Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: We're live.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: All right, welcome back everybody. It's Friday, February 13, we're the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee, and we're here today to chat with PUC about three of our bills, H727, data centers, H716, net metering, and H753, utility service disconnections and ratepayer protections. Probably in that order. And then at 02:30 we are going to be, we've updated our agenda. We're going to be hearing a proposed amendment on H898, our copper to fiber transition bill, from representative Donahue and ledge counsel. We'll take a straw poll on it. Alright, so I'm representative, Kathleen James from Manchester.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint John Prairie.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland Torre.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Laura Sibilia, Windham two.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And in the room.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Dana Lee Perry from the Grass Acres.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Gabrielle Molina with. And Jim Bobrick Southworth.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Super. Alright. For the record, thank you for being here.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I I am Greg with the utility. So we're gonna start with data centers, H 727. Thank you. Now I'm not sure how much you want me to say on this. You've seen the chairman's edits to the bill. Those are posted on your website.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Those are posted on our website.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I could go over them.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That would be great.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay. Okay. So so we would recommend removing the section of the section two eighty four. Let's start there. Sorry. That's on page page two. At the bottom of page two there starts with tariffs and contracts.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: we
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: would suggest removing the requirement to do 17 tariffs. In lieu of those tariffs, utilities should be required to enter into special contracts with data centers pursuant to, section two twenty nine. This provision allows utilities to provide service to customers outside of a tariff structure as long as the contract is approved by the commission. So instead of a tariff, they're gonna enter into a special contract. We in turn would approve or or inject that special contract.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Kenny? Does anybody have especially you, Rutland, you're the bill sponsor here. Questions, comments on that?
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: No. I was just actually, thinking we should make sure that Sure. That the department and our alleged counsel are doing on the next draft is sure to answer these as the department also supported this. Yeah. So I don't have any specific questions. I agree with you. And
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Madam chair, I'm having trouble getting you the document. Is it It's not under today's date. That's
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: not No. No. If you go to the bill folder
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then under witnesses. Yeah. It's under chair McNamara. Witness documents and then chair McNamara. It was at it actually was posted on Wednesday, February 11. We'll we'll give folks just a sec to get there. Escaro? No. We're done. Yes. Yep.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That that
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: makes sense. Oh, it's under.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's easy finding the bill folder.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: It's a head ventromere. Yeah. But it should be under Morrow. Not on our not It's not
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: It's not under this bill?
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: It's not connected. Connected.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It It is is under under the the
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: bill.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Oh, okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's in the bill folder. It was posted Wednesday, and it
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Yeah.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It just kinda slipped onto the our website. So we're making sure post
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Oh, this goes a paragraph one.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. Just two paragraphs. Okay. So sorry, Greg. We can go go on go on ahead now.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So that's section two eighty four. Pretty straightforward. Use special contracts, not new tariffs. Okay? And it's two section two eighty five, which begins on page four. That would require basically a a citing, a a certificate of public good similar to, like, solar facility or a telecom tower. We're saying get rid of that section. Any new structure with a 20 megawatt load is gonna require transmission service, that the commission will review under, under section two forty eight Alright. Already. That's already in place, so you don't have to add anything. And then, of course, we're gonna review the special contract, which is gonna protect rate payers. So all of those things are already encompassed in the previous changes to section two eighty four. So we recommend getting rid of section two eighty five. So you don't need any special citing. It would go through Act two fifty as warehouse or whatever it is. They would do their thing, and then we would review the interconnection.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: And the and the contract with the utility. Just like we would with anything else, any other large load like ski resorts.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. And I think we I we did talk about that with the department as well, and I they walked us through that very carefully.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I have no questions on this, but I do have a question for the PUC on the bigger bill. This is something we heard yesterday, so I don't know if others have questions on this.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't have questions on the specific changes. So just curry yeah. Curious to hear about the PUC position on the bill, I guess, or see if there are broader questions.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Well, I don't know if you had the opportunity to review any of the testimony yesterday, probably not from the department and Velco. I did
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: not. I did not look at that.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But Velco actually testified about the ongoing federal rulemaking Okay. Around the potential for direct connect into the transmission system. The one where is it? The one fifteen system.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay. I
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I You don't know about this federal rule. That's what I actually wanted to ask you.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Sorry. Okay. I'm not the person to
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: ask on that.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Who would be the person to ask about that?
