Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: We're live. Alright. Welcome back everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. We are here for a committee discussion, markup, and possible straw poll if we get done on S-one Hundred 38. Just as a reminder to folks, after we take a straw poll, our final kind of approved thumbs up heady language is going to go to House Commerce to for inclusion in the economic development bill. So my name's Kathleen James. I'm from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: Scott Campbell from Saint John's Barry.

[Rep. Richard Bailey — Member]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four. Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden, 13.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Alrighty.

[Unidentified “Nick” — likely member from Franklin County]: Nick Cherf, down to Franklin Martin.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Super. Alright. For the record,

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: Belichick House of Legislative Council, s one thirty eight is still as passed outside. Yay.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: All righty, so hope everybody's been taking good notes. I didn't print out stuff to prepare for this meeting, but I think I have, if we go slowly enough through, I think I'll remember the few changes that we did wanna make. So, I know that we're, in general, we're adding a new, we're adding C PACE language to the existing R PACE statute.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: You are adding a new subchapter to the chapter on special assessments. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Okey doke. At the bottom of page one, or wherever it fits, we thought it might be a good idea to add definitions of resilience. And we had kind of a long definition of resilience from a different context in the state's resilience implementation strategy. But then, Brett Morrow had also pulled the definition of resilience and water conservation from the New Hampshire statute. So wanted to talk a little bit about the New Hampshire language. It might be the fastest, easiest way to find a good definition, and then also talk about whether folks wanted to also include water conservation as New Hampshire did. So, Ellen, did I send you I think I sent you the New Hampshire language. Yes. And does everybody have that in their inbox? And or, Alex, did you post?

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: Sorry. What? What?

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Rep Morrow had sent around some information from New Hampshire yesterday. Oh. And then I sent to the committee, I think I hope I copied you. I meant to.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: So

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: New Hampshire PACE project eligibility. Yeah. I forgot to copy you. Alex, I'm gonna send it to you right now. Okay. If you could just post the information from Chris as a PDF as like testimony from Chris Morrow. That's great. Okay. They call it resiliency improvement improvements that increase the resilience of a property, including but not limited to air quality, snow and flood mitigation, energy storage, and microgrids, alternative vehicle charging infrastructure, and fire and wind resistance.

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: The no. They still don't really define resilient. Let's just give some examples, which is workable. The in the resilience implementation plan, they define resilience as the ability of interconnected ecological, social, and economic systems to anticipate, adapt, withstand, respond, and thrive in the face of current and future conditions Mhmm. And disasters, which I think is a good definition.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: If we if we wanna define it, I think it's probably pros and cons of defining it. But if we're gonna put the word resilience in there, we should probably define it. Right?

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Ellen, do you think we need to both define the actual word resilience and then give I I like the list of I like the more specific list from New Hampshire. Could could we or should we combine the two? In other words, define resilience using that sentence from Rutland, then include the language from New Hampshire. Sure. We can do that. There's no reason not to. Only if it doesn't

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: if it would preclude projects that you would want it to cover.

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: I'm okay with it. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: I'm sorry. Ellen, to to clarify, do you mean if we define resilience too narrowly or if including resilience somehow would preclude other projects? Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: The

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: latter.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: The latter.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: That if we define it At all. Oh, either. Yeah. Yes. You define it, this is always a problem with lists in the legislature, which is why we try to include such as or including but not limited to or whatever. Is

[Unidentified member (possibly Rep. Laura Sibilia — Ranking Member)]: resiliency used broadly throughout statute so that there may be different meanings that would encompass more of a broader range of ideas?

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: Not that I'm aware of. Okay. I

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: mean, this is a broad definition, the ability of interconnected ecological, social, and economic systems to anticipate, adapt, withstand, respond, and thrive in the face of current and future conditions and disasters.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: K.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: Just

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: do social systems I mean, I'm not hearing kind of infrastructure resilience in there. Is that covered under social, do you think, or economic? Let me get something else. What's that?

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Probably.

