Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Are we alive?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Not yet.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okey doke.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member, Chittenden-13, Burlington)]: I believe we are, in fact.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, sometimes there's a bit of a delay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. We are live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Thank you. Alright. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Thursday and we are here today doing a walkthrough of H727, an act relating to sustainable data center deployment. So we've got forty five minutes. We are gonna do an intro of the bill from the bill sponsor and a walk through with Ledge Council. So I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from St. Johnsbury. Richard Bailey, Lamoille too. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia too. Christopher Howland, Rutland four. Dara Torre, Washington too.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Laura Sibilia, Windham too. Great. And who's joining us in the room?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Dylan speaking our board chair.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Maria Royal with Council. Yes.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member, Chittenden-13, Burlington)]: Dana Morrow with the class of.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Super. Brad Tatro with representative from the house at house Services.

[Nathaniel Eisen (Journalist)]: I'm Nathaniel Eisen, journalist.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Alright. Thanks, everybody, for the record. Repsibilia.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: Gonna be brief so we can hear from Maria about technical aspects. Thank you all. I want to tell you why what prompted me to introduce this bill.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: You probably have picked up on

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: some of it in my comments. But across the country, we are seeing very rapid expansion of large scale data centers. These facilities use an extraordinary amount of electricity, water, and in many cases, they create a lot of noise that can affect nearby communities. At the same time, they do not create a lot of permanent jobs. Their primary local benefit is typically property tax revenue, which is nothing to be scoffed at. Large loads like this are now actively competing for long term power purchasing agreements with electric utilities across the country. That competition has implications for availability, price, and reliability, and especially in regions like New England where our rates are already high and infrastructure is concerned. At the same time, the federal government is moving quickly to reduce state and local interference in where and how these facilities locate. There, is an executive order and federal rules aimed at accelerating AI and data infrastructure deployment. Those efforts do appear to recognize that states and municipalities retain some authority over citing in environmental protections. But the direction, that we are headed seems pretty clear. If states do not define their own rules, decisions will increasingly be made elsewhere. Vermont is probably not likely to be an attractive place for these facilities because of the New England rates. Though ours are low in New England, New England's are the highest in the country. There are locations in Vermont where these could be sighted more easily than others. And it's easy to envision them being sighted. Not a lot,

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: but there are a few.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: So, my concern is that without a clear framework or our good understanding, we risk, uncoordinated and unmanaged sighting, similar to what we are seeing, probably not similar to what we are seeing in other parts of the country because of our regulatory frame, but we have an opportunity to really do something right and and with regard to this. So this bill is about having that conversation now before proposals arrive, not after commitments have already been made. This bill does not prohibit data centers. It does not discourage economic activity. It asks a pretty basic question. If we are going to host these types of large power intensive facilities with real impacts on electric rates, water use, land use in communities, how do we want that growth to occur, and under what conditions. This bill is intended to create clarity, and, it establishes expectations around cost, citing, and some impacts. And I will say, you know, I really appreciate that this is an emerging area. Appreciate our attorneys, you know, work with me trying to understand best practices, what we are seeing, because things are moving very quickly both at the federal level and communities. And I will note, you know, I think we've got a really good bill. It may be, it may be, maybe a big bill for Vermont. You know, I had a good conversation, a brief conversation with chair McNamara yesterday who reminded me that we have cited large loads in Vermont, like Global Foundries, and our ski areas. And so I think, we are primed for a great conversation with some good experts, including our attorney who I will now overture. Is that unless there are questions, madam chair. Is that fine? Good. K. Moving on to Thank you.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning, everyone. Maria Royal with legislative council. I'd like to share my screen. So, representative Sibilia gave a great introduction and provided the context probably better than I was planning to do. But I thought I would just kind of step back and just go over what some of the major concerns are because then as we go through the bill, it'll become a little bit more apparent where the proposals come from or why they exist. And I'll also say that many of the proposals in this bill, to a certain extent, this is a composite of a lot of ideas that have been percolating in various state legislatures. So really trying to touch on all of the things that have been considered and how they might apply in Vermont. It's great you're gonna hear from NCSL because they'll give you updated information if there are things that interest you that are not in here or things in here can be refined in any way. Because sometimes I forget to do this, I just there are some documents that are posted online that are, I think, really good resources. And I saw they've been posted. Yes, they have, which is great. So, the first one I'm gonna mention is the data center infrastructure in The United States, which is a 2025 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is part of the Department of Energy. I think it's based on 2023 data, even though it's published in 2025. I don't know if there's updated data, but what is in this document is a lot of the consumption data, water, power, kind of statistical information related to data centers that could be helpful. And then also what's posted, there's a data center demand capacity interactive document that's published by the National Renewable Energy Lab, which is part of the Department of Energy. And that is actually a great interactive document because you can look at different areas of the state. They have maps and they show what areas there are data centers, where they're being proposed to be built. And they've looked specifically at some of the infrastructure needs of data centers, power, obviously, so the transmission lines, water, access to water for cooling purposes, fiber, broadband. So are and so those are some of the things that they look at in detail. So I found that to be pretty helpful. So those are two. And then I also included Vermont's long range transmission plan, which I know you're all familiar with, but it also helps to kinda understand what the needs are and the capacity is in the on the grid currently and looking forward. I did also post the two executive orders that are related to data centers as representative Sibilia mentioned. The first order accelerating federal permitting federal permitting of data center infrastructure. So this is this was issued in 2020 July 2025, I believe, signaling the intent to have data center deployment in the state mostly focused on federal agencies and permitting and trying to speed up those processes as much as possible and also looking at federal land as possible sites for data centers. And then the other executive order ensuring a national policy framework for artificial intelligence. Couple of things to mention about that. As representatives Sibilia mentioned, there seems to be difference with related to permitting issues. You're I think you're all familiar with the order in general, maybe? No. Did hasn't come up in this committee? So this is the order where president Trump says sets up an agency to look at AI laws in in states and and seeing if they conflict with the federal policy, just artificial intelligence intelligence generally, not with respect to data centers. Then attempt to preempt state laws in order for there to be a national regulatory framework. But in talking about issues related to land use, there seems to be deference to congress to actually act if federal government wants to preempt or in some way be involved with permitting. I mentioned that because a big component, obviously, of this is the citing of data. But it just this is these are things to be aware of, what action the federal government might take with respect to data center deployment, etcetera. So I think that's everything. I just wanted to make sure you knew that those documents were there. There's one other one, but I'll mention that in the context of what we're going through. So, that being said, just a couple things about data centers in general. They're basically large AI data centers or large warehouses with computer servers in them. And the GPU, rapid processing units in there require a tremendous amount of power to operate. They produce a lot of heat, which is why there is the need for water for cooling purposes, and they also usually take up a sizable amount of land. And so these are the big AI data centers. It's the way it's defined here is they use it at least or have the capacity to use at least 20 megawatts of power. Just for comparison, Vermont has some traditional data centers. I'm not exactly sure how many. I did try to figure that out between two and four. I think they're all in Chittenden County. But so I know you heard from representative Priestly about cloud computing. These are the traditional data centers that basically do a lot of the data storage and cloud computing, provide the cloud computing services. All of your data or your software might be housed on this infrastructure so you don't have to have the servers or the capacity on your own personal devices. Right? So these are traditional data centers that are providing these services. And I believe combined, in Vermont, the data centers use about point five megawatts of power currently. So these are just the traditional data centers that are out there operating and the what's being looked at here are data centers capable of power of 20 megawatts. So big difference. And I just wanted to say that, you know, to the extent there might be concerns about the traditional data center and whether they fall within this. So sorry. That went on a lot longer than I thought it was going to. So let's just get right to the bill. And I'll just tell you what's in here. So the first section, we'll go through the purpose section, but the then we're gonna talk about tariffs or rates that would be applicable to these data centers. The next section has to do with siting. What are the criteria for where they're located? And then the following section has to do with more demand side management of how should data centers what what responsibility could they have on-site to manage their power needs? Do they have generation facilities on-site? What kind of energy efficiency standards might they use? All things related to their use of power and how that can be more efficient and optimized. And then finally, a reporting disclosure with any data centers to make sure that you're aware of the consumption data, how much power are these and what are these. So, that's the general framework. So, we'll start with the short title. So, is a new sub chapter in chapter five, title 30. The short title is the Vermont Sustainable Data Centers Act And then the purpose section we'll just read through it then also sets the context. The purpose of this sub chapter is to establish a regulatory framework that ensures responsible growth of an essential industry in a manner that protects existing electric rate payers from unwarranted costs and promotes sustainable climate, environmental, community and equity outcomes consistent with state policies. So, we already talked about kind of what a data center is. Just, so I'm gonna flag a couple of things, policy decisions and things to talk about. So, in looking at what other states have done in this realm, what you sent the set the power threshold at, 20 seems to be the kind of the minimum, I would say. I haven't found many states that are regulating, you know, the AI data centers. Less than 20 megawatts of power, a lot of them are at a 100, but that's just the threshold for you to think about. Then, there's a So a data center needs a facility that uses or is able to use 20 megawatts or more of power and is engaged in providing data processing, hosting, and related services as described in the North American Industry Classification System. And I did post that document as well, but this is basically a governmental publication and it classifies all business categories, gives them a six digit classification number. It's used for market analysis and also for government oversight regulation based on business categories. So it's an easy way of talking about different businesses. And so, this one, six digit number here pertains to computer processing, data storage, that kind thing. So, that's why that's referenced here. The definition of facility, basically all the buildings and equipment, structures and everything that's located on the data center or as part of the data center facility.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I always have to try to picture things. And so if Google is right, 20 megawatts or more is like a 100,000 to a 150,000 square feet size wise. Does that sound about right?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That sounds about right. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm just trying get a picture of

