Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: You're live. Alright. Welcome back everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure for our last session We of the are here talking about our committee bill, Doctor 260,726, an act relating to copper based to fiber based network transitions. And we are looking at draft 1.2 dated February 5 at 10AM. It's posted on our website. We're going to walk through the bill and discuss changes with Maria Royal, obliged counsel, and then we're going to discuss the bill with some folks here from DPS and PUC. We'll So just go around and introduce ourselves. I'm Kathleen James from Manchester.

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

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille too.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: There's tomorrow when the Windham, Michael Southworth, the Illinois too. Christopher Howland, Maryland four.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, representative. He's Molly Harris Duncan. We need invite his. Jim

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Porter, department of public service.

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: I'm Daniel Burke from the Public Utility Commission.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you for being here. Hi, for the record.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And I'm Maria Royal with Legislative Counsel. So, we're gonna go through this draft, draft 1.2, and as it says at the top, the revisions are highlighted. The revisions that were suggested by this committee and your committee discussion, I think that was a week ago, are highlighted in yellow. And then there were some suggested revisions from the Department of Public Service through Hunter. And those are highlighted in blue.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: That is really helpful. Thank you. Okay.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And there's some overlap. So, you'll notice right away, especially in the beginning. Again, this is concerning the transition from a copper based network to a fiber based network. There are no changes to the findings. The changes have to do with the disclosures, the notice that's given when there is such a network transition. So, the first change is in terms of the written notice. It shall be by first class mail and the electronic mail. I hope you wanted to provide both of those requirements. Yep. And then you also wanted the notice to go not just to the commissioner of public service, but also to the nine one one board. Yep. Oh, can I

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: pause you for one sec? Just want to make sure committee members know because a lot of times we're talking to Ledge Council, we're trying to make sure everybody's comments are incorporated. So this draft reflects comments from the E911 Board. It reflects our committee discussion. It reflects the written comments that we requested from Hunter at DPS. So, basically, this is intended to be a draft that incorporates what we believe is the committee consensus or majority opinion, looking to vote. Okay? So I just wanna make sure that folks know this is your time to ask questions. We're making decisions right now on the yellow versus the blue. And so if you've got questions or thoughts, this is a really important time to speak up. Okay? So, yeah, R. Klappner?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I just have a color coding question. It seems to me that the request that the E nine eleven board be notified came from us, but you have it coded blue by the DPSC.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. It came it came from both. So Okay. Yeah.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And, you know, it's like, the one above all. Also, I think we wanted electronic.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So the blue, if there was consensus well, initially, that's not those in your. I think there was consensus Right. On these areas. So, technically, I probably should have put them in yellow and just said the department agreed with these changes. Okay. Yeah.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Thank you.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I apologize for not making that clear.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Ruttory? Are you finished? Nothing. Alright.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: My question's more affirmative, not for me. Are these notice requirements going to affect all of our telco or only when the filing to the FCC happens? It's whenever there is a change in the network, the infrastructure itself from copper to fiber, which they have to send a notice to the FCC. Because we did hear from Franklin. Yeah. And they said that they didn't. Okay. So this is part of the confusion, and I was gonna wait at the end. Yeah. It is confusing. I was confused. Maybe we'll just go through just to see if for now it's it reflects Thank you. And then based on that broader discussion, if there are other revisions you might want or things that you might wanna hear more about. Does that make sense? Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I just want to reiterate, folks, that as we go through, this is how it reads. And if we're not hearing questions or comments and it reflects what we've talked about, I'm checking it off. Okay? So mail and email.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That's right. And also notice the nine one one board. And then that on line 15, changing to a hundred and twenty and thirty days, that's from Hunter. I don't think you've discussed changing when these notices go out.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So this is a good time to do that. A hundred and twenty days versus ninety. That's a suggestion from Hunter.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Oh, I think it's versus ninety and sixty. Is that correct?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: It's that's correct. So it would all so instead of ninety, sixty, and 30, it would be a hundred and twenty and

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: thirty. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: that's one less notification.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I think it needs to have 60 in there. Because if somebody doesn't read or remember the 120, then they then all of sudden, dang, it's a thirty day.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: K. Yes? Yeah. Oh, no. I'm sorry.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: The so I would tend to agree with repress Southworth, except I think in this language what we are doing is also saying that the commission is going to say how they have to provide the notice. And right now, what they're providing is it's like a little marketing thing. So people don't, I think, are missing the complete, in many cases, of what's happening. So I'm looking to see from Maria, in fact, that is what we are doing here. We're requiring a specific type of notification. We're changing what we've sent.

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: It's not up with them exactly.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's right. You're basically setting the minimum requirements, and then you're allowing the commissioner to add additional items that are consistent with your purpose. The minimum would be what you said here in terms of when the notice goes out. Mhmm. You can set it at whatever you want. If there were an instance or for some reason the commissioner felt like additional notices, not less notices, should additional notices work in this area? That would be required. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So my gut is either we stay with ninety, sixty, and 30, or we move it as rep Southworth suggested to one twenty, sixty, and thirty. Maybe I think four is overkill. Thoughts?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Like I like Rick Southworth's suggestion. Under twenty, sixty, and 30.

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

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: As much as it pains me to agree with my colleagues. I do agree as well.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Thank you.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. You said Okay. On the

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So then in terms of what's included in the notice, no change to number one, the date the transition is expected to occur, just a technical change in number two from impacts to to impact on. These are the details of the service changes. Mhmm. There was a proposal, I believe, in here and also by the department to delete that provision as it pertains to broadband service. I think that's your I think part of the concern was is are we preempted from doing that? I don't think you are. If you feel like customers should know what services are available, there's nothing I don't think that preempts you from doing that. Whether you think it's necessary,