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: Yeah. It wouldn't have to be.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: But we could just add, man, physically, it is economically and socially and technologically and physically. Right. So there's a whole range of road, bridges, houses, buildings, going

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: to be both social, greenways, physical, and physical systems. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: I think that that's Yeah. Physical. Point. Yeah. That would make me happier, and the whole point of the body of Vermont Laws is to make me happy. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: So Infrastructure would be a better word than physical?

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: Well, as we're trying to they're all modified systems. So, again, you like, physical work grammatically. It's looking better. I Okay. Yeah. Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Chris, can you send that snippet to Ellen and the committee with your with the suggested addition of physical and then copy and paste in there? Do you have the you have the? I have the New Hampshire. New Hampshire language. Okay. So, I think we're thinking of using post. Right? Here's how we define resilience and resiliency improvement means x from New Hampshire. And then I I would like to include water conservation. What do you guys think? As New Hampshire did, it says, water conservation improvement means measures, equipment, or devices that decrease the consumption of or demand for water, address safe drinking water, or eliminate lead from water used for drinking or cooking?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: That that feels consistent with intent to me. Okay. You know, if a a project wants to clean the lead up out of their water, feels like an environmental project to me.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Alrighty. Alright. So that's the I think we're good with the question of adding a definition of resilience that Rutland flagged on the Getville. On page three, lines seven through 10, we talked about, specifically line nine. We talked about, well, enable the project to exceed. We talked about saying meet or exceed.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: You did some. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: You wanna do that? Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: K. Are you okay with that? Page three, line nine. We're into energy efficiency. We just wanted to say meet or exceed it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: I remember that. Totally agree.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: And then we have a little weird question about the current building code because of the Lack of the

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: building code. Because of the Lack of the building. Residential building. This is Yeah. Typically, mostly, one of the projects, but it seems like it's often referred to CDs. Right? CDs as well. So building code and commercial building energy standards.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: One year version.

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: Yeah. Can

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: we just leave it?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: Yeah. Just whatever whatever the current standards. Yeah. Yeah. And right now?

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Right now, they're twenty twenty even.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: They're de facto 2020. We measure a 20.4.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Okay. So, excuse me, at the bottom of page three, I had just jotted a note that said, include storm water retrofit, because we heard that from different people, but I think we've now covered that, right? Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: Well, I was gonna mention that three and four on this page kind of referring to building codes. And I don't know that, like, a storm water project on sites. I think when they make a building code, like you know what I mean in these sections?

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: I think we just wanna make sure that storm water projects would be covered, period. So I know where that goes in the field.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: And that they'd be considered a resilience improvement. Would they? I mean I think so.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: I think we just wanna make sure

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: that Harvard's It's not it's not really a water usage improvement. It's not related to building codes.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: So it doesn't Is there a resilience, though? Of the

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: existing That's the question. I mean, we could just

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Well, maybe we need to add storm water specifically somewhere. Yeah. I have a note

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: to do that in mind.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Me too. But I think

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: we're could be in there. Yeah. That's specific

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: for sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: I think maybe we wanna make sure. What is Ellen, what do you call stormwater? Is that maybe we could add it to New Hampshire definitions of resiliency improvement? Just make sure storm water is explicitly included. Yeah. It does unless it fits under flood mitigation. I feel better if you said the words.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: Yeah. Where do we say flood mitigation?

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: It's not on this. It's in the definition of resiliency improvement

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: that we're adding from New Hampshire. Yeah. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: I think we're gonna need another another where.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: I I agree. Paragraph. Stormwater isn't only associated with flood mitigation.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Right. And I don't know anything about stormwater. So I just wanna make sure we have all the right words to make sure whatever these projects are, whether they're retrofits or new or responding to state

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: statue off. Like parking lot.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Like, the whole parking lot thing.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: Which a lot of them are doing it.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Yeah. I think it would be really great if storm water were covered in its iterations. So how can we do that? Is that okay with everybody?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: So we we are adding applicants to to get approval. Prior to the written agreement, the property owner shall have an analysis before and that includes the following purpose of the matter, all the swears, all rights.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: No, think I'm adding it to I feel like we're adding in projects that will be eligible for CCLISS funding.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: Oh, where?

