Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Steve Barry. That's that's related to this. But did you get this oh, we're live. Yeah. Alrighty. Folks, we are the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee. It is Thursday, February 26. We're here to talk about the Joint Carbon Emissions Reduction Committee. I'm Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint Dothbury. Richard Bailey, Ohio two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Northville, Southworth, Illinois two. Christopher Howland, Robin Fork.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington. Alrighty. Dana Lee Perry, Group.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Alright. So we're just gonna have a committee conversation about the Joint Carbon Emissions Reduction Committee, which we've been talking about as a possible venue, really, I guess, to get some work done over the summer and fall venue, vehicle, receptacle. So it might be helpful. I'm I'm sorry that I didn't print this out, but if folks wanna pull up the statute, it is two VSA chapter 17. So do folks know how to get there on the general assembly website?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Okay. What was the subsection again?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It is two BSA 17. And it's very short. So I can just maybe just take some notes as we talk. So I had been I know I've told told folks this, but I've been checking in with the speaker basically to to make sure it was okay with the speaker as the I guess she's the appoint Toer. Appointeur. If she saw any problem with us amending this statute, I guess we don't need her permission, but I thought it would be good good form to not start tinkering with the enabling or creation statutes of legislative committees without talking to the speaker. So she she's aware that we're doing this, and there are a couple things that that we can do. So the first thing we can do is I am under creation of committee. So six zero one creation of committee, and we can tinker with this. So to give a high level, we talked about this in passing, but change the statute that creates the committee and gives the committee its duties. And that should be like a short bill that we'd send over to the senate for consideration. And what think I've heard from Ledge Council and from the speaker is that the best path for us would be to try to amend, if we want to amend this language at all so that's our first decision, do we want to change this statute? Do we want to change who's on the committee, how they operate, and how many times they meet? If we do, we need to change this statute and it would be useful for us to try to stay high level and change it in a in a more enduring way so that every year it doesn't become obsolete or outdated. So that's kind of high level. Here's what we think this committee should should see. Then, in terms of our recommendation about what we think the committee should do, what we'd like to see them do this summer and fall, We can either do session law, which means we need to take testimony, hash all that out, have it drafted, write a thing, pass it, and bring it to the floor as part of this bill before crossover, which I'm full transparency, I'm a little worried about. Or we could write a committee memo that we could take testimony on and really think about after crossover and deliver it to the speaker and the pro tem as an official recommendation from the the standing policy committee. And we can work with other committees on it or not. So that's another decision decision point.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Will the memo handled as much as

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I'm so. Is there something that somebody just ignored?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't think it could be easily ignored.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I asked I asked the speaker that. Session law would have more weight. It would move along with our bill. It would go over to the senate, and the senate would do whatever they're gonna do to it. So I I see both sides. So, like, so the senate could totally change what we think the committee should do. And then it would come back to us and, you know, or or this bill could, like, die in the senate. I I don't think it's going to, but you you truly never know what's gonna happen. And so session law would carry probably carry more weight if we have time to do something really thoughtful that we're all on board with before crossover, and then we just have to realize that it could slow down or bog down the bill in the senate or they could totally change that part of it. Or we could take more time with it. Take to take more testimony because I'm imagining that after crossover, we don't have that that that many bills coming to us. In fact, right now, we have one. So I'm imagining that after crossover, there's a lot of kind of foundational and then ground up testimony I wanna take on nukes. I I I am not done talking about solar siting. You know, where do we put so we could take a bunch of testimony and then have sort of an informed letter that nobody has a chance to tinker with because it's our letter that we deliver to the speaker and protem. So I'm a little as you can tell, I'm up in the air. I've been, like, thinking about the pros and cons.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. If we were to change some wording in statute, does the speaker have to be directed somehow to appoint members to that committee?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Or No. In fact, she's already on it.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So if she appoints the members, I guess, what level do we have to do to have that committee convene when that's done in this correct?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. That would be more that would also be session letter. Because I don't think we can put in this well So shall be appointed, shall elect. We could say, I'm on I'm still on that creation thing. So and to be clear, the speaker's not opposed to any of this. In fact, the the most recent thing I heard from her was, should I go ahead and appoint members? Or do you want me to wait? And I said, I think we might be changing the statute. So we see where it says the committee may meet up to five times during adjournment? Mhmm. We I wonder well, I don't see why we couldn't say the committee shall meet. Mhmm. Up to five times during adjournment, and then we've removed any optionality there. I don't know how that compares to, like, how is set up.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And shall meet up to five times still means they could meet zero times.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh. Shall meet a minimum of five times?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. So do you want me to start should I okay. So do we agree that we wanna amend the statute to to kind of tweak the committee?

