Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: All

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: right. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It's Wednesday, February 18. And we do have a few members out a little bit this morning, but we forge upward and onward. So, we have a committee bill that we're going to take a look at responding to some requests from Burlington Electric and from the Department of Public Service. So, we'll just go around the room and quickly introduce ourselves. I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland Ford. Dara Torre, Washington two. Laura Sibilia, Windham Two.

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: Christopher, get a copy of the Scott, you're muted.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: As I should be. And I'm Scott

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Alright, thanks so much. Okay, so who would like to we're going to do a walk through of the language, which none of us have seen before. I've briefly seen it. Who would like to go first to Ellen or Maria?

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: If you don't mind, Maria would

[Unidentified committee member]: like to go.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And it's posted, I think, on our website. Right?

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: Yes. Yep. And

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: Maria Royal with Laura Sibilia Council. I do have some extra hard copies if anybody wants a hard copy.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'll take one. Thank you. Actually, I'm seeing a broken link. Is this draft 1.1? No. Yes. Yes?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. You're right. Okay. It is a.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alrighty. We'll get the link fixed, and we've got some hard copies.

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: I let's see here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Scott, I'll leave shall I leave a hard copy for you on your desk? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.

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

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: Alrighty. Off we go. Okay. So I'm gonna pull up the document here. So, it just mentioned that there's a committee bill. It doesn't have a bill number yet because it has not been introduced, but the reflect number is 26DashO781. And we're gonna take these out of order, if that's okay. Sure. My sections are pretty quick and straightforward. And they relate to telecommunications and specifically on page four of the draft, the last page, sections three and four. So these were proposals that the Department of Public Service presented to you. The first one in section three is to extend the date by which the department needs to adopt a new telecom plan. This is a ten year telecom plan. Under statute, you can see on line two of page four, they're required to adopt a new plan every three years. The proposal is to now extend that to five years. And they still can revise if things come up or you request them to. Then Actually, yeah. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: this language is also in the governor's recommended FY '27 budget. Which we discovered through our diligent homework. So what is the protocol? Do we leave this here as well in sort of a, you know, I hate to phrase belts and suspenders. You can maybe Yeah. Cover our bases way, or do we knock it out here because it's in the budget?

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So, I mean, that's up to you. You can leave it here. If you have any concern that it might not remain in the budget for some reason, then I would say keep it here. I suspect the language is identical, so even if both versions pass, there wouldn't be a conflict. But, know, we get to the end of the process and it's clear that it's gonna stay in

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: the budget or the budget will say,

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: you know, they don't wanna put it in there. It's really it'll be a problem with leaving it here for now. And and really that just depends on the appropriations committees Right. Whether they're gonna Well,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we flagged it in our budget letter for appropes. And then in our earlier testimony with the department, we learned that they've I mean, they've already booked the savings in the they've already Okay. They're already counting on the savings in the budget and said that if this were to not happen, that the, you know, the work wouldn't then come at the cost of other work. It's sort of been presented as a faceted complex. Okay. Okay. I guess I would then and the committee discussed it yesterday, and generally, I think we support this anyway. So should we just leave it in here?

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I was just gonna say if you're confident it can stay in that budget, then you probably don't need it here. But if you wanna leave it here, that's okay too. Talked?

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: Yes.

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Leave it in.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Leave it in? Fine with leaving it in. Uh-huh. Yeah. Not a question.

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: So it it's is it '37? It took 37. Jeez. My older than am. Is it 27 that the next one is due? I think that's what they said. The telecom. I think that's why they

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. It's due in it's due this in FY '27.

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: Yeah. That means they haven't '20

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: oh, it's due this year?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, yeah. Fiscal year. FY '27. '27.

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: So, it'll be due in fiscal year

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: So, '20

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that's what we talked about yesterday. So, the comprehensive energy plan is '28, the telecom plan is 20 '9, and the sunset two forty eight eighty sunset is 30. Yep.

