Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Great.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I will be in a vehicle.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's fine.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So we'll have to do the audio thing we did last time.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's fine, just call my cell. I'll put you on speaker. Perfect. Great, we're live. Okay, welcome everybody. It's Wednesday, March 11. This is House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. And we are here today to have a committee discussion on our committee bill two six zero seven eight one. Alex, do you I'm really sorry. Would you
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: can you print that out for me? Sorry about that.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Does anybody else need a hard copy?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Of
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the latest draft. Is that The latest draft. Yep. The Which is 2.1. What is the latest draft? 2.1. Yeah. 2.1? Yeah.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't. Okay. We never We're in the few.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Thank you. Thank
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Thank Thank you. Let's stick here.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Hang on. Anyway, I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint Jasper. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland Ford, Bram Kleppner, Chittenden thirteen, Burlington. Laura Sibilia, my.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And joining us in the room?
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Alexandra. Director
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: of Interior Division at Department of Public Service.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Amber Windham, Burlington Electric. Super. Okay. So one thing I wanted, just a little technical a little technical note for anybody who's watching out in YouTube land. Yesterday, we voted on h seven five three and found out after the fact, so apologies to the universe, that our Zoom was muted. So just to catch folks up, we had a brief discussion about the bill, but not very brief because we'd spent so much time taking testimony. We voted unanimously to recommend the bill. All of the materials in our committee report are posted on our website, and the bill is on the notice calendar today for floor action tomorrow with R. Dara Torre as the bill reporter. Okay. So as we head toward crossover, we are here to have a good discussion about 26.0781. I think what we should do is does everybody have or is getting draft 2.1?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Are we
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: getting that? Just looked at It's the top 2.1,
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: right? Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Had a couple of easier things I wanted to talk about, if that's okay with everybody. And then, let's back into the question of the Burlington electric funds because I think that's gonna take a little bit more time. So if that's okay with everybody. I'm gonna skip section one for now. And by the way, this is the moment for anybody who has problems, questions, concerns, I am not voting for this, etcetera, that this is now the time to get that on the table. Alright. So section two is that starts on page three, and it runs all the way through page 11. And that is the section of the bill that includes a number of relatively small changes, revisions to kind of sync up the adoption of regional plans with regional energy plans at the county and town level. Honestly, it's been a while since we've talked about it. I did take copious notes at the time. I don't have any questions, Mark. I took a ton of notes for own floor reporting purposes. And I don't recall that anybody had any problems with this entire section of the bill. I think everybody's on board. Does the committee have questions, concerns, comments about this bulk of the bill?
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: As I recall, we didn't hear any country victory testimony. Was all consistent on how this will be helpful.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Accurate? Does that match everyone else's memory?
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's mine, and I remember we had a pretty significant, I think a lot of the language, and thank heavens we have them in the room, didn't a lot of the language come from or was suggested by the department? And then we heard and then the land reviews board land use review board was okay with it. And we heard from a couple of sorry. It's all coming back to me now. And we heard from some of our original from a couple RPCs.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We had written testimony and a long conversation with Franklin. So I'm I'm okay with this entire section of the bill, and once I look back over my notes and stuff, feel comfortable that I'll be ready to present it on the floor. So is everybody good with that this part of it?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I am.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm. K. Alright. And then the last thing, I had a I wanted to talk about the telecom bit only because I never come around. I was the one who said let's leave it in for belts and suspenders, but I've now come around to wondering if we should just take it out. This is the changing the
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Which page are you on?
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. I'm on page 11 now. This is all this does is change the cadence of the telecom plan. And as a committee, we took testimony on this. We supported it in our budget letter to approves. And this language and this funding change is in the budget. It's not running into any problems or controversy. And I'm wondering whether it's confusing or unnecessary to also have it in this bill. The cleaner you can keep a committee bill, I was like, now so abundantly been reminded of, the better. But I'm I you know, I don't it's either way. It's moving in the budget. I don't anticipate the problem with it.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: But the statutory language change is not in the budget. It is in the budget. The statutory language change isn't wrong.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's already in there, so it would be done. But what if the budget doesn't pass?
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Don't you went there.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. I did. Well, let
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: me put it this way. The budget will pass. I mean, at some point, we're gonna have state budget. I don't see this getting stripped out. I mean, I'll be concerned the skin gets stripped out of the budget. I suppose from the administration. Yeah.
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: No. I'm I'm not.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I I'm also just thinking that when you bring tree to the floor and just I can feel you to my right. You know?
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Right. I said nothing there.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Picture out Yeah. You're emanating. You're emanating. It's just more these are three completely different sections of statutes. And if we don't if we don't need this, if everybody's comfortable taking it out, I don't feel like we're undermining. I think this is gonna happen.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: If it's redundant, then it's not necessary to be in there.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: it's less for me. You guys okay with anything, man? Especially if the department's not concerned that this is gonna get lost in the shuffle. The the language is in section e of the budget. I saw it. It's exactly this. And it's riding along with the fact that the budget cuts already been made. So Okay. Alright. So we're gonna strike that. I'll let is Maria's bill?
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Maria's? Yes. Think this is a combo bill.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, right. Okay. Alright, folks. So back to use of thermal funds. So this is the Burlington Electric section. And we've also taken a lot of testimony on this. And I'm sorry that I didn't review all the testimony this morning. I should have, and I will. But it's also good to see what everybody else remembers. So
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: 2.1. Sure. Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. 2.1. So
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: The ones that you oh, sorry.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Go ahead. I'm I'm not go.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Someone with a clear memory of what Burlington Electric said about the current percent of those funds, because reps out there that suggested that they go up to 75. I think Burlington Electric said actually 60 will be moving it up from where we are now.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: They did. They're in the room also. Oh, that's right. I was gonna say, like Thank you. You know, we didn't schedule formal testimony, but I would love to get the are are you willing to just join us and give us a refresher?