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

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: take half a step back?

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Remind me where we landed on, what we are hoping this committee will accomplish.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We don't know. So that's why I'm leaning toward recommending that we tweak the statute to just say, this is what this committee is. And then either hurry hurry for crossover, have a really try to have a really thoughtful conversation about what we want them to do and put that add that to this, but it would be a different section of the bill that it would be session long pertaining only to the summer and fall. I personally, I think that's a bit of a push in terms of deciding what we want them to do, but I, you know, I could be wrong. Four, we just passed the statute that says this is what this committee is, and we do things like, shall meet a minimum of five times. You know, how many members do we want on there? We do the real high level stuff. We pass that out, send it over to the senate, and then in the meantime, we have time in the second half of the session to take, like, extensive testimony on what we think is next, and then we write letter nonbinding.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Sounds like it's most likely waiting at this time of the eastern resistance. Mhmm. Right. It's just that it would we only have five days. Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We have all these Yeah. Other We'll all be able I'm just worried about the I'm worried about the time to do something thoughtful. I mean, you know, I had I don't know. I I think there are a lot of different ideas about what we want the community to work on. I feel like we've got broad broad topics that we all agree on. Like, I think we can all agree the future of nuclear power.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And biomass.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, so that yeah. And solar.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then instantly, we're at, oh my god. Is that too much for six meetings? So I I would I would prefer that we take our time with it, but I'm open to suggestions. I I just I don't think we have time before crossover to write a good letter.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I just think we should take the stipulation that someone from an approach should be on a offer there. Like, that's competition. The committee

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I totally agree. Like Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's the carbon reduction committee. Why do we have

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I am printing out the statute right now to take notes. So, let's do that. I was gonna actually suggest that we take a probe soft too. Just the testimony we heard from Ellen was that a props was put on there because at the time they were we were were parsing parsing out the VW sublimb. Mhmm. Somebody from appropes should have been and was on there. But I I don't think we need appropes on there anymore. I also think 10 people is too many.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And maybe some of them heavy.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And we need to get us we need to get us on it. On there. So Hi, Alex. Just drop yourself a ticket. Okay. So why don't we Alex, do you have just a I should've asked the page just a hot minute to go grab this off the printer for me so I can take notes. Mhmm. Sorry. And I'm waiting And I think

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: that I printed the coffee too. Oh, it's good. Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Trying to find those.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: So you don't think we can

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: just work within the confines the way it is rather than misogyny it?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't think so. Like, we're not on there.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Well, that's true too.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And it's this this actually should be this actually should be easy. This should not be a hard bill for us to pass. Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Straight to the UC, do it. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Workshop.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: More yeah. At least at least two. Make sure you sign me to them.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Because you're

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: That good?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. So let me get the alright. Let's start talking. When Alex comes back, I will start taking notes. So let's start with the the creation of committee. So shall be appointed each biennial. That's good. Okay. So five reps. Let's have the five versus four. Let's have the eight versus 10 conversation.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Start this. Thank you. I think I printed it multiple times. Thank you. Yeah. Our representative Campbell, they're ready for you whenever Oh. Oh, okay. Well, Scott, we're moving on. I've Rutland passed. We booked this out today, so see you later.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Just don't put me on it. Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Shall be appointed. Okay. So if we think 10 is too many, which you know, I wasn't sure if you printed those