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: that's up to

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: you. So this kinda leads into one of my concerns. So we have heard and read testimony where and I've asked this before where VoIP is considered Internet service. Then we have landline hopper based service. And if I'm not mistaken, we read or I read somewhere that they were considering that a Internet based service so that it was no longer gonna fall under an area of last resort. And that's concerning to you.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: It is concerning and it's really confusing. But the short answer is, so the FCC has, I don't believe, ever actually classified VoIP service, fixed VoIP service, so that's to a specific location, as an information service or as a telecom service. But it is subject to some regulations. It is not data. It's not like broadband. I don't know that it's ever been maybe in the earlier, there were some thought that states the FCC can't regulate VoIP as a telecom service to any extent. But at at this point, it's not like broadband. It's not subject to the same preemption challenges. There's a little more leeway, when it's interconnected VoIP. That means it's a it intersects with a 10 digit nylon system, the public switch telephone network. And if it's fixed VoIP, that means it goes right to a person's house or the location. It's an issue if you're replacing COPPA landline service, a copier service, so now that the only service available is a VoIP service. Some states have completely deregulated and said there's enough competition. We're not gonna regulate. Other states have felt differently. So there there's things to consider to consider about the extent to which you would want to regulate. I think you know, I'm not saying you can entirely regulate VoIP as if it were a common carrier under title two. But some of it's what are the concerns, what are the public safety risks, you know, when it comes down to it, about the services that are available in Vermont. And again, different states feel differently. The FTC tends to modernize the network, replace everything with fiber. There's a lot of competition, wireless, other wireline providers, cable providers, that the market will kinda take care of itself. That's definitely one policy choice. The question is, does that work in Vermont? And so I think that's part of what you're gonna also be hearing from the PEC and the department about what status it is now in Vermont and what they're asking to be relieved of. K. Yeah. Does that make sense? It is confusing. And I

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: know we'll we're gonna talk about that later. Thoughts on this Yeah. Blue box. I have Yep. I don't know.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: This is the the blue box beating at striking broadband service.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I it's since we're setting a minimum, I I could understand striking that. I would imagine that any private carrier would want to advertise their broadband services if they doing that right. So what we're talking about is an address of dedicated telephone service. And that's how you're working. That might not be a better term than current childhood service.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Or legacy telephone service.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, the impact will be on their telephone service.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Legacy voice service. Usually how it's

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, it's a change from a legacy voice service to another telephone service. Right? To another voice service.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yep.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So the impact will be on their on the on the voice telephone service. It'll be on your third change it's a change from we're we are interpreting it anyway. The change from copper based voice service to fiber based voice service.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is where it gets a little bit confusing because for some of the like, I think when you've heard from Kim Gates, when she was talking about, we don't send a notice. We we change our network to fiber and everybody like, it's almost seamless. They didn't you know, there might have been some technical changes. So, in a sense, they're they still have a legacy service because the the phone company isn't being relieved of its obligations in any way than it had before. There's really no difference. It's like a legacy voice service. Right. What's happening here originally, I think we approached it as this is just a network change from copper to fiber. But what's actually going on is they're asking for permission to be relieved of their legacy service, which is why when you said that, I thought, well, okay. The impact on the customer's legacy voice service

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Uh-huh.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: As compared you know? Right. With switching to the replacement VoIP service, which is not necessarily a regulated legacy voice service. Is that

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, are they they still being required, obligated to provide a voice service?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That's to be determined. That's By who? They are asking. So this is what was confusing, and I think why there were different things being said. That's why Kim was like, we don't need to get FCC. Technically, think they have to submit a certification, FCC, but it's really minor. Right? You're just changing the network. Everyone's service is the same. What consolidated as asking for is to discontinue having to provide their legacy voice servant and being relieved of the obligations that accompany that service. That's what they have asked of the FCC.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. It's But they're being relieved of the obligation to provide any telephone service, really. It's not when you say legacy, I'm I'm I'm hearing copper.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. But it's not always copper because who I Kim Gates and her company, she has fiber, but she still provides tech you know, what's considered legacy voice service. She's subject to all of the carrier of last resort, service requirements.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. There's a legacy in the sense of a legal obligation, and there's legacy in the sense of psychology.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And I think you're absolutely right, though, to be really clear about the distinction and what's being asked. And that's where I was gonna say in light of kind of like what's actually happening. Do you wanna refine this anyway? Do you wanna understand a little bit more about what's happening in the market? How it affects Vermonters?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, yeah, maybe for myself, maybe I wasn't understanding correctly.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I didn't understand either. Yeah. So, no. So,

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: maybe we do need to ask fish.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, that's why they're here. Yeah. Okay. And we will be hearing from them.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Well, we can go on.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, so do we want to flag? Yes. Is there a problem with the word current? Guess is my And if there is, let's hear testimony from our folks in the room after we finish our

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: walk through and return to that. Okay. I'll note that we might change the terms and make it consistent with what you want.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. So that's TBD. So going getting back to and broadband service as applicable. If you don't think it's getting us into thin ice with regulatory stuff, I don't see why we wouldn't leave it in.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think so. If the customer has voice and DSL service, they're getting a notification of how this new fiber service is gonna impact what they had.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, so you're gonna And

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: and you're right that Yeah. Right. Presumably, that would wanna be we'd wanna advertise. You're getting fiber service. There might be price variables. But Yeah. Which gets us so what's added there at the end of Subdivision 2 and whether the carrier will offer a reasonably comparable replacement service in relation to pricing terms and conditions. This is getting at what came up in Subdivision 3. I'm sorry. No. Further down. In Subdivision 4. You know, they have an obligation to provide a calling plan at the same price as offered. And so I think you raised good questions. Is it actually the same price? What happens if they wanna raise the price?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Or lower the price.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Or lower the price. And so this is just a notice. Is there a service that's comparable? Same terms. It doesn't require there to see. It kinda leaves it open. It's just a notice so that customers know they have options. And then number three, this is both Hunter and this committee wanted to amend that language about auxiliary devices. So it now reads that they provide information sufficient to inform customers on the need to test and verify any auxiliary telecommunications devices such as alarm systems and life alert to ensure they function properly over their new VoIP phone. So just informing them that this is an issue, and they want to make sure that it's their device is still functioning.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I wonder

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: if it should say because instead of Life Alert, which is a brand Medical

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, medical alert system. Thank you. Yep. Sure.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Then striking striking what follows because we've replaced it.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. That was the replacement, they have to provide the technical support and Right. There were plenty of questions raised about whether they should do that or even know how to do that. Yeah. So number four, no change to the first part. So disclosures about the carrier's obligation to provide regulated landline voice service to all residential customers in its service territory. It's not saying that they will, but it's saying that you need to inform them if you are under an obligation to do that. So, I mean, this is the issue that you're gonna come back to when you so I'm just flagging that now, but it's it gets to informing customers about what the provider has to provide. And then, you know, what I referenced before about having the same price, rolling fence striking that in Subdivision 5. This is about the backup power, making that informational only information on the need for and availability of backup power options and battery backup devices to ensure each customer can maintain service continuity during a power outage. You're no longer required to disclose specific costs or installations, procedures, etcetera. Okay. And then Subdivision 6, Hunter had proposed they now have to provide a brief summary of the consumer protection rules, just the link. And then I amended the rules. I think had been rule 3.3 o because we've been talking about the disconnection rule, and that's for electric and wire. So it wasn't until this morning that I realized wait a minute. I think they're different rules. But there's similar consumer protection rules that are applied to telecom service with respect to standard billing, credit collections, consumer bill of rights. And those rules currently provide apply to fixed VoIP services. So informational contact information for support department from the carrier. Then I think what came up in your discussion was asking that they provide information regarding the availability of and eligibility for any federal, state, or carrier discount programs applicable to the replacement VoIP service. Again, informational and then a general catch all, any other disclosures deemed necessary. And then the language so I had read that those disclosures are consistent with the purpose of this section. What I added next is, or what instead, it specifies to ensure that the public convenience and necessity will not be adversely affected by the transition or discontinuous. You're gonna decide that when we kind of get a little bit deeper into that discussion, but that's the standard that the FCC applies when it's evaluating whether or not to allow a provider to discontinue its legacy service. So it seemed like it would be appropriate to reference that, that that's what the department's gonna be thinking about in terms of these disclosures and how to protect Vermonters and their interests. No changes to the board of service provider. Reporting section, the DPS did recommend that this subsection be stricken. Did I miss a change? Was there a change?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I I probably missed it. Transition or discontinue service on line 13, is