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: it. Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And the land for siding, you know, I I just found a range, 10 to 40 acres. Oh, that's even more helpful. Square acres. Yeah. So building a 140 acres. Okay. Yeah. 100,000 square feet up to a million square feet. Two and

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: a half large supermarkets. Right. Okay.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: I believe we can ask this question. I I believe what I was told that Global Foundries is 50. Is how much? 50.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: 50.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. I actually did quickly try to confirm that, and I wasn't sure if it was accurate. So that's that would be very helpful probably to look at how global foundries is regulated because they're a little they're different. That's a large industrial user. I believe they were also given, a CPG to actually act as their own electric utility. Yeah. And they purchase their own power, which could be a model that works here too.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Do we have a sense on 20 megawatts power is the equivalent of how many homes on average a year that that would power?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: 15,000. 15,000. Power 15,000 homes household. And in terms of the water, consumption for cooling the servers, about 1,000,000 gallons per day, which is roughly equivalent to what 3,000 to 4,000 US households would use. So, as I mentioned, the first substantive section concerns tariffs that would be applicable to data centers. We'll just read through it once. I think it's become self evident. So for the purpose of ensuring just and reasonable rates for all rate payer classes and mitigating the risk of financial exposure to electric distribution companies and their existing rate takers, the PUC shall establish a separate ratepayer class and tariff schedule applicable to data centers and in addition shall require specific provisions in any contract for electric service entered into by distribution utility and the data center. And then those terms are specified in subsection C. But with respect to the tariff and the rate class, I'm on page three subsection d. The commission shall develop a general tariff with standardized structures applicable to all electric distribution companies with respect to the data center rate, day, or class. And these requirements shall be reflected in each company's individual tariff filings. And then we'll go through what's required to be in the the standardized structures. This reminded me a lot of, I I believe, how electric vehicle charging stations are treated. They're almost their own rate payer class, but that might be an interesting model to just hear more about. But there are some very specific concerns with data centers, mostly that has to do with this increase in demand and potential investment in infrastructure, upgrading the grid, ensuring that those costs aren't passed on to all rate payers. That's the affordability issue has a big a big concern in other states. And then also, if there are big projects, transmission upgrade, that the data center doesn't leave the state, not actually buy the power terminated services, and those will be stranded costs again passed on a rate there. So, we'll go we'll go through this and you'll see how those are those issues are identified here. So the structures shall, one, include a method for allocating costs that is equal or proportional to the cost of providing electric service to the data center. Provide for equitable contributions to the efficiency, reliability, and resiliency of the electric electricity network. Three, mitigate the risk of other repair classes paying unwarranted costs, including any electric generation, distribution, and transmission infrastructure costs incurred solely to meet the load requirements of the data center, promote or at a minimum not impede in any way an electric company's ability to meet renewable electricity targets pursuant to the renewable energy standard. Reflect the mandatory contractual provisions that we're going to look at in subsection c. Six, meet any other conditions the Commission may require consistent with the purpose of this section and the public interest. So then looking at the specific contract that might be entered into between the electric company distribution utility and the data center to ensure that those terms, number one, specify the duration of the contract, which shall not be less than ten years. Again, this is getting that make sure they're around buying the power that was intended to be bought and pencil potential upgrades made for. Two, specify the date or the estimated date that the electric company will begin to provide electric service to the data center. Three, obligate the data center to pay a minimum amount or percentage based on the data center's projected electricity usage for the duration of the contract. Include a reasonable charge for excess demand. Five, include a collateral requirement sufficient to mitigate the risk of stranded costs. And six, meet any other terms or conditions required by the commission that are consistent with this section.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: Yeah. And five is really around decommission. Trusted bonding. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: She should say

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: They're trying to address all the concerns about if they leave the state, if they terminate early, if they want to decommission the facility, ensuring that those costs are not passed on to Vermont ratepayers or taxpayers. Should the word decommissioning be included here as to the explicit?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Or would that narrow it unnecessarily?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: You could say including potential decommissioning. Think that's a good idea. Yep. So then we'll move on to the citing section. That's appropriate. And I'll just say I know that this committee is very familiar with particularly two forty eight a citing, telecom citing, let's say. I'm not familiar with that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: If we could have a review of that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So what yes. Good. Yeah. Let's do a walk through.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Jake, I don't have a sense of humor, by the way. So

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I know you spent a lot of time there recently and probably some extent. I'm not sure as familiar with the two forty eight, no a, which is the CPG for new generation facilities. They're very similar in structure. These are state permits that are required, one for generation electric generation facilities projects and the other for telecom. What's here is modeled significantly after those provisions. And then a lot some criteria that are one definitely apply here and vice versa. So, trying to kinda meld them as appropriate. But I just thought that'd be helpful for you to have that context since you're already familiar. So subsection a on line 14, no person shall in any way begin site preparation for or commence construction out of a data center unless the PUC first finds that the same will promote the general good of the state and issues a CPG without effect pursuant to this section. Before issuing a CPG as required, the commission shall find that the proposed data center, including any upgrades to electric generation distribution and transmission facilities necessary to power the data center meets the following. So the criteria are, I'm on page five, line one, will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region with due consideration having been given to the recommendations of the municipal and regional planning commissions, the recommendations of the municipal legislative bodies, and the land conservation measures contained in the plan of any affected municipality. So, there are distinctions between two forty eight and two forty eight. Is one of them. I believe under two forty eight there's a substantial difference to the municipal. So, there are some things that are differences and you can consider all the available options. So, will not adversely affect the efficiency, reliability, and resilience of the electric power system. Three, will result in an economic benefit to the state and its residents. Four, will not have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water purity, the natural environment, the use of natural resources, and the public health and safety with due consideration having been given to you the criteria specified in. And that's a section of law dealing with outstanding resource waters. I'm not actually exactly sure what they are. It's not an area that I work in if somebody else wants to get Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I just you're saying this process is gonna go through at 02:48. I mean, or February.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, not Or we're still

[Unidentified Committee Member]: trying to make that decision?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: This is a blending of those two processes. Yes. So it's kind of borrowing from both of them as

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. This this would be a new section.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Applicable. So it's a new section of law. It's actually But you do raise a good point, is two forty eight a new generation facilities. If a data data center builds on-site generation facilities, which some do, then they might need a two forty eight on it to do so. Right. Just wanna make sure. Is there yeah. There were questions about what permits might apply right now if you did nothing. So we can talk about that a little bit later. And then also the state laws, pertain to conditions and criteria for state land use, Act two fifty and development plans. So yes, they might be required to get Act two fifty permits also under current law. Impacts to primary agricultural soils as defined in state law community noise levels. They're being concerned about noise levels from the cooling system, also from backup generators, if those are in use.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yep.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: are there any state laws or any anything in the past that has said around community noise levels. What's that threshold? How is that handled? That's a great question.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I can find out. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Wind has noise restrictions. They do. Yeah. Very low. Forget what how many test points. In the statue. Yeah. That is a. So this as it's written, does not provide this process with the in lieu of Act two fifty, as two forty eight and two forty eight AR. This would just include that. Is that right?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That's correct. Yeah. That's how it's written.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So to the extent you wanna incorporate those criteria or Yeah. However