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: are those two different documents.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: So Oh, it was one.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh. Yeah. Sorry about that.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: No. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Wasn't sure printed the same thing.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Or You did I did. Not all I printed it without an answer. Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. I know I did. So alright. So how do people feel about cutting it down to four from the house, four from the senate? I

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: think it would create less confusion for the committee to have eight instead of 10.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I Yeah. There may be five.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Alright. So we're

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

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we're gonna say four. Alright.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And and and and notion that we're not gonna define these four roles, like, one from this committee and one from that committee?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, no. I was thinking we could we would stick with the committee thing.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Okay. Which is fine. It just let's do that and then see how many there are.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. So let's let's take off approach since that was a there was a reason for that in time. And then we add HEDDI. And then that would leave us with commerce, environment, transportation, and us,

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: which Commerce and economic development, I would say, need to be in there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. They're in there.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I agree. Environment. Yeah. Transportation for sure. And us. I I to me, that's good. Mhmm. Sure. Okay. Now we get to have fun on the senate side. Four, we can cut that down to four. And and same, I guess, just take off. Now this is interesting on the senate side. So we're gonna take off our probes. Senate's harder. Somebody pull up the. We need transportation. Right? Alright. So economic development. Okay.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Housing and dental affairs, we probably want.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't think we want housing.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: It's all one deal there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, I see. So it's economic development Housing and general affairs. Oh, jeez. Okay.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Natural resources and energy.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. For sure. Alright. Transportation. Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And what about?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Should we leave that? Well, then we have to put it in on our side.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, you have? Yeah. On this side. Mhmm. That would be fine. Let's try to look for parallels.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Very no parallels between the house and the side.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. What about the bag just in terms of carbon sequestration?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We have to do it on both sides of But we have to have counterpart committees or or not. You know what I mean? Yeah. Or we could do fewer.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I have a question.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's so easy on the house side. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Does this need to be a joint committee? Can we just create a house committee?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I I think it needs to be a a joint committee. Good power play. But

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. I'm not trying to simplify. I mean, they might not even wanna be part of this. You know? Like

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, alright.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I I no. I it's not I don't wanna spend a lot of time on it. I was just it was just a thought.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean, I think they might not appreciate us taking a joint committee and rewriting it to cut them out of the loop.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Even though no one even knows this thing exists.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We know it exists. Well,

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: they could take four members from those committees.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: From

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. From your three committees.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. They can. So so we're thinking yeah. We're so we're taking off a probes and finance. Right. I think is what we're doing. Yeah. And we'll say they get four members, and we're suggesting they do economic development, transportation, Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Should should should they get an at large one instead of having, you know, those minis?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. They would get, like, an at large one.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. That's what you guys were thinking. Right? K. I mean, we could even take off economic development and just make sure that they do transportation and snare and then let them pick. Economic development, commerce, community development, tourism and marketing, arts, film, labor, housing, liquor and tobacco control. I don't know.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, that's important.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: What do you guys think? Do you wanna leave economic development on there? Okay. And then they'll have an at large member. Okay. Then chair, vice chair, rotating, may meet during the session at the call of the chair. That's standard language. And then, what did we say? At least what did you say, Mike?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: At least five times during a German.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. At least. K. Five times during a German.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And do we wanna I mean, here it has five as the cap. Do we wanna put a cap as well? At least five, but no more than seven or exactly five? Or

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think I'm not sure we need to get it. You've been on a job talk.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: If we limit them

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: to five and they need another meeting to finish something up, I hate to hamstrung on that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I wanna I wanna make sure they meet at least five times, but I don't necessarily wanna say you can't meet more than what if they're not done?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Shall we meet at a minimum of five times?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. A minimum. Okay. Yeah. That's better than at least.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Are we allowed to change the name of this thing?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't know.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's not not really quite accurate anymore. Right? Right. But the money might be tied to that. You know? Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, you're right. Maybe we better not mess around with it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. The morse. Morse. Yeah. It's in there under that. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. Alright. And then we have ledge council and ledge ops providing assistance, which is as per usual. And then, the members get their per diem. And we already talked about how they have the money. So, is that okay with everybody? I can k. And then, on the duties shall provide oversight when the general assembly is not in session. And I know that's important. We can't give them I mean, they don't they don't in other words, this is not a committee that's going be passing bills. It's an oversight committee. I mean, I think we could change the the duties. I I don't have any brilliant I'm not sure it's necessary to change it, but I'm also not sure this is quite reflective of looks like this was changed in 2019 last.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: This is the last time that they met. Correct?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 2021. I think they've had Yeah. The '21.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Let me just say it's something about concerning and affecting the future of energy development in Vermont or, broad in.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: What what did you suggest?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They have concern activities concerning affecting the future of energy production in Vermont. Energy development, I think you development, something like that. Is