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: Okay. I would just like to say I support this. I support leaving this in. I also will say one more time on the record that this whole section of law needs to be looked at and updated and rewritten in my opinion.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And in my opinion,

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: Took plenty of time to do that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I was just gonna say, and I I would flag that, the lessons learned this year, for significant work then by interested members over the summer and the fall, so we don't dive into that cold next January with no prep. Right. So folks want to get into that? Get into it. With all stakeholders at the table. Thank you. Lecture done. Alright. Okay.

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: So then the next section, section four is in repeal, and that relates to the Telecommunications and Connectivity Advisory Board. Right. Which apparently has only met twice since 2021. Was And they

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: yes. And has been pleading with us to repeal them. Thoughts? Yes. Okay. Okay. And

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: that concludes my testimony. Thank you, Maria. Sorry, Ellen.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Ellen Jacobowski, Office of Legislature Council. So I am still here on draft 1.1 of the committee bill. So the first two sections are related to energy. So section one on page one is what you have been calling the EMA update, Energy Efficiency Modernization Act update. This was language you heard about from the Washington Electric Department and the Department of Public Service. So, I have made a recommendation here in the way that I've drafted it. I don't think it needs to be an update to EMA. So, EMA was a pilot program that was created six years ago. It was initially created for a three year period and then extended for another three year period for six years. That statute is five pages long and the language that was being proposed by Burlington Electric and the department is significantly shorter and to me doesn't look like it actually is using the rest of the EMA statute and process. I have drafted this as a standalone program. If you would like to amend the EMA statute and it's not a statute, it's actually just in session law because it's a pilot program. If you'd like to amend that, that is an option you have, but I don't think legally you need to. It seems like this is again a one time use of funds, change in the use of the funds for a specific entity. If you would like to make it more permanent than that, I would suggest that you consider putting it in statute and not just having a floating piece of cession posh. I'm also happy to talk more about the Energy Efficiency Modernization Pilot Program. As far as the walkthrough, on page one, Section one: Use of Energy Efficiency Charge funds for greenhouse gas emission reductions program. So it's a new session law provision not specifically tied to the prior pilot program. Subsection a, notwithstanding any provision of law or order of the PUC to the contrary, the PUC shall authorize an entity appointed under 30 VSA two zero nine D2A, so an efficiency utility, that is also a retail electricity provider. So, you will recall we have three efficiency utilities, Efficiency Vermont, Vermont Gas Systems, and Burlington Electric Department. The only one of those that is also a retail electricity provider is Burlington Electric, so this is an allusion to them. Four calendar years, 2027 through 2029, to spend any amount the entity has, onto page two, available to it through its annually budgeted thermal energy and process fuel funds and carried forward thermal energy and process fuel funds from prior periods on programs, measures, services that reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions in the thermal energy transportation sector, regardless of the pre existing fuel source for the customer. The entity may also use thermal energy and process fuel funds under this section to deliver thermal and transportation measures or programs that enable fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emission reductions, such as geothermal test well funding, regardless of the pre existing fuel source for the customer. So, this is a setting up that specifically Burlington Electric can use the funds it has available in a way that currently under the statute they are not allowed to, but using this provision they can spend it on additional types of measures and programs. Down on line 10, under this section, the entity shall also prioritize weatherization and thermal sector efficiency programs within its offerings pursuant to this section and shall budget at least 60% of the funds for programs under this section for weatherization and thermal sector efficiency programs to be offered to customers regardless of their pre existing fuel source with a minimum of 60% of those weatherization and thermal sector efficiency program fund allocated for customers with low income and low to moderate income and projects requiring electric panel or wiring upgrades or abatement of other health or building related items to facilitate weatherization and thermal efficiency. That is the longest sentence I have seen in a while. Subsection The entity shall seek approval from the PUC for all planned expenditures through the three year performance period as part of the triennial energy efficiency utility planning process on page three, and the demand resources plan proceeding and report to the PUC annually on program participation, including any customer survey data obtained that discuss how impactful incentives offered under the section were for customer adoption. Any funds spent on programs, measures, and services pursuant to the section shall not be counted towards the calculation of funds used by the entity for energy transformation projects under tier three of the RES, and the calculation of projects pursuant project costs pursuant to 8,005 EC, which is still tier three.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Do I have a question? Sure. There's nothing in here about whether the entity can use these funds to augment incentives for EVs. Talk about that during testimony from