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, it sounds like it's Belco. Belco.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But in terms of Our opinion of that? Yeah.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay. I'll look at the testimony, I'll talk to folks, see who who the best person is.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I mean, it's less about your opinion, like, on Velcro's testimony or the rule, but just in terms of providing any guidance for us in terms of safeguarding Vermonters, I thought there you know, I I think that there's probably a lot of opposition to this federal rule, but if it move if it were to move forward, it it seems like that would be pretty problematic in terms of protecting Vermont ratepayers. That's the point that I so Yeah. The PUC really recommend anything that we should do to safeguard in advance
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That potential.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Gotcha. Is it would be removing from state jurisdiction.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Rate making. Rate making?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. What's that? It would be removing from state jurisdiction, rate making. The district. For these high dollar lawyers.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay, I'm aware of that. I'll talk to folks though.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. That's it for me now, Chair.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Do we have questions for Greg on this bill? Or Greg, do you have anything more on this?
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: No, that's it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We may have.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I mean, other than that, we support it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: There is another version of the Senate that maybe you folks are aware of on data centers.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The only bill I'm aware of on the Senate side is the moratorium.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, yeah. That's it. It's the moratorium and then a bunch of other stuff.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I was opening an investigation into this. So just want to thank you guys. I'm sure you're aware of it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I I I actually know about the bill. I I don't I'm not sure that it's moving forward. So our thought is
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: has to testify on it next week.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Interesting. Well A
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: little bit moving forward.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Our our goal here is to get enough testimony on this so we can figure out, you know, as a committee, like, do we need this bill? Is this bill a good idea? Should we move it along? Does it need to be revised? So we're trying to get a handle on that.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: This is better than that. By a general impression.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Two flu and we also talked about
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: technical comment on this. This is the question that I had Oh, really? Of an investigation which you're being asked in that bill.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: In the senate? Yeah. That's why we don't like that bill so much.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So commissioner Johnson said that it was be his intention to have a technical conference to establish really a baseline for Vermont. And can you do you know what the diff do you explain to us what the difference is in a technical conference and an investigation?
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right. So an investigation is that it is formal. It's a formal investigation. You're getting testimony of oaths. Mhmm. A technical workshop
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: It's those rules don't apply. So you get comments in a workshop setting. People work on various proposals. It's not an evidentiary proceeding, which is much more involved, much more expensive.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Is it So is it technical conference or workshop? More more
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: or less.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: He called an account. Is
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: it is it I've never heard of
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: type of
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: But, yeah, it sounds like a workshop to me. Yeah. Oh, that's okay. I know workshop is very broad. That's a very broad term as well. So but, again, the difference is, you know, a formal investigation. Now the department is a party. We really can't talk to them. In a workshop, we can't. Everyone talks together.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So we haven't heard the terms technical conference before.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: No, but it sounds like a workshop. Yeah. I get it. I get what you're saying. So that would probably be a better way to address this at this point. You know, if we start running into problems, then then maybe something else. But, you know, that that sounds like a good idea to me.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I I guess it's a question of of how urgent is is taking some, you know, action on this.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, we don't we don't know, obviously, but we haven't seen any yet. Yeah. I mean, we we do have fairly high electric rates, so that's gonna dissuade a lot of people from coming here or as to other places. We do have some other things which are beneficial for rates, data centers, like, fiber backbone. We have that. We have a lot of a lot of fiber up here. So that's something data centers like. But the electric rates are pretty high to run the data center. Yeah. Yeah. So will we see any? It's possible, but we're not seeing any so far. So, yeah, a technical conference sounds like a good idea.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We do have two data centers, but I guess they're very small.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. Small ones. Yeah. And again, they haven't caused any problems. We're not seeing any problems around them. And they can be beneficial as you know. GMP came in and testified about that. I I thought that was a good presentation. Until you get to the very large stocks, and then it becomes difficult. You you run into capacity constraints and things like that. But it's between, like, you know, 50 megawatts, something like that. That could be good for our system, the large load system.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Well, it sounds like the the main benefits would be if they brought the wrong generation for one. And two, if if they were, flexible loads, if they could be Right. Curtailed Right. When necessary. But data centers doesn't, I don't really know, but just thinking about how the internet is on all the time, it doesn't seem like a data center would be easy to curtail.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: You know, I don't yeah. It's possible, but we'd have to see.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Tactical conference. Yep.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Where you talk about all that stuff. Yeah.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And you
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: bring in all the experts. Everyone can talk. Yeah. They've given cross information. That's it. It's always a good approach to the next step.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Should we have something in our in the bill that sort of says, yes. Have it have it have a technical conference. Do do
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: it this summer. Yeah. DPS is looking at the language, and I I assume they suggested Yeah. They're gonna send back
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: K.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Feedback. And I assume if they think they need statutory authority or something to
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: They
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: have cameras, they would ask for it. But
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: They don't see it.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Everyone doesn't need to need statutory system, session fill, you know Yeah. Directive.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean, if they need anything from us, I assume they would ask
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: for it.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: It's good. Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is that or is that good for data centers?