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: it just development, though? Because that that sounds like it's only in state.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We could just leave out that word and just say the future of energy. That could be might as well leave it broad. It's gonna

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: be perfect.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. I mean, somebody will let us know if that's too broad. Okay. Well, that was easy. Let's vote.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Greg is here. I I'm gonna I'll have Ellen draft that and have everybody be thinking about whether whether we would have time. We can proceed on parallel paths. We could try to get our arms around a session law thing that would direct give them a task and fit it in whenever we have time. And if we run out of time, we just go this out. Okay? Okay. Alright. Greg.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Thank you, madam chair.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Thanks for coming over, and thanks for sitting patiently through our

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

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

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: For the record, I'm great favor with PUC and here to testify on, well, still really doesn't have a number, 20 six-seven 81, the committee bill.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. Let me get my draft out.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: And it's only section one.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Only section one. Okay.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: So this should be fairly. This section has to do with BED and their energy efficiency activities. Right? This one sec. So right now, we just wanna make you aware that we have an open investigation into exactly this kind of thing that basically the energy efficiency and tier three programs. So we're doing that right now. And BED has specifically raised these issues in this bill in that proceeding. So they're coming over here and asking you to basically make make sure these issues goes their way, the ones they've raised in our proceeding. So, typically, the legislature doesn't reach into an open proceeding like this. So I just wanna make you aware that we do have this active proceeding. BED is making these arguments in that proceeding, and yet they've come over here to sort of get you guys to go along with what what they want in that proceeding. Just so everyone's aware of that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That is, interesting new information. Rep Southworth?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: When was the proceeding opened?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: That I don't know. It's it's it's case number 25Dash1094DashINB. And I could I could send that over to you folks later. Yeah. Don't I'm not personally involved in the case. I don't know when it opened, but we do have that open right now. I'll sure to send that over. With written stuff, I'm gonna send too.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You. I really we we hear and I'm I'm not trying to be a blog about that. We hear so much testimony from from you guys and from DPS on so many different bills that written testimony helps me

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Profoundly when I'm trying to go back and look at a bill.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Well, we have some proposed language changes too, which we'll send over, like, a strikeout version of the actual language so anyone can see it and you folks can see it as well.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, but just to back up even more, So that I think that's new information to everybody. Yeah. I mean, pretty, it's new to me. And Yeah. We were not not having you guys in to testify was just, I guess, an oversight on my part.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Or I I heard you

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I thought I guess I just always assume you guys know what we're doing. Usually, we're proactively inviting you. But

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. I was assuming you guys were gonna ask us, but then I heard you're gonna vote on it tomorrow. So hence the email to ask you for the opportunity to testify because I I was pretty sure you guys didn't know about this.

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

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: And I was talking to the department, and they didn't say anything apparently either.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So That's, I guess, what I'm curious about because the department has been actively involved.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: I know. I know. I thought they would have raised this. They did not.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I know that you guys are different from the department, but I usually I do make sometimes an assumption that

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: They're involved in that case.

