Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Okay, folks. We're We're live. Welcome back everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Thursday, February 19, And we are going to have a committee discussion and possibly, probably a straw poll on our letter to house appropriations. So as folks know, we've taken quite a bit of testimony on the areas of the budget that are under our purview. I drafted a letter to approves and sent it out to the committee. We talked about it. I revised it, and it's now posted on our webpage under other documents, FY '27 budget, and then Wednesday, February 18, FY twenty seven budget. We had worked we'd worked closely with and take testimony from JFO to try to make sure that we understood the ADS. The changes to the ADS budget this year. And so we had asked JFO to review the letter, make sure it's accurate. That's the most important thing. And then if folks have any final questions for JFO before we, you know, walk through this, make sure it's what we want, and then start talking about the different sections. So, anyway, I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint John's Grace.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Richard Bailey, you love oil too. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland Ford. Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Graham Kleppner, Chittenden, 13 in Burlington.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Laura Sibilia, one two.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. And in the room. I'm Caitlin with Action Surfaces. Great. Alrighty. For the record.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: For the record, James Duffy joined fiscal office. Super. So, madam chair, you had asked JFO to take a look at the final draft of the committee letter that you all prepared for house appropriations. I've reviewed that letter as has Lisa Gobin, JFO's IT consultant. And having followed the testimony from ADS and from finance and management about the issues covered in your committee letter through various committees' jurisdiction this budget season, and having reviewed the letter and tell you this reflects my understanding of the issues and the proposals that ADS has put forward for the f y twenty seven budget cycle. And as someone who works for house corporations, thank you for putting together a letter that, describes the proposals well. I think this is really useful for to exist out in the world to to describe these proposals. Just to quickly cover the the main points, that the letter speaks to, We're looking at, first and foremost, I think from the Appropriations Committee's point of view, an overall increase in $14,000,000 in general fund pressure under this FY '27 proposal. That's composed of a new $9,000,000 direct general fund appropriation to the agency of digital services, as well as a net increase in build back authority at ADS in of $5,000,000, about $5,000,000, summing to 14,000,000 in new general fund authorization through ADS. This largely represents work that ADS has testified they are already doing, but are not adequately recovering the cost of. So, while this represents a new general fund pressure in the sense that it is a new direct appropriation in that $9,000,000, What you all have heard and what I've heard from ADS and from finance and management is that this is a recognition of work already being done that simply wasn't being, paperwork for lack of lack of finer finer way to put it. So, the intent of this is really to address the multiyear deficits that have been accruing in the CIT fund, and that's that's covered in your letter. The other piece that you speak to in your letter is the shifting of $47,000,000 in spending authority from ADS for bespoke large scale IT projects to specific sponsoring agencies. This is something we've looked into at JFO. We heard from the agencies, from finance and management, from ADS. This makes sense to us. And I I did note that you flagged some of the committee's concerns going forward, just making sure that statutory reporting requirements continue to be met under this new structure and certainly appreciate that, the committee raising that concern for appropriators to to know about it and then follow-up on going forward. I think you all heard from finance and management that they've given you their word that they will, continue to meet their reporting requirements under this new structure. I know you'll all be looking to, you know, hold them to that going forward and continue to exercise your oversight. So appreciate your attention to that. Madam Chair, is there anything else that you would like to hear from JFO apart from, you know, we we reviewed the letter and it and it makes sense and conforms with our understanding of the proposals?

[Speaker 0]: No. I know we'll wanna hear from Lisa too, and then committee members may have questions. Yeah. I think I think

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: my question is for Lisa, and it had to do with our second bonus visit with commissioner of Gresham. K. And around just really not knowing, not having a comprehensive place. Did you get to see that testimony where we know what is being proposed every year? I