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: So you can include storm I don't know where it's gonna go.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: That one's gonna put it in somewhere. Oh, okay. So

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: maybe we're back on page two. Wait. I think we're on Where do we talk about what kind of

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: projects are eligible? Is it all the way

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: back on page one? Yeah, at the bottom of page one. Yeah. So we're talking about projects related to renewable energy to energy efficiency.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, we need to add resilience to that.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Yep, and we're gonna add resiliency, and then maybe that is where we also add storm water, or include that specifically under resiliency.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: And that is a job for improvement.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: So commercial property is at clean energy district approval. So

[Unidentified member (possibly Rep. Laura Sibilia — Ranking Member)]: is the bill all about clean energy?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: And I'm not trying to nitpick, but

[Unidentified member (possibly Rep. Laura Sibilia — Ranking Member)]: we start going with storm water and we're getting out of energy really quick.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Well, I think that fits into the broader question of I thought anyway that the committee was interested in the fact that New Hampshire's C PACE law included energy efficiency, renewable energy, and resilience. And I I thought we all thought that was a good thing to add like New Hampshire did. So once we add that, then the question is, we also heard some testimony that it would be great it could be important to include stormwater projects as they are sometimes, but not always related to flooding and or climate resilience.

[Unidentified member (possibly Rep. Laura Sibilia — Ranking Member)]: But would that change the view of the lenders?

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: I think the lenders can approve or disapprove the loan projects as they're presented to them. And say we'll finance this, this and that, but we don't agree with your storm water things.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: These are commercial projects. I'm imagining a big manufacturing plant that's expanding and needs to manage the stormwater runoff from the new section of roof and the new parking lot as they put together their funding. All the different sources to get their expansion bill could be a helpful tool. I don't you know, I do wonder about the the capacity of the lenders. And it it feels like there are enough lenders out there lending into this space so that Vermont is a small incremental on a national pay basis that we're not gonna tap out the market, which is to say someone's not gonna get a loan to do stormwater, which will prevent someone else from getting a loan to do energy efficiency.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: I worry about that a little bit.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Well, I mean, the thoughts I have on that are this is not some limited pot of money. This is some clearly defined limited pot of money that if you get a million, I only get 8,000. And this is a commercial these are private lenders. Yeah. They're going out to raise the capital I mean that they wanna lend. So if there's more demand, they'll try to get more loans out there. And then the other thing I would respond to rep Southworth Southworth's comment is in a very, very limited way, soon to be expanding, but I I do loan underwriting. And we have broad criteria for the loans we offer. And if somebody comes in with a loan application that includes something that we don't think fits or we don't wanna give them that amount of capital, we just say, we're not financing that part of it. So, you know, if a if an application comes in and the private lender doesn't wanna loan for stormwater, they don't move that part of the application. Or if it's a case where it clearly seems like a part of the resiliency response, they approve it and include it.

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: Seems like the name hasn't caught up with how it's being in states across the country.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: Beyond clean energy. Think that was the origin of it. Then see. We've been useful beyond that scope. Property assets, clean energy and resilience.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Okay. I

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: wanted to do a pipe check. I think you have a witness at 10:30. Do you wanna proceed with this? Sorry. You want to

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Who's at 10:30?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: Oh,

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: hi, Jamie. Yes. Do you have a sec?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: Sure. Take your time.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Okay. Great. Sorry about that. Just try to finish this first walk through. On page five, line 15, we have something really important it fits. This is about the 90% of the assessed value of the property.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: That was the one.

[Unidentified member (possibly Rep. Laura Sibilia — Ranking Member)]: Appraisal value as complete and stabilized.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Did you write that down? I have it in my email. Say

[Rep. Richard Bailey — Member]: that again. Appraisal value as complete and stabilized.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: So line 15 where it says toward the end of the line shall not exceed 90% of the assessed value. We are replacing the word assessed.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: The appraised. Praised value. Or as?