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

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Of course. Yeah. And so I don't know why. I don't know. Maybe they're waiting for us. I don't know. I talked to TJ about it. He wasn't really involved in that decision.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I see a question and then I'll come back to my, I always have to go back to your line. Go. Is

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: this case related to the BED audit that the state performed August in the No,

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: this is a broader investigation into tier three compliance and issues like

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I wanted to back up to the very beginning. So it's an open investigation, and remind me about, or open investigation you called it, or was it?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: That's right, it's an investigation.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So remind me of how those work.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: We're looking at improving energy efficiency programs in tier three compliance. It's a broad investigation. It involves more than BED, of course. It involves EVT as well. And all the other, or Vermont Gas as an EU as well.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So it's about all three?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah, yeah, it's not just BED.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Uh-huh, so all three

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: And it's tier three compliance in general, so it's involving all those stakeholders who are involved in that. But again, I'm not personally doing that investigation, not

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: anymore I'm I can tell you

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: gonna send the case number over to you folks so you can look at it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because I'm curious to know when that case was opened and how long do those cases are those public? Yeah. How do cases work? It's just like anything, right, where people are filing

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: I can tell by this number that it's pretty early. It looks like it's early in '25, but

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I'll that number again. Oops.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: It's 5Dash1094. So we go so the first case in the the year '25 would be 25Dash0001. You know what I mean? So this is somewhat, I don't know, a few months ago at least. So I'll send it over.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: this case brought up because there were some issues somewhere, or was this just because you routinely evaluate I

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: don't know. It might have been a legislative request that we do this, frankly. I don't really know.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That could be anything. I I don't know.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm sorry. I if it turns out to be a legislative request, I will be

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: I think we should We do a lot of that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Ask them to do a second workshop,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: and that's about the upfront.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I do too.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yes. You could. You could do that.

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

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: at the case first. No.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You won't. Okay.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Okay. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I have a question.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Ribilia. So, Greg, when do you have a sense of the timing of that case? I know they

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I don't. Natural I don't.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Again, this is you know, we were just thinking about this today. We should have been thinking about it all along, but we just sort of zeroed in on this language today. And so I don't really know all those answers. But I could get and I'll send you the case.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I don't know that this case, and I'm not looking at the language. I'm completely speculating right now. We think that BED is concerned that there's gonna be a lapse in timing between what they're doing and that

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: I can't speculate.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So so and then let me ask you another question, which I don't know the answer to, which is what if we were to stand till such time as is that the right thing?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Well, I have some language I was gonna suggest.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Let me just Help. Civic.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do you ever I just

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: wanna make sure everyone aware.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: I just wanted to make sure that I'm really aware that this is an open case. And when people come over here, they're not under oath and that they're saying things, and who knows? So if you go to the bill, again, this is section one a, and I'm looking at line 19 on page one of this bill where it says the the portion that says the PUC shall authorize an entity. That's the troubling part. Part where it says we have to do it. Okay. So if you were to cross out that sentence or that phrase phrase fragment, the PUC shall authorize an entity or just the PUC shall authorize. If you take those four words out, then it allows us to do our normal review, which would be which is under Steve Oh. On page three. Right. But if you say we shall do it and then as we shall review it under three, under c, it makes that review meaningless. You know what I mean? Because you're already saying we have to authorize it. And then under c, you're saying we shall the entity shall seek approval. It's already approved.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So it lets them do it. It just doesn't require you to give your stamp

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: approval. It's even worse because it authorizes them to do it, but then we still have to do a rubber stamp process. So what's the point? But it's it's so yeah. So that's that's that's pretty much it.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Oh, that's insane.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: And the reason we may not wanna allow them to do this is because so you have two EUs operating in Burlington. You have BGS, Mount Gas.

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

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: They're EU. They offer weatherization projects or or and you have BED. They do the same. You don't want this would essentially authorize BED to offer weatherization funds to BGS customers who BGS is trying to offer weatherization funds. So you have this duplication and sort of a competition between the two EUs.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, is something that we discussed and took testimony on. And VGS has provided written testimony saying that they're not concerned about that. So I

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: I'm sure they are not concerned

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: about it. Well, I'm

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: You might want to be concerned about it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I'm just telling you that that that was not I don't think that was a blind spot for us. We, you know, took testimony on that from BED, and the department went off and worked with BED and came back with this language.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Did you talk to BGS?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. That's what I just said. Oh. So VGS submitted written testimony twice now

