Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Alright, everybody. Welcome to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It's Wednesday, February 11. And we are here this morning to have a committee discussion and vote on our committee bill two six zero seven two six, an act relating to copper based to fiber based network transitions and battery backup requirements. So just as a reminder, taking a pretty significant amount of testimony on this bill, and we walked through the language pretty carefully last week and asked ledge counsel to make final changes. And so she's gonna walk us through the language that we're voting on today. So oh, I'm sorry. And I'm representative Kathleen James from Bennington four.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from. Richard Bailey, 102. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Dara

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Torre, Washington two. And joining us?

[Dana Lee Perry (The Crasslin Group)]: Dana Lee Perry from the Crasslin Group. Andrew Brewer with DRM on behalf of Consolidated Slash Tibilia.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Emily Terry Smith, representative Windham Sachs.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Alrighty. For the record.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: For the record, Maria Royal with legislative counsel.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, Maria, what I know the version's been posted. What what are we looking at here?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is graphically 1.3. It's dated February 9 at 11:11AM. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So you're gonna have And

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I do have hard copies. Because I know some of you like hard copies. So Yeah? Okay then. I brought plenty. I okay. Great. Yeah. And so just to get started, we'll go through all of the revision.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I got one. Yes.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Substantive revisions are highlighted in yellow. So we'll go through all of those. Great. This draft has been edited. I didn't highlight the editor's technical changes. Yeah. That's fine. And there were a couple spots where I I made a couple changes just for clarification and because the subject matter changed from how it was originally contemplated. For example Okay. In the statement of purpose, you know so in the initial language that you were looking at, you actually had backup power requirements similar to what the FCC used to, and that has been stricken with the exception of some disclosure requirements, you know, that there are no specific battery backup requirements. So the proposal here, and you'll see this throughout the bill, is to delete that language and then just say, you know, purpose of the bill, the initial consumer protection states claim, and also to establish reporting requirements designed to inform state policy with regard to ensuring all telephone customers have continuous and reliable access to emergency services. So, again, this is just a statement of purpose. We'll go through as that is reflected in the body of the bill. But, similarly, the act title, I thought it was appropriate to strike the reference to backup power requirements. It might be confusing for some VoIP providers. I'm just specify that that relates to the transmission network and also consumer protections. Sorry, Miranda. Yep.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: In the subject, we still have backup power. Well, it's related to backup Okay. Yep. Thank

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Same thing with the section heading of the law. It's replacing backup power obligations with consumer protections. So then scrolling down, this was just a clarification I wanted to suggest for you. This is the finding specific to the FCC prior regulations related to providers and facilities based fixed residential voice services that are not line powered. That's defined in that terms used, but it's also kinda confusing for people who aren't. So I thought it might be helpful just to say such as VoIP service. Just to make it clear what you're referring to. So no no substance changes, just for clarity. So then in the sixth finding, I'm on page three, top of page three. So, just again, some clarifications and alignment with the new language. There is a need for customer safeguards to ensure continuous and reliable service during the transition to and in a provision of VoIP service and for enhanced state oversight with customer access to emergency services generally. This gets to the reporting requirements and the information that will come to the department and their monitoring of that and potential recommendations about their vulnerable areas or if there should be backup battery backup requirements. And then the intent section is similar to that. What I did add, you'll see it on line nine. It is intent of the general assembly to balance telephone network modernization with customer safeguards. And I suggested am suggesting that language because it really aligns with the FCC's oversight of trying to push the modernization of these networks. And it's indicating that Vermont is not the intent is not to stall that those upgrades, but to do so in a manner that also protects Vermonters.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So so that language, I I think, is actually helpful clarification. It I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: think it

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: is So that it couldn't be interpreted Correct. To mean that Vermont's out there trying to block Correct.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. The fiber rollout. Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think it would be advantageous to when we first refer to copper connections to be copper oh, let's see. Where is that? Copper fake line power. There's there's not a I don't know. I don't know if the public needs to understand it. And so it might be a not be a valid point because it's law and the the the common base with the lying power base.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Think that's an excellent point. I think it is reflected in the findings and you can let me know Okay, if