[Unidentified committee member]: the EVV director.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't specifically mention EVs, but in first in subsection A, it does say that they can use their budgeted thermal process fuel funds from prior periods to reduce fossil fuel transfer and greenhouse gas emissions in the thermal or energy transportation sector. There is mention of that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes, I noticed that. Is this language based sort of entirely on the proposed language from BED and public service?

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Okay, so maybe I guess they worked this out, but I don't know. We talked about them using, well, augmenting EV incentives for people in Burlington, incentives that aren't available to anyone else in the state. The silence is deafening.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The

[Unidentified committee member]: efficiency funds collected by Burlington Electric are not commingled with Efficiency Vermont Fund and the like, are they?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. No. They're not. They're they're completely separate.

[Unidentified committee member]: So the part that somebody from Burlington Electric Service territory would use is different than the rest of the people that are served by efficiency Vermont? And what about Vermont Gas? Is there funds in a separate envelope or safe to their customers?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Not sure I understand the question.

[Unidentified committee member]: The Burlington Electric has their own efficiency fund, and they're their own efficiency utility. Right. Vermont Gas has an efficiency utility, and how they get their income, I'm not sure. But the rest of Efficiency gets funded in part or in all by the energy efficiency fee that's on a kilowatt hour.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So Efficiency Vermont uses that funds for electric efficiency. Vermont Gas Systems has a different pot of funds because it's thermal and process fuel efficiency. It's a different So we're not talking about any electrical efficiency fund here. We're only talking about Vermont gases. We're not talking about Vermont gas in this in this bill. We're talking about Burlington Electric. We're also not talking about efficiency for about just Burlington Electric. And they're and using their existing thermal funds for projects they may not currently be able to use them for under statute. Letting them use different funds for these types of programs.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because otherwise, we heard in testimony, they'll be getting the money and not able to spend it.

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: Correct.

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

[Unidentified committee member]: So if they can't use that money does it revert back?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think it I think it remains in the fund, but, I think it remains in the fund until they can use it, but I would defer to probably department on how they do that.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. Because I'd like to know what happens if they can't

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Use it.

[Unidentified committee member]: Do the expenditures to zero it out. Does that money revert back to the department somehow, or what does it do?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is Darren joining us?

[Unidentified committee member]: I'm right here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, hi. There's a couple of Good to see you over there. I

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: was here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I was looking for you on Zoom. Do you know the answer to that?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: I do. I'm Dara Torre, general manager with Burlington Electric. Typically, if we have thermal energy process fuel funds that we don't spend in a three year period, they roll over to the next three year period. So they stay in Burlington, their Burlington rate period dollars, but this allows us to expend them as opposed to just having to roll them over.

[Unidentified committee member]: So they don't revert back to

[Alec (Director, Energy Efficiency Division, VT Department of Public Service)]: Not not typically. Alec might Yeah. The funds we're talking about are funds that are collected from the revenues from forward capacity market auctions and the regional greenhouse gas initiative auctions. Sorry, Pat. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Public service. And so the we're not talking about electric efficiency charge dollars here. This is money that comes from elsewhere. Okay. So that just stays in and just grows? Essentially. Yeah. And and BED is allotted a certain percentage of the total state revenue, so it's just a small portion of that. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Why don't let's see. Why don't we finish the walkthrough and then maybe you guys can join us. Sure. Yeah, because I have to