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: that what you're talking about? To be determined. We're coming back

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That's exactly, yeah. I just wanted to highlight one of those areas. Again, this is asking a provider to annually report the number of customers who have purchased Fire Backup Systems from the carrier. That's assuming that they offer it, it's not requiring them, but if they know, if they do offer it, that they also disclose the cost of those options. And then if they happen to know any incidents where nine eleven access was impaired due to the lack of backup power. So, if you think that information would be helpful and this would apply to all VoIP providers, not just what consolidated is offered. So any fixed VoIP provider.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, I wanna hear, I saw your hand. I wanna hear why this is useful information. I don't remember, I remember thinking that, I thought this maybe wasn't that helpful.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And now let's say this came from April 11. We talked about those the battery backup issues. Yeah. We incorporate some of them. So this was just moved over. That's where it came from originally.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I thought we were striking this, but, it was your

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: The recommendation there was a recommendation from the department to strike this, and I think we should talk about it. So we are potentially we are not not potentially. We are in the process of seeing the way that people are able to call for help, you know, cross the final threshold here. You know, we put in place here. It is very different, whether or not it's guaranteed that they're able to do that. And we're gonna hear more from the department and the PUC, about their assessment and monitoring of that. But I fail to understand. I I you know, we heard some concern about, well, this might you know, if there's a whole house generator, you wouldn't need that. This simply says this information is gonna be provided to the department, and it seems like important information for the department to be able to monitor what is happening in this very serious transition that's happening here. It literally it's about some of our parents and grandparents being able to

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: But let me think this tell me think this through. Yeah. It's the providers who are gonna have to report to the departments Right. How many customers who have bought batteries from the provider. Mhmm. But can't you also go buy a battery somewhere else or from somebody else?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So they might not know that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So it's gonna be Mhmm. Incomplete data. Mhmm. So we're not gonna know how accurate it is because it may not it may not capture the whole universe of people who are buying batteries.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's right.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: The cost It's only for their what they charge.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm. Right. And that would be fluctuating all the time, I assume. I don't know. If you buy a special sale from consolidated in April, and then does it cost different? I'm I'm not sure about the relevance of that. And then I don't know why we're asking the providers to tell us where e nine one one access was impaired due to the due to the lack of backup. That seems like it will come from the e nine one one holder. So So

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: I don't get this report.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: G r our regulators, and I'm very interested in hearing what they have to say, have blinders that are starting to come over their eyes in terms of understanding who can call for help. And so this is not going to give us comprehensive information, and I don't think that it alludes to nor does it nor is there anything we're requiring to be done with this. I don't believe we're requiring anything to be done. We are requiring this information to go to the department so that the department has more data. We can't require these providers to do a lot of things, but they have more data when they are hopefully monitoring and assessing. Okay. You know, like in this section of Vermont, and I know that they do do this. You know, we are seeing there's some pretty serious repeated power situations. We know that there's not a lot of batteries, like, maybe we have people that are really vulnerable here. There's some sort of funding. Maybe that's a place to It is data that can help us understand vulnerability and help the department understand vulnerability. And this is not a static, environment we're in. We are literally starting to handcuff this change in this transition in technology, our department, and our ability to protect Vermonters. So this is data to just help us have an indication where we may there may be vulnerabilities. No requirement to use it.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So I'm just kinda gonna add to that. I'm not disputing. I'm not arguing. But didn't the requirement to provide battery backups for sale, didn't that requirement sunset?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So with that,

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: why would they keep any of those records? That's

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: To answer that, I think they know how many things they have sold. They have to keep track of that. The utility that is selling battery backup systems, the provider that is selling battery backup systems to their customers, which are the only ones we are to know about. I think that's not a big requirement, but my bigger question is, like, what we really care about, I think, is line 19. Mhmm. And is there another way to find out how many people tried to call 911 and couldn't Is there a way to get a more complete picture of that than this would provide without requiring other things that only give us an incomplete picture?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And would the provider even be the person who knows that? That was one of my final points. Who would I agree. I think line 19 is really important. I was trying to articulate who has that information. I know that it's the provider or or is it?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I don't know that any I mean, you make a call that doesn't go through unless you report that. Nobody knows. And if you're a Vermonter out there who tried to call 911 and it didn't work, you're probably very upset about that, but you may not know. Why? There's no sort of there's no obvious play like, I wouldn't know who to call up and complain about. Like, if I made a call that didn't work, I wouldn't know. Like, is that who do I complain to? Do I complain to my town manager? Do I complain to my phone company? Do I complain to the state government or the FCC, like, I would not know that.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Mhmm. A lot of our war experience. But