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yes.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Anybody else? Data centers? Going once, going twice? Boom. Net metering.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay. Well, this one, yeah. We we don't support this one, like you may imagine. So this is h seven sixteen. The intent of this is to increase the net metering price that net metering customers get. Right? That sounds like you're trying to do here. So you're reaching into an established existing PUC process and you're you're targeting one variable out of many variables in an existing process, where we have goals of least cost planning and reduction in greenhouse gases. This bill seems aimed at increasing the amount of net metering in the state, which is a different goal than what we've been given. So it's a little confusing for us. It will probably result in higher net metering rates, which in turn will increase the amount of cost shift from net metering to non net metering customers. So we don't don't support it because we've been told to engage in least cost planning, and reduction of greenhouse gases. This won't do any of those things. So it conflicts with those goals. It sets up a new goal, which isn't hasn't been. Stated in statute. So we would suggest a better way to do this is to come up with a broad policy goal to say, for example, we wanna see 30% more net metering rooftop solar in the state by 2030. And then let us, you know, with the help of all the other stakeholders like the department and everybody else and REV and all those folks, come up with prices to do that in the least cost way. Doing it this way, this sort of piecemeal approach, we don't support that. It's just not a holistic approach to this. It would involve us changing our rules. There's some technical things about it too. I mean, for instance, you're saying no rate adjusters for behind the meter consumption. What if we wanted to put positive rate adjusters on that? What if we wanted to encourage battery storage, for example, through positive adjusters? Can't do that now. And this is forever. This isn't just temporary. This is us changing our rules to put this into effect so it stays this way. So we so we don't support this this bill. But
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mister Favor, I was gonna call you Greg with that bill.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: That's mine.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But then mister Faber sounded weird. If so if we can you walk me through okay. So let's say that we, you know, we concur that, you know, pulling the net metering rate lever at the legislative level isn't the right solution for what we're trying to do. And that the goal and but that what we're trying to do is incentivize or encourage or support residential rooftop solar, which which is that's my that's what I'm
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: trying to do.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So it's satellite.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And so what and and we've set that into we pass a bill. Mhmm. Then what like, can you walk me through so what happens? So now we have this goal, but it's not a mandate. It's a goal. What what are the next who who picks up that baton, and what does the work look like from there?
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Would require us to do that. It just like you do for res or for anything else. You could say an increase of 30% by 2030 or something like that. I mean, obviously, have to talk to the alleged counsel on this, but, you would establish that goal for the state to get there by 2030, and then we would act accordingly.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I guess I'm more trying to envision the details of the act accordingly. So you guys would you guys engage in rulemaking, or do you
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: We have to
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: get all the stakeholders together to, like, what Well,
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: they they would all be included in the rulemaking. Mhmm. So I'm I'm envisioning sort of a res prod process, you know, where we develop the the renewable energy standards. Just would be added to that. Be something like that. Obviously, it's gonna take some thought Yeah. Put into it and some wordsmithing. But as a general goal, that's probably the better way to go than just sort of piecemealing it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And coming up with that right number.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: And then if you wanted to have more emphasis on rooftop solar than other solar, as opposed to ground mounted solar, that's something you could add to that. Because that is definitely those are different things. We treat them differently. They have very little permitting requirements for rooftop, whereas there's a lot for ground
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: mounts depending on the size.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So it depends what your goals are. If it's just rooftop, is it all net metering? You have to figure that out too. Do you want large you know, large solar arrays and fields? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Those are all things you'd have to consider, so it's not easy. I'm not saying it's easy. This is easy. Say point four. Okay. Can't do that. I'm not sure it'll work the way you want it to, though.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Questions, thoughts, comments?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Sorry. I I guess if listening to testimony this morning about this yesterday is leading me to wonder if we're really need to revisit the whole of that metering, the physical side of that metering about what we're trying to encourage. So with with batteries, which which weren't a factor when that metering started No. With batteries, maybe we're maybe we ought to be thinking about ways to encourage batteries and residences as a as a as a way of buffering load so that batteries could be charged at night when power is relatively inexpensive. There are businesses using power and discharged on the premises during the day to break something like that. And then and then weaving in, site generation as as part of that. Yeah. I guess I'm I'm wondering if that is a is really it is really where net metering that to be. That that would be net metering, really, but whatever whatever we call that site, you know, site specific generation storage.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. I think that is where it's going. I was listening to testimony before, and I agree with that. I That's it. That's exactly where it's gonna go. Yeah. Towards more storage, less excess generate being put back down to the grid. Yeah. More efficient that way using batteries.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Probably more valuable too. Yeah. So then you have to change the cost structure probably and the incentive structure. It's a whole thing. Yeah. Yeah. The whole thing. Yeah. Yeah.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I I wonder how to go about doing something like that, convening all the all the people somehow.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: A technical conference. A technical conference. What it called. Okay. No, really it would call for some sort of statewide workshop. It's something the department would be heavily involved in. Couldn't it? Not to say it can't be done. It definitely can be done.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You're not doing anything else.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right. We're not doing anything. We're just hanging out.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Other questions for Greg on net metering?