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, actually further up.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Line nine?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. You know, so you're findings one and two, you're talking about the transition from copper to fiber networks. And then on line nine, finding number three, and this is on page two, online traditional service over self powered, copper based network, and then distinguishes a fiber based network. It's not one kind of order. I think that

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. Guess

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. No. Think it's a great actually, I appreciate the clarifying questions. So I think we're back to the intent, having that balance statement and then also going on to say, enhance state oversight with regard to ensuring that all telephone customers have continuous and reliable access to emergency services. The reporting requirements on the department and their look at service availability is not restricted to just these transition areas, but just statewide looking to see if they're vulnerable areas with respect to power or carrier outages. So I think now in the notice requirement on page four, your suggestion was to have the notice go out one hundred and twenty days and sixty days and thirty days. Is that right? Not not ninety days.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think that's what we settled on.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And so And then disclosure number two. I you know, there was some discussion about how you described the current or the existing telephone legacy telephone service. I think just by striking any reference, you know, it it would now read the details of service changes including any potential impact on a customer's telephone service. It just doesn't I don't think you really need to qualify it. Think it's self evident. Yep.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So it goes into on that line six, it says, and whether the carrier will offer. So is that stating that they don't have to?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So that's a really good question and that kind of gets to what's the it's a dynamic market and what's happening. Like, as you know, they have filed with the FCC a petition to discontinue their legacy obligations. So whether they, going forward, will be required to offer a comparable service, you know, that's kind of a to be determined. I'm just gonna say

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that that's what we learned on Friday in our hearing. Right? That they've filed this petition to discontinue their legacy service. And if that's approved by the FCC, then it's

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: they will no longer be required. Likely, it might be if it hasn't already because they filed several petitions. Right. There's usually, like, a thirty day comment window, and then there's a so my guess is it may have been approved in some areas already, but then there's the PUC as you as the PUC mentioned, they're gonna do their own investigation. Right. And look at what what if any requirements should remain. And so I thought by saying whether the carrier will will offer reasonably comparable, it kind of opens it up so that the customer knows. You don't have to just buy a bundled service that's very expensive or maybe avoid standalone service. It's comparable to what you had.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So even if they're no longer required to offer that, we are requiring you to say

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Whether if they whether if they That was does that make sense? So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: would they are they still carrying the designation of a carrier of last resort?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: To be determined. I think that

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's where I'm kinda hung up on that.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Is because if they are,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: then they have to. Correct? Yep. So that's kinda where I'm hung up on that.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I think it's a good it's a really good point, and that's part of the dynamic nature of this. And you'll see, in the next disclosure we're we're fire oh, I'm sorry. Of course, the the third disclosure of pregnant. That's a good point to not specify life alerts. Private entity, just medical alert devices generally. And then in four disclosures about the carrier's obligation to provide regulated landline voice service to residential customers in its service territory. I think that's getting at your point, like, they the regulated legacy provider? If they are, they need to disclose that and their obligations. It's quite possible if they're relieved of some of their red regulated legacy requirements, they might be relieved of some areas of the state but not others. So it's not probably they're doing this in, you know, stages based on the level of competition in certain areas of the state. So I thought broadening this and just saying, you know, if you have any obligations, you know, what are they within your service territory?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: To me, the word weather is safer because it it means they have to report regardless of what the circumstance is. If they're required to provide it, they have to say that. If they're no longer required to provide it, they have to say that. So, to me it catches all circumstances.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Remember four? What do mean?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, so just- No, I'm sorry, I'm Yes. Going number

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I think that was the intent there. Yeah. Kind of getting at that point. And then number four, if they don't have any obligations to provide regulated landline voice service They have to leave