[Speaker 0]: think I can help with that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. That's my time, Sharon. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Do we have questions for James? Great. Appreciate your time. Alright. Lisa.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Hey. Hey, James. The record, Lisa Gobin, JFO, IT component. So around the question on where we can see where the information is available and for upcoming projects, we can still use the annual report for that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I think so. It's not upcoming projects. So, I mean, it's very the question that I am very specifically connected to is when the governor presents a budget Mhmm. What money in that to the legislature. This year's budget, how do we know how much money he has proposed for IT projects besides just going to every different department and agency? And I don't mean, like, the, you know, the ADS charges. I'm talking Yeah. The concern is we have a lot of IT infrastructure that needs to be modernized or that is in the process of being modernized. How do we know what the governor has? How are able to see comprehensively what the governor's prioritizing IT investments in a given year? That's a great leap because he usually get us from JFO. Commissioner Gushing, you it doesn't exist in my mind.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Represents if I may, madam chair. Yeah. Representative Sibilia, I I did I also tuned into that testimony after the fact. Commissioner Gresham's understanding is my own as well. If I, GFO, am asked by a member of the committee to look into a specific project that already received an appropriation a previous year and then what's happening with that project in this current fiscal year, I will go into that individual agency's budget documents, budget details, contact their business manager and or ABS to get information about that specific project. I am not aware of a resource that gives JFO or you all visibility. You got the kind of comprehensive visibility into the current fiscal year proposed appropriations or allocations for

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No. IT projects across all branches and agencies. And the way I would go about doing it now is to dig in to each individual agency or department's pledged details.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: And that's how I get the information now. When the budget comes out, GFO will contact me about what, you know, areas of the budget that include IT spending. Right. That's new. So that that's not a change.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. And so that makes it very doable to do it on a case by case basis. In your question about getting that 30,000 foot view that it it's a heavy lift to to go through.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: But I also haven't run into a case where an IT project that's supposed to start in at least the the calendar year doesn't appear on that annual report.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So and thank you. All of this information is really helpful. I perhaps all of you saw my contorted face when commissioner Gresham was first in here just trying to grasp it. So I think my question has been answered and my my concern, I think I can now articulate clearly, and it's a structural concern, within the legislature and with this reporting, and now I'm able to provide oversight, without oversight in terms of, financial prioritization. So this is the IT committee, which has been formed and disbanded and formed and expanded. I know that some jurisdictions have been changed in the Senate trying to gravel this. So there's some changing and adjusting that's trying to happen within the legislature. IT I don't know that we've got it yet. And this Woah. We, this oversight committee, does not have the ability to see what is the priority this year for spending and with limited dollars in a comprehensive way without combing through the whole budget. So that is my concern. I think the chair has worked to articulate that. I think it's fairly well articulated in here. I don't know that we've resolved it, but I think we need to think about resolving that. Court to provide some sort of financial oversight. Right? So, I mean, the governors needs to propose, and then we need to consider

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: You know, I go back. When I was in state government, the agencies would have to submit a five year plan to the state CIO about all the IT projects that were just on kind of the the vision down the road. And we would have to categorize as we are definitely doing this or this is a wish list. You know, we but I think that document may exist in state government. It just might be internal. And that would be at least helpful. It still doesn't tell you you still have to look in the budget and see what they ask for.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. And I think if the if what the questions or the thinking is getting at is, you know, a one stop resource where you can see all the spending in IT in a given year, there are some follow-up questions in scoping there that would be a matter of discussion for the executive branch and you all. Right? Like, what is the threshold at which we care to know about projects? Do we wanna know about a $10,000 acquisition of new equipment in an agency or do we only care above a certain expenditure amount, for example? So I think the resources, sure, it's something that the executive branch can work with you all to put together over time, but there are definitely there's a conversation we had around scoping and what exactly is most useful for you all to know. Once again, I'm sure you all probably don't want to receive too much information about, you know, $10,000 purchases in your or anything like that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But it would be nice to have some context around the, wow, you didn't fund you didn't propose any funding for CCWIS this year. So Yeah. Do but, oh, yes. I see that you prioritized this IT spending instead. Like, it just it just helps us kind of understand maybe some more contact.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And I think you I may. One other consideration too is, you know, you all appropriate or not you all the the general assembly might appropriate large amounts of money for a project called $25,000,000 that's unallocated or spent across subsequent years. Mhmm. And I think this is that's also what you're getting at. Like, how can you all have better visibility into we do we no funds are being spent without the approval of the legislature, but for the large tranches of funding, how can you get better visibility into how that spending is rolled out and distributed over subsequent years in agency budgets.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm less concerned about that, actually. I mean, my problem is much smaller. May the chair may have that concern, but I'm much more concerned about, in a particular budget year, how do we understand the governor's IT investment priorities?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. But my and I'm sorry. My question is directly related to this as well. So that I can understand how big of a concern it is for me. So let's say there's a five year IT project and we appropriate $40,000,000 for it and that money is appropriated and it's in a mythical bucket somewhere. And then as each year rolls on, are expenditures from that 40,000,000 put into the governor's budget? Like this year, we're gonna spend eight of that 40. This year, we're gonna spend zero of that 40, therefore reflecting priorities, or is it a $40,000,000 bucket that sits there to be tapped into over the five years as the project rolls forward? And so we don't know. So it may not be possible or it may be guesswork at best to be putting it in the recommended budget because it depends on when the vendor does this or the this does that. So I don't I don't know how much of a concern it is for me in the context of looking into the budget to see what's there. Did was that clear?