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: As complete. I

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: found it too. So replace and this came from everybody. Replace assessed value with well, Vida gave us three options. Replace assessed value with appraised value, as complete appraised value, or stabilized value where applicable. That's that's from Vida. Castle also sent in what representative suggested.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: And I like that language better.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: K. Sounds good.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: Cleaner. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: So do you have it?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: So which one did you Southworth.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: Oh, okay. All three.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: Appraised as complete and stabilized. Right?

[Unidentified “Nick” — likely member from Franklin County]: The 30 is not even as complete and stabilized. Should it be or stabilized? Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: It says appraised as complete appraised or stabilized where applicable. Let me I can snip this out and send it to you now.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: I have Jones' testimony.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Oh, great. It's from Jones.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: I I'm not sure if you are. The notion is the building gets complete, and then it takes another couple of years to get it stabilized. You know, they get filled with renters and have stable tenants and all that. So I think you want complete and stabilized. I suppose I should imagine a situation in which it's stable but not complete.

[Unidentified “Nick” — likely member from Franklin County]: What's the definition of stabilized? If you have a hotel, it's 70% occupancy rate. Stabilized is 90% occupancy. But if you have commercial property, it's an amount of the space that's leased. I think

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: stabilized means sort of what they expect it to be kind of its average completion running rate over time. Normal cash flow of the of the.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Venus said wars.

[Unidentified “Nick” — likely member from Franklin County]: But they

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: I'd really rather go with

[Unidentified “Nick” — likely member from Franklin County]: Venus, then you get, please.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: And and is stabilized termed? Yes. Everybody knows? Does it need to be defined, or is defined in statute? Development.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: The next committee.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Vita said, and this is posted as testimony. Appraise value, ask me for the appraised value, or stabilize value where

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: Either complete or stabilize.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: Seem to stabilize it at least they're not going to be known for years or years or years or

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: years years or Well, I mean, it's all a projection. You get it with love.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: Yeah. It's what they expect the value to

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: be once the thing

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: is built and stabilized. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: So it has to be more because every project is gonna be different and stabilized may not fly to every property. So they talked about a multi family building that is mixed use where they want to make sure the apartments reach a certain level of occupancy. They talked about a hotel where they want to make sure it's up and running, but there may be something like Black River where stabilization doesn't really high because they've retrofitted the building and

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: Yeah. You can imagine the project where it's not stabilization's not really applicable. It's when it's completed, it's stable. Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: K. That was page five. Okay. Page seven. Line 17 through 21. I think we want to add Pepsi to the list of relevant stakeholders.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: Also, the question of the regional development corporation should be.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Oh, yeah. Mhmm.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. We

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: also wanted to put a date here. I think we need a a report to the legislature by December 15. Us and commerce on the house side and

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: Oh, that's so far.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: I guess who did this bill on the

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: senate side? Senate Natural Resources.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Okay. Senate Natural Resources on the senate side. Alright.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: I have a note that said that you consider striking them because they're a leader.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: Yes. We can talk about that. They're gonna be a likened that help her to be involved in in.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: They might have thoughts on who's a third party administrator should be.

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: Might be. Yeah. So

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: they would be good for that. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: K. We're almost done. K. We've defined resilience. I wrote that down. Page nine. 10. 11. I I didn't have any more notes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: That's something I have to look up because I forgot what it is.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: K. And then, Jamie, thank you for being patient. We're almost done. And this is it's for us helpful because now Ellen can go. Gabriel, is there anything else? Those are all my notes. I believe. We find something we can Okay. Take to commerce. Okay. Okay. Ellen, thanks. Should we schedule a scruffle later? So, Dara, what's your timing?