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I just wanna clarify that.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And then so now we're on to subdivision 5. It's consistent with the principles for resource selection expressed in the applicable electric distribution company's approved least cost integrated plan. Six is consistent with the electrical energy plan approved by the department under state law or that there exists good cause to permit the variance. Seven is consistent with the Vermont long range transmission plan prepared by Delta, posted on our website. Eight will not have an adverse effect on any segment of the waters of the state that have been designated as outstanding resource waters by the Secretary of Natural Resources. So, again, getting back to what existing state permits might apply. If the water is using if so if water for the cooling, 5,000,000 gallons a day. If it's it's groundwater, there might be a groundwater permit. They could use that if there is capacity, well water, or if they divert water from a river and discharge the water, there would be permits that would apply in those cases currently. And then the only other state permit that I can think of so actually 50 with the water permits, maybe air air quality, and that might have to do with emissions or other pollutants, but I'm not certain. Nine, can be served economically by existing or planned transmission facilities without undue adverse effect on Vermont utilities or the retail rate day air classes. 10, complies with applicable air pollution control requirements under the federal clean air act. 11 complies with harvesting procedures and procurement standards that ensure long term forest health and sustainability, including the guidelines standards that are adopted under state law. 12, it's consistent with state energy efficiency requirements. 13, it's consistent with environmental justice and equity policy as established in state law. And 14, adequately accounts for potential facility decommission. And then what's not included here that is in 02/8248 a are kind of the procedures for implementing all of this. Subsection c says the commission shall adopt by rule procedures for implementing the requirements of this section modeled after two forty eight and two forty eight a to the extent deemed reasonable and necessary by the commission. Accordingly, the procedure shall include requirements related to an application fee, the notice requirement, letter of intent, review period, exemptions from other law, 50, participation by municipal bodies, consideration of municipal plans and recommendations, the retention of experts, fees for the participation of other state entities, which could be the Department of Public Service, ANR, Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets, Agency of Commerce and Trade Development, and the Environmental Justice Advisory Council. So those are kind of all the elements that are already existing in law. Obviously, you can enact the process in statute if you feel prepared to do that. We wanted to encourage the PUC with doing that. This just gives them the parameters and the guidance that they would need in order to do so in a rule making. So then, we moved on to the demand side management. The commission may establish the demand side management program applicable to data centers that includes requirements and standards applicable to data center energy and water usage. In developing such a program, the Commission shall consider co siting requirements for renewable energy sources, batteries, and other on-site generation and storage. Water conservation initiatives, such as the use of recycled water for cooling. And one thing that I was recently made aware of in terms of the using of water and recycling water, I believe that large amount of the water evaporate. Mhmm. So there isn't as much available as you might think, but that's that's data that you should probably have or you will have. Three, the establishment of data center microgrids for critical services that would provide continuous and reliable energy for critical services, operate independently from an electric company's power system, ensure uptime during outages, provide greater efficiency for managing energy costs and carbon emissions, and enhance the resilience of state's electricity network network. Four, authorize authorization for data center to procure its own energy resources. So, this would be similar to what global founders is authorized to do. And some states in this context have preferred to have the data center procure their own electricity, but that was more protective of ratepayers as opposed to the utility building the project and having to recover any shareholder return on equity from either the data center or the the rate payers. So, it's just a direct contract where the data center is responsible for everything. And there's no risk to consumers or utilities. Five, a prohibition on fossil fuel power purchase agreements that provide incentives for discount rates to data centers. Some states had been contemplating that. So that's a policy decision like all of these. Six, enhanced energy efficiency standard. Seven, any other standard or requirement deemed appropriate by the commission. And then b, subsection b, any program developed by the commission under this section would take effect upon approval of the general assembly. That's just something to consider. There are a lot of options that are included in the development of this program and that would just be an opportunity for the legislature to weigh in and make sure it's consistent with your policies. Sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Any program?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So this this whole section on demand side management would be a program that the PUC develops, and it addresses all of these different things that we just went through. And so

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: As opposed to rule a rule or As

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: opposed to rule. Yep. Or as opposed to coming back with recommendations. Yeah. It just says here is the program, but before we can implement it, we need to sign we need to sign off by the legislature.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And does that mean the introduction of a bill?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Full testimony about the hat? It's testimony definitely, not necessarily a bill or maybe a line in a bill saying the legislature approves the program as presented or specified. But passage by the house and the senate signature of- Yeah. The governor has to go through the complete enactment process. So not necessary, but it's an option. Yeah. Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Could they could the legislature revise it?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Legislature could do anything with once. Yeah. I mean, you could vote it up and down if you wanted to, but you are the legislature. So you could enact and codify the program and make any revisions you want to. So you could direct the PUC develop the program any way you want to. So, it's an option. You could say PUC develops this program by rule and just do the rule making, and then you would review it through LCAR, not right? So, they're just different

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: kind of legislative oversight tools. Okay. I know we're running out of time. It just

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, okay. Jumped out at me. So then sorry. Raptore? Just one question on the just get the hand side, man. Was there is there anything about peak peak shavings? Like, taking them offline if needed? Yeah. That's a I think that That's a good question. I don't think I that reference, like, that specifically. And I don't know if the tariffs I cannot remember now if that was, like, a provision in the tariffs. I don't remember, but that's a that's a great point in terms of the interest. I think the data centers tend to run continuously at optimal power. I don't know how this is a question I honestly don't know how much they can Will them? Control their demand, but potentially, you're right. Any storage, any backup power, any of their own on-site energy sources. Yeah. I have definitely seen

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: curtailments agreements mentioned. Okay. I'm not sure

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: that Okay. Of that. I will I will try

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: to find out. That's some places where they're, shouldn't say files. That's places where they're worried about.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yeah. But it's brown. Absolutely.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So then the next section is just reporting requirements. So the data center itself, this gets to kind of the consumption issues within three months after becoming operational. The owner shall begin submitting quarterly reports to the PUC and the Department of Public Service. Those reports show include water and energy usage, as well as a description of any interconnection requests the owner has submitted in other states. And then b, report an annual report from the department. The so the department shall submit a written report on data centers to the relevant standing committees of jurisdiction, including this one, and include findings and recommendations related to the energy, environmental, and economic impacts of data center construction and deployment, including any benefits to all electric rate payers from electric infrastructure projects undertaken to provide power to a data center? So in other words, do all ratepayers potentially benefit from any upgrades to the transmission grid or the grid? Oh, gosh. I almost forgot about that section. So and I'll do this very quickly. So this has to do with financing state and local benefits of potentially taking some of the the revenue that would come from a data center and portioning some of that for state programs. So we'll just quickly read through it. The intent of the legislature to establish a financial structure that will support state and local energy, environmental, and economic benefits and to finance that structure with percentage of tax revenue generated from the sales property or income taxes applicable to a data center, potentially a data center gross receipts tax or some other financing mechanism recommended by the commissioner that commissioner deems appropriate. And then from section b, the commissioner with input from the commissioner of taxes shall develop findings and recommendations for implementing the legislative intent of this section, which shall be submitted in a written report to the relevant standing committees of jurisdiction. So again, just an option looking to see if there are ways of using some of the revenue generated by a data center to support local initiatives, state or local initiatives. Very broad. It's yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: For instance, the PUC, which is underfunded, and we're asking to regulate and monitor accounts.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Definitely that. I wouldn't like, you yeah. Well, I think that you probably wouldn't have a gross receipts tax if you do on other utilities to pay for the regulation. So absolutely a component, recover the regulatory costs. And then if there are any other kind of related environmental or economic benefit that could be supported. And that is pretty much it. The commissioner's rulemaking authority. This would apply to any data center not operational on or before the effective date of this act, and it takes effect upon passage.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Maria, thank you so much for that awesome walkthrough, and we are gonna return to this topic at 11:00 this morning with some testimony from NCSL that I assume is on what other states are doing, right? Sponsor on what other states are doing around this issue. So, thanks. Really appreciate the walk through. You're welcome. I don't think that we need to take a break because we've got folks in the room waiting to testify.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: why don't we switch gears? And we are going to turn our attention to H17, H718, an act relating to building energy efficiency. And we have some folks here from Secretary of State's office and OPR. Madam Chair, is

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: it okay that Jennifer Coord and I testify together?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, do whatever you want. Okay, thank you. Do you guys want to get set up at our I

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: don't know where our chairs went. I didn't There's a chair.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: There's least

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member, Chittenden-13, Burlington)]: one back there.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't know where they were.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know last time it was me.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That one back there. Okay.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: That's a

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: double tighten hand. Yeah. It is.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. I'm You're you're in the.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Hey, Pam. Ken? Hey.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Are you able to click on the little button that says this meeting is being livestreamed and just hit okay? We can do it. Oh, we can do that. Great.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Jeez.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. You can do that. Yeah. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alrighty. Seventeen is?