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This is Claire, and I I think the the agency digital services, the executive branch finance management would be in the best position to have

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: that conversation, if you want. Yeah. And if I could just amplify this, I think we all have the same concerns, maybe from a little different perspective, but I'm thinking about, we have, what was it, $780,000,000 in projects that's probably something like that, right? That's a lot of money. And how do we have visibility into where that money's getting spent and how do we know if we're getting good values of that money or if there's not some sort of insider dealing going on where somebody's contracting out to a company that is my brother in law's cousin or something whatever How do we have any handle on this enormous amount of money that we're spending on IT, which I think we need to spend money on IT? We absolutely need to have far more effective data management and web presence for state government services, because that is how government services are being delivered and are going to be delivered. But how do we know, First of all, what is the scale of the fund expenditure and how are we getting good value? That's the big picture question. When I walk into the constituents and I'm saying, well, geez, the the report says we got $780,000,000 in projects going on over the next whatever years. Know, that's most of a billion dollars have a lot of money. So that they they wanna know how we how we handle that, how we control that, how do we how we have it handled.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: And the concern that I have is just receiving the information when there it appears in the budget versus understanding what other big projects are in the pipe. Sometimes I know, sometimes I don't. Mhmm. But it might impact your decisions for this fiscal year and whether or not you choose to put money away for another high profile project or expensive project, critical project that might align more with priorities. So that's what I'm concerned about, just not having the bigger picture of what's coming down the pipe year to year. Overall. Yes. Exactly.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Overall and year to year.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Not to go too far afield, but just trying to think, was gonna ask Lisa, is there some example other example in government we could think of that, you know, like, has resolved this in some way? So BGS has a lot of investments in state infrastructure. Right? I mean, so they is that all on the capital budget?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So that's that's Well, and transportation is another example. Yeah. Agency that has huge long term projects with Yeah. Huge amounts of money.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So that's helpful actually to think about in terms of what like, we're not crazy, but this is a little bit Hard. Hard to see. But but

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: it's not new. It is not new. It's not new. It's I think it's sort of a credit to where the committee is and where they're what they can see and what they know they can't see now. I think it's sort of, you know, it's a maturity of, you know, based on what you've what you've seen in state government thus far and where the problems might be and where you additional information could be helpful. But I I really I'd like to follow-up with secretary Riley Hughes on whether or not they do have, you know, what used to be the five year plan, you know, that extended list of budgets of of projects that they see coming down the pipe and when do they think they'll appear. Because I think that would be helpful to have that longer view, but I don't you know, what you're what you're what you're asking in terms of the budget is a good question, and I don't think we have a

[Speaker 0]: And that you said is largely an internal that's an is that the one that you said was more like an internal?

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Well, I don't know if it's an internal. I think it's it's just how we've been handling it. You know, I've been told, we'll tell you when there's a when the projects what projects are in the budget. Right. And so when the budget comes out, I sort of wait for that information for GFO.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Oh, regarding what's in the

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: What's the budget. Governor's record. Because it's not easy to pull. You have to go through it all.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. And I would say also that there there are lot of particularities with IT as with any subject matter, but you all are also circling the same question a lot of folks in this building grapple with, which is how do we track program success and metrics and accountability for for the appropriations that we approve? And those are as someone who's on the budget team and spends time talking with you all in this building about the money that goes out the door, that question, how we hold programs accountable and measure success, is common to to all all policy areas. So some of it is particular challenges that are unique to IT, and some of these are foundational challenges in conducting your oversight role too.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Anything you can do to give us an idea of where to start,