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: I will try.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. That's what you get for
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: showing up.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Showing Showing up. So and I do wanna pay I wanna get back to my notes here. So So can you just high level just drop us back into where we were with this conversation about how much money it is, how you're currently using it, what will happen if this bill doesn't pass. Sure.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: Okay. Amber with an umbrella department. I may not remember the numbers. That's okay. Yep. But the way it works, they I believe what they're in. So
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And we do have all this. Yeah. And I'm sorry. I should have gotten up earlier and gone back over.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: Then in the past, we had spent about a 150,000 on weatherization. And that was the dedicated 60%. That's actually an increase. There's a I think about a a million. And that the of the total of the 60 that would be the 60% and that of the total we're looking at was whatever the the rest of that.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: It's a million five. Yes.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah. That's right. I Good. So Your your The large increase.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Your recollection is On what I say.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: Not a decrease. Yeah. It's not 60% of what we've been spending. It's
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: multi multiples. 60% of a much larger pot.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. That's right. I Mhmm.
[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And the rest of the money is spent on
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: The the programs that we talked about, like the geothermal wells, the ED enhanced incentives Okay. That will allow us to continue our momentum on the electrification and the transportation and. Yeah. You have Southworth.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: And how much I know that there was monies that you didn't expend that was just sitting. Do you know approximately how much is in there that was unable to be spent?
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: I would have not spent. I'm sorry.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: You're not nothing on the Walmart?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I found my notes.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: What's the date that you talked about it? Every twenty seventh. Thank you. Yeah.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: My question's asked
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: for the departments.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: If they wanted to exceed 60% because of demand and other things, would they work with the department to do that, or how much discretion do they have? Because this says at least 60%.
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That's a good question. I they have the ultimate discretion
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: to spend money however they will spend this.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And as I think there is a discussion with the department over funds currently, but it's pretty
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: much entirely able to be. Okay. Yeah. I found mine.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I'll press.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I'm gonna go I've got all my notes here, finally, and I took a lot of them. So let me I'm gonna hit some highlights. You guys tell me what I'm missing here. So is these are my notes on the 7560 conversation. Weatherization is the foundation of efficiency. We all agree. This is a $1,700,000 pot of money for the 2027 to 2029 DPR. Does that stand for demand? Okay, I got that backwards. So there's a $1,700,000 pot of money that they have to spend over three years for this period. And that plan does have to be approved. Correct. Right. So it's not entirely up to their discretion. That DRP plan has to be approved. It's not like they're off in the universe or whatever they want to. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. So they have a three year plan with $1,700,000 in their DRP that undergoes review and is approved by the department. Of that $1,700,000 1,000,000 they are proposing to spend on weatherization. And of that 1,000,000, 60%, so 600,000, will go to low income qualified low income customers for things like wiring, electrical panels, and pre weatherization. They're trying to find work that doesn't conflict with what Vermont Gas is doing. Right now, we only have 150 k dedicated to weatherization. So, this is a tough but fair increase. In the negotiations with the department, they kind of landed on 60%. So, that is a big increase from the 150 to the 600 ks that we are at. That's a seven fold increase, dramatic in the percentage of weatherization work that we were doing, but we're committed to doing it and we're okay with it. We are well served by VGS. We don't want to duplicate what they are doing. We are helping a select percentage of people who need additional remediation. We're doing things like asbestos so that VGS can come in later. I've got more notes for those highlights. Rep Kleppner?
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: 600,000 over three years. 200,000 a year.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: Yep. I assume. And that's just the low income portion. I believe the the pot. It's 1,000,000. Yeah.
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: The full bugs. And
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: the 150,000 is an annual number. Right?
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Customers.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I do remember Dara saying multiple times, this is, you know, a dramatic increase, and I've written down
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, and the reasons that they're adding increases because they weren't allowed to spend money on regulated fuels, on houses we had regulated fuels before. Yeah. Universify buildings that have participated. Right? Can we
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: talk about that a little bit more? So previously, under the previous pilot okay. So previously, under the three year pilot, they were allowed not allowed to spend money on houses served by regulated fuels Right. Equals VT gas Right. Equals their whole territory. Right? 95% of
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: the Actually, ninety seven ninety eight.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Ninety seven ninety nine. Sorry.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And so
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Just to clarify, that's under the rules of the the thermal efficiency program, but sort of
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: bigger umbrella. Yeah.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Not specific to PET. Okay. So that's how
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the TEPF rules work. Yes. Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And what we're suggesting here is is changing those rules for three years to allow BED uniquely, right?
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Yep.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: To spend money on weatherization within the VT gas territory. So that's the big change. Right? Am I misunderstanding? Like, that's the big switch.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: was already present in the previous pilot with Eva, but that that is that is the key difference between the TEPF program and what you just
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I see. Sorry. Yep. Okay. Go ahead.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Still retain that prohibition against services and and regulated fuel buildings. Didn't that that was different about this about this. That was what EMA was set up to do is overcome that barrier within the structure.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Got it.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So they were able to be
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: It wasn't just in the previous pilot period.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They were able to. Yes. And still they only spent, like, $2,000 on regularization. Oh. Okay. So that's a view on that it missed. Is that correct?
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: EMA was set up to overcome that barrier, that TEPF, barrier restriction, whatever you want to call it. So for three years, Burlington Electric has been doing this and they want to continue.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah. Correct. And the previous pilot wasn't just to remove the barrier for serving the Abronka. It was to allow spending those dollars as well on electric. It's like Yeah. On electrification measures like EVs.
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: But, yeah, like other fuel searching type of e bombs and Right.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Say I'm sorry. Just say again okay. Say again real quick what IMA allowed to happen that was not happening before. And was it and was it was it everybody, or was it just It's just No. It wasn't just BED. It was it was Everybody.
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well, was EBT as well.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Not BED. Not just
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. BED and EBT. Right.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: And it allowed the flexibility to send not just, the regulated field customers and to go beyond the to spend money on enhancing electrification measures. Okay. So enhancing
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: electrification measures brought more broadly, I. E. EVs? Yes. And also, who spend money on thermal efficiency period or in the BT gas territory?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sorry. It's ringing up right right here.