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

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Sorry. Eight

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: h seven eighteen is rep Campbell's bill. And, Scott, can you just give us a little orientation about Oh,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: really? Sure.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Okay. This is

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the energy code compliance bill that is coming out of came out of the building energy codes working group this year well, this year, last year, and the year before that. The bill is an effort to find a middle path between enforcement and penalties to enforce the energy codes, which are actually required, are mandatory. And and the system that we have now or the system that we have now where there's there's no enforcement. So this developed both in general seeks to stimulate voluntary compliance and through two major mechanisms more well. One is establishing a residential building construction code, which we talked about last week with director Mike Dara Torre from the Division of Fire Safety. And the other major part of it is enhancing the Conduct Vector Registry, which is administered by all of professional regulation and is also mandatory because needs to be enhanced. There's a proposal in this bill to create a task force that would assist OPR in doing that and also provide some funding for them to improve the website and raise the visibility of of the the contractor registry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we are, I'm soon gonna hear from you about the registry part of the bill. And then if we have time, and I think we probably will, after we hear from you folks, why don't we try to reserve a little time and maybe we can catch up quickly as a committee on what testimony we've heard, what we're waiting on, and where things stand. Sorry to put you on the spot. Okay. So for the record, we've already all entered well, you know what? Let's do it. I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from St. Josbury. Richard Bailey, Lamoille 2. Tomorrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington, Michael Southworth, Caledonia Two. Christopher Howland, Rutland Ford.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Dara Torre, Washington too.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member, Chittenden-13, Burlington)]: And Clubner, Chittenden 13, Burlington.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And who's joining us?

[Emily Carr (General Counsel, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Oh, hi. I'm Emily Carr. I'm the general counsel for the Office of Professional Railroad. Great.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: Jeremy Little, policy and outreach associate with the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. Super.

[Heather Schulze (William Schulze & Associates)]: Heather Schulze, William Schulze and Associates. Thank you.

[Andrew Brewer]: Andrew Brewer on behalf of

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the builders and architects. Great.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Brent Adreau, intern for Rutland Noise.

[Dana Lee Perry (The Crassney Group)]: Dana Lee Perry with the Crassney Group.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Okay. For the record. For the record, my name is Lauren Hibbard, and I'm the deputy secretary of state. And I'm very lucky to

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: have with me Jennifer Cohen, director of the Office of Professional Regulation. Good morning.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Good morning. Thank you so much for having us here today to talk about h seven eighteen. I'm gonna just give an overview of the Office of Professional Regulation since we we came in here last year, but we're in this is not a typical committee for us. And then we're gonna talk specifically about the contractor registry as it stands now, then we'll turn to Jen, and she'll talk about the the specifics in the bill. So the Office of Professional Regulation is an umbrella agency, which means that it oversees at this point over 53 different professions and occupations. Those are able to all be housed within OPR because there's standardization and a uniform approach on how we regulate those professions. This OPR has 40 staff members and it is funded entirely by licensing fees. These things are important to think about as we go forward in the discussion about the state of home contractors now and where it could, should, or possibly maybe in the future. The professions we have are extremely diverse. We have pretty much all of the healthcare professions with the exception of some physicians. The allopathic physicians are with the medical practice board. Physicians assistants are with the medical practice board. We have the osteopathic physicians, so we have about a fourth of the physicians in the state. We do not regulate teachers. We do not regulate plumbers or electricians or EMS. But otherwise, if you are licensed in the state, you are housed under the office of profession regulation. So that's a very diverse group, everything from tattooists to dentists to architects to home contractors. We have a uniform system where we establish minimum licensure qualifications. There are three levels of licensure. Unfortunately, they're all called licensure, but the lowest form of regulation is a registration. That is what home contractors is. That is a mandatory registration, meaning everyone who wants to do the activity needs to get registered with our office, but they're not qualified for that registration. The next level up is certification, which means there are qualifications, but it is a voluntary process. So my favorite example of this is a dietitian. Dietitians go through a large amount of schooling. They become certified in our state. Only if you've done that level of qualifications and you've taken the option to be certified by Earth, can you call yourself a dietitian in the state of Vermont? However, as we all know, everyone can give you diet advice and they do. So it's not prohibited to give people diet advice in this state, but if you wanna call yourself a certified dietitian, you must have the qualifications and the certification from our office. And then there's licensure, which is mandatory for everyone who wants to do the activity in the field and their qualifications. That's the highest level of regulation that we put on professions in the state. Very classic nursing, dentistry, obviously, you need to be qualified. And if you are doing that at all in the state, you need to be licensed. So importantly, we are special fund only licensure fees. We do not receive general fund allocations except for in rare instances where we're doing a one time project. We've received one time allocations, and that's when we have stood up a new profession or when we're doing a report that's gonna take a lot of time. Generally, that is for professions that we don't regulate. We haven't received any revenue from this profession yet, but we're expected to do work on behalf of that profession. And I know you guys are not wasting, but it's important to tell you that we're currently running at a deficit of $1,500,000, and we have been for a couple of years. So in 2022, after a very large legislative effort of which some of my my allies in the room, some of my allies on that effort are in the room, we created a regulatory program for home contractors. We did a Sunrise report, which is standard practice for the Office of Professional Regulation. Sunrise report assesses, does this profession need to be regulated? Is there a harm to the public? Is the essential question to that review. And if we find that there is harm to the public, then we attempt to craft a regulatory program that would be the least burdensome to the people in the field while protecting the public. So we found that, yes, there was harm. That is why we started advocating for the registration of home contractors starting in 2019. And ultimately, it went through many legislative hurdles and act one eighty two of 2022 was enacted. I think when you talk to anyone who is part of that process, the regulation of residential contractors was in complete compromise. It was very, very heavily negotiated. It was a huge in 2022, it was a huge accomplishment that it was passed, but it was not perfect. It is not perfect, and it's a result of that very long legislative process. What it ultimately settled on is that if you are doing work for more than ten thousand dollars, that includes labor and materials, you must register with OPR. That could be that's in one job. It defines residential as four or fewer residential dwelling unit. It defines construction as interior and exterior construction, weatherization, renovation, repair, roofing, solar, heating, and other activities. And it requires that you are contracting directly with the homeowner. So if I own a duplex and I'm a homeowner and a contractor is contracting with me, then and if the job is over $10,000 and they're doing siding, then they would need to register with our office. Subs developers are not required to register at this time. Because registration is the form of the regulation that we settled on, there are no qualifications required. And this is important because when we were going through the legislative process, qualifications and the concern about putting the small guy out of business was probably the highest concern. Yeah. So we wanted a wide net that would cover as many people as possible without boxing people out. And OPR originally, just legislative history, originally wanted the scope of work to be $3,000. That moved up and down and up and down. And, of course, 2022, that's when construction costs were extremely high because of COVID. $10,000 was what was settled on. $10,000 covers almost all construction jobs in the state of Vermont at this time because of construction costs.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: When That was any any one single job that was $10,000 or more. It wasn't if you do two $5,000 jobs. Correct. Right? So if you do spend your entire year doing $2,000 jobs, you don't have to register. If you do that one job that's 10 k or more, you have to register. Yes. Exactly. I remember that. I remember being, Yeah. Always confused by that, but I'm not anymore because I clearly remembered.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: You remember. Yeah. And the intent of that threshold was really the re the harm that we found was consumer fraud. That there is rampant consumer fraud in this area. Our partners at the attorney general's office have amazing statistics on the amount of consumer fraud. And, you know, if the amount is under $10,000 that usually is resolvable either by small claims court or the consumer protection cap program within the AGO because they dispute mediation. But once it's over $10,000, you're outside of small claims, and that's harder to resolve through the attorney general's mediation program. So also, you know, there's amazing data on the amount of Vermonters who their home is their most valuable asset. And if there is payment, say, 15,000, 25,000, 200,000, and there's fraud involved, that is defrauding someone's most major asset that they have. So what we settled on was individual registration if you are self employed or business registration if you have employees and then the employees do not have to register. That that was another area of large negotiation. OPR wanted everybody who was employed by a business to be registered. That was not politically viable. It was to pay a registration fee, $100 for the individual and $250 for the business. And the requirements are that you provide evidence that you are registered with our business services division within the secretary of state. You have to disclose criminal convictions, pending criminal charges, and any discipline against a professional credential in any jurisdiction. You also have to have general liability insurance. You have to tell us whether you're licensed in another place. You have to acknowledge that you're required to comply with Arby's. That is a new requirement that happened after the bill was passed. And you have to affirm that you will execute a written contract before receiving a deposit or starting a construction. That is a really important piece of that original bill. We needed something in writing so that we could start enforcing things on an enforcement level. This was also an area of huge negotiation. I was personally accused of ruining the Vermont handshake. So I did, and we wanted a written contract.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Before we move on, Lauren, some of these items aren't in the actual statute around residential contractors, they must be elsewhere.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: They're in our process at OPR, so disclosing criminal I think is probably the one that triggered you Yes. Your question. And we ask that of everybody who's licensed with us, the Navy and past.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So that that doesn't need to be in statute then?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: No. It does not. It's part of our administrative process.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And also the other ones, license in another jurisdiction.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: We ask that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Documentation about being registered for businesses being registered with business services. Are all part of just part of your internal process.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yes. We ask everyone who's license seeking a license from us where else they are licensed because that helps us determine if they have discipline in another jurisdiction.

