Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Committee broadcast/technical staff (unidentified)]: We're live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Friday, February 27, and we are approaching home plate, I think, on our testimony on our committee bill, 20 six-seven 81, an act relating to miscellaneous public utility subjects. And we are gonna be joined by Darren Springer. Thank you so much for coming on short notice. I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint John. Great. Here's Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington, Whitefield Southworth, Philadelphia, to Christopher Howland, Rutland Ford.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara Torre, Washington two. Laura Sibilia. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And in the room. Caitlin Burr, Action Service. Super.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Chattenden Wolf from Cooper Piper on behalf of Bram Kleppner. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Amber with mayor of Burlington Electric. Great. Darren, thank you for being here.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Of course. So I understand there was some testimony yesterday, and it's helpful for me to come in and provide some additional testimony. I know I've been with you, I think, the January 23 and the February 18 on this concept of extending the pilot authority that we've had since 2021 in one way or another to utilize some of our efficiency funds in more innovative ways. I understand as well that there was a concern raised by the PUC that there hadn't been discussion of docket twenty five ten ninety four. The reasons that we didn't get into detail on docket twenty ten ninety four is it's not specifically related to the request that we made. And there are contested cases that happen at the PUC, where the PUC acts as a quasi judicial legal entity and where there are a variety of legal procedures and, you know, it's treated more like a court. This ten ninety four is not a contested case. It is an uncontested case, and it does not specifically just involve VED. It involves every utility, a variety of efficiency service providers, cap agencies, and others. And it's intended, as I understand it, to support better coordination between the tier three program broadly and the efficiency programs broadly. Our participation in it. So as an uncontested case, it's more like a policy thinking docket as opposed to a, you know, legal procedural docket. I could certainly understand there being a concern if there had been a specific PUC docket that was investigating our pilot funds, and that was a contested docket, and we didn't raise that with you. I can understand that concern. This is not the case here. Our participation in October to date, which has no time frame associated with it, we don't know how long it's gonna run or what subjects it may ultimately encounter. There was a workshop that a variety of utilities and participants were in, and it was focused appropriately in my view on equity and on how we ensure that cap agencies and other partners are working with the utilities on the various programs, the efficiency programs, the tier three programs was not specifically related to this pilot extension. We also had an opportunity to submit straw proposals. And in our straw proposal, we did submit one. We discussed how we could better use our traditional TEPF funds, which are the funds that we use for our oil and propane customers and which we've historically had such challenge reaching those markets because they're so limited in Burlington. We proposed a few ideas for how we could address that market. We did not propose anything related to the vast majority of our customers who are VGS customers. That's what we proposed here in this committee. And the reason we didn't raise it in the PUC workshop is they don't have the authority to change statute. You do. We're here because this is the forum where we can decide, is this pilot gonna be extended or is it not? The PUC cannot give us that authority. If they could, we would have raised it there. Further, I wanna be really, really clear. There is a docket where this is an issue. It wasn't discussed in testimony yesterday, but we've discussed it, and that's our demand resource plan docket. And that's where we set the three year budgets for the efficiency utilities, and that docket is twenty five twelve o three PET. When I came in in January, I discussed what we termed it's called plan b. We have a plan a and plan b. Plan a is if you don't extend the pilot, and we try to do our best with the TPF funds under limited, you know, provision that we'll have. Plan b was if the pilot is extended, and we submitted a variety of proposals, which I detailed to you on the twenty third for how we would use the funds. We submitted all of that to the PUC in that docket 12/19/2025. In our cover letter that we sent to the commission, we made very clear we understand that the pilot has to be extended for us to be able to utilize the funds under plan b. We said we are going to seek that legislative authorization. We were very clear and transparent with the PUC back in December that we were gonna seek that legislative authorization. It's obviously it's up to you all and the legislature whether you want to grant it, but I just wanna be clear on the time frame there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: the fact that there is a docket that's very broad related to a variety of stakeholders that's uncontested, in my view, shouldn't freeze the determination of whether a time sensitive pilot program should be extended or not extended. If we were to wait until that docket's closed, we'd probably lose a year or more of time in our next advanced resource plan, and we wanna make sure our customers are served as best as possible with programs starting January 1. So that's why we brought it to you, and that's why we didn't raise it in the PUC docket, and we didn't even see you know, there's some topic overlap, I suppose, but we didn't see the the tight relationship between these two things. We think that that docket is dealing with a broad variety of issues, and we think that this pilot proposal, which we were clear with the PUC we were gonna bring forward, is very discreet and deals with a particular issue unique to BED because we are uniquely served already, you know, most of our customers by a regulated fuel and not unregulated fuel. And so we have limited opportunities with our TTF funds to serve our customers. The department I know has acknowledged that as well, and that's been a long standing issue. So I I hope I know some of you have worked with me for a number of years, and I've I've been working in variety of ways in state government, municipal government now with the legislature for about thirteen years. Trustworthiness and credibility is tops on my list. I would never ever intentionally be inaccurate in testimony. I hope you all know that. I hope that context also is helpful. I would also be glad to address I know there are couple of substantive issues. There was discussion of the shall authorize language. So I'd I'd like to address that. And I know there's proposal for whether we should have 60% allocation or 75% allocation for weatherization. I'd love to address that as well. Great. So interestingly, the history of this pilot is there was a program between '21 and '23, and there were some challenges getting it implemented. There were procedural issues getting it implemented. And the variety of parties that were involved went to the legislature in 2024 to try to get clear legislative intent around how this was gonna work. And in the senate energy natural resources committee in 2024, the PUC submitted two alternatives to the committee, and one was the PUC gets to review and decide whether entities need to participate participate in these pilots or not. And the other was what they called a no review version, where the entities get to participate and the PUC does not have to review or develop standards. Again