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Or would I complain to Sibilia?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. At MedalCheck. Yeah. So this is again, this is not require there's not a requirement. There's not a penalty for missing this. I think this language presumes that all of the actors here, which I think is extremely generous, are wanting to protect Vermonters, their clients, and ensure that their clients have access to E nine one one. Think this language which doesn't require or penalize. You know, it allows the provide it says to the providers, we wanna know if you understand that there's an issue. And it just presumes that there's good intent. Again, I think that's very generous in some cases, but there's no requirement or penalty here.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, understand that. I mean, not gonna go to the mat over this. It'll be interesting to see if the data's useful. So, unless people wanna argue further about striking it. I think the cost of battery backup options is then I would say the cost of sale or something. Mhmm. And we can move on.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Do we know why DPS recommended striking this out?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: If I recall the conversation, it was probably along the lines of conversation we're having right now. Mhmm. So alright. Well, I've made my point. I'm not gonna you know, it's not my health.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: In the enforcement section, note changes there. Department monitoring, I have this down as a to be determined. I wasn't sure where the committee landed on this. BPS recommends striking this subsection in its entirety. So we'll just read through it once more. So in addition to reviewing the reports that we've just talked about that come in from the carrier, the commissioner of public service shall review the quarterly outage or the outage reports that are submitted to 911 by carriers and by electric companies about any network or power outages. Commissioner reviews those quarterly. In addition to reviewing the department's own telecom service availability data, That's new language. And the goal is to determine if there are areas of the state particularly prone to carrier or power outages and assess whether locations in those areas may be vulnerable to extended periods of time without access to 911. So, in part, what that would be based on is if there's only one wireline voice provider. If there's no cell service available, if there's only one wireline provider and there's the network is down for a sustained period of time, then you know there no pulse can be made. If the power is out for weeks or week, then you know to be concerned, they don't have any other options. Do they have generator? Do they have that? Right? So it's policy decision if this information is helpful to you and think it can be monitored in a meaningful way.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So I think the purpose is really important here to determine if there are areas of the state particularly prone to carrier power outages, assessing whether or not those areas might be vulnerable. Previous legislatures have spent a lot of time on the vulnerability that was opening up in the state. We've added, incentivized these publicly accountable entities. And let me just take a moment right now to disclose that I am a board member on the Vermont Community Broadband Board, and I'm not speaking for them. I'm observing as a legislator what has transpired. We saw, this happening. We legislators incentivized the creation of accountable more accountable entities as we were seeing deregulation about to happen, ensuring universal service. And what we have seen and what we are seeing, with our CDs is tremendous success in some areas, and some of that success is in partnership with an entity that there continue to be many, many complaints about. I would say we have one actor in the state who's partnering and continuing to transition on their own who has been a badass. And so, we still are going to have vulnerabilities even after this action. And so, this would require the department to monitor. We're saying we want you to monitor if there are areas of the state where there are vulnerabilities, as there were before we passed Act 71 and Act 79 from the states. But I think we should keep it in there. I think we relieved the Department of a lot of obligation under Act 71 and Act 79, which was the creation of CUDs and then the creation of the VCBP. We now need someone to really This is not the VCBP's job. We need our regulator to monitor what is happening.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Maria, in a section like this, I agree the outcome is important. Is it necessary for us to be so prescriptive about what we we expect them to monitor or, I mean, to review or read in order to deliver these results. Do see what I'm saying? Yeah. It's like we're saying we wanna know, you know, if there are areas of the state prone to carrier power outages and assess whether they'll they're vulnerable. I think that's really important. I think we should keep that in, so I don't agree with DPS on striking that. But do we need to give them, like, a homework list to do that? Like Yeah. Do we have to tell them what to read to do that? I I am asking completely and just say, here's what we expect you to deliver.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And that's part of why based on kind of where the conversation's going in her discussion, I added in here. She'll also look at their telecom service availability data. Mhmm. This as an overlay. Okay. A lot of power outages here. Only one VoIP provider. Or right? So they can that was helpful information. Is there if there's other information that you're aware of you want them to look at or if you just wanna say including and they can look for they can do whatever they want. They can request information from your the regulator. So you have a lot of flexibility. You can be more prescriptive. You can be less.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think it's an important report. So, if you think this language gets up where we're going, I'm I'm good with it. Anybody else?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I would be happy

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: to hear any additional comments that the department has given our discussions with Lich Council today. They're you know, if they have additional suggestions on how we could achieve the outcome that we're looking for.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Okay. And so, no change. I don't think you want to make change to coordinating with the AG's office about establishing a mechanism for tracking consumer complaints related to VoIP service quality and reliability, Consumer education outreach, no changes there. That's the obligation of the commissioner to make sure customers understand how they'll be impacted by the transition. Also, additional information about the risks concerning emergency preparedness with respect to VoIP service, again, the power outage battery issue. And then for the department report, Commissioner Caledonia, the annual report to you, findings and recommendations related to the implementation and enforcement of this section. And then the remaining one time reporting requirement, the department or director Thompson recommended striking. This is the report that would come back next year only about whether asking for recommendations about what we whether financial assistance is warranted to low income customers with respect to purchasing backup power and whether the station enact any additional backup power obligations applicable to VoIP service. So along the lines of what the FCC has sunset. So these are, again, just recommendations.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And that concludes everybody. Alright. And we I know the effective date, we feel like gives sufficient notice. It's something right to the providers for the change and

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I am and so it's getting batched here. Actually, madam chair. Yeah. I

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: why why I forget why we have that. And so

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I thought that was one.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So it takes effect on passage. It applies to carriers on September 1. You can change that. This was a little bit of leeway to prepare their notices, but we need that. Notices.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Right. Thanks. And so the They're

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: giving the DPS time to Yes.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Come up with the form.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: The matter and form.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Okay. Yeah. So along those lines, with the rate that the filings are happening Mhmm. Is going to miss a large quantity of those.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Let's get our prince and the senate and the governor to say.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: K. I think you wanna say that.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: By August, could we say sixty days after passage move? Is that potentially moving out longer? I mean, potentially that moves it up faster. Right? Although that's a lot of uncertainty that'll make people very anxious. I don't think we're gonna say much that we're probably not gonna get this fast, but we're gonna do this.

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: August, is the

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: My concern is we're going to enact something that's going to

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: be way behind the government.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And that's it. It's all gonna be done before this even makes effect.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: But it takes time, and we need to allow time for the process. I mean, it it takes effect

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I I understand.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: It takes effect on passage. So let's say something really weird happens and we voted out next week. It's on the floor because of the senate. They're like, great idea. And they ship it off to the governor. He signs it right away. Then it will have taken effect. And then I would assume DPS would begin the work of deciding the form and manner and everybody will be on notice that this change is happening. So I'm not sure how to

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: make that faster without. I think that gets back to you. Should you just specify a number of days after passage? Right? Like, six or days. How much time do they need

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: from an

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: app? I mean, this is September 1, but they could enact it under your scenario. Wouldn't that be great? It's enacted in April. It'll be July 1. You know? I'm not here for me, July. I'm not. Can you guys close? Yep. And

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: I just respect it. So

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm not sure we can get ahead of this that much, and I share your concern, which makes the requirements for monitoring that we're putting on the department and data collection even more important because we we may be trying to shut the door after the worst out. So now we're gonna have to monitor.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: One last point. Weren't we going to wait to see the MOU at some point to review that?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We decided, not to wait for the MOU Okay. Because Hunter said it could be several weeks, and he said that that there were parallel tracks. He would submit comments, which he's done, and we would revise the bill accordingly. And they're working on the MOU, but especially considering the conversation we've just had about the horses out of the barn, waiting to see an MOU and then trying to revise this again according to usually, we could lose a lot of time or lose the bill. Okay.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's all that's all I have about this. But just in terms of the issue now, what is actually being requested, a little more information about that. So some of the applications that were filed with the SCC by Consolidated are to discontinue their legacy service.