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

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

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: And if we are registering or licensing an entity, whether it's pharmacy, funeral, or a contractor business, we ask that you be registered with our business service.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And are those requirements in statute somewhere, or is it just a bridging part

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member, Chittenden-13, Burlington)]: of your rules or something?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: The evidence of registration with business services is just in our in the way that we operate it.

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

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I don't believe it's in statute. Disclosure of licensure, previous discipline or crimes is in statute. It's it's in three d s a one twenty

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: nine a. Overall OPR statute.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yes. So that's our umbrella structure. So when you're looking at anything related to OPR, our professions are entitled 26 with your home contractors is, but our umbrella structure is in title three, which is the secretary of state protection of that title.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Great. Two point. Perfect. Thanks.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: And we like it that way because we want to have as much standardized as possible. You know, we license over 80,000 Vermonters and businesses, and that is an extremely high number of people that we that we are responsible for. And and the way that we are able to accomplish that is through streamlining our processes, having things be as standard as possible using a uniform IT system, which I've talked to this committee about before, and those are the ways that we're able to be successful.

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

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Probably the most unique feature of the residential contractor program is that because it's a registration and because there are no qualifications, we do not have jurisdiction over quality of work. This was also part of the the legislative debate and conversation. And we at OPR never advocated

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: to have quality of work part of the scope of

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: the registration or licensure program because when we reviewed the harm that's out there, a lot of it was related to consumer fraud. We did not look specifically at quality of work, scope of work issues. And also, we knew, and and it remains true, OPR does not have the capability or expertise to to enforce quality of work issues. That would be a very large expansion of our program if that was something that we needed to do. Also, strangely, but as a result of the legislative process, people who are doing unauthorized practice are not can't be charged criminally. And that was because of concerns about the small guy getting inadvertently caught up in a regulatory system that he or she did not know about. And so that was a specific carve out in the home contractor statute. That is not true in other areas. If if we learn of someone who's not licensed and is providing tattooing, we do prosecute them criminally. That is actually probably our most common unlicensed practice.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I I kinda chased that down also, but I was not able to find that, but that exception. I I remember this being a discussion point.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: It it is there.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. We will get that to At point. At point. Yes. That'd

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: It also allowed us to create specialty certifications. Those certifications would be voluntary, so that was that intermediate level of regulatory oversight. So registration is for home contractors. Voluntary certifications is able to stack on top of the registration, and it requires us to offer specialty certifications in OSHA and energy efficient building methods. We currently do not have those certifications in operable. The next thing that I want just wanna talk to you about is where we are with this profession. I would say this profession is under enrolled, just given anecdotal data. We have 565 individuals who are licensed with our office and 835 businesses. It's probably less than what it should be, but that's a total of about 1,400. This is a decrease from our previous cycle. So we decreased 275 people who are registered. We have received approximately a 130 complaints related to construction and home builders. I can tell you that is disproportionately high in comparison to the number of licensees that we have. Currently, we have 30 cases that are pending investigation or review. We have pursued 12 public disciplinary cases. Seven are currently pending, four have been concluded, and one case was dismissed. We have 40 cases that we have investigated and closed. That means that we couldn't substantiate the allegations, whether it's fraud, it could be a quality of work claim that that we didn't have authority over, or could be unauthorized practice. And we have screened out 50 cases because which means we didn't investigate them because we don't have jurisdiction over quality of work or it didn't meet that 10,000 cap. So we use the same enforcement process for all of our cases. We receive complaints, either written calls or online through our computer system. We screen them to ensure that we regulate it, and that if it were true, would it be unprofessional conduct as our screening mechanism? If we say yes to that, then we screen it in and we investigate that case. And after investigation, we make a determination of whether or not we're gonna prosecute that case, usually with the help of our board members and advisers. And we have an administrative law, whole branch of OPR that reviews those cases and has hearings, makes decisions, etcetera. There's full appeal rights within that process. The important thing there is that we have six certified law enforcement officers on staff, three civil investigators, four prosecutors, one docket clerk, and a bank of administrative law officers that help us with our hearings, either by themselves or with a regulatory board. So as I said oh, sorry. Rutland? I have a question.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member, Rutland-4)]: I have a constituent who is defrauded by for a considerable amount of money in a rent renovation project, but his contractor lived out of state. Mhmm. Does does a lot of work in from us, but he's domiciled in Massachusetts. How would this affect that?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: The the impact of the registration is not where the contractor is domiciled. It is where the work is being done. So that contractor should be license be registered have a license from the Office of

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Professional Regulation. He's required to make that decision?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yeah. Yeah. If they're not, that is that is then the signature requirement.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: And may I just speak to also to that question? So if someone engages in unauthorized practice under our statutes, we can only prosecute them for unauthorized practice. If they don't have a credential issued from our office, we cannot prosecute them for unprofessional conduct because those statutes, which are in three VSA one twenty nine a, all the things that are unprofessional conduct in a profession only apply to people credentialed through our office. So if you don't have a credential from OPR, even if you should, and you do something wrong, we can only prosecute you under three b

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: s a one twenty seven for unauthorized practice. That we could probably do an administrative prosecution for failure to register with our office if that contractor is not registered, but we could not criminally prosecute them. That's the distinction. There's criminal prosecution for unlicensed practice and administrative prosecution for unlicensed practice. We are constrained only to the administrative pathway for home contractors. And if that contractor who failed to register, assuming they failed to register, defrauded your constituent, we do not have authority to go after them for the the fraudulent activity, only the unauthorized practice because they're not a licensee of ours.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I I really like you to check that down if maybe your attorney could Yeah. Could provide some citation about that because I I I tried to just chase it myself, and I couldn't find it. Do you do you refer those to the attorney generals the fraud ones? We do our own criminal the the fraud

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You you you said that you can only fine them for not having the registration. And if there is fraud, then you you've kicked that over to the Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: General Yeah. We we have