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: What is I can have it for you when you need it. I didn't

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: know we were gonna try to put it

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: today, but I guess I can draft it now.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: It's it's up to you. I don't know what your quote is. Yeah. We just we did tell Mike we tried to get it to him in commerce, but Okay. Just let us know. Okay. I'll Okay. Do it

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: five 02:00 or what? I don't know your schedule is.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: We could come back after four. Okay. K. Alright. Thanks, Zoe.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: Thank you. I think it's.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Okay. Alright. Great. So, Alex, could you update our agenda? Just put, like, 02:00. Okay. So I think floor will be ten. Alright. Jamie, thanks for joining us.

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Thanks for having me in.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Yeah. Switching gears back to s two zero two. Plug in solar, we're getting very close to gun on the plug in solar language. Had some interest from the committee to hear about how or whether this would impact insurance.

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Great. Thanks for having me on this morning. I'm Jamie Fian. I'm with Brammer, Piper, Eagleson and Kramer, a relative firm. Worked with a number of entities, but this morning here on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. APCIA is a national trade association of over a thousand members, several 100 of whom write all lines of property and casualty in Vermont. Collectively, they represent about or write about two thirds of the Vermont market. I also work with other insurers, today, this morning, it just said it would suffice. Yes. As the chair alluded to, s two zero two, the other chamber had a couple of questions as well on insurance, namely related to how insurance will cover these devices. And secondarily, as always, is there gonna be any rate impact if, you know, harm is used. So I What? Sorry? Will there be any rate impact? Rate impact. Yeah. If, you know, if used by homeowners. And so I submitted some written testament to them. Same to you all. I gather you have some questions or maybe perhaps beyond what I've submitted for written testament. So I'm here to I can restate, you know, madam chair, however you like this to unfold. Can just open myself up for questions. I can restate how insurance will do this, speak to the rate piece, speak maybe to a larger how does a larger homeowners insurance policy? All of the above. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Great.

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Great. So we are talking about, you know, the most relevant policy here is the homeowners, although it could also be condo insurance, it could be renters insurance. Insurers, as you know, this is a new sort of device. It's particularly new for insurance companies. They're always a little behind the curve on these things. But for now, insurers are treating these portable solar devices similar to an appliance, a home appliance. And in that capacity, they're covered under the personal property portion of your homeowner's insurance. Homeowners get several categories, the dwelling, other structures, personal property, liability, etcetera. And while they all work together, each one serves a specific role. In this case, personal property will protect against theft, damage, replacement of care, etcetera. Personal property, know, is it's gonna depend upon everybody's own, you know, policy and how much you wanna insure. It's typically, if you looked at a ballpark number, 70% of the dwelling coverage. So these are the contents of your home in general. So you can always add more coverage to your policy, particularly the personal property. Think, for example, jewelry, artwork, things like that that because there are the limits on the policy in terms of how much it'll pay out for the personal property, but if something and I don't know the value of these, you can help educate me, but if they are if some are substantially expensive, in other words, to replace under a policy, you can always add an endorsement or a rider that has more coverage. So that's sort of where they're covered under the policy.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: So just your homeowners personal property? Correct.

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Now the homeowners, of course, as I mentioned, the dwelling coverage will have coverage for that dwelling and the contents based on covered peril. We all know theft. We all know fire. We all know, you know, the usual natural catastrophe coverage. It also extends to, you know, sudden and accidental appliance failure that causes damage to the structure. Think a dishwasher with a broken hose and then away for the weekend and know, in the middle of it.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Sudden and what? Accident?