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: that would be very helpful. I would say you all have worked closely with the Agency of Digital Services thus far. You spent a lot of time working with them on a new reporting dashboard last year. A lot of visibility does go through the agency of digital services. Right? I think they're kind of the key nexus here. I think a conversation with agency of digital services about next steps for transparency for you all would be the place to start. Right? Defining your goals for what you'd like to know, what kind of documents you like at the beginning of each budget session, and what role they might be able to play. I I think the agency is your is your next step here. And in the meantime, any documents that we can help you procure to help shape those questions, JFO, I, Lisa, are are happy to do that.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. And I I was

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: just meeting with the agency of digital services talking about their new really, their project initiation process, which is was a great conversation. And this these types of questions, think, could inform what their next steps are. They're trying to understand what their options are for implementing a more mature project management system that allows them to track and do better reporting. For example, one of the the comments they made to me is, like, if we did put expenditures in the project dashboard, which I'm not sure it's the best place for it, they they couldn't use that tool because they've already maxed out the columns that they can use for that dashboard. So so they do there's some needs that they have that if we if we have these conversations now, it could help them in their planning as they secure a new system on what they what idea what what reports we could get off of

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: that system. So one of my concerns about about ADS, though, was early in the session when we were taking testimony from them about this change, they appear concerned about not having visibility into expenses also with this change. So if they don't have visibility, how are we going to have visibility? Yeah. But and I I think that that impression has evolved somewhat, but but still.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I think commissioner Gresham was talking about a modification and the chart of accounts on how to access projects so we could grab that. And Super. We so it is a key piece, and we need to follow through on it.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Because I think when you're talking about a government wide visibility, right, a budget wide visibility, that becomes a conversation with finance and management as well as ABS. Think they both need to be in the room for their subject matter expertise. But a bell was going off in my head too, Lisa, about picture correction. I mentioned perhaps some kind of tag or account code can be applied as they're preparing the executive branch recommended budget that's, you know, searchable or give some kind of way of tagging expenses together.

[Speaker 0]: That's actually in our budget letter, and I I wanted to remind you guys Yes. That you would rec you would recommend that we write a memo as a committee to commissioner Gresham. And I said in my letter that we would be doing that. I don't think we need to do it prior to crossover.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: No. I don't think so because it's

[Speaker 0]: the last You were gonna help me write that.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yes. And I'm planning on doing that tomorrow during the snowstorm.

[Speaker 0]: Oh. So Great. Okay. So I know. You're way out ahead of me.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do it Saturday. Don't have the snowstorm.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Well, I'll I'll if if that's what it takes, I'll do

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: it on Saturday too. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Well, just just so you know, I that's your that's your timing. That's what I think. But I I don't think as a committee, we'll take that up until after crossover.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: That makes sense. It it It's just a matter of I think it requires planning on their part.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, but

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: I don't forget. Yeah. Oh, I won't forget. Okay. We've been after this one for a while. Okay. But just one last item. I think when I think about the the projects, I think about the budgeting, which could be helpful in the, you know, like, if there is a five year plan, an extended view out what projects are on the horizon. But then the expenditures, what happens after, how much do these actually cost after the fact, kind and of reconciling those like we, you know, did with the initial budget versus the final budget on implementation in the dashboard. So I think we can we they're they're two different very different things. We just have to focus on both.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. So I I know commissioner Gresham talked about sending $45,000,000 back to the individual agencies. Is that the lump sum of money that we are allocating for Okay. This budget year for computer upgrades?

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: It's just the authorization power, the amount, not necessarily what they're gonna spend.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And specific to f y twenty seven too. So that represents spending authority that otherwise would be given to ADS just in FY '27 for those bespoke projects that starting this year, FY '27, will now be spread out across all sponsored agencies, and that practice will continue in future years. So the number may be different. Yes. And and will be different in later years. The practice will remain the same for full.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: So last year, was 47,000,000 because that was the cost they needed to spend in that year to support those IT projects.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office)]: In f y twenty six.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Well, in f y twenty six, that was the spending authority for that amount. It it'll be different next year. This year, the '27, depending on what the amounts of those projects are.

[Speaker 0]: Great. Alright. So, I think we're gonna probably move on to our committee discussion and straw pollute.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Thanks so much. You. Thank you.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: It's getting clearer.

[Speaker 0]: All right. So, all right. We've got our letters due tomorrow. And what I thought we could do is why don't we go through and talk about every we've gone through this in in pretty significant detail already so we could have additional conversation, or we could just skim through each section and take a straw poll by section.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do you wanna fix the typo first?