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: The the ability to spend TEPF dollars on regulated fuels. So that really mostly affected the
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I need to work in VT.
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: It's you know? There is overlap with VT because, you know, non VED
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But that just is a territory thing. The main thing was you can spend this money on regulated
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: fuels. Yes. That's right.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You can only spend money on unregulated fuels?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Money on households served by unregulated fuels. Okay. Thanks, guys. I know this is tedious, but it's helpful. So okay. So, basically, we have a request here for another three years of this broader, more flexible spending authority in a way that while not supported by the department has been negotiated with the department. So, they come to a place that the department is okay with. And, in a way that expands their weatherization spending dramatically. I know we heard from Darren that they were concerned that the 75% was unachievable. Is that
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: I think he didn't I think the way he said it was it would cut into the programs that we we are prioritizing continuing, including multifamily EV charging, the geothermal test wells, and a number of other
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: therapies.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So it's not that it's impossible. It's that you have other programs going that you'd like to continue. Yes. Okay.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I have couple questions. So one one is I'm looking at page two of the bill where starting on the line 11, section b where it says that at least 60% of the funds for this program would be spent on weatherization, and and then 60% of those of that amount, would be spent on customers' low incomes. So we've already established, there's no other than that, really. It's at least 60%. Then it said about starting on line 18, and projects requiring electric paneled wires or even of other health or building related items, which is the items to emphasize, I think Dara emphasized when he was talking to me, that particular aspect of weatherization. In other words, preparing weather, houses for for weatherization services, not the tube wiring, asbestos, and and and selection of things like that. I I I guess I'm I'm interested in in what how much, of the money gets spent on on that aspect versus actually, enhancing VGS's weatherization incentives. So is that something do you know, or can you can you talk to Gerard or something? I I'd like I'd like to know how much is is going to eat in each of those aspects of the weatherization effort.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: I can find out. Yeah. Just to make sure I understand you're asking how much would overlap with what VGS already provides?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: In effect. In effect. How much of of the will you track how much money is being spent on sort of pre weatherization work as opposed to enhancing BGS' weatherization work? That would be interesting to to to know. And then and another note that I had here that we haven't talked about it on the first page on, line 19, it said the PUC shall authorize an entity appointed to to be able to do this.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But we're supposed to take that out.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Weren't we supposed to do something about that? Take it out? Yeah. We had talked about it being may authorize the effect or maybe just take
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: it out. I think I have just the entity appointed.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: May. Yes. The entity yeah. We haven't revised this bill at all yet. So Right. The entity appointed Okay. May
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I should I should just find out if I had made never thought I was having remember exactly what happened with it. So
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I have a couple did you have more questions? No.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I didn't get the
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I have a couple questions. So, shall budget. So, I know we have, you know, folks on the committee who are interested in that percentage being higher. I'm on page two, line 13. Shall budget at least 60% with a minimum of 60% to be spent on. If we increased that in order to get unanimous committee support, and in my mind, honestly, that's the only reason to do it. You know, it's it's a reason to do it. So if it's not gonna change anybody's mind, then I don't wanna push BED into work that it doesn't support. Right? I mean, BED is the one doing the work and telling us how they're gonna do the work. And I'm a little bit reluctant to sit here and take a little bit of testimony and, you know, tell them that we think they should achieve unachievable goals. I'm concerned about that. But what happens if you try to budget more and you can't? Does that mean you can't spend the money?
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: I think, well, whatever we propose has to be reviewed and approved, through the the DRD process.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. Rutland was first. Yeah.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I mean,
[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: they've worked this out with the department.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.
[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And I don't think it's up to us. We don't need the metal. They've settled on a higher than
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Way higher. Number. You know,
[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: it's seven times what it was last year. Yeah. It seems like they've worked it out. I I don't feel comfortable meddling in that.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's actually what I also think. I just I like to toss out ideas and see what happens. I I would be I would be really uncomfortable pushing it higher when it's already increasing so dramatically. Rep Southworth?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Rep that one was before maintenance.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Rep howland?
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: In line 13, it says at least 60%. That's the lower limit, not the other thing. It is lower. There. I would say I don't have to raise it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Who's Rep. Southworth?
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: So I number one, I think that this pilot program has run its course just based on everything we're seeing. Burlington Electric struggles to expend those funds. The other utilities have opted out of this. So I think that this program is is pretty much done what it should have done, and now it's just a matter of what's happening with those funds that are left over. 60% is what's down there, but then we cut it down even more with 60% of that has to go to this. So to me, we're already cutting down from what they agreed on to 60% for the weatherization for low to moderate income. And but it goes to the panel wiring and upgrades. So we're not achieving what that program is designed for for weatherization. I guess if I'm making sense, it's taking that 60% that's in there, already chopping it down to 60% of that's gonna be used for projects requiring electric panel and wiring upgrades or abatement. So it's not gonna be 60% of that money that's gonna be used for weatherization. Pre weatherization. But it's it's already cutting it down. Well, those are minimums.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right? And and and the way I read this language, it doesn't it doesn't, say that BED can't use the money for weatherization. It just says that these other these prereatherization projects are also eligible costs, eligible expenses. But Yeah.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: But I think we're losing out on the
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: end goal of weatherization by doing that. Well, the pre weatherization part, it really is important for facilitating weatherization. And that's a function that weatherization money, typical weatherization money, as in OEO weatherization money, cannot pay for it. So it's a it's a really important part of the whole thing. You know, when I work in weatherization, you work with a number of buildings that otherwise we couldn't serve if we had had money for dealing with vermiculite insulation with asbestos in it or dealing with an obituquiry and things like that that prevented us we couldn't spend weatherization money on it, so we couldn't weatherize the house at all. Are there any other programs available work towards that? That's that's a really difficult, type of program. So some thermal efficiency, thermal energy process was filling that gap more than anything else in the rest of the state. This is enabling BED to be able to do this that same, provide the same kinds of expenses or costs, they cover the same kinds of costs in Burlington that being covered in elsewhere in the state by EVT and TEPF money. So in a way, it's it's it's it's evening out or what's available to Burlington. Yeah. Because I don't think VGS is able to spend that money, those kinds of things. Although I'm not certain about that. There's grand money that the department gives out without getting the thing. But, the, you know, the weatherization, like, Right?