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Well, yeah, sure. So they're the complaint that people are having, they're paying 4¢ for everything that goes through the production meter. And if they just had what was being exported in time of day at a negative eight or maybe even negative 12, the spin seems to be that they're paying they call it a tax. They're paying a fee on what the tomato they're growing themselves. That that I think is what the the dig is. I mean, this has gone from back in 2000 I don't remember what year it was. 2009 when it was 5¢ a kilowatt adder. Yeah. It changes a lot. Yeah. But it's gone from 5¢ to negative 4 now. And if you keep the rex, you got another negative three that people don't like the size of the lollipops there. They're getting them.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: They don't. They would like a larger lollipop. Like, well,
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: yeah, everybody Wouldn't you? Well, no. Put them out there. Nobody takes a small cookie first. Right. The last one, bacon. And so that's what I think. I envision the attempt of this is to what I get from those people that have approached me on this is that this negative 4¢ on everything that has started I guess, came in effect in '25 or '24.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I I don't know when that Right.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: That exact adjuster was. Well, I wasn't there at '24. So '25. It followed '25 after electing, but I got approved.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: K.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rounding the corner. July. Disconnections. Disconnections.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yes.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: K.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I do have sort of a connection between net metering price increases and, you know, electric rate increase in in general with disconnections. I mean, obviously, the more the rates go up because of any factors, including that near the price increases, you're gonna force more people into this connection. So these two things were kind of at odds for me, but I just wanted to put that out that sort of an overall connection between these two bills. So seven fifty three, if you look at section two a, and that's on page two.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So, you know, section two says PUC shall amend or disconnection rule 3.3. And the change here, the big change for us is it allows other licensed health care providers to provide physician certificates, basically a doctor's note that says don't disconnect this person for medical reasons. It doesn't define what other other licensed health care professional providers are. I don't we don't know what those are. We don't know what kind of licenses are out there or who can get them. This can include a lot of folks. We're not sure what you mean by this. So that's that's one question.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We actually have our bill sponsor. She just arrived. So, Rutland, I'm not sure if you could hear Greg asking about who the other medical practitioners are. Is that something you talked about or thought about?
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. I think it was supposed to be like a nurse practitioner, physician assistant, so definitely a primary care professional. And does the language does sound a little broad. That's a good flag. Thank you.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah, it's a little broad, to say the least. I mean, it could be your PT therapist, right? I mean. Right. Everybody has a license.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That was definitely not the intent. I think we were imagining PAs and nurse practitioners, right?
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. I mean, there is my concern. I mean, generally, if someone had a complex medical condition, they would have a lot of doctors. They might have an oncologist. They might have Okay. A lot of people. But, generally, the primary care physician and office is where things funnel.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: My concern is that we have a shortage of primary care in our state. So one of the reasons for this, thinking about the extension or having a condition that is known to be chronic or longer than the window in the current role is that issue of, you know, difficulty maybe accessing and getting these notes just because of the bottleneck in primary care. So I don't know whether I would I would I don't really know whether it would need to be even beyond the primary care office if there would be a note from, a different medical specialist. I don't know enough about current practice to to say, but I think that's I appreciate that input. And
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right now, we're getting it from primary care.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So this changes things. We're not sure why.
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: You need And to we may not want to change it from primary care.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay.