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: a robust sharing of information between ourselves at the consumer profession division. But if if it is a different profession and we're investigating you for unauthorized practice and it is a crime, our investigators do the criminal investigation, and then we refer that either to the state's attorney's office or to the attorney general for criminal prosecution. But the scenario that Brett Morrow just was talking about, we would refer that to the consumer to the CAC program.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yep. I do. Good morning.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: So we have not implemented our specialty certifications really because this program is running at a deficit. We do not have sufficient licensees and we are running very high enforcement numbers. So we know that this profession is not generating revenue for OPR and has actually taken considerable administrative oversight. I mean, years and years and years and years of work that was completely unpaid for. That was when we were advocating doing the Sunrise and advocating for residential home contractors. OPR did that entirely without any compensation. And that that process is one of the reasons why now we ask for funds for Sunrise because I can tell you in from '19 to 2022, I personally spent more hours than I can even count on this issue, and we never received any revenue for that that work. So that's why that we have that change in our policy. And we have also not implemented this because we're concerned, given the uptick in this program, that the number of people that will want these specialty credentials really will be very few. And so the costs and resources to go through the administrative rule making process to implement these specialties within our IT system will only increase the financial deficit of the program. So that is a core challenge. The other secondary challenge is for the energy efficiency certification in particular. The world does not have an exam. And so in order for us to issue a certification, we need to have something that's relatively black and white that says, have you are you ready? Do you have the qualifications? And for energy efficiency, we don't have an examination that would show that you have those qualifications. So we've been working to try and fix that in in the universe of

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Do you mean, like, weatherization? It could

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: be yeah. It would be weatherization, but there's several ways to think about energy efficiency. And I don't wanna get over my skis because you have someone who's a bit full expert in the room on energy efficiency, but there's lots of things related to energy efficiency. But weatherization is probably the most common thing that is considered. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member, Chittenden-13, Burlington)]: There's no link between registration OPR and labor relations with that very facility that The training facility? That's what was thinking about. Right. A link between a cert maybe it'd be a certificate from a training facility through labor. I mean, you mentioned you don't do electricians and plumbers and they all Right. Have a principal

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: So there's lots of ways that this program could be designed. One of them would be coming out of the CTE programs, or, the labor apprenticeship programs. Another could be, you know, coursework designed by Energy Efficiency Vermont or Public Service. There's lots of ways that it could be, but there's just not a standard way at this particular time.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member, Chittenden-13, Burlington)]: Or move this category to labor. And in a carpentry and a training and a labor type program similar to apprentice type programs and other for that matter.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: The labor model is that they provide the training and that other people license the profession. So for plumbers and electricians, that's fire safety. So this bill does talk about whether moving home contractors to fire safety is a good idea. That is something that was talked about during the original legislative process, and that was a a hard no from the administration. And in fact, the governor vetoed this bill on hold. And the way that this bill passed is it was added to another bill that was a must pass bill for the governor. So the administration has opposed this program and has opposed moving it to fire safety. That doesn't mean that that's not something that the legislature should do, but I just wanna be transparent that that has been the the legislative history of this program.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Long, let's say. District. Yes.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: So long. And will continue as it should. I mean, I think that's something that I just wanna end my part of the testimony on before I turn it to Jen to talk about the specifics of this bill. But professions take time to build. And what we built in 2022 was the beginning of a conversation. That was, quite frankly, the concern of the opponents was that it was the beginning of a conversation, but that is the truth. It was the beginning of a conversation. And it was a first step. I will say, given where it is right now, we are still in its very first step. And this is true for all new professions in Vermont. And professions develop all the time in Vermont, but it takes time for the marketplace to adjust to it, for consumers to adjust to the new program. We are seeing some of those growing pains in massage therapy. We've seen it with foresters. If we're successful in our effort to license early childhood educators, it will happen in early childhood educators, and it's happening in home contractors. And that is normal. And so the conversations that you're seeing in this bill, some of the things we agree with, some of the things we don't agree with in this bill, but this is a very normal conversation when there's a new profession. Honestly, even old professions, there's debates about nursing practice right now downstairs in center health and welfare. There's it just happens. Professions grow and change. I'm sure you guys have heard about the optometry ophthalmologist scope of practice debate. These things happen. Professions change, qualifications change, the the what the marketplace is expecting changes. So With that, I'm gonna turn it over to Jen.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Thank you so much. And to your question a moment ago about that, forget the name of the weatherization training program in Barrie, but it's run by, I think, Everblue. And we have visited that training center. We've been having conversations with Everblue about the idea of developing an examination. There are other entities out there as well. So we are still engaged in that effort, trying to move it along. And we also have, over 50 other professions that we're also working on simultaneously. It's in the list, we are working on that. Specifics on the bill, we did file written testimony. Hopefully, I'll have that. We we filed it yesterday.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I don't know if it's on the website. I Okay. So Thank you for sending me the advanced copy. I I was able to read through it.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Okay. Great. So we just kind of went through the provisions that apply to the office of profession professional regulation. So you'll see in section one, finding number four, that relates to OPR. And, you know, we we do agree that the Building Energy Code working group we were in that working group. They did recommend that our residential contractors program could use market incentives to try to get people to register. So I understand that that was a finding from that committee. You know, other other than providing professional credentials to people who apply and meet the requirements, OPR's regulatory programs are really not intended or designed to provide market incentives. We're there to say who's qualified to do what through licensure and then to enforce those unprofessional conduct situations. So, you know, we have 53 professions that we're regulating. And, frankly, we don't really incentivize people to follow the law. It is the law that people need to register. We have made a lot of efforts to get the word out about the need for residential contractors to register. We did we did radio spots. We did we distributed flyers to all the lumber yard and hardware stores in the state. We went through the business services division registrations of anything, any business using certain terms that relate to residential construction, and we sent all of those folks a an email blast saying, hey. Remember that residential contractors need to be registered by a certain date. So we've in front porch forum. Yeah. We've been and we've continued to put those ads out in front porch forum even today where we have ads that are geared towards homeowners to make people aware that if you're hiring someone to work on your home, you should be asking, are you registered with the office of professional regulation? And then we have ads that are geared towards residential contractors saying, hey. If you're working in any of these areas like interior and exterior renovation, repair, solar, weatherization, all of those things, you need to be registered with us. So we are still continuing those efforts to get the word out, and this is really the only profession that I know of. I've been at OKR since 2017, where we have continued for years trying to make sure the word is out. So

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: And I just wanna say this is that's evidence of the secretary of state's commitment to this program both to eliminate fraud, but also we do see that the connection to energy efficiency, this is something that our office cares a lot about. And we are really at the the end of what is possible for us from from a bandwidth perspective and also from a financial perspective. And then also in that

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: part of this. Also in that finding number four, we do agree that homeowners would benefit from additional protections beyond what the current registry provides. And we did a of a review report of this profession at I think it was in the '24.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Oh, yes.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Deputy secretary talked about that last time she was here testifying, that was one of our major findings is that in this area, yeah, homeowners could use additional protections and we don't have the authority for those. And that basically relates to quality of work and relates to the lack of building codes for single family owner occupied development. Finding number five, we do agree that the regulatory program has not produced sufficient revenue to adequately resource various efforts that should be made here. It's substantial stakeholder engagement, outreach to the profession, additional policy work, and rulemaking. And those would all be things that would be necessary to significantly improve upon, the current regulatory framework. And We are willing partners in this work. We are ready to do that work, but from a resource perspective, we're really constrained. Section four, the residential contractor regulation task force and the reports section. So we had a few thoughts on this section. Let me

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: actually just search that here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Your testimony is posted, by the way. Oh,

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: great. Yeah. Great.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: So we do like the idea of a task force. Let me just say that. We support the idea of a task force. I was in that building energy code working group. That was something that representative Campbell and I had some conversations about, and we could use some help with this work because there's some big questions that we need to figure out. And some of those topics are laid out in in the proposed bill. And we also need to talk about where is this profession going? Where is this regulatory program? Do we wanna stick with registration? And how could we improve? We're gonna stick with registration. How can we improve upon that? If we want to move to some more qualifications based credential, either certification or licensure, how do we do that? That would be a lengthy effort. That would probably be a ten year effort. And if that if that's the will of the profession and stakeholders in this body, what are incremental steps we could make along the way to do that? So I think this task force could have a lot of value. We've appreciated representative Campbell's support and, like, trying to help us improve.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: So I just

