for that. We really appreciate your time and your testimony. We're always a committee that likes to range widely across the Savannah. I think interesting conversation about tier discount rates and broader changes that this bill is actually not contemplating. We're focused on three fairly targeted proposals around rulemaking specific to disconnections. Just a reminder to bring it all back in and thank you so much for your time. It's all everything all the info you provided is really helpful. And we appreciate your written testimony as well and your time in being here. Why don't we just briefly go off live and we'll just reset for a minute. We'll be back, YouTube world, in five minutes. Thank you.

[Earl Hatley]: Thank you all.