Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Alright. Welcome back, everybody. It's House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Thursday, May 12, and we are continuing our unexpectedly spicy discussion of the Joint Carbon Emissions Reduction Committee. I have representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Scott Campbell from St. Johnsbury. Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland Ford.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Oh. And I'm sorry.

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Bram. Bram Kleppner, fifteen thirteen, Burlington.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Super. Joining us in the room?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Danny Perry from the group. Yep.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Zachary Moss, community service, UVL.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Super. Alright. So we hit a little impasse about the inclusion of the word electric, and I said that when we got back, I'd take a straw poll. So where are folks at?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So okay.

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

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So thinking more about it, emissions reduction. So those two words are already well established and addressed by legislation in this building. Years past current, it's still in play. It's still looked at. To leave this in, I think feel would detract from the focus of the committee, which we had agreed or thought we had agreed with energy generation and citing. Therefore, I'm not gonna be able to support the bill as written unless we can do something goes forward.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Taking out emissions. What are you suggesting?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: In the title of the committee and in the duties?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. Because it's already established. And to and, originally, this was for emissions related to the VW settlement.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So Well, it predates that, actually, do you?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Well This joint energy. That's the

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: last time I was convened. It was during the passing. And having all of the past legislation that addresses emissions reduction and curve, it kinda detracts from my idea of what this committee should be looking at within energy generation and site. It would still have to go forward if there was any suggestions that were taken up from this committee. So we'd still have to meet those goals and and those initiatives that are already in place.

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

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I still like the idea of the committee, but I think if we don't change that, we're taking away from the focus of what it can do.

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Rep. Sibilia? I am always happy to look at emissions reduction when it comes to thermal and transportation. I think we are failing in that regard significantly, which is failing Vermonters in terms of keeping up with the energy transition, most especially poor and rural Vermonters. I simply cannot leave an invitation to a group that has proven themselves to be very active, and willing to engage on shutting down biomass. And so for that reason, I really that is electric emissions is the one thing I can really I see so many opportunities for this committee, and that is, it's just a it's just a hard line for me. I've seen them engage in other admissions related important admissions related activities in a way that was extremely unhelpful and has not helped us move forward. And so I I cannot I cannot support allowing that. I would say, madam chair, this committee does already exist. Right?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And to for me to I mean, if folks are done I mean, I've got some thoughts. But