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. What were the two options, Sibilia?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: There was a a review and no review option. Okay. These were these were submitted by the PUC at the time to the committee, basically saying either give us the authority to fully determine whether substantively these things should happen or not, or take us out of the process and let the entities spend the funds as you designate them to. And this was after we'd had some, as I mentioned, some procedural challenges in getting these programs fully up and running as intended. The committee and ultimately the legislature in act one forty two twenty twenty four, went with the no review option. So the language that was proposed here is not actually language that we thought about from s 65, which was a bill from last year. It's actually a concept that we were borrowing from the existing pilot and was originally a PUC proposal, one of two. They basically said either, you know, have review or don't have review. The current paradigm is that there's not review, that we're able to submit our plans and they don't go through a substantive determination of should you be allowed to do this or not do it. My concern would be that if you were to change the language, it would work a little differently. The way I read it now, your language says the PUC shall authorize us to participate in the pilot. However, the department also added language saying we need to submit our proposals for review, which we've already done. As I mentioned, in our demand resource plan, we've already submitted proposals. And we would update those proposals if you pass this legislation because some of the the terms would have changed. I think it's really important if you want this to happen that you make clear in the legislative language that we're allowed to do this and not defer to whether or not we're allowed to do it to the PUC, but but have a real clear determination we're allowed to do it and have the PUC review what we're proposing, make sure it's consistent with the legislative boundaries that you've set. I understand in testimony yesterday from the PUC, there was a suggestion you could get rid of this whole section, and that would be fine. But that would leave our customers without any options for utilizing majority of our TPF funding. Our customers will lose out on dollars that are allocated to them because we won't be able to use them. I'm concerned if if there's not clear legislative language, clear legislative intent, we may get wrapped around the axle procedurally, and I might come back here in January and not be able to tell you of next year that we've actually implemented the programs as dependent. What I'd what I'd really like to make sure is that the legislative language is clear, that we can participate in these pilots, and that what we propose has to be consistent with the boundaries that are drawn in the bill. And the PUC should be able to review those in our demand resources plan. We can update our plan if this path is, and they should determine, yes, this is an appropriate use or no, this is not a legislatively appropriate use. But I really do distinguish between policy decisions that sit here and then process and and other decisions that happen across the street.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I wanna go back to the review thing. Shall review versus Yes. Have to review. Yes. So it looks to me like the proposed language from Gray is would would change it from a from a a required review by the PUC to a not required review. Is that am I missing something here?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I mean