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Rutland? Yeah. I just wanna make sure that I understand rep Southworth's concern. So it's the spending is the 60% of 60% Right. That is going for panel upgrades and wiring. And you hope no. No. I'm asking Rick Southworth. I wanna make sure I understand his concern. That it's going for those specific items as opposed to
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Weatherization itself. Okay. So And I know they're interconnected, but it's still to me, it's defeating the original purpose of that program. Why.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Brooke Kleppner?
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So Two things I'd like to add. One is, I didn't hear Dara say 75% would be unachievable. What I heard him say was, We have allocated the other 40% to the ongoing other programs that we want
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: to keep rolling. That's
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, why we what Amber said this morning. Yes, exactly.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Make sure we're all clear that no one has said that. You couldn't spend said BED was unable to spend 75% on the program that they wanted to. The other thing is the fact that BED is being so careful not to duplicate work that Vermont Gas System is doing gives me a meaningful level of confidence that they are communicating. And, to the extent that it's a divide and conquer on weatherization, the PED does the pre weatherization, and then my guess follows it and does weatherization, I think you're getting houses weatherized that you couldn't have done otherwise. It feels to me like it's all moving houses down the path towards weatherization, even if it's BED doing part of it and Vermont Gas doing the final part.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, I want to go back to, not to call it up or look at it, but we took a lot of testimony on weatherization funding at the end of last session. We did a lot of, I had a lot of conversations about weatherization funding with a stakeholder group over the summer and fall to see if we needed to bring a bill. And then we had all the weatherization folks in the first week of the session to talk about weatherization funding and whether there was gonna be a cliff and when that cliff would come and what the current money can be used for and can't be used for. And interestingly, I came away with sort of almost the opposite reaction as rep Southworth, which is feeling like the pre weatherization funding was limited. It was they needed about $1,500,000, I remember, statewide. I feel like to to keep trying to do the pre weatherization work that they're currently doing. I remember folks being very concerned that that money not run out or go away because it's hitting the neediest, often the neediest and most leaky houses that can't they simply cannot be weatherized because they're not ready, because they need vermiculite remediated. They have health and safety concerns that prevent weatherization work from moving forward or make it a waste of money. If you have asbestos, if you have vermiculite, if you need electrical panel grade, so Mold. Mold. And we had a lot of testimony on that from Will, I remember. And maybe I'll go back and look at our Will Everly, maybe I'll go look at that. But I remember feeling like the pre weatherization money gets overlooked and super, super important. So I see these stats and have kind of an opposite reaction of, wow, it's great that they're targeting a minimum of 60% to low and moderate income folks were requiring that a big chunk of that money hit the Vermonters who need it the most. And also saying that that has to include the pre weatherization work that these folks don't often have the capacity to do. So I was having an opposite reaction to that. Like, okay. This is this is good.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I think Campbell's hand went up a microsecond before. Even if it didn't, he won his age category.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: What you just said, madam chair, reminded me that the Weatherization Assistance Program had funding, has had funding to be able to do that work, that pre weatherization work and repair work through, oh, ARPA, I guess, or one of the COVID era federal one time funding mechanisms. And that money is going away as of June 30. In fact, I recall Jeff Wilcox, the director of the writing session for OA, saying they're encouraging their section eight leads to finish up those projects by the March so that there's not they don't run over and wind up having to having to find money for in case some something account or anything. Things don't work out. So basically, the through the end of of this year until the next DRP process or the next DRP takes effect starting 01/01/2027, there will be a lack of that money statewide, lack of money for paying for those kinds of pre authorization repair issues statewide. This is facilitating, this bill will facilitate that ability to do that kind of work, at least in the short term and as well as during the course of the DRP. Well, actually, guess this is just, will it just affect the DRP for next year? Does this take effect next year? 2017. Be the be the full next three years. Yeah. Right. Right. This takes effect as the next year. Yeah. So this again, levels levels the playing field and effect between Brampton and the rest of the states. I've to a conclusion
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: earlier that and Vermont Gas were in communication and realized instead of drawing a conclusion, I should have asked Amber, Can you tell us how closely BED and Vermont Gas are coordinating on this?
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: I can't specifically point to conversations that we've had, but I know that they're a very trusted partner that we work closely with on a routine basis.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah, I mean, I'm wondering specifically if you do pre weatherization on a house, do you then tell Vermont guests, hey. This house at this address is ready for you guys?
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: I'm not sure how it would work, but, yes, that's a nice question. Oh,
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: that that there was a point in time
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: where you guys did have an arrangement like that just many years ago. I don't I just don't know what happened to it, but it has been done before.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah. I could definitely follow-up with doctor customer care team. We'll see how the conversations look. Who's next? On the coordination point, I think there is a lot of effort right now to look at things. We have proceedings. So I'm comfortable with the three year extension in that setting for the reasons that other people have shared, but also knowing that coordination is something that is getting attention.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: For Cowen and then Southworth.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Scott, you said this puts Burlington on a level playing field with the rest of the state. Where does pre weatherization money come from? For the rest
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: of the state. For the rest of the state. It also comes through through the DRP for efficiency of a lot. But efficiency of a lot doesn't serve customers in Burlington Electric territory.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I'll repeat. Right. Right. I understood that. Okay. Alright. So Level plane. Alright. So Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't realize. Thank you.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. For clarification.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Say say that again, Scott. Sorry.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: The pre regularization and and repair money will be available through EDT for the rest of the stay. But not in Burlington. Oh,
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: right. Because Because
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because Burlington Electric is the efficiency utility for Burlington. Right. That's right. That's good point.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: I wanna bring up this one question. It is if that goal is what's in mind, how come the other deficiency utilities are out to come to us?