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I think most things funnel right through primary care, but I do I do wanna flag my concerns about the bottleneck that we do see and access problems that we have.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks Rutland. Yeah, how about
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: The PA works under the primary care. So a physician's assistant by issuing that authority or this note. It's really issuing it under the doctor which that physician's assistant works. Right.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: But the doctor could do it too.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Well, I've never seen my doctor say so.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I know it's hard, but I mean, no. But we're getting the facts from these folks.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Right. Right. Right. So it's not a But it's from the it's from the organization that
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, the PA gets the doctors. Right.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: It works under a doctor. Yeah.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. Okay. We'd rather have a definite some sort of definition here, some sort of limits. So anyway, let's see. Oh, so the the second part of of this two a says that the doctor's note shall remain in effect indefinitely unless the commission rules otherwise. Okay. So that means a doctor's note could potentially be in effect for years unless we rule otherwise. On what basis is the PUC overruling a doctor? We have no medical expertise. When would this even come up? How do we say, no, this person doesn't need that medical note anymore? Can't make that decision.
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Right. I think that that I believe this would get refined in your rules in the rule.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I would love to refine it, but this is what it says.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Google
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: language needs to be edited. R.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Torre, can you explain the thinking behind this? Remember thinking that we were trying to provide help for people with chronic conditions. Right?
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. And so that's why
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: even even in that case, there could be a change in in vulnerability, I assume. So I hear you on this. This is this was actually I think the the intention really was to have yeah, you guys do some thinking about that and help help with the goal of not having an onerous burden on someone who's quite ill to keep getting updated notes. So helping us think through that and what that could look like could be in the role, I imagine. A little more parameters around it. But the idea really was just to get, you know, uncouple from the thirty days.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Again, it says what it says. We can't it's not a goal. That's the statutory that's a statutory requirement.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I think what would be helpful would be New language. Yeah. Well, I'm just yeah. I'm trying to get Ruttoir to explain because there there's good intent here. So in thoughts from you guys on, yep. Hear what you're trying to accomplish here. You know, what about this or that? So do you
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: You should phrase it that way then. Phrase it like the commission shall look at this issue. You've done that in many other
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm. Yeah. That's helpful. Brent Bailey?
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So when do you, the cuss the customer of the utility who's in this scenario up to thirty days. Yep. And it's coming up on the wouldn't their customer service reps be calling that customer to say we need another thirty day extension? The customer service rep of the utility? Yeah. That because when they after the thirty days, then you're going into disconnect. Right. So when this is processes going in in, like, in week three, does the utility call their that customer and say, you you've gotta get an either updated one or I'm sure that customer already has a disconnect notice, but you'd have to talk to each individual utility to see how they work it. They're probably a little different. Yep. I'm sure they are calling or or or even going to the premises and saying, hey. You know, what's going on? In a small utility, they probably know these folks. Yep. You know? So it's probably a little different with GMP, maybe between GMP and SWAFT and things like that. Right.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: So
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: listening to GMP's testimony about how their disconnect process works, it it sounded like the the process could be pretty quick for somebody who is otherwise struggling and juggling. No. Or being juggling. There's a lot of different demands on their their money that is that's running out. As I understand it, bill was past due, well, five days after after, a bill goes out, it's it's or a bill is received. The due date, and let me try to get the right terminology here. Five days after your bill's due date, it's past due date. That's the right term. And then fifteen days after that right. No. Five days after your bills bills do a disconnect, That's that's the right thing. And then fifteen days after that, it could be the disconnecting could can be done. It's eight days after that. I I I should look back at my notes. But, anyway, it's a pretty short time. Mhmm. I think it's eight days after the bill's due. It it it you get disconnected or something, fifteen days after that. So twenty three days sticks in my mind as as as the period after the bill due date when a person could be disconnected. And that's that seems pretty quick for somebody who is, you know, sort of in a in an extreme situation perhaps.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, the rule I'm looking at the rule now. It requires a certain amount of days for for notice.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I noticed this and, you know,
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I'm assuming they're hearing to the rules when they do that.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I assume so as well.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: But it doesn't sound like it because this is forty days and twenty days. So I'm not I don't know. But that is in the rules. Have to provide a certain three point three hundred.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's three
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: point three hundred. Three point three hundred. Yeah. I On our website. I have that.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: We have it.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. But we do cover that in the rules. So
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I was I I haven't looked through closely I was taking their test you on AS
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: yeah
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: and adherence to the rule
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: it doesn't sound exactly right but I don't know I don't know I didn't listen to this
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I guess maybe I'm gonna just check that. I guess where I was leading up to is should there be a a more a lengthier period, more more than more than thirty days?