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: be somewhere else at 09:30. Perfect. Okay, great. Yeah. Alright, thanks, So, on page three, section two, so one of the requests you received was also from the department about amending the enhanced energy planning statute to line up with the Land Use Review Board's review of regional plans. And so I did not know quite how to draft that. So here's my proposal, though I do think the department is going to respond with language that they think works better. But so, section two is amending, 24 BSA forty three fifty two. So for regional plans, this enhanced energy planning can happen at the regional plan level and then a municipal plan can also adopt it. So this first section that's being amended is for the regional plan only. A Regional Planning Commission may submit its Regional Plan to the Commissioner of Public Service appointed under 30 ASA Section one for a determination of energy compliance. Proposed language here, the submission shall happen when the draft Regional Plan is submitted to the Land Use Review Board for review and adoption pursuant to 4,348 of this title. The Commissioner shall issue an affirmative determination on finding that the Regional Plan meets the requirement of Subsection C and allows for the siting in the region of all types of renewable energy generation technologies. Currently in the statute, if the Regional Planning Commission includes the proper components within the Regional Plan, they can receive this determination of enhanced energy planning. After that, if that has happened, the municipalities within that region can then do the same for their municipal plans and identify areas where they want renewable energy and places they may not want renewable energy development to happen, and that allows them to receive substantial deference at the PUC during the February process. February mapping. I you have So, I don't know how much you've heard about this proposal. Not much, really. So, the department, I believe, is interested in trying to have these two regional planning review processes maybe happen at the same times, and so you may want to hear more about how they actually want that to happen. But currently, this has existed for almost a decade now, this process by which the RPC identifies areas they want for available for use for renewable energy generation development, and the municipalities do that also. But first, the regional plan has to be approved by this compliance of energy has to be approved by DPS. And so now that there's this new process where the LERB will be reviewing the renal planning commission plans and maps, they wanna sync those two reviews up. Okay. And so that may actually require additional language, I I wasn't sure they're exact. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we would wanna hear on this section. I mean, this really is a what do they call it? Salad basket. I just wanted to remind everybody of that phrase that I made up. You're welcome. So we would want to hear on this section probably again from DPS. I think we'd want to hear from the Land Use Review Board, and I think maybe we should hear from RPCs. From RPCs.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I don't think their proposal is to change what the Land Use Review Board is doing, but somehow have the the the commissioner also just be involved at that stage so there's syncing up the timing. But you should hear from them. And I think Anne Margolis might be working on this for the department. Yes. Anne?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. This section needs testimony from DPS, planned use for view board and RPCs. Section three, we've talked about. Section four, I don't think needs any additional testimony unless I maybe we wanna hear from and just have them come in and say, disband us. And then we have folks in the room.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I have one small flag. Okay. We have the date in here as effective date is 07/01/2026. I wasn't sure if for the energy efficiency section, section one on passage might work better depending So on the if the stakeholders on that have a preference, on passage might be easier. Okay. That's why it's highlighted. We were

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: just just gonna ask. One more

[Unidentified committee member]: question for Allent. I know she's gonna be on.

[Unidentified committee member]: Will this change to the precedent and how the dollars are used going forward for all the other EUs? So

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I I do think you should hear I don't think so. But this would be the third time that, this type of reallocation so previously, the legislature had created this pilot program to test whether or not the fund should be the the use of the fund should be expanded to other types of programs. That pilot program lasted for six years. It was not put in statute. And so this is another attempt to do something similar to that, and it is also not being put into statute. I do think you may want to consider if this has been working well, if it should go into statute or not. There are only three efficiency utilities. They operate very differently, and Burlington Electric specifically is very different because it is also a retail utility. So it's different than efficiency Vermont and Vermont gas systems.