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We have testimony on that with them.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Meaning, you can see. Yeah.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: It it I
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: think it I'd have to do with the regular issue. Right? EBT serves well, there are actually from my gas customers outside of Burlington. So, actually, that is a question that I don't have the answer to. Why why why doesn't CBT want to be able to do that to those customers as well? Is there is there other funding available for those the best customers?
[Alexandra (Director, 'Interior Division', Vermont Department of Public Service)]: BGS does a pretty good job of serving those customers.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, and the weatherization program does well. I I guess what what I'm wondering about is the pre weatherization kinds of expenses.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Did we do that test? Peter walked. Here we go. Yep. Yeah.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: Yeah.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Have written testimony from Peter on February 24. He talked about their experience with email. Two programs they ran under it. Efficiency Vermont believes that nearly five years and obviously they're speaking for themselves not for Rural Regional Electric. So, Vermont does not seek to extend the reauthorization. Nearly five years of implementing EMA has largely addressed the original needs of the legislation or demonstrated how certain aspects can be continued through more traditionally regulated efficiency programs. Programs have been a success. Results achieved. I mean, you you guys can read Peter's testimony. Yeah. So, Efficiency Vermont doesn't want to doesn't want or need to continue it. Burlington Electric does. Yeah. I don't know if we can hear from a lot
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: of gas in itself. Oh.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: In terms of their
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: efficiency. Have written testimony from them. Is there do you have something to add, Dylan?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: For the record, Dylan, so I keep familiar with Lee and I from EGS. No. I'm just in direct committee to the written testimony. EGS' efficiency teams worked very closely with efficiency teams at BET and felt pretty comfortable in in our communication structure to coordinate those services. Great.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: All righty. So additional comments. I think we should get a gut check from everybody. Let's see. Should I go first or last? I'm comfortable with the bill as written.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm on set.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: That's me. I
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: am too. I I guess my only question is
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm sorry. Change that one sentence.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. We're gonna change the thing that PUC suggested. The entity may.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I would just add. I do appreciate the conversation. I do too. I think it's important to.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I also, we really needed to talk this one through, so I agree. It's a it's an important conversation. And after that after this morning's conversation, I'm I'm good with it.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And then also removing section five. Right?
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And removing section five. Yep. How about everybody else? K. Good. Dara? Yes. Good. Okay.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I'm okay with it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Chris, good?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I am.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Good.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Good. I don't know where Rich is at on this, but okay. So I will request those changes. Thank you for joining us. I'll request those changes. We'll have another draft. And, yeah, I really appreciate your reservations, rep Southworth.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, it it
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: I'm gonna go back to 75% because I think that brings it closer to the original intent
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: of the program. Okay.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: And I think that would have served the people in Burlington as well. Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I'm going to request those two small changes. The the entity may. We're gonna drop the telecom plan, and we have this scheduled for a vote on Friday. Maybe I'll move that up. How long are you gonna be in? When could you join us tomorrow from the card?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I can join you from
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: oh, it's 07:45 until about 11:30. Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I might change our agenda to vote this one out tomorrow. Then it would be on notice Friday, and I can can present it on the floor Tuesday, Wednesday. Okay? Or we might vote it on Friday. Okay. And this doesn't have to go anywhere else. Go straight to the floor.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: Okay. Alright.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you for being here. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being here.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank Thank you
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: for here.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Let's just roll. You guys wanna just keep moving forward? Great. Okay. So let me just make a thank you so much. Thanks.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Let me
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: just make a sticky
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: reduction, a comes in u
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: d I think think you said maybe you'll scratch A little bit. You start instruction, and then we just have a nice opinion.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. To make it Let's talk about the data center bill. Instead of two,
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Talk about it, but it's never too soon. So this afternoon, between one and floor, we have invited, I believe, every relevant stakeholder into the room to come back and give us feedback on the draft that we walked through yesterday. But there's no reason we can't go through the draft and see if there are areas where the committee still has questions or concerns. So we're looking at draft number 1.2, March 10 at 11:57AM. And we're waiting I mean, essentially, we're waiting to hear back from the environment committee, which is they walked through the water language yesterday, and I think they're doing the rest of the bill today. And and then we'll, you know, we'll hear back from them in some fashion. Let me see their let me pull up their agenda and see whether they're doing it this morning or a second. One moment.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So yesterday, they did Water. The water. And they're doing a walk through. Oh, they're doing it right now. They're walking through with Maria. Then And then TJ, and then Billy Coster, John Groven.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: John Groven. That's this morning?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I'm just looking at their agenda. You
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: can go in. Starting at 10:30. So they did Maria this morning. You're good. At 10:30, they're starting TJ, Billy, John Groveman. And then this afternoon, they're doing the land use review board. And then they're discussing it tomorrow morning. So I have this bill scheduled for a vote on Friday, and we are just gonna need to there's no way we're not voting this out. So just know that Thursday, we're gonna stay as late as we need to and Friday too to make sure that we get this wrapped, dotted, crossed, and voted. Okay? But right now, the vote's scheduled for Friday. Yeah.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Do we feel that we have closed loopholes enough? And so we feel strong with
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the bill. I don't wanna leave loopholes that will open up a gate for something