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, I would encourage you to look at the existing notices and see if you think it's adequate.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Okay.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Obviously, we've worked through this rule. We just did it in 2024, and stakeholders are involved in this process. So everyone sort of agreed on this this time limits of but if you don't think it's adequate, that's something you could ask us to look at Yep. In the future.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: At it now. Okay. Thanks. What else? Oh,
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: and it's section two b. That is the extreme heat exception. Yeah. We're we're fine with that. Utilities apparently do this anyway during periods of extreme heat. To hold off on disconnecting folks. But it is something we could do as a companion to the cold extreme cold provisions in the rule. So it's something we could we could certainly do. And second oh, section three. Yeah. Section three. I'm a little puzzled by I'm not sure what this would be, a plan to establish a strategic plan for achieving lowest, prudently feasible number of disconnects. Obviously, utilities don't wanna disconnect people. It involves a lot of work, and then they lose that money. They'd rather enter into payment plan with somebody if they could. So we don't think that that's necessary. Yeah. So, yeah, I don't we we don't agree with this part. I would also point out that maybe there's some confusion about what water utilities we regulate. The ones that we regulate are are routinely five customers. You know, somebody has a spring and a pump and they're attached to a couple of their houses next to them. Right? We don't regulate municipal water systems like Montpelier.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Those are the people who get disconnected. I think I think that's what you're aiming at here. But we don't regulate those folks. So when you put water in here and then require that water companies include their plan in a service quality and reliability plan. Guess what? They don't have those. Excuse me. They're small. They're very small companies and they don't have service quality plans. So this whole section, don't support that. We think it's being done already. And again, the water company, I think that's resulting from confusion. Again, gazoo time.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Message. Rutland?
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. We the water came to our attention, with Carol Flint's testimony. But just I can add a little clarity for our intention in section three. It it's really the idea that there could be some goals because I know that the utilities do submit monthly disconnection data to the PUC.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: So
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: it seems like and I know the department has spent time and resources having best practices around disconnection studied with recommendations made. So it seems like an opportunity to use the service quality reliability plans or possibly the IRP, which was what one of our one of our coops or munis recommended. But for the larger utilities, this the SQRP seemed like it could be a place to have some intention set around goals for disconnections. In terms of trends, you know, do we have annual trend data in terms of enrollment? Because that could paint a picture for maybe improving some outreach processes, education, things that can make a difference in terms of getting being more proactive for more Vermonters. So really welcome your thoughts on that.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: You know, my first thought is why have us adopt a rule to then require the utilities to do that when you could just require the utilities to do that? And why are you asking us to adopt a rule to have them to do it? Why not just say utilities shall file this information or come up with this plan. That would be a little more straightforward. Why have us do a separate rulemaking on top of our disconnection rule? Jen, we have nothing to do. Realize that, but doing two rulemakings at the same time for something that's completely unnecessary, that's a little much. So just if you want them to come up with a plan, I would suggest working with them on the language because I do believe IRPs are probably better placed in the SQRPs. But
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: would just, you know, just skip the rulemaking, just make them do it. If you want to file a plan, a plan, just say it. You have that authority. But
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: would talk to them first.
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah. We've got some language coming along those lines.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. So that we
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I guess
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: just wanna say now.
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I'm not really sure why the rule making came up in that. I think because, originally, the idea was kind of a performance metric. And so maybe because there's only one utility right now or one state that's using a performance metric with disconnections, Illinois, that we thought maybe it might need to be more of a discussion and rulemaking kind of. But
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Sorry. But, anyway, that's all I got on on these on these bills.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. Any further questions for Greg on any of these three bills?
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: How many small water companies are there in this space?
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I don't know. I'll tell my head. Not many. Most of have have joined together in fire districts.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Oh, okay. So So very few are left. So if something's in a fire district, you don't regulate the Right.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right. It's just the mom and pop operations. There's a few of them. I mean, if I may have. But
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: No. But but we in my town, they're fire districts.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. They're just They've all converted to fire And they Mostly.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Have a municipal pipe type of structure. They're they're the fire district is has similar municipal powers.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Exactly. Used to be a lot more of them.