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: So

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: the question is, what does that mean in Vermont? So that's what you're gonna hear from the PUC and the department about. Consolidated operates under an incentive or integration plan. There's a lot more flexibility than there used to be for the traditional regulated service. A lot more flexibility on price. There are some metrics about competition, that there is enough competition over a certain threshold. They can be relieved of certain responsibilities. I don't know. I end up looking at the incentive regulation plan. So I think that's the question of what what are they what are they obligated to do now? And would discontinuing their obligations under their new application go further than what they're required to do now, or is it consistent with what they're required? That I think that's what you're gonna hear more about. That makes sense.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And what sorry. When was that well, we'll hear. It's that's a recent filing.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That well, one one that I saw was from December. It was filed in December, but I think there may have been a previous one. But that's I think that's information, how many have been filed, what area I don't know the details about that. So Alright. Great.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And that's where my concern comes in.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That's exactly where your

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: concern Because comes from a

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: letter dated three days ago from a carrier that we're talking about. It stated these are not copper retirement filings. They are filings to discontinue legacy voice services, and that right there is what concerns me. Mhmm.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the the questions that you look at are are prices in any way regulated or kept? Are there carrier of last resort responsibilities? Do they have to build out to new builds? Any other house or households that they don't already provide service to? What are the service quality provisions that would still apply? Whether they still will retain their ETC, eligible telecommunications carrier designation, which allows them to receive federal funding, and it also requires them to offer lifeline service, federal and state. So I think these are all the things about you're gonna hear about how how does it change, and that's part of what's under the general regulation, and and I'm not sure of all the details.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I guess my question is the laws represent Southworth's question is, they if they they make this filing to the FCC, are they legally allowed to is is is the FCC legally allowed to terminate their obligation understatement?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is a really interesting question because, yeah, they filed applications with the FCC and under that procedure, there's like a thirty day window to make comments. So you should hear from the PUC about their notice or whether they have concerns. In terms of what residual reserved authority the state has, this is a contentious issue. Some providers are arguing if the FCC improves this, the states do not have any authority to undo what the FCC has already said. You're preempted. The FCC says this is okay. We've looked at the public necessity. We've looked at the competition. It's fine. Other states, notably California, they said, I don't think so. We're gonna study this. We wanna know if our customers are protected, and we think we have jurisdiction to decide what's in the best interest of our state under tenth amendment public safety, public health authority state authority. So

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Does anybody know if this is on our attorney general's radar?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. But you it might be helpful to hear thoughts from the PUC's perspective or what they believe their authority is and how they're responding or have responded or what.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. Maria, I know you're gonna stay. So

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Would you Sure.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. You guys ready? Sure. Sorry. We're running late.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Gonna go sequentially or together?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Whatever you want.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: What? Yeah. But I would defer to you. Whatever is

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: You're gonna I can sit with you. Come on. Thank you.

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: For the record, I'm Jim Porter. I'm the director for public advocacy with the Department of Public Service.

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: And I'm Daniel Burke. I'm a staff attorney and hearing officer at the Public Utility Commission.

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Maybe just very quickly, does everybody here understand, And I think primarily we're talking about consolidated. And Maria absolutely is correct. There's a federal regulatory scheme and a state regulatory scheme. But years ago, if you remember AT and T, they were the monopoly and the phone company. Right. Well, here, but I mean Yeah. Yeah. Way back. Way back. They were rate regulated to an extent, and they they were regulated much like Green Mountain Power. They had a monopoly product and a monopoly service area. In 1996, congress passed the Communications Act. And at this time, they said, you know, we need some competition introduced into the market. At some point, the the Bell companies were broken up and consolidated is still a successor in interest to Verizon who were they New England Bell maybe. Right. But all of the they called them the baby Bell companies. They had obligations that nobody else did because they came from a monopoly, and they continue to have some of those obligations today. But one thing, competition largely was successful for the last forty years. And it is a competitive market. And we have recognized that. You've heard about their incentive regulation plan that Consolidated and FairPoint have operated under for years. And I have to say this at the outset. Vermont has gone all in on fiber to the home. I think Hunter will tell you that's preferable. He's excited for the day when everybody has that fiber connection. And consolidated over the last however many years have made huge investments in Vermont in fiber to the home. And I think that's a good thing. Don't want it to sound like we're not appreciative that they've done that. But what we've done as far as regulating them is the first thing with their IRP, and there's one thing that is still regulated by price, and it's called basic local exchange service. It's basically the most basic dial tone service that's offered to a customer. They're required to offer it. We call it blessed service. Remember that because I'm gonna come back to And that continues. There's a formula, but I believe it continues to be regulated and that service has to be provided. I think VTL was our first smaller phone company that went to fiber only. I think you heard from Kim Gates from Franklin Telephone last week. Most of the little guys are fiber completely fiber now. And they have all including VTL because we believe that the obligations you have to provide voice service are there irrespective of the technology that you use to provide it.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right.

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Yes.

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: Can I just make one quick distinction, piggybacking off what Jim just said that's relevant to this discussion for a legal and regulatory purpose is that consolidated less rate is still rate regulated by the Public Utility Commission under Barth Amont Law? All of the other incumbent telephone companies, including Champlain Valley, Vital, Franklin, they are not rate regulated. They were bregulated by law, gosh, fifteen years ago, give or take. The smaller, what we call the ILACs, the old incumbent local exchange carriers, are not rate regulated. They're still subject to the Commission's service quality obligations, so we still do regulate them. We're still responsible for various federal filings on behalf of those companies. But in terms of the regulatory posture, vis a vis consolidated, which is the legacy of RBAC, which was the regional Bell Company, they are in a different posture. So that is why consolidated has an incentive regulation plan, which governs its loss rate, but the other telephone companies do not.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Just a quick question, Jeff. With regard to you said we believe that they are still obligated to provide don't don't let me put words in your mouth. Obligated to provide voice service. Is that what you said?

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: I think they're obligated well, I think they're obligated to provide less service at a regulated rate.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Through federal or state law? State law. Then what is that law?

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Well, I think it's their incentive regulation plan that the PUC orders.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I'm digging your chronology. It's difficult for me to jump ahead. So if we could stay with order of operations, that is really helpful for me. So we were back with the baby We're back with the baby bells and price regulation.