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: I'm not really currently, I am. I'm not I'm not certain. I just looked just a few moments ago at what was suggested. Well, it sounds like it deletes shall authorize and says may. Yeah. It may be essentially may.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It it just deletes and shall authorize. So what the bill says now is under section one a, notwithstanding, PUC shall authorize an entity appointed under that is also shall authorize yep. To And to spend any amounts available to it through federal money. And Greg Faber's comments, the least the PUC shall authorize. And instead of saying the empty BD shall order to spend, instead of saying shall operate to spend, it's it's deleting shall operate and saying BD may spend. So it it that seems to remove the were PUC required PUC review, at least prior to you spending the money.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah. There'd still be a section, I think, where they would review things

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Later in the bill. Plan, I think.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think that's I I guess I guess what I'm trying to understand is, am I missing something here? Because it sounded like you were arguing in favor of of being able to to to spend the money without specific review.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: No. We we are fully comfortable and fully want to submit proposals and have submitted proposals for the PUC to review. The question is, what is what is the review? Is it a review of whether or not we should be able to do this, or is it a review of whether what we're doing is consistent with legislative language? And I I guess I'm suggesting latter is the goal. The the latter would be the goal for us. Right. To not not have it be a discretionary, we may or may not be able to do it. As long as we can proceed with the pilot, and then we submit and they review our proposals for consistency with legislative language, we're fully supportive of that. They they should review those things, of course.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So I guess I'm just trying to understand what which way we're going here. Because I think we're all well or at least I'm in in favor of what you're talking about as well, but I'm just how do we get to it? Is is what mister Baker proposed gets there. I mean, sounds like

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: it could it could be.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We'll be sure to send you the language.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah. Happy to agree

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: with And if we won't probably won't make the change in the language until we've talked to our alleged counsel to make sure it's accomplishing what I think the majority of folks around the table wanted to But how how it would tentatively read, if this does what you're talking about, is in section one, we would strike the PUC shall authorize, and it would simply read, the entity that is appointed may spend any amounts, blah blah blah.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So you may do that, and then later, the entity shall seek approval from the PUC, blah blah, three year performance period as part of the DRP, which this you're not checking to.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: I think conceptually, it sounds good. My main goal is is that I can come back here in January, and we will have implemented the programs, and they'll be offered to our customers. And we don't end up in an unintended situation where some sort of procedural or other delay means that we can't do that. Because we had that experience previously with these pilots. It was several years back, so it could be a whole different scenario. But I would defer, certainly, the legislative council. If they believe that that language accomplishes what you had just outlined, then we are supportive of that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We'll talk to them. And and just to just to be clear, the couple things that the origin of the bill that that we talked about as a committee and that I then requested from the ledge council was to allow you to do this.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: I appreciate that. So understand that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You know, and I think we got wrapped around the axle yesterday by just new information that speaking for myself, didn't fully understand. And I am one. And if I didn't act quickly enough to do this yesterday, I owe you an apology because I'm one that is really strongly opposed to questioning people's intent and especially questioning people's integrity. And if I felt like I should have shut that down earlier yesterday, and I'm sorry I didn't, that was not our intent as a committee either. Rep Sibilia?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I just wanted to, thank you. There's there's a lot going on in the energy world and with the PUC and the department, and this is a new committee. And your explanation today

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: is very helpful, I think, for all of us about

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the different proceedings and work that's going on, which is gonna continue to go on. So thank you.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: No. I appreciate that. And thank you thank you both.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And we appreciate you being here on short notice. I I know I may, you know, have follow-up questions for you. I'm a I'm a bill reporter, so I'm a I'm a very thorough floor reporter preparer.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah. Of course.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. Yeah. Indeed. If you're prepared to answer every question

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's always good. But I know my representative Southworth had a question that we had reached out to you about as well.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yes. Yes. The $75.60. Yeah. And

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: just to give it a little background, I believe and I think you believe that weatherization is the foundation for efficiency. Sure. Yeah. And anytime I see that taken away, I question it.