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: other than what we desire and within that bill.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. That's that was my intention. This is that was my intention. I think, yes, we have. Yeah. I think because this is such news, such new language and going so quickly, I expect that the senate may there may be changes there may be bills passed in the country that, you know, have better best practices that we could incorporate. But it has always been my intention with this to envision what would happen now if one came. Let's look at our existing environmental protection, water quality, and energy laws to see what the gaps are. I think that's the way the chair has encouraged us to think about what the bill's construct. And I feel like right now, yes, that that's that we're doing that.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: And and we're good with as far as if the bring your own comes into play, all of everything that's in here, I think we're covering that with the processes that are gonna have to go through with the electric utilities. But I wanna make sure that that piece is covered because we don't know.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Bring Your is not in there right now. Bring Bring Your Own is not in there right now. I know. So and it may emerge in the senate. There are a lot of discussions about that. The other thing I would I think that we need to really make sure that we take in is our existing processes and laws. And I'm hoping to actually put together a timeline for this because I think it'd be helpful on the floor. I mean, is, I think, an accelerated sighting would be looking at a minimum of three years. And I think that would be really fast. In other words, I think we've checked the big the big spots, and we will have time to evolve as well in the next week and in the summit.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And, Ralph Southworth, the question you asked is the one I'm intending to ask every single witness this afternoon. It's my the it's that's my thing too.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yep.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we looked around every corner and closed every I I don't want, you know, I don't wanna see a big whoops. We forgot to. And I think that we've done a really good job of getting all the right people, like, profoundly weighing in on the bill with exactly that intent. It's been my intent as well.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I wonder if over the next couple days before we vote, we should try to get a data center developer to testify.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I absolutely agree.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And, you know, I think for a couple of reasons. One is to hear from all sides, but the other is that they might unintentionally telegraph the loophole they are planning to exploit. The mics help us. They won't help
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: us. They won't help help
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I hope it's shore up our shore up our defenses. Personally,
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: it's too late in the game to bring in, think. If we the bill's gonna move to the senate, and it could change significantly over there, and maybe that's something we wanna suggest to them. But and we need to vote, you know.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: To that so I have tried. Yeah. And also to that point, you know, if they were to testify in the senate, I mean, we certainly Listen in. Yeah. We could listen in or ask folks to come and testify. Yep. So
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: because we'll need to we'll need to watch what happens to this bill in the senate and be ready for it to come back. Right? So we could we don't have to stop our testimony and work after we vote it out. We're gonna need to be following really closely to to see what they're gonna do to it because if it comes back the last week of the session with significant changes, we need to be ready. You know what I mean? So I think that's a a a good idea. I just I don't wanna try to add
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: that
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: to our apple cart Right there. Right as we're trying to vote it out. Got it. Yeah.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: We have no rules out. Bring your home. That's between the developer and the electric utility services there.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We haven't ruled it out. We're just not requiring it in the draft as it is right now.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: But they may come in and literally bring
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: some of it at all. Bar it.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: No. And I think there's I think there's a lot of interest. I think there is right now a failure amongst stakeholders to agree and an an acknowledgment that we need to move the bill. It needs to make crossover. So I expect that that topic will see some more play over in the senate.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: There's plenty provisions in the bill.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It does it's not banned.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: No. But there are provisions in the bill. Any any generator doesn't run twenty four seven three seven five. It has to get maintained sometime. And then, just like Velcro, they plan scheduled maintenance so that there's other power available.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: There's there's a lot in here for the department to, you know and this contract, remember, will have to get approved by the PUC, and there are a lot there are a lot of places for them to look for and ensure to mitigate costs. There's a lot of flexibility here.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: But the other the other environmental considerations are large. Yes. And as
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I said, everything from air to treat types of water or four types of discharges. Yeah. Yeah. I'll just preview that. I think we're gonna hear back in the environmental or the on that that maybe we won't, but then preferences to cook for all as opposed to
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, and you guys heard me asking questions, but I'm profoundly concerned about relying on EPA standards. I just don't think they're reliable right now, and I think they're too, you know so that was one of the questions I was going to ask for the water folks this afternoon when they come in, was to ask about right now the bill is pegged to EPA water standards, PFAS, and I'd rather see something better different.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: going through the bill, we can see notes of, like, we had any real trouble areas. On page four, line fifteen, sixteen down around there, I think we had added or suggested to Maria that Yeah. We might add such as requiring storage, curtailment, on-site generation, etcetera. So, giving some examples of things that they could Yeah. That could count for their demand side management because we're we're requiring demand side management, and we wanted to just elaborate on what we meant.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Also on page four, slide 10, that section is about subsection about To clarify. Clarify now what demand whether we're talking about demand charges or trouble issues. Right.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think Maria made notes on that. Right?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. I think so.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Page seven. Okay. Page I don't have a bunch of notes. It's probably page six, but I think it's just Yeah. Oh, it's just me talking understanding that. Okay. Pick oh, pick a date. Yep. Right. Page seven. Morrow, he was gonna pick a date.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. K.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. In case the Clean Air Act gets rolled back or repealed or whatever. Right. Okay. I did not alright. Maybe other folks remember this better. I wasn't 100% following the discussion about there there's some kind of an emergency rulemaking bridge capability that's that's moving along in h six thirty two. Yeah. And everybody seemed fairly confident that that was gonna ask.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So there are federal laws that a lot of things are into, like Yeah. Like this? Clean Air Act, ANR. There's language moving that will give ANR emergency rule making authority for. I think it was I think it was a hundred and eighty days.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I believe that.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Hundred and eighty days.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. For, like, a provisional. Yes. And then to go to Go to.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That would cover all all statutes. Yes. State to federal statute. Okay. I I had noted whether we wanted to ask about more details. So line 13, page 17, page 17, more detail about decommissioning. So Is that unnecessary?