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Saying that that that this is not a concern for them, and they're okay with it. So we didn't have Neil come in, but we did want to make sure he weighed in.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: The date filed was 06/04/2025.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 2025.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Mhmm. That's a essentially too.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, thanks. That's a lengthy ongoing thing.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Nine months ago. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. But, anyway, yeah, you can it's on our website, Greg. The I mean That's money from Vermont Gas.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. That's fine. We still have concerns about that. The duplication of costs

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: For ratepayers because we're we're concerned about ratepayers. Mhmm. BGS may not be concerned. Doesn't mean we aren't. Doesn't mean you folks shouldn't be. So we again, I just wanna make you aware of that. This this language was in s '65 last year. That was the big EU bill that never went anywhere.

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

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: This was pulled out of s 65 in. So that's I mean, the other way to do it is to say, yeah. That that you when you totally want to authorize them to do this stuff, but then get rid of c at least so we don't do the rubber stamp approval process.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I'm not looking at sorry. What's c?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: C on page three of section one. It requires the entity to seek approval from us of the things that are already authorized to do.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: it's kind of a meaningless process at that point if it is authorized already.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So you're suggesting but c remains if we just strike out, you see shall authorize? Yeah. Then c stays?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yep.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Okay. And then that section reads, notwithstanding law or order use of the PVC to the contrary and if they appointed under also a retail electric provider

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Name. And do the thing.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And, yeah, we have to change the word to the can, spend any amounts the entity has available.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yep. So they'd be able to do those things, you know, subject to our approval. That's all we're suggesting.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But it's it's not the case now,

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: or is this It would be without but for this language.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So if we did nothing on this bill Right. What would change? Nothing. They still need your approval.

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: If we pass this bill, what changes? Is that the question? Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Or if we don't pass it, what changes?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I'll wondering whether we need to pass the bill. It sounds like either way, if we change the language Right.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Oh, we'd be fine with getting rid of this whole section. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Of course. Well, you yes.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: BED wants it, so I'm suggesting a fix. Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. No. BED wants it. That's the genesis of this entire Yeah. Exercise.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. BED wants us to mandate that to keep that phrase in. If we take that phrase out, is this a benefit to BED?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That they shall?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sounds like it's not. So we've reached one of those interesting crossroads we sometimes hit, which setting aside rep Southworth's concern about the percentage which we were waiting.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That's out the door now.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I'm more concerned about what I feel is not truthful testimony to us because that wasn't brought up in their testimony. It

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: was not. Well, there was I

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: took your notes. There were

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

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And I did reference several tier three related procedures under proceedings underway. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: But I mean by

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the I don't think I I didn't make the leap, obviously. Yeah. I didn't make the connection. Alright. Well, time for a committee discussion. We love our committee discussion.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Very much.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: You're

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: welcome. Thanks, Greg.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. Do you want me to stay for this? I I

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We don't I mean, we have floor at 03:30. The steakhouse singers are singing the devotional at 03:30 if you care to stay.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Are you a state house singer?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes, sir. I used to be an altar. Now I'm a tenor. She just goes to show you something's going wrong in my life. Okay. So the bill. Alright. So we were waiting to hear back about Mike's concern about the $75.60 thing and I had written testimony coming in. Now we have another concern about whether we want to

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Take the PUC out of the loop.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Take the PUC out of the loop or take the language out of the bell.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean, there's, you know, there's

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I'm still not clear what the function of

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the bill is if we take that phrase out. So let's talk about that while Greg's here. So if we strike, the PUC shall authorize. I just wanna make sure I'm understanding this. Yeah. So it would read then I think what remains is that BED can go ahead and do this for the next three years.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And they you see approval.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Pending PUC approval. Correct.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Right. I mean, it does delineate a number of things that that they will be allowed to do. These are things they could have raised during the investigation, of course, but this spells it out. And then we would we would probably put in safeguards against cross or duplication of offerings of services.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Alright. So there is some benefit.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: There yeah. I I think there is. Okay. Yeah. Good.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Make sure we're not by passing. Not meeting. Not meeting. It does nothing. Don't