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: wanna say that. Subsection b, we do think the task force membership, we wanna add to that a member appointed by the attorney general's office as well as a member appointed by the Vermont Department of of State's attorneys and sheriffs. They So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I was gonna ask you about that. Is that do they field complaints about from from and do they just refer them to

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: the AGOs? Well, we we refer things back and forth. And so when we get complaints about fraud, we are definitely reaching out to AGOs office as well as state's attorney. And because there's the home improvement fraud statute, which I understand there's an effort in that state house this year also to kind of change that language a little bit, but we definitely have state attorneys who are enforcing the the home improvement fraud. Aware of the home improvement fraud. Yeah. But you know

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: who's who's handling that? Is that the gov gov ops or something? Or

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: I don't know where that bill is right now, but I'm I'm aware that there's a bill. Okay. I'd love to check that out. Because there was a decision out of Washington Superior Court maybe a year, year and a half ago that found that one small portion of that of that statute was not constitutional. But it's because it called into question the statute, I think state's attorneys have maybe been a little reticent to continue enforcing on home improvement fraud because of that decision. So I think the bill this year is an effort to remedy what the judge in that case k. Found was the problem. Thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I thank you for that.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: So we'd like to see a a member from the Vermont department or we'd like to see a member appointed by the Vermont Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. We'd also like to see two registered residential contractors. We can send out a blast to everybody who's registered with our office and get some folks who are not necessarily associated with a professional organization to take part in this task force. We'd also like to see a couple of homeowners and maybe a public member because I know that part of what we're gonna be looking at in this task force is very technical stuff. But we're also gonna ask the committee to move the question of, should we be considering licensure qualifications based credential into the task force and not make that solely a report of OPR? We want the task force considering that question. So I'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment. In subsection c, we just want the language clarified a little bit to make it very clear that the task force let me just get to that specific language. Okay. So it powers and duties, the task Can I go sorry? Yes, ma'am.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Can I go back one sec?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The legislature always struggles with lists. Two registered residential contractors as recommended by a home like a builder's association or something, I assume. Like, designated by or like, who I'm just curious who that would be, and if you had any thoughts about two homeowners and one public member. Like, that's I don't know how you pick who that would be.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Yeah. So I think for residential contractors, as I said a minute ago, we have a roster of folks who are registered so we can send out

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: an email blast saying who

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: would be interested in helping us with this work. For homeowners and potentially a public member, we do postings on front porch forums seeking public input or asking people if they wanna participate in something. So that's kind of what I envisioned as I made the suggestion. But if you've seen that and that doesn't work, we're open to suggestion on that.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: We do have public members, which a homeowner could be. So maybe it's that we have three homeowners, and those are members of the public not associated with any of the professions otherwise listed. But we do have members of the public on all of our professional boards. So board of nursing has two public members. All of our professional boards have two public members, and that is really to ground the work in that we are here to protect the public, not to advance profession, not to be restrictive on people coming into the profession, but to protect the public. And and and the public members in all of our professions have a really valuable voice and have an equal voice to the professional members on our regulatory boards. And a lot of that also comes out of this Supreme Court case, North Carolina Dental, which says that any regulation the United States Supreme Court case, any regulation of a business, of a occupation is a restriction, and there needs to be adequate state oversight of the regulation of a business so that it's not entirely self serving. And we accomplish that, and we do it very well in the state of Vermont by having an umbrella agency, one. So we provide very active state supervision over all of our professions and also by having public members involved in our in our decision making process.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And there's like an application process? There is. Yeah. You put it out on front porch form and you get a bunch of people who apply.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yeah. We have an active group of public members. And because our public members are on our boards, the governor appoints them. So the governor puts postings out for public members, as do we, and they apply through the governor's office and are appointed by the governor. Here, they would be appointed by the secretary of state. We would we would do active office. So would be your yeah. That would be our responsibility.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Responsibility. Yeah.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: It would be our responsibility to find the homeowners slash

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just confirming. Okay. On the on we go then.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Great. Great. Subsection c where it talks about powers and duties, it says the task force shall and then as we go into the subsections, you know, the task force shall address shortcomings, improve the website, all these things. I think we need another word in there because their role is to advise. So the task force isn't really doing things to accomplish these things. They're advising OPR. Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Shall advise OPR at least two. Yes. Got it.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Then in subsection one a, so that's powers and duties c one a, we're at improving the public facing web presence. And we had a lot of discussion about this in the Building Energy Code Working Group about OPR's website. In all of our professions, you can go to our website. You can download a list of everybody who's credentialed in that profession. You can search if someone's been found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct. All of our decisions are on our website. So it's the same for every profession. You know, the And, idea of improving our website with respect to one profession and providing additional tools that aren't available in other professions, we just we we don't agree that that's what OPR should be doing. We are an umbrella agency. We have to be able to streamline and offer the same things in our professions. And it's really beyond you know, the idea of marketing and that sort of thing is really beyond kind of OPR's role. We would be so supportive of providing data to if there's a professional organization that wants to create a website and website tools, we're happy to assist in that effort and provide data. But really, we don't think that OPR should be should be tasked with improving our website for this one profession. Also, we're in the middle of this accessibility project. So in the Americans with Disabilities Act, all state actors, agencies have to go through their website and make it accessible and make sure that all the documents on their website are accessible. So we're in the midst of that project. We're OPR's website right now, and our website is in the midst of being redesigned. So and it's again, it's standardized for all of our professions. So we would just push or we would just say, we're happy to help another entity if they want to create something promoting registry of residential contractors and offering tools, but that really shouldn't be housed at OPR. And it comes back to that core, We don't advocate for a profession. And

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: we have the type of partnership that Joan's talking about with realtors, very active realtor association in this state. We provide a lot of data to them, and they we've they direct to our website. We sometimes direct to their website. But the realtor association is the body that advocates for realtors in Vermont and promotes education around realtor licensure in Vermont.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Then moving on to subsection b, identifying cost efficient marketing strategies to the public and residential contractors. I was talking a minute ago about efforts that we've made to kind of let folks who are engaged in this work know that they have to be registered with us, and letting people who are receiving the services also know the person working on your house should be registered with us. So we agree that it's important to kind of make those efforts. We're making those efforts where they're free, frankly. And I I just would ask that we we take out the word marketing because it's not really it's not really marketing. It's just Outreach. Outreach is a fantastic word. Like, raising awareness at the registry. So then in subsection I. Yeah. This is the appropriation. So given the three year duration of the task force, we were concerned about having a a onetime appropriation for $5,500 to compensate members of the task force. So we're we didn't know if there was a way to kind of make clear the intent that that would be I know you can't appropriate or have language appropriating future funds. But I want I I need

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: to ask probably lynch counsel about

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: that. Mhmm.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Because, first of all, this is only only applies to people who aren't otherwise compensated. Right. And most of the people would be, except public members perhaps. So I don't I don't know if there's a formula for coming up with a with a with a figure they they put in here or where the number comes from.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm I'm gonna ask about that. Okay. Great. And

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: then, you know, in addition to this money that's appropriated for members of the task force to be paid like a per diem to participate, we'd ask the committee to consider some a general fund allocation for OPR to kind of administer this task force. We are running at a deficit. This program is running at a deficit. We've spent way more than than we're gonna get in these registration fees.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Jen, So. If I could just add there. This is important because what when OPR resources are really focused on one profession, other professions get short tripped, and other professions end up supporting those efforts. Right now, other professions are supporting the home contractor program. The home contractors are part of our adviser fund. All the monies are pooled, and, you know, it's PTs and massage therapists and funeral homes that are supporting our contractor work. So just as you're thinking about equity and and this work going forward, it's just important that when you're talking about new work or additional responsibilities, which this task force absolutely will be, this is not a small ask. It is taking resources that other licensees have paid monies for. And as we talk about fees and raising fees or lowering fees in this building, it's just really important that any extra ask of OPR is related to what other licensees are charged.