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Well, and what I was gonna say, Comcast has been offering fixed voice service for years and years. You know, we had concerns. They were gonna say, don't don't call us about this service. All of the companies that have changed a lot of the technologies, they have continued to abide by the same Comcast, we take complaints about their broadband service as a courtesy. I will tell you, because we just recently had to extend Consolidated's IRP last year, and we did it for well, we, the PUC, extended it for one year. This was the first time that Consolidated has been less than willing to work with the regulators. I think y'all had Sarah Davis from Consolidated in here last week. I've listened to her testimony about four times, and I have some questions after listening to her. And one thing I just wanted to tell y'all today, and I'm going be a little careful. If it's Dan's with the PUC, I have to be a little careful about it. I can tell y'all what our plans are, maybe not so much Dan's. But I think there are some questions Under section two thirty one of Title 30, you cannot abandon a regulated service without the PUC's permission. I think there's a question maybe as to whether that's happening. But one thing that I think we're about to do is to ask the PUC to open an investigation. Because after listening to Sarah and I know we've had Hunter working with Consolidated toward trying to pull together some sort of MOU If we do this and the PUC opens an investigation, I think we need some answers from the company that are sworn, which happens in PUC proceedings, to find out exactly what they are doing, what their intentions are, what did this filing with the FCC mean, how do you view this obligation, to give us, as I say, a sworn sense of where this company is. And I think that's one thing the department is poised to request irrespective of an MOU or this bill. Does that make any sense? Mhmm. There's just too many questions. And yeah. And I imagine I'll listen to Sarah's testimony a few more times before that comes out.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Can you we go back just to one zero one for a minute. So FCC filing for Consolidated discontinued legacy voice service. Can you just one zero one, what does that does that mean? What would happen if it's granted? When will we expect you know, how quickly does the FCC move on this? If it's approved, what happens? I I'm just I I wanna make sure I really understand what the filing means. And it sounds like you have questions too,

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: but So the filing that was made back in the summer, the first one, I've got it here, I think they made it properly. They sent it to the governor's office and to the PUC. I had a call from the PUC, they said, have you seen this filing? And I said, no. So frankly, this filing did not concern me. I can't speak for the PUC as to whether they were concerned. I read this is we're getting rid of copper. We're putting in and Sarah did say, like Sarah Davis said last week, she seemed to concede that they do have these certain voice obligations. But I think that's something we need to look at a little more. I'm sorry, though. Did I answer your question?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: That was I thought there were were there two filings? So the filing last summer was to discontinue legacy voice and then was there a filing in December?

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: Yeah. There were identical filings but they related to different exchanges throughout. So consolidated is obligated to file based when they're doing the work within particular exchanges. So if you look through the stack of paper Jim has, I believe there's maps and lists of exchanges where they're doing particular work. There was a subsequent filing in November, which we did not receive at the Public Utility Commission. In fact, chair McNamara knocked on my door asking if I had seen it, I think in response to a request from representative Sibilia, and we had not. And I worked with our clerk who was very diligent about checking the mail, and she looked through everything she had scanned and found. They had sent us a filing that was relevant to Texas at that time. So we did not get their Vermont file. So consolidated, I presume it's their law firm in DC that handled that work, sent us the wrong filing. So the clerk didn't forward it on because it didn't look relevant for obvious reasons. And there's a subsequent one. They all have the same information. They speak to discontinuing legacy voice service, but not retiring the copper. And my understanding when I first read these filings, which I was the one from the PUC who reached out to Jim and Hunter Thompson, because we can discuss FCC filings together, was that when they referred to discontinuing legacy service, I understood legacy service to mean TDM service, which is the traditional time division multiplexing service that is done over copper mines. So that is the fancy word for the waves that are sent on copper to transmit your voice, and they'd be switching over to fiber equipment, which uses flashes of light from lasers. And that's where you get the VoIP, which is VoIP. The Internet protocol is in there. It doesn't mean they're sending this over the Internet. It just means they're using the same type of technology that transmits data on the public Internet. So they're still transmitting these calls over their own proprietary network. At least they should be doing that. And my understanding of the federal law is that or I should take another big step back. Attorney Royal referenced the ETC designation, which is the eligible telecommunications carrier. That is a creature of federal law. The companies that are ETCs are eligible to receive funding from the FCC. What's relevant to consolidate is what's called the high cost support. It's basically a subsidy for providing service in rural areas. And states are responsible for making the ETC designation. So we at the PUC are the state authority here with designating which telephone companies get that. And that's historically the old landline companies. So Consolidated has it. Shoreham Telecom has it, all the old landline telecom companies have it. And when you are an ETC, you are obligated to provide service, voice service, to every residence subject to certain conditions in your service territory. And you cannot be relieved of that obligation until you go back to your state commission, in this case, us, the PUC, in petition to be relieved of the TC service. And there's certain criteria set on statute that you have to satisfy to get that. The big one is demonstrating that there is another wireline carrier that has also been designated as an ETC carrier in your service territory. To date, none of the wireline EPCs in Vermont have petitioned the PUC to be exempted from their ETC designation, even though there are now arguably some wireline ETCs where some of the odds are. They have not gotten those petitions yet. So consolidated is still subject to its ETC designation. And as mister Porter mentioned, are also it is also still subject to its IRP, which obligates it to provide voice service and non competitive exchanges. So I'm sorry. I know that's a fire hose spray of of law there, but I would just stall that down to it is my interpretation of the relevant law that regardless of what has been filed and approved by the FCC, Consolidated must provide voice service in those exchanges on a stand alone basis to its customers. The issue that I think is arising is whether or not they need to do it subject to their approval as rate. I think that is I would say yes, but there may be some consolidated or may disagree. I may be

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: missing something here, but I actually would be unhappy. But as I understand, if they filed with the SEC, we'd be relieved of that obligation to provide local service.

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: What their filing says is that would be relieved of providing legacy service.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's not that they

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: would stop providing voice service. And under the applicable Well, federal regulation, they have

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: legacy, in a sense, is legal obligation. Is it not?

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: Legacy, I interpret that as the TDM service. So that is the old frequency sent over copper as opposed to putting up fiber optical equipment in there. So, yeah, it is. Yes, I know there's a lot of overlay of federal and state law. There's always collaborative federalism and technology that goes to this.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: It's also important to bear in

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: mind both federal law and state law are pushing these telephone companies to use as opposed to be on account for a lot of reasons. Right.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But I think you said earlier that they were petitioning to be relieved of TDM service, legacy, as you interpreted TDM service, but not for the effect of actually using copper. Not retiring copper. There are very

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: specific definition for what retiring copper means under federal regulations, And they have not done that. They have not petitioned the FCC to do that. So that is a term of art, retirement. It's defined in federal regulation. That's really getting into the weeds of that.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So, I know you've

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: heard from three attorneys. That's what I'm

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: just saying. Is it possible that consolidated believes that their application to be relieved of their legacy obligations means that they do not have to fulfill carrier of last resort obligations?