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

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: with that, I I've heard your testimony about, you know, the challenges that you have. Right. But is there a way that you could increase that percentage with the older building stock within your city in your coverage area? Is there any way that we could prioritize that a little more than what has been presented?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: So I think the context here is really important too. In the current period where the pilot is running, the twenty fourth through twenty sixth period, we only have a $150,000 dedicated to weatherization. It's not a primary focus. The department, I think, agrees with what you just said and prioritize weatherization. And they said, we wanna increase the amount, not decrease, not take away, increase the amount of weatherization that you're doing as part of the pilot. So the the the 60% allocation that they supported and which we believe is a tough but but fair agreement, that 60% represents almost a sevenfold increase in the number of dollars that will go to weatherization as part of this program. So it's actually a dramatic increase. My concern is if it goes higher than that, we start to crowd out our ability to do some of the other important programs that we wanna do, geothermal test wells, supporting business customers with innovative projects, which is another of our buckets, sporting renters with EV charging and EVs. So there's some other kind of categories we wanna make sure we reserve funds for as well. But I just wanted to make it really clear. This represents a dramatic increase in the weatherization. We're already well served by BGS. We have great programs working together, and they they serve the city with full weatherization services, and they do a great job with it. What we'll have resources here to do is not to duplicate what they're doing because we don't wanna just redundantly do that. But the way the language is written is we'll be able to help people who maybe couldn't do weatherization because they had asbestos or maybe that needed to be remediated or maybe they have a a leaky roof or maybe they need electric upgrades, upgrade. So our resources are gonna be kind of supplementary in augmenting those types of situations so that VGS can then come in and support the weatherization or maybe CBOEO or our income qualified weatherization partners. So I I agree with your sentiment. I think we've we've accomplished that very much so with the department's proposal for a 60% allocation. And we'd be concerned if it goes to 75, we'd start to lose the ability to fund some of those other programs that we also feel are important for our customers.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Darren, sorry. So what percent is weatherization now?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: It's not a specific percent, but it's only a $150,000 within this three year performance period. And we only added that just in 2025, if I remember correctly, as part of looking at how we were gonna reallocate some funds. We worked with the department again, and they said, hey. Can you do some additional things for weatherization? And we added a 150,000, and it's aimed at the same kind of issue. Can we help people with remediation of health and safety issues to get them to be able to weatherize? Under the new proposal that you're looking at, the 60%, I believe we have roughly 1,700,000.0 projected in TEPF funds for the twenty seven through twenty nine period. So I believe I'm not math is not my strong suit off the bat, but I believe that's close to million dollars that would be allocated to the thermal efficiency and weatherization. So almost a sevenfold increase from what's being currently allocated.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's what I was getting at. So you're going from

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: $1.50

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: to a million. A newish $1.50

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: To to a 1,700,000.0 served by working with the department who was wanting you

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 60% of of 1.7

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: is gone. 60% of of 1.7. Correct. Just a shade over 1,000,000 will go to laterization. That's correct. Yep.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: People who do math in real time.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yes. I am always leery of that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: A miracle to me. Or were you using a little calculator?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: I was using

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The one in your head.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Using a bio calculator.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Yep. R. Torre, I don't know

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: if you already shared this with us, but do you have a amount that will go to low income customers?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: So within the language of the bill, at least 60% of the 60%, so it's getting confusing, but so 60% of the roughly 1,000,000 is aimed at helping income qualified customers, helping with those abatement issues, even helping with the electric panel programs, which is something we proposed as part of this. We really wanna help income qualified customers when they have an electric panel issue or wiring issue and if it's stopping them from doing an efficiency project, we want them to be able to do it. So that's 60% of that allocation, the language requires to go to income qualified customers.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 60% of the 1.7.