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Sudden and accidental. Finds you. Yeah. Where one cover is, you know, like normal wear and tear, improper maintenance, you know, things lack of maintenance, things like that that really are the responsibility of the homeowner. The insurer assumes the homeowner is going to be taken care of, you know, their contents and updated as as necessary. As I mentioned, you know, they're they're new in terms of the insurance world. I hear from insurers that in terms of, you know, the question on impacting rates. I hear from insurers that right now they're not seeing any claims activity that are driving loss trends from the use of these. So as such, there's no market reaction by insurers in terms of rates. Now, I always want to give the usual disclaimers or caveats, right? I mean, if that changes, if they start to see claims being driven as a result of something related to these devices, they may take a closer look to say, well, do we need to have some underwriting standards in place that might help to kind of help the homeowner minimize risk, but also help, you know, mitigate potential future exposure losses, etcetera. So that's not happening, you know, I'm anticipating perhaps a question or two related to that. That's that's always a potential. The other disclaimer, of course, is that, you know, good no good policies are alike. No good companies are alike. You know, each company may approach homeowners policies in general, differently than another. So as I always do, as insurance always do, encourage communication with them in terms of what your policy is, what it's covered for, or their or your agent to make sure that there's adequate protection. You know, Google or phones to take pictures of all your personal properties so that you've got some sort of inventory and that that these personal property needs to be replaced. So Okay. And they get that conversation to help determine levels of coverage and whether or not the personal property has contemplated in the policies enough or if the endorsement should be considered in amendment.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: We're adding I don't know if this is relevant to your testimony, but I'm thinking about it for renters. We're adding a language to the bill saying that landlords have to give permission for a tenant to plug one of these in. Just FYI. Yes. Rutland?

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: That's not that would it wouldn't be uncommon. Landlords will have their own policies for their tenants. Sorry. Didn't move

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: through it. No. Well, that's my questions about, you know, the landlords because this the genesis of this is in Germany where it's gotten pulled out quite widely, but mostly for renters. And homeowners have other options to get for solar. And so a lot of these, they call them balcony solars. You know? They're in the space with units and hanging on their balcony, and it's it's so it's potential for renters to be participating in solar market. And so if it develops that way here, know, the the landlord policies and what really can be effective. Right? I mean No.

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: On that. They would probably, at least as I explained, you know, my hunch, and the less dangerous, is that they would also treat these as personal property under their commercial, you know, liability policy that they hold. Now that said, you know, there could be, for example, you know, Right? Do landlords have specific, you know, either permission or exclusions, you know, that they've employed with their tenants in terms of what's allowed to be used in the units for space years or could cost beyond stoves, those sorts of things. So that's probably potentially a a market that might develop. But as I say, I think at this point, since they're not driving claims, that it's likely treated as personal property. Renter's policy itself would only cover the personal property as you needed to. It's probably the landlord policy, but it'd cover it in structure.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: Landlord's policy.

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: Wouldn't

[Unidentified member (possibly Rep. Laura Sibilia — Ranking Member)]: there be a little concern or flagging from the insurance companies about energy generation that's fed into an apartment, especially the landlord stuff, in an unconventional fashion that's going into a circuit which wasn't designed or possibly not designed to have energy back fed in from that point. Is there any issue with that? Haven't heard issues.

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: It's interesting. You know, there's insurance companies will often work with policyholders to help mitigate risk, you know, like an alarm that goes off if you've got water in the basement. Right? Like, if there's another one that you can actually plug in to the an outlet that identifies hot surface that could be, you know, identified and addressed before a problem happens. So it's another way to communicate with your insurance company, see if there's something in place.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Yes.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: So the very little bit of research, it seems as though, as Rutland described, the widespread deployment in Germany has not led to virus, electrical hazard, human shock, damage, or any of those things. But I'm wondering, right now, can go on Amazon and you can have one of these things shipped to your home and you can plug it into your wall. And the legislation we're contemplating is gonna regulate that, make UL certification to different standards, so you won't be able to do that. But at the moment, that's the case. So I'm wondering, someone buys one of these things off Amazon and gets it delivered, plugs it into a wall in an apartment, and it causes a fire in that structure. Where does the liability fall?

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Yeah. It's always dangerous to talk about To a million. Yeah. Scenarios and examples. But in this instance, you know, I I just had emphasized cause really matters. What was the cause of the damage? Yeah. Was it the unit itself? Was it a power surge that led to other things? Was it improper installation if you're talking about commercial installation? You know, things that might come up there. If it truly is even if it is sort of a power surge, accidental, as I mentioned, then there's likely coverage in the policy design.

[Unidentified member (possibly Rep. Laura Sibilia — Ranking Member)]: But if it's caused by an overcurrent that heats up a

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: a bunch of a line, would have to

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: rule is that that causes the electricity on your I'm out of my realm when we're talking about electric.