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that too.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Or there won't be disclosures. Like, don't they won't be required to necessarily disclose that. But in with all the other disclosures, it might be pretty clear what's available. So open to any other qualifications if I'd be helpful in this.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, just to qualify what I think we're trying to do here, as you keep saying, this is a dynamic space where federal regulation may be changing, technology is changing, and we have at least one entity that has not actually been great about notifying us. And so trying to provide more details about when they have to notify us, like, we we cannot stop the well, I shouldn't say we cannot stop it. If federal obligations change? Coal or is federal? Right? Or is it

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: state? I it's ultimately, it's a state level. A lot of Yeah. Some states have gotten rid of those obligations. They've determined that there's sufficient competition and there no longer needs to be that carrier of last resort. Or but it ultimately, I think it's at the state level where those determinations are made as to who. Right, but not

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: if. It's like that you have to have coal or a federal?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if it's a federal requirement. Okay. Is it state requirement? You have to. It is for the incumbent local exchange carriers. And then there are carriers that can apply for the ETC designation where they have responsibilities to build out or provide service. There are various state level things, that changing market is what's of bringing this issue to the forefront, right? Because some providers are saying there is, in these areas, sufficient competition such that consumers are protected.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And the ETC designation is correct.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I do whether they can take public funding.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. And that is a state designate. That's the PUC makes that designation.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So it can't appeal the FCC to be relieved of their.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: They have. Oh, the. Well, they have a they have petitioned. They filed an application to be relieved of their legacy requirements, traditional. But it's now being looked at at the state level whether the PUC is willing and believes that's in the best interest of marijuana. So that will be based on their investigation of looking at the market and looking at consumers and whether they're adequately protected.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So is is is whether also contemplating that a carrier would discontinue copper service and not provide any replacement service? Was no copper and no fiber.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, good question. Well, good question, but I think they would only be able to do that if there were sufficient competition. If they wanted to retire the copper network because it's expensive, they would have to be finding that there are other providers in the area. What how do we know that? How do we know?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That there would have to be a finding that there are other providers.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the FCC looks at that. In fact, in the if they took the application, they mentioned in this area, are two cable providers, there are cellular providers. That's central to the determination as to whether there's sufficient competition.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So I guess, yeah, the question is, and this might be the fact that we'll bring in the topic, is it possible that a barrier could cut cut cover to an address that doesn't have cable or fiber.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: As no other service? Right. Not likely because competition is the central finding in order to relieve the barrier of its responsibility.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But is it does that go address by address? Or

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I I believe so. I mean, I but I think that's within the PUC's jurisdiction.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And, I mean, the PUC would have to answer that question. Yeah. But it's yeah. It's yeah. It's hard to imagine that just addresses will be completely cut off and there's not one other provider, whether it's cellular or cable.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No. I agree it's hard hard hard to Yeah. Imagine that, but we're trying to think of what you know?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. No.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: All all possibilities here. Right? Yeah. So so the weather in this case is actually whether the current carrier is providing another service, but there might be but if if we're assuming that there's some carrier providing a service.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And that they may they may be able to tailor. Okay. We'll let you, you know, be relieved. You know? No longer have to provide service on the old network except in this area. You know? There may be some flexibility to make sure, but I I don't know exactly how

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I I mean, I guess we're relying on that. I depend on and I and I don't know whether we need to say it somewhere. And then we could be that we don't need to sit right this second or third time. It's just Sure. You know, throwing words out. And instead of whether saying and what the carrier will offer as a reasonably comparable replacement. So

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. That they will that they are going to offer.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And what they will offer.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: They may not be required to offer, though.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That yeah. That's what I was trying to keep it broad enough. Just

[Unidentified Committee Member]: trying to figure out a way to safeguard everyone.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: and if you What

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm trying to has it there. It