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: Correct.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah. No. 60% of the 1,000,000. Of the million 20,000. So perhaps roughly 600,000 ish would be for those different purposes that were outlined including the income qualified customers. What

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: was the 1,700,000.0?

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: That's our total funding projected in the '27 through '29 time frame. And so to break it down, roughly 1,000,000 or so would be for the thermal efficiency and weatherization under this bill, and the remainder would support our geothermal program, our EV charging, our commercial custom program, EV programs, etcetera.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, 1,700,000.0, 1,000,000 is weatherization, and the rest is to

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: your other stuff. That's your allocation to EPF. Proposed for the twenty seventeen-twenty nineteen timeframe, under this bill, yes. Correct. 1,000,000. Okay. So those were all those were suggestions from the department that we now support.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Do folks have other questions for their

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know that we need you

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: know, we like written testimony. I know. If you had a chance.

[Darren Springer (General Manager, Burlington Electric Department)]: But to just share what I've shared today. Yeah. I can send that over. No problem.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's just helpful to refer to later.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Do we have other questions for mister Springer? You for being

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: it. Really appreciate it.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Changing topics. Let's go to H 753. Is Maria here?

[Committee broadcast/technical staff (unidentified)]: No.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Was she were are we expecting her? Oh, here we go. She's wants to know if she should come over before lunch. I'll just say we're starting now

[Committee broadcast/technical staff (unidentified)]: with Dara from a few times. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Or should I see

[Committee broadcast/technical staff (unidentified)]: her log on to Zoom? Yeah. Either one. I sent

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: her the link. So Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Oh, she's gonna join us on Zoom. Okay. Super. Here she comes. Alright. Maria, are you here?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Here and muted.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Well, Maria gets situated. Dara, yeah, do you wanna just kick

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: it off? I'll just say, you left things a little confused when last we discussed this build about how will we approach a directive for the PUC to consider the heat, high heat days, without actively asking for a rulemaking. So we've got help from Maria in crafting that, that this will now address. And then the other thing that's kind of emerged was a sense that there is some data collection around this happening at the PC level. We heard monthly reports. But I felt like overall, the legislature is kind of out of a loop on the data. It's not showing up in any annual reports that we receive from the department, for example. So I thought that this might be a good time to to think about that. What kind of look do we want from that data that's being collected and other data? And she So, yeah, that's that's the motivation, and that's all based on, you know, some of the testimony we had been taking and hearing.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. So you have and I know I've I've know from your emails, R. Torre, that you've been checking in with various stakeholders and trying to get consensus and stripping it stripping things out and stripping things down. And so you have a revised draft that brings it down to the part of the matter. And I think you had asked that we hear only one more snippet of testimony. Yeah.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I mean, we might need to hear from the the PUC potentially. If they have any thoughts, it could be through writing.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Let's hear from Marie about

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: Did we take any testimony that can't remember from from our gas? Because I see in your inverter to gas. Mhmm. And then from Danny, we should hear from about gas as well.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. I worked with the lobbyists for Vermont Gas in practice language.

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: There's I think I'd still like