[Unidentified committee member]: Would it would it be better to look at in totality with all the EUs to try and figure out language per statute going forward to where it's beneficial all across the board. So it's set in law, not just session law.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: That really is a big policy choice, and I think it has come up a number of times. People will disagree. And I think you could hear about that and take testimony on it. That is something you consider. It's definitely a policy choice.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right, Ellen, thanks. I hope you feel better. Thanks for being here. Maybe we could hear from, Darren, would you wanna give us your take on this?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Absolutely. Good morning. I'm Darren Springer, general manager with Burlington Electric Department. Was with you on the January 23 to talk about our proposal, for how to flexibly use some of these, we call it TEPS dollars, continuing along the lines that we've had for the last six years for the next three year period. You heard, I think, from us and the department that we both agreed that flexibility was warranted for BED, but we had some different visions of how to use the funds. Committee directed Alec and I to sit down and chat, which we did. Appreciate Alec and the department working with us. The language that was presented this morning from Allen represents compromise and includes priorities from the department around weatherization and thermal efficiency. It includes some of the flexibility that we were seeking to continue programs that we've had, such as our geothermal well testing program, some additional, focus on incentives and different pieces. So 40% of the funds are available for those purposes. 60% are focused on thermal efficiency and weatherization. Any good compromise, nobody gets everything that they were looking for, but, we're we're supportive of the language that was presented this morning, to to speak to the the questions that you had. We are open to supporting longer term policy here to have, like, long term stability, but we are also supportive of continuing with this particular approach given that we know there's a lot of change happening. And and for us uniquely, separate from the other EUs, we need this ability because otherwise, we would only be able to use these funds to serve our oil and propane customers, whereas Efficiency Vermont has a number of oil and propane customers potentially to serve under existing law. We do not. We have, you know, somewhere between 9599% of our service territory is natural gas. And so the ability here is simply to say we can use these funds to serve all of our customers regardless of their preexisting fuel source, and that's a flexibility that I'm not aware that anyone else is seeking. So we've we've consulted with efficiency Vermont. They were not seeking to be a part of the pilot, or or to be a part of this language, going forward. They have other plans. So, if it works for the committee to continue it as a three year program, we're certainly supporting of that. If you 'd like to consider longer term policy, we'd certainly work with you on that as well. But we think a three year program gives us enough time to work with the compromise language we have with the department, implement programs, and certainly come back to you over the next couple of years to let you know how it's going and whether there's merit to having a a more long term policy in place. So we're very supportive of the language as it's written. I would agree with legislative council that having the enactment date for this section beyond passage would be beneficial. We're currently at, the PUC, on this demand resource plan, which sets the budget for the next three years, '27 through '29. And so if this was to be passed, having it be effective on enactment will allow us to go in and update our plans with the PUC well in advance of the beginning of the new, performance period and budget. So we'd certainly support that change, and, I'd be glad to answer any questions if I can.

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: Questions?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sure, I'll ask a question. Hi, Darren. Hi. Thanks for this. I guess I'm wondering about layering on incentives from different sources. So the one thing I asked about before was this business about EV incentives. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I understand it, the EV incentives come out of EEC money, that the incentives that are available for anybody in the state come out of EEC money. Is that right? EEC funds?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: No. So typically the incentives that we have and that the utilities have are coming out of the tier three under the renewable energy standard incentives. EEC does not fund typically EV incentives.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I see. Okay. So it's utility by utility using or getting credit on their tier three requirements.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: That's correct.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Then would BED be anticipating using TEPF money? Actually, I think that was part of the language was that you couldn't also count it as tier three, right?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah, so just to explain that further. So the funds that we use here don't count towards our tier three requirements. They're sort of separately calculated. So there's that piece. Could we augment our tier three incentive with additional TPF dollars under this provision? Yes. We could. We have done that in the past. We will have less resource to do that based on the compromise with the department. 60% of the funds are gonna be going towards weatherization, so there's only 40% available for a variety of programs that we'd like to pursue, including the geothermal program and and other support. So we might consider or we might have flexibility to propose EVA adoption incentives or multifamily charging adoption incentives, but it won't be the largest kind of source of funding within the legislation that's going to weatherization.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay, well that clarifies that, although it is a little concerning that we don't have sort of equity around the state on this. But the other question is about using the money for weatherization incentives. This TEPF money would then augment what Vermont Gas is offering for weatherization, is that right?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: It could, but what I appreciate about the language that's been put together is we have the ability to support things that might not be part of the Vermont Gas program. For example, if a building needs repair prior to weatherization or if a panel needs to be upgraded or wiring, if there's knob and tube wiring that needs to be abated or asbestos or other health concerns that need to be abated, we could use our resources to help with those issues, and then VGS could support the weatherization incentive on top of that to help with the actual project. So I think there's a complementary nature there potentially in what we would do. We wouldn't necessarily just be adding incentives on top of what BGS already offers in that scenario.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Well, I mean, far be it for me to not want to incentivize people to get their houses weatherized or to buy EVs, we're just thinking in terms of equity around the state, that's all.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah, and I would mention too that for EV incentives, they vary already. Different utilities already have different incentives for EVs as it stands under tier three. They're not uniform. And, you know, each utility kind of looks at how much that value is for them and decides within the tier three context what they wanna do. But appreciate your point.