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I I think that this is sufficient. So we are constructing a case by case scenario, Bill, as opposed to any f three. Yes. Mhmm. So and that would include the decommissioning. So if we're trying to that'll be a public process. Mhmm. Right? All of this. So I think this is sufficient. Okay. I don't know. I know this was important to them. So also Yeah. Well,
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: adequately accounts for. I mean, that's pretty clear.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And this is facility in particular. Right. Yeah. Right.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Page nine, section subsection two eighty five, energy efficiency design.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm. Page nine. Yes.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Is that wording comprehensive enough? So
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: that wording is not the wording that EBT sent to us. And that's my that was my, challenge. I could not find that working. And so I put the concept in and give that to the Ledge Council. I will tell you that there is dispute around this language. And so, I think that this is an issue that will get taken up in the Senate. And we could try and resolve that dispute, but I mean, it's significant enough that I think it would require fair amount of testimony to sort through. And so my recommendation would be to Plant the flag. Leave that. Well, I think I think the folks that are concerned I think Efficiency Vermont certainly bring this forward. I think there are other stakeholders who are have other concerns about it. So
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. I just I find it very
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: not comprehensible. It's me. That that's that is me not being able to find the language and giving forward action to draft her.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Sorry. No. I just wanted
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: to flag that. Yes. That's all.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Then we have our closed loop, which I love. Alright. So I'm I've already raised my red flag about page the it's on page 10. The definite it's it's the definitions here. The way this is defined in lines three through 11, that's the bit that links to the EPA.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, that's what I wanna talk about this afternoon with our expert water people.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: We did have testimony on line page 11 just about the availability of those permits on It's 13 through 17. Some of them will not be available until late fall. And then the river corridor development permit on line 21. 28. Yeah. This will be 28. Okay. So there's not really anything we can do about that.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. But I think it's important to include them. Yes. Like, FYI, here are the ones you're gonna need when they're available. K. I have a lot of notes here, but it's this.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: So what happens if they come to do this and start applying prior to the dates of those permits coming into play?
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: They'll have to wait. They have to wait.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Okay. Permit.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: Question about section four. This renewable energy market. 15.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: 15.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, wait. I'm I'm not there yet. I'm not there yet. Okay. I have 80,000,000 notes on page 12. I think that's my concern about EPA and PFAS. Sorry? It is. Okay. Okay. So I I can jump to page 15 now. Do folks have questions before that?
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: I'm just curious how this report compares to the report that's called for in the risk.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I think it is it's an earlier Early deadline? Yeah. It has to for in the rest.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's session law.
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So it doesn't specifically
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I think it's put new terms, so it's understanding what's happening in the market.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm. Right. Okay. So so okay. So we're waiting to hear back from environment. You're gonna go Yeah. Listen to their testimony? Yes. Great.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Loved it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. So next steps are Marie was already working on some things. We've got testimony all afternoon. We're gonna hear back from environment, and we are gonna vote this out realistically probably Friday. But by probably, all I meant was not Thursday. I didn't mean Yeah. Like
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We're gonna vote on Friday.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. We'll vote on Friday. So that way, it'll be on the on notice on Tuesday because I don't think we're starting token sessions yet. And on the floor next Wednesday and Thursday, doesn't have to go to a probes or ways and means. And with that timing, what I like about that timing is that we'll be able to, and I think we will plan to present the bill at the public Democratic caucus on Tuesday after the floor just to get it, you know, out there. I mean, I've been certainly talk talking about this bill quite a bit. People are very well aware of this bill.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Should should we also We can also do it at
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, that's what I'm wondering. If you could do it at the Republican caucus, what's the timing? They're at the same time that you could probably go from we're gonna present it together at the den so we could scoot to the ours?
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I'm happy to do that. I would just contact Patty. Yeah. Yeah.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. I wanted be a good idea? Yeah.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: And think there's some good support for it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So I think it'd be great. One of the things I was texting with Laura about last night was even if the bill's ready, why don't we vote it out on Friday? And now I think it's just that's what the timing is anyway. But that buys us that one important day to take this to the public caucuses of both parties and be like, hey. Here's our big bill. We'll see it on the floor tomorrow. Okay. Plan? Greeting. Alright. We are we're done until one.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I have lots of work to do. So I'd already said, I apologize, this week is gappy, but I think it gives more reporters time to give her report. Oh, and sorry. Before we go, let's quickly talk about a few other things. So the committee bill, I'm gonna request changes. We'll book that out probably Thursday. Tomorrow? Yeah. Which is tomorrow. Thank you. Or we might do it right. Data centers, we just talked about. 07:53 is on the floor this week. Joint Carbon Emissions Reduction Committee, as soon as I get a draft back, think we can vote that out. We'll work on our letter that's gonna accompany that bill after crossover. We're gonna vote on 07:18 tomorrow morning. And Scott,
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: you've already sent the draft around, right? Yes.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's also posted. Okay. And
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that, we've got plenty of time. That's actually, I'll go over all this with you, Alex, but that's actually committee discussion and vote. I'm not anticipating any more changes to that language because we've we've talked about it so much. Although, should we? I mean, should we just look through the draft Yep. Today?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We could do that right now. Okay. Yeah. If if there aren't many changes. Okay. It's basically changes.