[Speaker 0]: No. Yeah. Where is it? Is it Al? What did I say? Al?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Request to additional funding after it says total increase 14,000,000. The next paragraph says as mentioned above the new 9,000,000 direction appropriation.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, direct Okay. Then there's ow. I thought

[Unidentified Committee Member]: ow. Can you

[Speaker 0]: do a search on them? Just go I can. I assume every now will be oh, now. Fine. Oh, no. Brow cat. Yeah. Oh, boy. Oh, boy. Flow, growing. Okay.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: No. It's alright. Thing. I'm gonna jump in.

[Speaker 0]: It's okay. It's only discussed below. Now named. Might have fixed it already. I haven't looked at it since all I did was make it a PDF this morning. But because I I so I actually don't see ow.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It wasn't there.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I remember.

[Speaker 0]: You remember, ow?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Did I fix it? Yeah. Let's see. I might have it on let me look at the.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They can see the first.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Maybe I probably fixed it. I mean, I went through it before I sent it to Alex to post. All I did this morning was so I must have found it and fixed it then. All I did this morning was take out the confidential watermark. Okay. So alrighty. So request one is the structural change so that going from one internal service fund to four. And I said, hey, supports this structural change, and that's where I was gonna add vote. So why don't we do a straw poll? We're gonna we're gonna put that in the letter then. Our vote for each section. Yep. Oh. So we did last year. Oh, that's cute. We're thorough if nothing else. I know. So, okay. So request one, straw poll. All good? Okay. 90. Request two, the $14,000,000 in additional total additional funding. Everybody? K. Nine zero. Scott. Three. Shift in spending authority. I'm gonna take out parentheses there and say raises concerns. Discuss below. Okay. Everybody Nine extensions. Yeah. Okay. Everybody ready?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: K. 47,000,000 is a little bit goofed up for me. I'm only halfway. I'm starting

[Speaker 0]: to Nine o straw full. Okay. And then our concerns, I don't think we need to quote on our concerns. Okay. Department of Public Service. This is changing the converting the limited service position. And that seems like an easy one. Everybody good with that? Okay. Maybe maybe just bold converting a vacant. Just so it pops out. You know? Yes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Sorry. K.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, and and I'll do changing the k I'll bold that too. You know that I am a careful color coder and bolder. Okay. So changing the cadence of the telecom plan. Everybody good? Okay. I know Strawboard. Okay. Community Broadband Board, there's nothing to say. I guess are we all good with that? I don't know if I

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: should have stained, so I will.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So is that 901?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No.

[Speaker 0]: 01 with Rep. Sibilia. What are your board member? Yeah. Board member abstaining. That's good.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Don't know. I

[Speaker 0]: perceive hygiene. Okay? PUC budget. Nine sorry. Oh, very good.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Sorry. Sir? The thing that I just looked at. Do we wanna say anything about the

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: budget challenges that Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Like Yes. Okay. So I am happy to add that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And he does not wanna, like well He doesn't want to I don't think we should speak for him. Right. So I think we should just stay to So the What's the truth? The truth is that there is a shortfall. Yeah. And this ongoing structural deficit. Yeah. Is that the right word?

[Speaker 0]: I don't know because I don't remember that. They're eating into their reserves. That's right. Right. Yes. And this is why people could help me reinforce this. I went to look for that, and there was no written testimony.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: No. You're calling early.

[Speaker 0]: Well, actually Nope. That's why I always ask for written testimony because it's a pain in the butt to go back and watch YouTube.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Now they have annuals have to set similarities into their reserves. I think he said in 2030, they would be in the red.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So how how do we write something that is not in act that's accurate? Well and also not big enough or broad enough so that we don't have to go back and check dates and check mounds. Would just say the chair did disclose that

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They have concerns.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Oh my god.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. And we have concerns. It's for us to have concerns even though we're not speaking a PVC.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. The chair explained that the fee structure is not keeping up with costs. Right?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And they are eating into more service.