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: so if this Madam speaker, may I make a comment?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm not speaker. Thank god. But, yes, please go ahead and make a comment.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I I'm sorry, madam chair. I I apologize for that accidental devotion. So yeah. So, I absolutely understand representative Sibilia's concern about leaving electric as part of the charge, and I understand that Southworth's concern about leaving emissions reductions as part of the charge. I also believe that your observation that the committee is going to be naturally uninclined to look at electricity because it has much bigger carbon reduction issues in thermal and transportation, and also that we are specifically charging this committee with looking at energy citing. So kind of electric emissions from electricity will be way down their list, and they, you know, we say they will meet at least five times. But as I recall, there's only money for five meetings, so it's unlikely they're gonna meet many more than five times. And it is and it just seems very unlikely to me that this committee is going to get all the way through the list of dealing with how we cite nuclear, how we cite wind, how we cite solar, how we cite hydro, how we cite any other form of generation. They'll get through that and then get through addressing ways to reduce emissions from the thermal and the transportation sectors to finally get to electricity. And the last thing I would say is even if and I do wanna back up to two comments ago by R. Sibilia before the break that there's this group of radicals who oppose biomass. I will agree there are people who are fairly fanatically committed to shutting down biomass electric generation in the state, and there are a lot of very thoughtful people who look at the data and conclude that biomass isn't a great way for us to make electricity. There's a full spectrum, and there are people who are fanatically committed to supporting it. But, you know, in the very unlikely event that the anti biomath fringe somehow manages to influence this committee into ignoring all of its other priorities and focusing on that and also gets them to somehow issue a recommendation that we wind down biomass in Vermont. That recommendation comes to our committee. And our committee can choose to take it up or not. And if we take it up, we can vote it out or not. And if we choose to take it up and if we vote it out and if it passes the floor and the senate and the governor signs it, that would suggest to me that an awful lot of people have decided far beyond the radical fringe. A lot of people have decided that that's the right move to make. And that that whole long chain of events seems spectacularly unlikely to me. So with all due respect, I understand that R. Sibilia is concerned, but it feels disproportionate to the actual threat to me.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks, Bram or Bram Kleppner. Okay. So how are folks feeling about this bill as presented with no changes? Give us a straw poll. Yes?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I I guess I would go get COVID even though I I can express reservations too, but I I I think having a forum having this committee be a forum for discussing these issues is a good idea. So I agree. Support is best.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So that was Bram, you're a yes as written. Right?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Correct. I am a yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So that's 12345. So who's a no as written? 54. Okay. So I'm not gonna call a vote on this. The committee exists. Can do its work without any statutory changes at all. Now that we've brought it to the attention of the speaker, I'm sure she'll probably appoint members and so will the pro tem. And, hopefully, they'll do some good work this summer and fall. We can still send a letter, which would be great. But if if folks want a little bit of insight into why I don't wanna bring this to the floor on a five four vote, It is because climate and energy policy is unfortunately incredibly polarized and polarizing. It's very divisive. People have a lot of different approaches. People have a lot of different, like, passionately held beliefs. And I I sort of did this work. None of this is really on my radar. Right? And folks will remember that I had originally come up with the idea of a task force that we would create that would have go beyond the legislature and have, you know, members of the administration and members from various important stakeholder and advocacy groups. So I had this idea of task force that we would create. And the reason I had that idea was that I see in our committee a lot of questions, lot of concerns, a lot of really strong feelings about the future of energy, about carbon emissions reductions. It's it's not just about where we put stuff. It's about how we meet the requirements of the Globe Warming Solutions Act and the RES and what you know, what's gonna happen? You know, why did we kill the clean heat standard? And all these this is a big swirling pot of emotions and conflicting facts, and we don't have that much time in here, really. You know? Crossover comes fast. There are new members every session. We're kinda starting from scratch sometimes. There's so much turnover. And so my thought was that we needed a kind of an ongoing consistent forum, and that was why I had this task force idea to provide a more thoughtful, maybe less charged, more ongoing year round way to dive into the stuff that gets us all triggered, like nuclear power. I think everybody on this committee knows. This point, it makes me so nervous. And that could that could be a great thing for this committee to look at. We have members who have really strong opinions about biomass. We have people who think that reducing carbon pollution is the main point and people who think it shouldn't be the point anymore. And to me, I no. I understand. You think that the that the state context is so well established? I I don't wanna try to speak for you. I I understood what you meant, and I didn't mean to not characterize your words. But all I'm trying to say is that I was trying to come up with a forum to continue these conversations over the summer and fall, but we don't need to pass this bill to create that forum. The committee exists. It's there. There might be some small things we would tweak about it, but we don't need to do that in order for this committee to do its work. And I think that we can advocate for that, and we can write a great letter to the speaker. And I think the speaker is poised to appoint members. So none of that work will get hijacked. We brought it to light as we should have. But to bring a bill like this to the floor five four, to me only underscores the polarizing nature of climate policy, and I don't wanna do that. I don't want our committee to do that. So we already have partisan votes coming out of this committee, unfortunately, you know, and or divided votes, whether it's by party or not. This shouldn't be that. And so I am not gonna call it to a vote. Let's write a great letter. I I also don't think we should spend a whole lot of time arguing about over the next couple days. I there have been some suggestions already in the room that I know I'm not gonna go for. So why don't we just write a great letter and and let this go? And this is a little window into why climate policy is hard.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Chan, thank you for that explanation, and thank you for allowing me to join remotely. And I hope you all have a great rest of the day.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks, Rutland. Travel safe. Bye.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: See you, Morrow. Bye bye. Thanks, again. Bye. I do believe that the committee was a good idea. I do believe there should be more. The main focus, like we have talked about in committee, should be the energy generation inciting. I don't dismiss the carbon part. I don't dismiss emissions part. That is part of what we live in now, and it is part of what is looked at. My hope and goal was that as this went through the process, whatever came out started to be looked at, all of the legislation with carbon emissions and everything would be part of that going forward. So I still like the idea of the committee. I still like the idea of looking at energy as a whole. But I think that's the start of it. I don't think that's the end of it. I think the end of it is whatever legislation comes out of it. And that includes looking at the carbon emissions and and all of the other aspects that we need to look at as we go forward.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Well, one last floor report. Yes. And why don't we spend some time after crossover writing the letter we always plan to write? You know, advocating for this committee, saying we think it's important, that, you know, we couldn't quite come to agreement on what the statute should look like. But here's here's some things that we really would like to see this committee do over the summer and fall. I mean, I'd be excited for that. Okay. Life in the legislature. Thanks, everybody, for showing up for that. And, Alex, did you okay. So that's let me just cross that off my Last. Report list. That is we don't have to do that. Next. Alright. So we are down to committee bill and data centers. And, reps, Sibilia, we've got a new 3.1 draft right on data centers, and we're waiting to hear back from the environment committee. And, Alex, were you able to find a walk through time with Maria? I it says her calendar was open at one, so I sent her a request. I haven't heard back yet. Okay. You guys wanna why don't you update the agenda? You guys wanna tentatively plan on being here at one to walk through the data center bill and have another discussion of that? Okay. And just so I'm looking around every corner, I I just wanna repeat what I said earlier. The committee bill on Burlington Electric and the town energy plans is coming to a vote tomorrow without any further changes. That is that is my plan. So everybody read that over. And if there's anything wrong with that plan, give me a heads up. Okay? Because we don't wanna run out of time on okey doke. So just look it over. And if it's anything but just a pope tomorrow, I need to know that today.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: That's twenty six zero seven eight.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. The other one. The

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: other one.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. The other one. Okay. I think we can go up live. Oh, sorry. I have to be in a probes at 11:15 this morning. They're gonna walk through the great 740, the greenhouse gas bill. And they asked me to be there, one, to hear the walk through, and two, in case there's any questions. So if anybody wants to join or be there, 11:15 to 11:45 in your folks, that's where I will be. And then, otherwise, in that, let's come back at one. Alright. Thanks, everybody.