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: to But yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Absolutely. Possible. Why don't we make a note about who we quickly need to hear from either in person or in writing so that we can bring this to a vote? But let's find out what's in it first.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Hello. Hello. Maria Royal with legislative council. So this is being presented as a strike all amendment being offered by this committee. We used to do that. We'll just walk through now. Short title, the Vermont Energy Equity Law, which is retained from the bill as introduced. And then the first section is the report section. And it specifies that for the purpose of providing policymakers with data necessary for monitoring and responding to trends in the residential, electric and gas sectors, particularly with respect to safeguarding of welfare or ratepayers. Commissioner of Public Service shall conduct an annual assessment of involuntary residential service disconnections. I can't believe I'm out of breath. I am in terrible shape, apparently. She's not very far. Are you willing to take them in? No. Okay. I mean, No, keep I know. Breathe. Very sad. Okay. The assessment shall take into consideration the monthly disconnection reports prepared by electric and gas utilities pursuant to PSC rules, blah blah blah. And I actually at the end of this draft, I included the excerpt on what that rule requires in that report just so you can see it. Alright. Relevant consumer assistance records maintained by consumer affairs and public information of the division within the department and any other data deemed appropriate by the commissioner. And the commissioner shall report findings and recommendations related to the assessment to this committee Senate Finance on or before January 15 year and annually thereafter. And the report may be included in the department's annual energy report to the general assembly or maybe a standalone report in the commissioner's discretion.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Just to pause there for one minute, So the department's coming in this afternoon? Yes.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: then Vermont Gas, you can can you write to them and request quick written feedback on this? Sure. Okay.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so section three, this is the rule making section and it specified that on or before 01/01/2028 or upon the initiation of any rule making pertaining to PUC 3.3, which is the disconnection rule, whichever occurs first, the PUC shall adopt rules that one, curtail service disconnections during periods of extreme heat as defined by the commission, which may include a lower temperature threshold for households comprised of persons who are 62 years of age or older. Two, clarify that in rule 3.301 gs, a licensed physician assistant or a nurse practitioner may issue a physician certificate pursuant to that section. And three, require due consideration of medical judgment regarding the duration of a health hazard indicated in a physician certificate when establishing the disconnection protection period for a health hazard. And then again, just if you wanted to see what's in that monthly report for the PUC, the following information regarding residential service, the number of bills forwarded to rate payers, the number of disconnection notices sent, the number of actual disconnections, the number of reconnections made within fifteen days of disconnection, the number of repayment plans entered into, the number of repayment plans that were broken, and the dollar amount of delinquencies for which disconnections were made.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just to refresh my memory. So we had talked about timing. So I know these are the rules that were last updated in, like, 2024. Right? And so we're we're giving them a sort of acknowledging that by giving them a fairly significant amount of time to get this done unless they there's some reason for them to open up the rules earlier.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think we heard that rule making takes Keep the notes. Yeah. This feels about right to me. I guess I'm just trying to talk through the time. Mhmm. Yeah.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I mean, we could choose not to have a date certain. That's a choice that you would think.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's not a choice I I don't think. I mean, this is already a long it's a reasonable Seems reasonable to me. Realistic. We're not trying to require a hurry up rule making process on rules that were just recently updated, but I I I feel like extreme heat disconnections are something we should take a look at. So I I

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: wouldn't wanna leave out the date, and I'd move

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: it up, but that's we probably shouldn't do that either. Yeah. From Southworth?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Age two. Yep. Number one.

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around where we got the age from, and it's lower temperature threshold for households, which are

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Oh, okay. Clarify me, please. Which one? One. One. 10. Okay. So this is actually there is already a practice of critical organ disconnections during high heat.

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

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And so this So your question is about the lower temperature thresholds for households?

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: With the age.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yes. So that mirrors what we currently do for winter. We have I know. We're all getting close to that age, aren't

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we? Hey.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yes. Or you're wearing. It's Yeah. Would mirror it.

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: So you're just mirroring existing language?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Existing protections in the winter disconnection process.

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: Right. You're just mirroring that.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And again, this is all going to be these rules are gonna be developed

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

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: By the PUC.

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: You've explained it, and I'm good. You're good. Yeah. When you said you're mirroring what it's already

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I'm good. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I was wondering that too because it makes sense it makes sense to me, but I'm glad to hear we already have.

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: Well, I'm thinking of my age. I'm like

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I know. It's kinda scary when you're you're realizing like you're almost vulnerable.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You'll be getting held every

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: night. I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: will officially be vulnerable as of July.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yummy.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I don't But yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I don't recall a temperature differentiation. I thought there was a temperature in winter months period. I didn't know there were two temperature variations. One for under 60 over sixty two and one under drop. Let me see if I I'm just cold temping this.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I have the Wait.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Does anybody have 3,300 here? Yeah. Oh, I probably do.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And then and then at the upper temperature limit, there's no temperature limits here, but I would think humidity would have more to do with