[Speaker 0]: Keeping up with the annual expenses. The fee structure is not I said keeping up. The chair explained that the fee structure is not keeping up with annual expenses and PUC is relying on reserves reserves that will at some point be depleted. Shares this concern? Yes. Okay. So I'll change to say with no special requests or notable changes for FY '27. They supports the PUC budget. Okay? Yes. K. So I added that. You guys all see this. Nine o straw poll. Okay. So that's the heart of the letter. Now now I have new information. So not trying to spring anything on you guys, but I I was asking Ellen and asking some members of approves over lunch whether we needed to include a committee recommendation in our budget letter for the appropriation that should we pass the bill is contained in H740, that's the greenhouse gas bill. And the answer I got from both Ellen and from Appropes is yes. We need to include a section in our budget letter about the money that ANR is requesting if we pass, you know, if H740, the greenhouse gas bill passes the house, passes the senate, is signed into law and moves forward. So I haven't written it yet because I just found out. So and that's why I think that's also why I think it's important that we are straw pulling on each section because I know different members of the committee are going to have different opinions on that money. When ANR came in and presented their testimony on the greenhouse gas reporting framework, They had asked for $800,000 $500,000 base, dollars 300,000 one time. I've been talking quite a bit to Secretary Moore and going back and forth with the ANR a little bit to revise the bill as it was originally introduced and make sure it's language that ANR is comfortable with and that they feel it gives them sufficient authority to move ahead with this reporting framework if the bill passes. And as part of those conversations, I asked them whether they really felt that 800 ks was necessary now and they concluded that the one time money could be put off and that the 500,000 base is what they're going to be focused on. So we do need as a committee to put that into the letter because it's a bill that should be passed out is going to be going to a probes and they're going to need to hear from us on that. So what I thought we could do, there are two things we could do. One is people probably already know how they feel, we could take a straw poll right now. Or I could write the language, I think it's going to take me about fifteen minutes and we could reconvene and straw pull on that new language. You guys wanna look at it, I assume. Yeah. Okay. Questions now?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I will just say I'm generally supportive. Okay. I'm interested in.

[Speaker 0]: Okey dokey. Yeah. I saw the thumbs down. Right.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I am not in support of the 800,000 or the $7.40 I'm not in favor of.

[Speaker 0]: Yep.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Same with me.

[Speaker 0]: K. Well, why don't we just take a quick couple now, then I'll go write my language. So we've got a no. I'm a yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm a yes. Yes. No. No. Yes.

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

[Speaker 0]: So give me why don't we go off live and give me a minute to send this language out. We'll get it in the letter. We'll get it posted. And then we'll take a more of a formal straw poll when people have had a chance to read what I'm about I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't see how we can spend that much money in another appropriation considering where the stains are financially right now.

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I I just that's from a hard know about.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Yeah. Nothing surprising. And I didn't didn't think we were going to have to add it to our letter, but we should and so we will and we'll just vote on it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We have to add the fact that it may be there if this legislation passes.

[Speaker 0]: So they have a heads up

[Lisa Gobin (JFO IT Consultant)]: on it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right, that the money's coming or the request may

[Speaker 0]: The request may be coming.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But if it doesn't pass, it goes away. Right.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. But it's better to put it in there and be, like, heads up, you know, than to not put it in there and have it be surprised. But, no, nice to see you. If it reaches them.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you. Thank you. So when a request goes on to ways and means and appropriations, the just because legislation passes, does ways and means have to come up with the money and No. Have to approve. So there still is some some somebody else may say this may not be affordable. A lot of somebody else.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. There's a whole Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Mean, it's nice.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Math has to work

[Speaker 0]: in So this is basically just somebody in the waving a hand in the corner and saying, we've got a bill that has some money in it. If it leaves this committee, it'll go to a probes. And they if the money doesn't wind up in the in the budget that we pass in May after it goes through house of probes and the floor and the senate and conference committee and all that, if the money doesn't wind up in the budget, then that bill, regardless of whether we passed it or the house has passed it, is

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: it's Unfunded.

[Speaker 0]: It's mortgaged.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. Yeah. Can't fund it, but it may come up in future years. If it's if it's already in legislation to do it and it doesn't get funded, Does the Well,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: like the like the greenhouse gas committee, it's in legislation. It was unfunded. It went quiet until we decided to kick it back up.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We'll we'll look at it. We'll explore that later.

[Speaker 0]: The question for me about that would be if this is session law, which just would kind of go away at the end of the biennium or whether So that's a good question for me.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So it's a difference between session law and statute.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Mhmm. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So why don't we go off live? I I don't think this is gonna take me very long. And then we'll come back. We'll vote on that section. And then our budget letter will be done. And I'm sorry I didn't Me folks

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: too.

[Speaker 0]: More runway on this, but I just found out. Yeah. Alright. We can go apply.