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's okay. Sorry. I'm still there's no it takes me a little bit for the legal language. So if we take out PUC shall authorize it, they can they can do what they're asking to do. And but they need to seek PUC approval for it, which

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: For expenditures.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: For the expenditures. So were they going to have to do that anyway, Greg?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: They they always have this. They is an ongoing approval process.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I'm back to not understanding why we why they need that. Why they need to do this

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Without the language?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Because yeah. Without the language, the pilot ends. Right? And this this Right. The right. Without the without this language And the reason why BED came to us is that the pilot is ending, like, in December or something, and they're no longer gonna have if I'm remembering right, you guys stop me. They're no they're no no longer gonna have the authority or the ability to spend the TEPF money that's coming into their kitty. Right?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Did you marry did you want money?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The The TEPF money. Allen trapped

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: it in such a way that it it wasn't the standing guard.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I'm sorry. I keep expressing that wrong. I Oh. Whether I'm saying it wrong or not, my understanding was that unless we do something, they're not gonna be able to to tap that money.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Right. Know, I want to say that this doesn't extend that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. The the pilot is ending, and she maybe we need to back in. So she was she was clear that

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

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: This does not extend.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I said we're extending the pilot, and she said, no. No. No. We're not extend studying the pilot. We're this is session law. So I I think what we're doing is we're taking the idea of the pilot that the thing that BED was being allowed to do, and we're not we're not continuing that pilot on.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: That's right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're cutting out Efficiency Vermont and Vermont Gas because they don't wanna do this anymore. And we're writing session law that basically for the next three years temporarily gives this doesn't go to the green books. This gives BED the the legal authority to keep doing what they were doing in the pilot even though the pilot's ending. So here's a new three year sorry. Three year thing saying you can keep doing this, but the PUC has to approve it. Okay. Sure.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: So I don't think they're gonna lose the money. It's it's more they get to do it in the future. It's like geothermal well testing. Right. That was one of the big components of the project on the pilot program that they were doing. And that's on at the end of section A here. Like not line nine on page two. Know, where it says such as geothermal test well funding. Again, all these things are raised in the investigation. This would say that this is something they could do subject to approval.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So is it true that the three year pilot's ending for everybody? Yes. And we are essentially creating a new three year program

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: For VED. Yes. So if we don't pass this, then they can't continue to do this stuff.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Correct. I I'm positive that's right.

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And I have a question. Mhmm. If we do pass this and the PUC's investigation Mhmm. Provides different, guidance, given the language suggestion that you've made, that guidance would then supersede or it would come into play. It would not be exempted by this bill or Preempty. Preempty. Excuse me.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. I gotcha. Yep.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: If we include your language.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: That's right.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: We're okay if we include your language? Yeah. Great.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Well, my my suggestion is to take out Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: If we if we exclude Right? The tabular. Yes. If we Sorry. If we include your exclusion. Yes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Include, exclude, I'll blank. I see can do a few more of those.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: If we take out those four words, okay. Include yours. So if we take out those four words, BED can continue to do this for three years unless the PUC rules otherwise in its investigation.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: If you include the words if you leave it as or if you

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I've already excluded. No. I'm just saying we're gonna take out these words. Yes. I think that's clear. We all agree. So I am now moving on.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: PUC shall authorize that's done. So we would nonetheless, for those of us who support BED's ability to do this, which I do, I realize that's not everybody agrees, but if we want to help BED do this work, we do still need to pass this because they're not gonna be able to

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: if we don't record this. And I

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: think there's on the top of page two, line one, right after the 2027 to 2029, I think we need to remove the word to and replace it with may. Because with the once we've included the exclusion, the beginning of that says, notwithstanding any provision of law and order of the public utility commission to the contrary

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, you're right. May spend.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: An entity appointed under that is also a retail electricity provider for the calendar years may spend any amounts the entity has to it, etcetera, etcetera.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Correct. Correct. Does anyone else have any concern with them not bringing this polite or their testimony to us?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Or or am I alone?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I Who

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: is here from BED?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't see her. It's Darren.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Darren. Yeah. That that is I don't know. I'm

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: not to have happened the week I was gone. I just

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Oh, my god. It was a while.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I hear you hear that. On that. I

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: mean, there are a lot of there are a lot of proceedings going forward. Like, I don't think that do I shouldn't say that. Is probably not gonna answer. Was gonna skip Alright. Wanted to comment on intent if that was the intent.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Don't think that is appropriate. I'm gonna accept that one off for you there. Yeah.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Don't wanna

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: No. I don't either.