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: I did not hear miss Davis' testimony. I actually looked for

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: it yesterday in the website

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: and was unable to find it. So if you could forward that to me. Forward that to you. If that is their interpretation, I I speaking for myself, I would recommend to the commissioners that that that's not how I would advise the commissioners. If there were some sort of regular regulatory proceedings in front of us, it would ultimately be subject to referee commissioners to make those determinations. There would not be filing.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So, how many filings have you been privy to so far?

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: I have seen three, but I think only one came to us through removal When we get them, our clerk applies them to our filing system, and we create reports filed.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I think it's three days ago, they said they were filing another one on that day, so there's another one already processed.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Brief, and you've only received one?

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: That I have seen, I can't say. I would need to check with our clerk if there was another one that I did not. But she's pretty diligent about when scanning them, getting them or getting them.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Who's next? I don't know who's next. I'm taking notes.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So if the tall if the small ILECs have all gone to favor, this is a non issue. Which

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: is a non issue?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: This notice. That everything we've been working on in terms of outreach and, reporting.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: don't know that it's a nonissue. I I can We get very, very few complaints about a smaller dollar company. And I think they typically do a really good job with their customers.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And so other than consolidated, who are the other ETC larger ones that haven't completed the transition?

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Gosh. You said was an Shoreham? Hunter could answer that. Okay.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just trying to get a sense of how many households we're talking about, how many companies we're talking about.

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Well, that's one other thing I did want to mention. So over the years, did I say this earlier? The department has recommended and the PUC has approved that, say, in Burlington, which is a very competitive you can have Burlington Telecom. You can have Comcast. We've basically relieved or the PUC has relieved most of their service quality obligations because if they provide bad service, there's lots of other space to go to. Where we're talking about now are not so much the competitive areas. And I think when this current build out is finished, the consolidated study, we're I think Hunter told me recently he thinks there are going to be about 3,000 customers who are copper customers with no other options. And those customers are who, certainly for the last eight years, we've been obsessed with. I know there are transition troubles from different technologies, and the older I get our child gave us two things for Christmas that I can't make operate. One's a bird shader, and so no. But, no, but you have to do the technology. I've reached the age where what now?

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: What? Obviously, takes pictures of the birds and tells

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: you what kind of birds, you

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: know, and all this. So

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: so I know it. But once it gets set up, I think it's a great product that we have. But

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: The bird feeder?

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: The bird feeder actually is okay. Yeah. It is. And

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: sure if we'd switch topics.

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: But the but the thing is, I think the service and the one thing I will say about the battery backup and I know that I think the FCC obligation has lapsed on that. I'm not sure that it's these companies' fault that the technology that they are being asked to provide is powered by the electric company. And as you may know, we're having huge proceedings now with resiliency due to the increased storms. And so there's a piece of the you know, whose responsibility is it that there's no backup? Is it the power company, or is it because it was the old technology of the copper. You know, the the old telephone companies, there would be a central office that served a certain area. Every central office had a big room. It was nothing but a bunch of batteries. And when the power went out, they produced enough power to get the signal over the copper, and that's why people's phone service stayed. And so when it was replaced with the fiber, that hole, it's just not possible anymore.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rick Southworth.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So I don't know if you're the right person to answer this either of you, but I'm gonna ask. Since the carrier is going to a different voice service on their own accord when it comes to underground services to houses. What responsibility do they have to run that new line to that house, or do they have any responsibility to run that line to that house underground?

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: So that's a really interesting question because Green Mountain Power is doing a bunch of resilience work now, and they're burying underground a lot of their lines underground. And we get calls from the communications companies who are being asked to do their facilities in the same conduit. I don't think there's a regulatory obligation so much as whatever their arrangements are with the companies that own the poles, formerly what you know?

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: I think representative is talking about drops to the house. Yes.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yes. Yes.

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Hold on. I'm sorry. Sorry. I didn't make it clear. I'm sorry. And what was your question about drops to that?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So because the company is changing their service and requires a new line, whose responsibility is it to pay that transition with putting new line into the house? Is it companies? Do they have any onus or responsibility to do that?

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Well, are tariff rates for the copper lines that come in. That's a good question. I live in Montpelier, and I swapped from Comcast to Consolidated. And Consolidated buried my fiber to my house at their expense. We have buried at our address, and so they agreed to At

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: no charge to you? No charge to them. Is there a way to find out if they have that same obligation during this process? A certain number of fees, and I don't I'm not sure what it is. But I

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Like, with cable, yeah, that they're they're yeah. It's

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: The federal rules do talk to that, but I do not know the answer off the top of the I I would need to check that.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. And let us know.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That would be great. Thank you.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I think a a earlier testimony we've heard said did they say 400 feet that the the provider was obligated to run? And then beyond that, it was the customer's obligation. Maybe it was

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I was thinking 200.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Anyway, that's what the difference called.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So, I'm thinking of three parallel tracks. You before we let you gentlemen go, so I am thinking about the FCC filing and the fact that we've got a lot of questions and concerns and the fact that the department is considering or sounds like we'll be asking PUC to open an investigation into that. And I'm also hearing that the attorneys believe that you will be wading into the area concern if there's any kind of conflict between what we believe the state has the power to do and enforce and regulate and how the FCC decision plays out.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Well, it's also

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know that it's very

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: high on commissioners. Commissioners are making that determination.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Broadly, So though, what I'm trying to say is that the FCC filing, how the state of Vermont responds to that, that is an issue for for this committee and for the legislature to stay informed about, provide oversight over, make sure we understand what's happening because it informs our work. And it's really important. Unless I miss something. I also see the question of the MOU that's proceeding on its own parallel track and may be relevant to our bill when it gets over to the senate or something, but we're not gonna wait for it. And then I'm also seeing a draft that we painstakingly went through and should be ready for final language. And I want to make sure I'm not missing anything, which is that is there anything important, relevant, or timely that you feel should be added to this bill, which we're voting on next week, that is relevant to the consolidated FCC filing? And I'm hearing no. Or is there?

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Here's the only thing I would say about that. I defer to Maria a 110% as to preemption issues. The the battery backup, I think, as I mentioned, I'm a little concerned about it, but maybe not in

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Before I

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: she she wants you to finish. Right. That's my question.