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

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: And then moving on to section five, the requirements of registrants. Just going back to that idea of OKR kind of requiring people who are in this profession to disclose to homeowners, like, what are you what's your criminal background? You know, you have unsatisfied civil suits. OPR does look into that. So we ask people, you know, what their criminal history has been. We have a vetting process where if they have a felony, they can be denied a registration. If they have something related to the practice of the profession in their criminal history, they can be denied a registration. So we kind of It's redundant.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So we're We kind of cover

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: that, except for maybe the unsatisfied civil judgment. So people are supposed to disclose to us if they've got an outstanding civil judgment, and we can deny them a licensure licensure on that basis. But that that may be one area where, you know, a homeowner would wanna be made aware of that. Like, we don't you know, we could register somebody who does have an unsatisfied civil judgment. It's not necessarily a bar to getting a registration. So Good. And also, OPR is concerned that disclosure of criminal histories would cause undue prejudice and burden on residential contractors. We don't make people do that in any other profession, and we actually support efforts for people who do have criminal histories to pursue professional licensure and registration because, you know, people people need that professional pathway.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I'm confused by that. So you you say on the one hand that you require people to disclose

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: We do, but we still license them.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. Right. But then you then you then you just said Mhmm. That your concern of disclosure would discourage people.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Disclosure to homeowners. Yeah. Very different than disclosure to state.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That's that's that's that's

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: You know?

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

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: you know, someone may have a a conviction for a DWI. Yep. We very rarely deny licensure for DWI, but someone may not want a home contractor who has a DWI.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's also not relevant to the profession, really. I think so.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Well, this the way this language is written is disclosure of any prior criminal convictions. So that would include the DWI.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And then as it as it relates to

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: And it's disclosure to the homeowner, not the office of professional regulation.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I'm looking at page eight, line seven, and there's no qualifying language related to as related to practice of the professor.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Pursuant to section 5,510, which is the next section, which is about these requirements of this statute. So anyway, but you would say that this this section is unnecessary except for unsatisfied justice?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: That that is a possibility of where that could be required, but it would be an additional requirement on home contractors. So it'd be a written contract insurance and disclosure to the client of homeowner unsatisfied civil judgments, and it should be qualified to say related to the practices. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And sorry, do other professions have to disclose to the customer unsatisfied civil judgments? No. Or civil actions. A lot

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: of our healthcare providers are sued for malpractice, for instance. They don't have to disclose that to a patient. So Okay.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Great. And then section six, required education for specific licensees. So we have in three BSA 138, a requirement that various professions have to do this energy module to make those professions that are related to real estate, basically, them aware of the state's energy goals. We have eight professions that are like that, and I think they include engineers, architects, real estate brokers, salespeople. But the thing is, residential contractors are not in this list because it is a profession that doesn't require qualification.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. This this section of the of the bill is just clarifying and adjusting existing statute, and it does not apply to residential contractors. It applies to well, well, it it applies to, let's see, actually, it applies to registrants and licensees at OPR who are in the billing world somehow.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Yes. Correct. Real estate agents.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Yeah. Right. Engineers. Right. So qualifications based licensure programs. Yes. Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But, anyway, the point is that it's just an existing requirement.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: It's an existing requirement. But I did wanna point out, you know, OPR had to create that module, and we're not the experts on the state's energy policy and the state's energy goals. So we created something. And I I heard director Dara Torre's testimony the other day. I would kind of echo the same sent sentiment. It's not a great module. Yeah. It's it we haven't updated it since we implemented it. We think somebody else should be responsible for that who has expertise in creating those things because it's not specific to any one profession. It's just a very general Maybe the task force module. Yeah. And and that would be a great topic for this course.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: Or something that should be transferred altogether to public service, honestly. They probably would not like that I've said that, but but they are responsible for energy goals in a more concrete way than OPR is. And so it would be better housed in some place whose whose daily work was to advance the state's energy goals. And and the training could be much more specific and and curtailed to the profession and evolving. I think our concern about this language is we have the module. It took a lot of time for us to create it, and modification of it is our is difficult, and also it's already acknowledged to be subpar. So we think of this as an opportunity to improve and modify and change where that training is housed.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: Yep. And I know we're running up against time, so we're almost finished. Okay. Section 11, we have the energy professionals regulation report. Let me just turn to that. So, yes, OPR does summarize assessments on new professions, and we are we certainly will do a summarize report for PERS raters and energy professionals. We'd ask to have until 11/01/2028 to do that work. We have a lot on our plate in the next year that includes substantial mental health licensure reform. And with the 40 people that work at OKR, you know, we just have to be very careful about scheduling, because we don't have a ton of resources. So, we'd ask for the due date on that, sunrise assessment to be 11/01/2028. And I'm gonna ask, we also would

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: need a general fund allocation for that work back to where we were.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I just wondered, would you ever,

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: especially if you have funding for it or funding from a grant or something. Let a contractor start to report, and then you kind of pick it up.

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: We've talked about that a lot. The answer is yes. We would absolutely consider that. We've never done that. The history of the secretary of state, we've always done all of our reports in house. We are seeing the failing of that, the strain on our offices, very, very large. The concern about con having a contractor do it is just we have a specific methodology, specific mindset, so we would have to make sure that a contractor was Maybe more better. Aware of that and had reviewed, you know, our previous work and understood how we assess things. And then, yeah, we would need to have ultimate oversight over it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: What would that cost to do a summarized report?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: I don't have an a number right off the top of my head. Would really wanna look at estimate a number of hours, how much how much work we've done on the other sun rises, and get back to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: you on That's that would be And

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: if we're hiring a contractor, it will be more. And if it's if it's on staff. Right? It just is.

[Jennifer Cohen (Director, Office of Professional Regulation)]: And then the other piece of section 11, the requirement for the office to assess whether the regulation of residential building contractors should be transferred from registration to certification or licensure. Again, we'd like that moved out of an independent report from OPR, and let's move that into the task force. That's something that, we should engage with stakeholders on and people from the profession and talk about, you know, do we want a qualifications based system? So that that would be our ask to move that into the task force. And then the last section is appropriations. And this is there's an appropriation for our website, a consumer oriented website. And, again, that's really not OPR's area, creating tools for consumers. There's an appropriation for $200,000. I hate to say it. We you know, we always could use money, but we don't we don't wanna be creating a consumer oriented website. We think that would be better housed someplace else. But if there is this requirement pass passes, I'm not sure where the number of $200,000 came from and have no basis for assessing whether that would be the correct appropriation.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: that's that's it. I

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: don't know what the number is either. So I'm glad I had to put something in. This is Sorry. But guess I was hoping you could tell me.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member, Chittenden-13, Burlington)]: OPR is running a deficit of 1,300,000.0. 1.5. 1.5. Excuse me. Sounds okay. Where does that money come from? Is that carryover in the budget as a dividend?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: We float that Mhmm. We float that, essentially. We're running at a deficit, and we just continually do that. The the state has several programs that run at a deficit. OPR is one of them. It's not great. We we were, at one point, almost $3,000,000 in the hole. So we have actually made significant significant gains. And I'm it sounds weird to say, but I'm proud that we're only $1,500,000. We are revenue is greatly impacted by compacts. And Right. We have a lot of them. So we have a lot of those. And as I have said many, many, many times, compacts are excellent public policy and are very difficult on OPR's budget. So think about traveling nurses who come to our state to provide care with the compact. They don't have to get an OPR license, but they work here. We are still responsible for them here. We still have to do enforcement for them here, And we lost about a million dollars by implementing the nurse licensure compound. Again, excellent public policy health care. Really important to our health care system. Very bad for our care's bottom line budget.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member, Chittenden-13, Burlington)]: So you're running a $1,500,000 deficit, and you are hitting payroll with general fund

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: No.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member, Chittenden-13, Burlington)]: Money?

[Lauren Hibbert (Deputy Secretary of State)]: No. It's I I would have to understand this. I do understand this just to be clear, but the state is allows us to run at a deficit. And we are able to hit payroll in our invoices because we're we're making such strategic decisions to try and reduce our our deficit.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We need to take a break because we're gonna have an online witness join us at oh,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member; Bill Sponsor of H.727)]: Thank

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: you for I love it. We'll

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: make some amendments and send you an update. Sounds great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you. So much for your time. We can go off live

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: for

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: a few minutes.