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I mean, there's so much

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: going on that we don't

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. It's a, you know, BED made a straightforward request. This is what we want. And

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's about their customers. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. So So, yeah, I don't think this is some sort of, you know, various you are

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: receiving at this money. I mean,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I will say as a BED customer, it is somewhat concerning because BED did screw stuff up and lost money and did all this, which is why they were getting audited. And I can understand on one hand, Dara's been in enough hot water. But I guess the question is, are we concerned enough to haul Dara in here and say, hey. How come you didn't mention this?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: You know?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I I'm definitely gonna reach out to him and say we've had some more testimony, and you should give a listen. Because he he's gonna he's gonna submit was gonna already gonna submit written testimony on Chris Southworth's concern about the percentages. So, I'll just ask him to amend it to, you know, address the ongoing PEC or PUC investigation. And to to be clear though, an investigation is like a you know, in in the in the real world, investigation implies, like, you're you're looking at something.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: A wrongdoing.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: A wrongdoing.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: No. It's a it's a

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It it's a proceeding.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: It could be. You could open an investigation on a consumer complaint, let's say.

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

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Mhmm. An alleged wrongdoing. You know I mean? But sometimes it's just, hey, we need

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: to look We need to look at

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah, is.

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: See how they're doing.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: This is a, the PUC process and procedure is across the whole program. Right. It's not BED specific.

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Right. My sense is that there's no specific concern that BED did something wrong to say this is a big program and we should someone had some concern about something, I take it, to trigger this?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. A big Yeah. Agree. It's probably in the Yeah. Right? Order.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Because it they could literally it could literally be that this is such a broad investigation into tier three generally that you know?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: This is probably not the paramount issue in that investigation. Would I would

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. I I mean, it could be that just, you know, unintentional admission or that it didn't seem you know?

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: The the thing we're concerned about is this duplication between EUs.

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

[Greg Faber (Public Utility Commission)]: It's really not all these other things that are mentioned in section section a there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. Yep. And we knew that was, you know, that we talked that we did talk about. So

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Investigation to update and improve energy efficient utility and renewable energy standard tier three programs.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. That's the more you you have more efficiency dollars going towards thermal, plus you've got the rates, and then you've got the utilities with a tier three obligation. So you've got, like, a world that needs to get sorted out before it gets more complicated.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So it could also be that this this is such a broad look at all this stuff that it didn't feel super relevant to make you know, point it out. I don't know. Right. Alright. Well, TBD. TBD on BED. So that's section one of the bill that we could I only see two choices, amend or strike. And then the energy planning section, I feel like we've talked about. And everybody's good is everybody good with the energy planning, the regional municipal energy plan section of the bill? Yes. Okay. And then RPCs the did suggest one further language change that I forwarded to Ellen and told her just to hang on to it until we heard back from till we had testimony tomorrow. Didn't want her to revise the bill 18 times. So Yeah. Anyway but the RPC sent one final change, and it was they told us it was coming. Let me just

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: let me just find it real quick.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Was something we talked about yesterday. Maybe this is what repellent is. Remembering his K. It is on page this is just so you guys know what it is, but it's not I'm not gonna revise anything yet. Yeah. It's on the final, final page. Oh, right. It strikes out language that says, we're two years after the issuance of new standards for issuing a determination of energy compliance, whichever comes first. They're recommending striking that, and we talked about this. It was the concern they had that all the plans would have to come in 2030, that all the plans would come at once, the municipal plans, and we all know that would be horrible. That's what that is. And then I guess yeah. TBD. Great. Alright. Thanks, I think we can go off live.