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: is tricky. You know, what I'm trying to focus on is that we're making sure that we're requiring them to disclose every last scrap of relevant information while understanding that that this bill doesn't control and can't control what they're gonna be required or not required to do. And That's you know what I mean? Like that at the FCC level or the PUC level, that's where the decisions are gonna be made that aren't in our jurisdiction about that what they're required or not required to do. We're trying to make sure that we have the right language to make sure that they're notifying customers. That, you know, that the language is really clear about what they're required or not required to do or what they're gonna offer or not offer. But this bill can't make those decisions for the PUC or the FCC.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And I really share the concern and worry, which is why I think it's important that we left in the department's monitoring

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: of what's going on

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: and the reporting to the department. Would

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: it be helpful to say, in so in line six, we have weather the carrier. Would it be helpful or more illegally okay in line 13 to say disclosures about whether the carrier is obligated to? Does that get that same broadness? I don't think so. I mean, because then they have to say, we are obligated to provide this or we are no longer obligated to provide this. And then to me that feels like crystal clear. Disclosure. To me that would be language that would say you have to tell customers what's up with this.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So disclosures about whether the carrier is obligated to provide

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, you're the lawyer. Right? And I don't mean that flippantly. Know. No. That's what I'm trying to get at. Yep. But I don't know the right, you know, the correct legal language. I'm just trying to get at making sure that they address it. So, you know, so instead of if there if it says disclosures about the carrier's obligation to provide, I don't want the carrier to say, well, we don't have to say anything because we're no longer obligated to provide, and it's just not in there.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. No. That's I think that's a good point. So it'd be whether the carrier

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: has an obligation to provide or is obligated to provide.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: To me, that means they have to say it either way. Mhmm. And I don't know if that helps with rep Southworth's question too. It's like, we can't make them provide it, but we can make them tell people.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: you have to keep all in a sentence.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I I think it's better without all because they might do it, you know, feeds by feeds meal in their own in their service territory a lot. So they might say, we don't have to provide everybody, you know,

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Is that good?

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, so disclosure number six. This is just consolidating the rules because there were there had been a citation of rule seven point six hundred, and then further down, it's showing a stricken now rule 7.605. It's really just all part of seven point six hundred, and then there are various sections. So now it just reads a link to the consumer protection rules and rule seven point six hundred. It states the name of that rule and then specifies that that rule includes a consumer bill of rights. And that was that rule 7.605. So, I then that brings us down to subsection e, avoid service provider reporting. If you wanted to change the language to reflect that carriers do not have to or not required to offer battery backup and the cost may fluctuate. So, instead, they do have to provide a number of customers who have purchased battery backup systems from the carrier and then including the purchase and installation costs. So specific to those purchases.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: How are they gonna know the in store food cost?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: If they do it. If they if they provide if they do the installation.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Applicable. I see. Right.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: If there aren't any, they don't. Gotcha.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So there's no statistics on people who buy their Right. Power battery backup.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: There's no enforcement or measure metric. This is informational for the department.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Pretty pretty much. Don't we anticipate them to be a plug and play type battery? Yes. I mean, that's something that you They must be out there with other details and, Wakefield that have already totally converted to Fiverr.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Absolutely. And they were required to offer, but they're no longer required. So then I'm sure

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: there's Once they've continued they've that reached the end of their service territory for fiber, they're no longer required

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: to federal regulation something. So there is no federal requirement. There is a report back from the department to look at whether there should be state requirements about providing

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: backup power. Is this bill gonna backdate retro regress to all fiber carriers in the state who've already converted?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: No, because it doesn't have a retroactive No. Effective, you know, section. So, typically, statutes are construed as to being prospective in nature. Recording. Yep. And then the only other change in this session was just if there's no incidents where 911 access was impaired or interrupted. Impaired is usually, like, degraded service. But Okay. Interrupted, like, no service. So just it seemed

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: appropriate there. And

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: then on page six, subsection g.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Just to clarify. So if they don't know about a service interruption.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Only known. Yes. Yep. And then g is with respect to the department's monitoring of the state and the availability of services. So, it's looking at the outage reports that are submitted to 911, as well as the department's own telecommunication service availability data and any other relevant data available to the commissioner. So it was broad if there's information related to services provided. And then the goal is still the same based on looking at where the outages are, what the availability is, are there particular locations in the state that are vulnerable to extended periods of time without access to 911 service.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So Yes. So the outage they're reporting the what? The outages of the power company has