[Amber (Burlington Electric Department)]: Why don't
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we do that, guys? Let's because I don't want we really do need to vote that one out tomorrow. I don't wanna run into last minute pitches. So why don't we go to let's see. So that is
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: 72 to everyone.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. That's drop 3.1?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Alright.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 718 31. Do people need hard copies? I can send some to thirties.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I see. How many hard copies? Me. One, two.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Alright. So I have one. I'm
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: gonna make three.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: 84.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Four. There you go. Alright. I'm sending that to thirties. Right? Yeah. So alright. Well, Scott's are you able to see your copy, Scott?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So while Scott does that, let me just go back through. I I I just wanna make sure I'm redoing everything. So seven fifty three, we voted out. Joint Carbon Emissions Reduction Committee and Energy Oversight Committee. I think we've talked through that really thoroughly and I know what drafting request I'm gonna send to Ellen. And so I would anticipate when we see that draft, can just vote on it. The committee bill, we have some last final changes to make, and then we're gonna vote on that. Data centers, we just talked about. So it's really Scottsville 718 that we're gonna talk about now and vote on. Okay. Let me make sure nothing's falling through the cracks.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So we're waiting for hard copies because I did find something.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I've got I'm ready to
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: There's basically two changes here. K. One is where the funding is coming from. Because of concerns about setting a precedent of rating or or accessing RGGI and thermal efficiency, thermal energy and process fuels funds outside of the public service department, PUC, and DRP process, I changed the funding to general fund. Fully aware that there probably isn't general fund money, but it it moves move the process along, and we will move the along, and we will see what probation's supposed to do with it when they get it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And this will go from here to probes.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So Yeah. And where's What page is the That's that's that's the end of the bill. 18. Page yeah. Page 18. And the changes are are highlighted. We have them on this. Got it. Thank you. So that's the major change. The other change is in the language around energy education model. You'll remember that these these were put into statute for professions regulated by OPR and trades regulated by Division of Fire Safety to make building professionals and creates people aware of Vermont's energy goals. And the energy education modules up to now have been really only about what those goals are and a quick review of statute, which was perfectly useless to design professionals and trade people. The bill included, before today's change, included changing from being education around energy goals to being more specific about how Vermont's energy codes affect the professions and trades involved, so it's to be more relevant to what people are actually doing. In the course of discussion during the last review that we did of this, somebody pointed out that there's no timeline and fill for when those energy education modules need to be implemented or updated. So I added to this draft a requirement that the cognizant office, OPR, DFS, review the modules every three years with stakeholders and if necessary, update the modules. So that starts in 2028. So it's it gives plenty of time to to review and update the the modules we're getting now and then. But it just it just adding up. You know, once and then forget it for the next twenty five years. Look at it periodically.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Thanks, Laura.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I am, do. So that's on, The first instance of that is on page eight, the bottom of the page. That language is replicated on page 10. Page 12. And page 14. Those are the only two changes in this draft compared to the last.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And Scott, we did take a lot of testimony on this. Is there anybody that you're urgently waiting to hear back from?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No, I did hear back. So I sent out a survey to members of the building energy code working team. Was the last draft asking for copy of the film about it. There were two who were opposed to it. One from the point of view of the Associated General Contractors. Basically, they don't want any more regulation, although I'm trying to explain this isn't any more regulation. Is merely trying to use market incentives to get contractors and builders and designers to educate themselves on energy codes and building science issues. Anyway, despite that, they were opposed. The other opposition was from a member of the Lamoille builders and Remodelers Association who is just in favor of something. All of this division of fire safety adopting a building construction code, a residential building construction code, basically doing everything that that, in their view, needs to be done to regulate buildings. So, you know, what they were advocating for is what is not politically possible. Even though I may agree with that as an ultimate goal, it's just not what's possible in this in the current context. So those are the two people who are out of my vote. Department of Public Safety said that they would support a state, were supportive of the bill, not in front of it. The Division of Fire and Safety said they, and don't know, they neither supported no other folks, even though I tried to be very, know, sort of bend over backwards to compromise with with their concerns. And other I think there were seven responses altogether. The other, whatever that means, support were supported in one to some degree or another. So that's what I've heard from so far. I did send out another request yesterday, the day before, to members of board that did, and I don't think I've heard anything more since then.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: How about the league and OPR?
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I have asked specifically about her back. K. So I I talked to Samantha Sheehan about this last week. I also talked to Brian Mills, who is the person that of state's office, he's sort of the public, the. And so far, no response from Jennifer Howland or or VLCT's lawyer or director. Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alrighty. A lot of times, me anyway, the main things that folks have been given ample opportunity and reminder to Right. If they have final thoughts. So okay. And this one will go to a probes next, which just like the h seven forty or, know, the greenhouse gas bill, that's really where the pedal hits the metal as well. So we have this scheduled for a vote tomorrow morning. And maybe our Okay. That'll be a call in for you, Bram. So alright. So how are folks feeling about this one? I think Okay. I'm supportive.
[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm supportive with the change in appropriation. Yeah.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. Yep. There's a yes. K. No.
[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: It's going to increase costs on building, which is counterintuitive to what we need to happen in the state at this point. I'm absolutely not. And
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't know where Rich is, but I think he's he can't indicate it. Thank you.
[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Chris, did you did you We got a thumbs up. Okay. Thumbs up. Just
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I'm actually gonna text Rich. Let him know what we talked about today. Make sure he's prepared to vote on this tomorrow and also maybe to vote on the committee bill tomorrow and or maybe we'll do that on Friday. Okay. So anybody yeah.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So when you go remotely, it's three days or three three votes? Three votes. Three votes.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. So Bram said one.
[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Oh, if he's depending on where he is in the interstate. Good. I know that you have you checked the coverage plan? Depending on where I am
[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: on the interstate. Yeah. But we are just heading from Burlington straight down to Boston, so I think coverage is pretty good through most of it.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Oh, and then also I wanted to say I've been scouting around the senate to see what's coming our way. And the from enter or from environment, from senator Watson's committee, it's just plug in solar. That's it. So we'll start taking testimony on that next week. From finance, they have our cell tower bill and our copper to fiber bill, and they're taking them off. They're well aware. I don't think, you know, I'll stay in touch, but I don't anticipate those bills are just gonna die over there. So we can expect to see those come back. Senator Cummings also said that they're sending us a ratepayer protection bill. But interestingly, they've stripped it down just to hot weather disconnects updating the rule. So our bills are crossing, very similar bills crossing, although ours has the reporting that I hope they'll keep. So we'll just figure out how to melt those bills or merge those bills. And then they're not sending us anything else. And then institutions, I think, nothing. And I went they have nothing on their wall. Like, I'm sure I want Literally nothing on their wall. So Go. So I don't think you know, after after crossover, we'll work on plug in solar. We will closely follow all the bills that we're sending over the senate. They'll start coming back. So I think we'll be doing a lot of work on our bills as they come back from the Senate in the second half. Plus, we've got a lot of testimony we want to take on the future of nuclear power. We want to make sure we do a lot of thoughtful testimony to develop our letter on the Joint Carbon Emissions Reduction Committee to talk about what we hope they will do. And then there's some auditing reports. There's some auditor's reports and some articles I've been reading in the paper about state IT. And think we're gonna need to return to take some oversight testimony on kinda state IT. And then I've just been kinda hanging on to some auditors reports that are in a box, and we'll get the auditor into. That's what I'm thinking. Okay. We can go off live.