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: With heat. Anyway, Yeah. The heat. Is why this is going to be done in a rule making where there'll be, you know, facts and figures and different stakeholders.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Is left to be defined.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I didn't wanna have to write

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

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Or even suggest that the ignorations of Yeah. I mean, h 88, we have a model of that, but that would be the work of the. I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: can't find the. There's something

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I have it. It's not

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: oh, up there now, but Oh, there it is.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Did I pass over? I think I might have passed over. Physician certificate of. General. Okay. I'm missing the.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I haven't seen it yet, but I

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: feel like, No. It's just the notes. Feel like we're

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: in the procedure the timing thing. Yeah. Tell us about your disc

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Here we go. Winter. Right? Mhmm. Okay. Phew. Alright. So may not disconnect service between November 1 and March 31 unless in addition to complying with all other requirements, the utility has complied with the following. Made a reasonable attempt to orally contact the customer within ninety six hours in advance of any plan disconnection. Utility may use alternative forms of communication. Additional contact must be made within twenty four hours of a pending remote disconnection. K.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So it's on the page. Beginning of page nine.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So prior to disconnection during the winter period, utility must confirm that outdoor temperatures as predicted or on the Internet forecast or by another weather service will not drop below 10 degrees Fahrenheit.

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: As of now.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Utility service to households with any member age 62 or older must not be disconnected during the winter period. Interesting. It's different degrees. Degrees. Yeah. So 10 degrees to 32.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And so for the summer, there wouldn't be I mean, maybe they'll consider it, but there wouldn't you know, it's it's going to it's gonna rely on that Mhmm. Weather data.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The weather forecast and then on that gauge.

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: Isn't it so many days above ninety two ninety two ninety four, something like that?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't know what triggers like a

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: heat actually what they are doing now in practice.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: right. Then there's this notion of heat index. All that is will be taken care of a little later. Right?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah.

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

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And they were planning It came up in 2020 I'm two, not sure why it didn't happen, but puts it on the mask for next time.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Do folks have other

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I like the slag. It's a lot better. I appreciate the change in language. I do.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. It's been a learning process. And I have to credit Maria with all sorts of So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: okay, so we don't waste anybody's time, especially Mount Maria's. Let's do a quick temp check around the table. We had a request for quick quick written feedback from Vermont Gas. I think we can get written testimony from the PC. In fact, I really prefer that. I really like to get something that we can put up on the website, and they're on record and we can all look back at it later. So would folks be okay with that?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And I see water. I remember water being a confusing thing.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: That's gone from your Pulled it out because of what we learned from Carol Flynn.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. And we have Carol coming in this afternoon. So so we'll have DPS in person, PUC in writing, VGS in writing, and then I'm I'm good with this. I'd be happy to vote this to the floor.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you for all your work.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks for all your work. Yep. Great. That's good? K. Rep. Allent, you're a no?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I'm a no.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: K. Rep.

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: I like it better than the one the first person.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So we've got we've got enough votes to move

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: in. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So let's do that. Can you, Dara, please send send this draft to Vermont Gas and to Greg Faber and copy me and tell them that we need just a quick written response, you know, ASAP, and that we're gonna be voting right when we get back from town meeting. And, Maria, you don't have any changes to make. Okay. Except for maybe take out the little

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, Jeff, I'm gonna take that out, take out the watermark, and I'll have the editors do a quick read first.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. So, like, I'll see this. Do you make sure I'm in this draft now or wait till I get that from Actually

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know what Okay. Wait a second. I'm not really anticipating any further changes,

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: but should we wait on a final draft until we

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: have our last scripts of testimony?

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: I I would just like to hear from what their physician is because it's the only fuel related component in this bill. Just like to hear before I make

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: a final determination on anything for myself.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And it should be easier for them what yep. Sounds good. Okay. But impart a sense of urgency, if you may. Great. Alright. Alright. So I guess hold off for you. Okay. You know? But you Dara, this is good to send Yeah. To them. Okay. We can go

[Committee broadcast/technical staff (unidentified)]: off live.

[Rep. Mike Southworth (Member)]: I can do it.