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: It's the network, the carrier, the telephone carrier.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So they have an outage from their toolbox. Or if they have but they wouldn't necessarily be reporting individual power outages to individual customers.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: The carriers would the electric company The electric company be reporting there Yeah. To nine one one. And it's you can see it stemmed from making sure nine one one had a better understanding of where there were significant outages. There's a threshold, you know, when you have to report, like the outage was was don't vote me on this. The outage lasted more than thirty minutes and was in a certain air. Right? There so there are thresholds, but the idea being that significant enough that the nine one one should know about the carrier.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Data collector of the the power outages would be reported to the nine one one for it.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And the carrier outages also. Right now, they're required to report that's an existing law. So this is just saying that the commissioner will just review those reports and then compare it with their own data about service availability. So maybe less of a concern if there are cellular providers that unless they're the ones that out, you know, just trying to determine what other voice options are available if there are alternatives. And if not, this is something the state wants to be aware of and act.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So consumer education and outreach, that is all the same. So everything else is the same.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No other set of stuff. Yeah. Riley? Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I have a a couple of minor things if if since we're gonna make the change. One so let me add it here. Bags on page 33. Under definition, line sixteenth definition of line 15, we're we're finding it's it's a standard definition. I guess what I'm wondering is it says facilities based but elsewhere is referred to as fiber based.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: No, it's facilities based in this context because it provide it applies to more than just fiber based because you have the reporting requirements with, you know, where the VoIP service is. It could be it could be coaxial cable. Okay. Right? So it's meant to be broad.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Elsewhere where it says fiber based, should that be broader?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: No. Because of I I I don't think so. I'm like, we can check each one. I have to do that. But I think because in that first notice section, it applies to when there's a copper to fiber.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Uh-huh. So in that context, the facility is based Okay. To be a fiber. But in terms of VoIP service generally available in the state, it could be coaxial cable, could be wireless. So wanting to keep that broad, I believe.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The next thing was on page four, slide 16, where it says backup power outages to ensure each customer can maintain service continuity during a power outage. Can we go to ensure that? No.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So information on the need for and availability of backup power options and battery backup devices.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just just to maintain service?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: To yes. Or to ensure each customer is aware of or something or

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I'm I'm open to suggestions here. I think I think that makes sense.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Chittenden. Right. Yeah. I don't I mean, I guess, like, one thought I had was just to strike out and ensure each customer can and just say backup battery opt in devices to maintain Sure.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Maintain or extend. Maintain to both ends of the yardstick. Right. Maintain mainly make it halfway down the yardstick. Well yeah. The time element of the battery being able to back up the system.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Isn't that the point, that if you don't have batteries, can't maintain service? Well, right, but if

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: you have a battery, the life of the battery may not last the extent of the interruption. That's, yeah, I mean, that's But again, it's law for the companies, and it's really not intended to them. The law doesn't perform the public in a bit of detail. And what the companies are gonna have to You're maintaining service while the batteries are operating. Right. That's right.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: This notice, though. This is the commissioner insuring notice to customers. It's not, I think.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The last question The the last question I had was on the last page, the department report. And I'm just wondering if that is redundant with the other reports that we have on the broad service provider reporting. Maybe it's not. Oh, I see. No. No. It's not. Okay. No. It's it because it's a service provider reporting To the department. The person

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: collecting all of that and then reporting to you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. And this okay. Good. There's a role. Thanks.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Maria, can you make those changes and bring that back to us for a vote? Sure. Wait, what's your ETA? I can do

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: that very quickly if you have time.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We do. Okay. We do have testimony at 09:45, but we've allowed a decent amount of time for it. Let's just get this here. Like, when you say quickly, what is it, like, five minutes? Great. Why don't we go off live, and we'll be back to vote in five minutes? Thanks, Maria.