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

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Any other questions? Okay.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Thank you very much.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alec, do you mind?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Sure.

[Unidentified committee member]: Are you

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: joining us?

[Unidentified committee member]: Certainly.

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

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: Or oh, Darren? Yes. Now that he's sitting around.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Now that he's moved out. Yeah. I'm sure.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: How many

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: efficiency programs is BED territory

[Maria Royle (Legislative Counsel)]: are there in

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: How many providers? Or Yeah. Well, there's us as the major electric efficiency provider, and then typically there's Vermont Gas as the main thermal efficiency provider. Mhmm. We also work with both of us work together, and we work with CBOEO as the cap agency has a low income weatherization program as well. So it's really those three entities that coordinate on various projects. And if somebody, say, has a heat pump in their home and a boiler a gas boiler Mhmm. We might provide some incentive funding, and they might provide some, and we split the value essentially. So there's already a good working relationship there. There.

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: And, you know, I'm just thinking about the distinctness Mhmm. Of your territory with the natural gas provider.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: It's it's very unique in the context that we, as an efficiency provider, overlap almost wholly with natural gas resources, and yet the TPF statute currently written only allows the funding to be used for the unregulated fuels of which we have very, very few. So we're unique in that sense, whereas

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

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Statewide, of course, we have a number of oil and propane that would, you know, keep customers that would be considered unregulated fuel and able to be served under this provision.

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: And you were subjected to the tier three reconnaissance

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: That's correct.

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: Yeah. This is, you know, trying to remind myself of why I have felt like this was

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah. Important. There's some uniqueness and some complexity to our service territory in that regard. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member (likely Rep. Laura Sibilia)]: Thank you. Yes. Minister.

[Alec (Director, Energy Efficiency Division, VT Department of Public Service)]: Okay. Alokanacek. I'm the director of the energy efficiency resource division at Park Service. I really, there's not much more to add. I think Dara said it well. This represents a compromise. You know, I think representative Campbell sort of echoed some of the department's concerns around equity still, but I think, on the whole, the balance, with the amount of regularization that's being included here. I think the department is comfortable with it. And I think we would just reiterate that BED does have a very unique and particularly challenging service territory in the context of BPF. And so, it's important to keep that in mind and that is there needs to be some solution here. And with the compromise we have here, we feel like this is a pretty good one.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And the thought of taking a setting precedent or for the other EUs?

[Unidentified committee member]: Well, I think, again,

[Alec (Director, Energy Efficiency Division, VT Department of Public Service)]: as as Darren said, EVT is really the only other going concern as far as EMA. VGS is doesn't have the same issues. And so as far as this DRP cycle, EBT has explicitly said that they're not interested in continuing with the program, and really don't have the same needs as EBTs.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We haven't had them in, so maybe we'll get them in. Okay. Great. Alrighty. So more testimony to take. So we'll work on getting that scheduled, and we'll just keep you guys posted as, you know, if and when the language evolves. But, thanks for getting together on this. Appreciate it.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And, I think we can probably go off live and take a five minute break.