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Oh, I've forgotten. What's the finish this kind of thing. I'm sorry.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Welcome to her world.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Welcome to world. Yeah. Okay. So did you Yes. Have a question?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I did. My question was we are not requiring battery

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: pack.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Do you see an obligation here for that? So simply asking them to report on it? That's I I I'm I'm making that distinction and saying to you. So

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: I have to I'm gonna answer it this way, and then I'm gonna throw it to mister Burke. When I became telecom director at the department, the guy who was the head of the legal division like I am now, he came to my office and he goes, I don't like telecom. I don't understand it. The lawyers don't. We're not helping you. So I went to the commissioner, and I said, I'm gonna have to hire my own very smart attorney. This is who I found who is very smart and a good telecom attorney until he left to go to the PUC. So I'm gonna you know, he can answer this question.

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: Specifically about preemption related issues. So our bill Yeah.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I believe I believe that mister Porter was raising a concern about our bill about the battery backup session. I was responding and saying, look, mister Porter. We are not requiring them to do it. We're requiring them to report on it. And I'm very interested if the concern about it in our bill changes given that we're not requiring. We're just requiring a board to give department data for their consideration and monitoring of vulnerability. I think, unfortunately, for

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: mister Porter, the only response I can give to them on the commission is I've not heard from the commissioners any concerns about that, particularly for.

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Enough to start tomorrow.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: just to complete my triple flip and stick for landing, we would love to be remain posted on what's happening with the FCC filing. We'll be very interested to see the MOU when whenever it's available to see, if the Senate might consider it relevant. And Maria, do you have what you need to deliver?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: New draft here?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. A new draft. Did we answer all the questions? We had two TBDs we needed to return to. Right. The TBD was at the bottom of page three. Current telephone service. Is there any reason to change that language based on what you heard?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Let's see it. Everybody rise.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: You can do today.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Can still you can still be related to voice service because it is related to voice service right now.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right? What is better? There are many smart attorneys many smart telecom attorneys in this room. You'd even legendary, I would say. So we Wear

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: that, Bernie.

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: No. No. May I

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: just ask, why don't we just struck the word current and it said how it affects your telephone service?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I I think so. I think come up with something generic. It doesn't

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: yeah. So strike current? Yeah. Okay. Great. Yeah. And at the bottom of k. Another TBD. Midway down page five, line 13, transition or discontinuance of service. What do you recommend there?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh. Well, you could do you could do both. Both. I'm gonna do both because as applicable. Right? I think it's gonna be discontinuous, but in some maybe in some areas, it's not. It's gonna be a transition. So it may be both.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rick Southworth?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I'm not gonna speak over attorney.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, no. Please.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I I'm just using the words that she wrote, man. It's discontinuance legacy voice. So I don't know if discontinuous or I refer defer to you.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That's part of the question because when we first started this, it was transition. It's just the network's changing. Right? And but now and maybe I I maybe I got the answer today. Maybe it seems like all of the petitions are about discontinuance. Maybe not. That's why I don't that's why I wasn't certain if they in different areas, they're

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: That's gonna come either way, and I prefer it because Okay. Oh, that's good.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yep. Okay. Cover the Rep. Sibilia? Madam chair, when you are done with this, I just have one more question for

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: the department. Let's let them know. Unless you had one

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: they you're already I when you're done with this, I wanna ask them for a question.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: Are are you ready?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. Okay. So but I what I said was why don't you ask their question? Because then if they wanna go, they

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: have go. Yes. Okay. So in addition, we have received and and rep care is not gonna just elect complaints from electric utilities also about this provider, and this major transition that's going on. Coal attachments, which we've managed not to dive into here, and hopefully that will continue this year. But that seems to be a pretty big issue that is happening with the utilities and the poles and what's left and who's going to be responsible, what bills are being paid or unpaid. And, you know, we've heard from we'll we'll post this, but we I don't know. I shouldn't say we'll post this. I will send it to the chair or and send it to you. But we've heard complaints from, your niece that there are issues here with what's they're lashing to the copper and then so there are problems there with ports and attachments and utilities, particularly.

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: Thanks, madam, Jared. As you know, pole attachments are one thing we can deal with clearly. Yeah, we should send them our

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: way. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So, Green Mountain Power buries their conductors, do they provide a conduit for the communications in that same I can pass through with their deal, or are the communication companies left on the on the poles. Green Mountain Power is abandoning their conductors from jobs.

[Jim Porter (Department of Public Service)]: The the companies I've talked to, and I think the last one was Comcast. And I think I think if there's an expense, I think they're moving their facilities. I can't remember if they have to be in different

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I can tell you, yes. They have. Yes. Right. And that's and I think that's part of the complaint is the extent code does not permit a communicator That's right. To be in the same conduit That's right. As an energized electrical. And I think that's been the issue I've heard. But I will say we asked a GMP witness about that in the recent proceeding, and we were told and they have a trenching tractor that they're using, and what we were told by

[Daniel Burke (Public Utility Commission, Staff Attorney/Hearing Officer)]: the GMP witness was that they are trying to do outreach to the telecom companies before they move the lines underground. Whether or not that's leading to the telecom companies and the cable companies trunching with them. They did say they were doing outreach.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you for your time. Really appreciate you being here. Subcommittee, Maria will send a final draft and we'll post it and we are going to vote this bill on next week. I'm sorry, I'm not writing on my notes right now. Just looking ahead, we'll have the agenda posted soon, I think. And next week, we are gonna be we have a budget hearing with Adam Greshen and with JFO to talk about the ADS budget. That's on Tuesday. We're gonna take, I hope, enough testimony on net metering and disconnections and data centers. So those three bills to see what our next steps might be. So data centers, disconnections, and net metering. We're gonna try to have some really foundational testimony so we can make some decisions as committee. We are voting out next week the consolidated bill, the cell bill, and single plant. And that's what's going on. So we'll be we'll be getting the agenda. I think, I think Alex is working on the agenda from Florida right now. Okay?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Do have a single plan bill number?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Seven ten.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Seven ten.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. And And This one

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: that we're taking This has

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: a weird Doctor, it's still a draft. It hasn't been in June. Yeah. Doctor twenty six zero seven two So vote next week on Doctor 260726, and it's gonna look exactly like what we just talked about. We'll vote out the cell bill, which is 527, and we last talked about that earlier this week, and we'll get a draft to folks as soon as it's ready. Okay. Which that should be very soon. And then seven ten is the consensus language that we went over with attorney Hoffman from the PC the other day that