[Unidentified member (possibly Rep. Laura Sibilia — Ranking Member)]: It's too much power going into that circuit Yeah. Which creates driven by the unit. And is driven by the unit and could create overcurrent, which creates heat and possible fire.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: And the breaker doesn't know about it because the power is coming in from the other end of the circuit. It's not going to the breaker. So

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Well, as with all different needs, there may be reason to investigate to really narrow down the focus of the cause to determine where liabilities are put back to those.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Think we we're gonna hear from next week that overcurrent is covered by the law 3,700. Yeah. So if that were the case, the tenant would be breaking the law if we pass this bill.

[Unidentified “Nick” — likely member from Franklin County]: So, yeah, you know that if somebody put rooftop solar on their home, it doesn't add to the assessed value at the municipal level, the $2,000, $20,000 of solar on your house here. Home assessment doesn't go up for 20,000. You may exceed the replacement limits of the structure with the solar. Do they add a rider or something to cover additions of rooftop solar?

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Yeah. Those are a little bit different because those are sort of commercially installed. And because they're built into the structure, they're covered under the dwelling part of the policy and not personal property. I I

[Unidentified “Nick” — likely member from Franklin County]: think my personal questions was the difference of not so much insuring the device, the appliance, but the insure the in this case, it's a renter that a renter and not the the homeowner plugging in a device. Yep.

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Those those that are sort of part of the structure, like a heating system, like an HVAC, you know, are because they are now part of the structure, insurers may have a little bit of different approach to how they underwrite. Like, for example, it has to be a licensed certified installer, you know, those sorts of things.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: More questions?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: I get mean, I guess my thinking is about liability also. Fire if the device fails, somehow somebody gets injured by trips over a device that is placed in the the home place or something like that. So at least the kinds of things that insurance companies would would not cover or be concerned about, I guess.

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Well, it actually would cover it. Again, you know, the home recall also has a liability portion that can range from again, we all decide at whatever level we want. Whether it could be a 100,000, 300,000, 500,000, for example. And that's for to protect the homeowner against, you know, injuries or damage caused to others while on premise. It actually varies, you know, to that homeowner's office type. So the insurance company would be concerned about about this being an an additional hazard or something. At this point, again Yeah. No different than, you know, ice on the steps or, you know, a space heater in the middle of the room. Thank

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: you, brother. Thanks. I'm not looking for big drinks.

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Yeah. We're not asking to be pulled into this one either. Yeah. Yeah. Just responding to Yeah. Questions by you all. It turns shows up a lot sometime.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: I'll bring

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: all the pieces. Thanks for coming in. For having me.

[Jamie Feehan — American Property Casualty Insurance Association (witness)]: Appreciate it.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Thanks so much for being here.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Alright. So we are back. I need to print out a new agenda. We are back at 02:00 for a

[Ellen Czajkowski — Legislative Counsel]: straw poll on S-one Hundred

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: 38. So, I wanna walk us through all the changes we just talked about. We'll take a straw poll and that will be off the commerce. And then that's it for the day. And Mhmm. No. We actually don't have anything then until 01:00 tomorrow. Okay. So 02:00 today for straw poll, and then 01:00 tomorrow to learn about the accessibility work that is going on on our state legislative and judicial websites.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: And should we assume that it's 02:00 or ten minutes after four gavels at?

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Well, I think I said it on two. So just watch your text.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner — Member]: I'm just wondering if we go long.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Oh, yeah. If floor goes long, then fifteen minutes after it's earlier, don't think. Okay.

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: Let's see. Have an hour and a half today.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Oh, she did? She bought it. But Yeah. It does.

[Rep. Christopher Howland — Member]: We have three three bills, three house resolutions.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Well

[Unidentified “Nick” — likely member from Franklin County]: God knows how many Could be an hour balcony. Be an

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: hour and balcony.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell — Vice Chair]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James — Chair]: Okay. So, yeah, fifteen minutes after four.