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I just had one more question for mister. So when you're revising rules, it's a formal rulemaking process that takes like, because we learned from you that you, we don't have any rules for 248A because it's such an extensive long process to
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: make this.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: How is Yeah. Do have, we have, we call them standards and procedures and they act like a rule. But they're done through a contested case proceeding rather than a rulemaking proceeding. A rulemaking proceeding is much more lengthy. It's much more rigorous. You have to come through LCAR obviously. An amendment to a rule is pretty much the same as doing a starting a new rule. It's not any easier really. And it takes a very long time. There's prescribed statutory timelines that you have to hit. So it takes over a year to do.
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. So this would take over a year. And you just did the rules in 2024.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: 2024. That's right. That's right. So this would be and like I said, we don't oppose amending the rule to put in the heat stuff the heat index. We would like some clarity about the
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: the others
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: the physician certificate obviously but it will yeah it's more work but
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: all right thank you all
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: right thank you very much
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I guess I'm looking at the at the rule 3.3 and, the a scan through 11 the 11 page rule. And what I can find here is in the definition sections 3.301.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right? Yeah. Yeah. I think that's it.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Written notice so notice is defined as written notice of disconnection that is delivered to the customer on form approved by the commission, except for that I provided or by electronic notes, mail or electronic notes. Anyway, transmitted to the customer forty days after delinquency, but not within forty days after delinquency. Within forty days. But not more than twenty days. Right. So forty days before the first date on which disconnect with the disconnection of service could occur. So within forty days after delinquency, but not more than twenty days, I guess hinges on what is the definition of the date of delinquency.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yep. Is the due date of the bill, the day zero
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: of delinquency or That is a good question. I don't
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: know. Or is the date that the bill was issued, the start date?
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I don't know the answer to that one.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Yeah. They stated GMP stated, bill date is twenty seven days after reading. Yeah. It doesn't go delinquent for five days after that. So it doesn't become delinquent till five days of the due date because there's a thirty day requirement in the rule for the posting of the the due date. So that's the way GMP got around that.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I thought I'd do the five day thing there too, but what I'm thinking about, I gotta go back to my notes. I think eight days after the bill date, they can issue a notice of of that's that's thirty five days after the bill is issued. Anyway, I guess what I'm concerned about is is whether we're not giving specific enough direction to utilities about the notice period. Yeah. Because I I and I did go over the the day counts with with Candice Morgan from GMP a couple of times. It actually also added that in in the hallway. So I I'm I'm pretty sure that it's only twenty three days after the bill is due, a disconnection could occur. Okay. And that would be, sixty days after those is issued. Right. So is that is that too quick for for somebody who might find themselves in that sort of emergency situation and and not be thinking about paying their utility bill?
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, it's something we can look at during the rule making. Yeah.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But you've just completed a rule making, and you weren't gonna do this again.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: No. We have to because if we're gonna do the if this bill passes, you can even with just the extreme
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. Key thing You have to open up
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: do a new rule making. Okay. So We do if we if
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the only thing we do is is the
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: gotta open up the whole thing. Doesn't matter. Okay. So people can come in and make the arguments, and it's a formal proceeding. And yes. K. So make so the bill could include It could include the changes to the section. Yeah. And we're I guess it's delinquency. What does that mean? But Right. And maybe there maybe I don't deal with disconnections much, but maybe people back at at the shop know exactly what that means. What what date that is. And I'm sure Jean and P is behaving by the book. I I assume I I assume very closely.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So okay. That's my question. Thank you.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I just have the timeline to stop on that because I.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sorry. Yeah? I had the timeline on their billing all the days Yep.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: That you wanted that or if you're also We can talk about it later.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Think this seems like something you might wanna look at more closely.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Everybody
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: popped up with CUC? Thank you.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright, Greg. Thank you so much for being here.
[Greg Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Have a good weekend, folks. Yeah. Thank you.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Let's roll on. Rep. Donaghue. I'm not sure we need to wait for Maria, if you're comfortable. The amendment's posted. Right there. Yeah. So folks, we're going to go ahead and chat with Rutland about her suggested amendment to H. 98. Eight ninety eight. And it is posted in the bill folder. And we're gonna take a straw poll. And depending on the outcome of that, we will
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So it's
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Friday.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm just making sure it's there. Yeah. So, it's in the bill folder. Draft number 1.1 dated February 13 at 11:29AM, and it is representative Donahue's suggested amendment. So for the record, thank you
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Guest, sponsor of H.898 amendment)]: for joining us. Thank you, representative Anne Donahue. I had read through the bill, listened to the presentation. I was, like, really impressed and happy to see how protective it was for for consumers. I love the term I never heard. Plain old. And that's Hot Topics. I was like, okay. And and I thought it was great. I always whenever it comes to anything electronic, I think, you know, what would my parents do? How would they cope with this? So it was great that, you know, that the notice focusing on the notice piece, you know, is emailed, but also goes out by mail. Get it in mail. And the only one that was was a little bit of a concern was number six because that's that requires inclusion of a link to the consumer protection rules. And for people who are like, I'm not looking at my, oh, good, I can dig through this, thank goodness, I can hold it in my hand. You know, access to a link is gonna be an obstacle for them. And just to know, oh, here's here's where I can make contact if I really feel I want to see a hard copy of that. And so this amendment would add to the end of number six, which talks about the link, and it adds, or a method for obtaining a hard copy of rule seven six hundred by US mail. So the notice would need to explain how somebody could get a hard copy. And that's it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thoughts? I'm wondering if we should say, instead of a method for obtaining work, instead of saying for methods, instructions for obtaining something like that, to just to tell people, well this is how you do it. That's that exactly what you're
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Guest, sponsor of H.898 amendment)]: That's the intent. That would make it clearer what it meant by a method. How to obtain it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: How to
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: how to obtain.
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Guest, sponsor of H.898 amendment)]: How to obtain. Yeah. I yep. Yep. I I like that traditional, and and I just appreciate the amendment. I think it is, by and large a lot of older Vermonters that you've encountered in this,
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: and so the different technologies, I think, is
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I now I do wish Maria were here because I'm curious to know if that change is
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Amending the amendment.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Clearer or more subs substantive enough to merit the change. We can if everybody's prepared to hang around, we'll wait for Maria to come. We'll ask her if she thinks that that language change is worth the time. She'll revise it. She'll be turned into
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Guest, sponsor of H.898 amendment)]: the clerk's office yet, so it would just be
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. That's good news. Okay.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Well, having worked with customers and back when you had to pay cold calls, you know, thirty years ago before, it was always who's gonna pay for the call? And so who's gonna pay for the post date? Where when you have pay by mail, is this gonna be an obligation of the people making the conversion to, you know, the copy out? Maybe it's not a concern.
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Guest, sponsor of H.898 amendment)]: I I first, I would not anticipate there being a huge number. No. There's always those few, like my dad who wouldn't sign into a hospital without reading every word of that multiplication and said
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's for you, kid.
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Guest, sponsor of H.898 amendment)]: Yeah. Sitting I'm here. But they're not spot. So I don't think the volume would would much. You know? If it turned out to be a concern, I'm sure we'd hear back.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: But I always ask when I go in, what am I signing? Yeah. The four there's two paragraphs there when you go in to sign for a blood test. And what am I signing?
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Guest, sponsor of H.898 amendment)]: You read them too. I don't know if I
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: ask them. What am I signing? Oh, okay. And they pay you have if it's been less than a year, you pay. If it's more than a year, they pay or whatever. You know?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Anyway, I should add that I appreciate the event that also it's a good idea.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. So, Anne, do you have thoughts on what you think the final language will be that you turn into the clerk?
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Guest, sponsor of H.898 amendment)]: Yeah. It says the language instead of or a method for obtaining, it would be how to obtain. Okay. Take off the ink.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Do I
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: feel good about that?
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Guest, sponsor of H.898 amendment)]: Yeah. Or how to obtain. Yeah. Okay.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: Does the buy US mail stay in there? Mhmm.
[Rep. Anne Donahue (Guest, sponsor of H.898 amendment)]: Because that's the issue, how get do it in hand? How do they get it by now? Over a straw balcony? Yeah, straw poll. Exactly.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, all right, Raptore, are you still there for a straw poll?
[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yes, I am.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: All righty. All right, so just go around the table, Alright, so yes.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Alright.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So, Donaghue, thanks for bringing that improvement to the bill. Thank you very much. You bet. And go ahead and get it turned in, and we'll send the floor.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Pop it to pop it to Maria. I had already checked, and the clerk's office had said as long as they get it before four Perfect. The right calendar. So Yes. So we'll be good.
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: We'll it out. Get up and speak then. Okay. You're gonna get up and speak then? Yep.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rutland, you will. And then as the floor reporter, Rutland will report our
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: community conversation. Lady. Okay. Thank you. Have a good weekend.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks. Alright. Okay, everybody. We are done for the day, and we will be back next
[Dana Lee Perry (public attendee/staff)]: week.