Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Sure.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I mean, I should get Sibilia too.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: She's coming. She said she'd be here in, by now, four minutes.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. She's

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: across the

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: hall. She'll have to go.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: She's in the hall, but she's still talking.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Alright. Welcome, everybody. It's Thursday, April 9. This is house energy and digital infrastructure, and we are here to do a final walkthrough of S one thirty eight. Take a straw poll, hopefully, if it's all done,

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: and

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: then hand it along to commerce to jump into the economic development bills. So, we met earlier. We discussed changes to the language, and ledge counsel is back with the draft. Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Is there any chance we could hold off on the straw poll until we hear back from the efficiency providers on the information you're gonna provide out there? Business energy loan program and what the.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is that gonna change your vote?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: It would. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. I apologize.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And I'll I'll explain why.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Because if their rates are the same or lower than what the projected rates are for CPAs, then it would make sense to me to keep that money in state rather than going out of state and keep that circle going within our own economy.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I am not unless that's a majority opinion, I'm not inclined to hold up the vote. So anybody else?

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: No. I think it's imperative to get this over to commerce, and I I have a whole problem with the financing of this. I think the purpose of this committee is and it was referred to energy because it was for financing energy to save energy, to reduce energy. And that's our position is reduce is to promote energy efficiency, adding in the resiliency and so forth. It's adding to this. But that's the important part. And resiliency and controlling the water is really environmental. I think we move it over to commerce. I really have a lot of issues about money and finance, and he had buy down loans, buy down rates, and this. And he heard the guy from Springfield, he already had a stack of money of whether it be grants or whatever to redo the high school. So the economic portion of this is why we need to move it to congress.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So just to be clear, we are moving it to Congress.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Right. Like, that's what we're doing. Right. But whether it come whether it comes out with me at the negative vote or a positive vote on my representing my constituents, my one of my automatic boards, not hard to tell which one I was talking to, they want nothing to do with it, but that's their prerogative. That portion of the proof by the legislative body of the individual towns is their yes or no. Whether I vote yes or not, the select board and the automatic board still has their groups. What I did mention is, if you put out a thirty year loan and the board of the select board overturns, three f you know, nobody gets reelected because of CPASE. They can't rescind that loan that's gonna be on the books developed by the previous legislative body.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So So to be clear, you you're gonna vote no. And I Okay.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I'm gonna vote yes to get this over to congress.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Okay? And that the the issues have mic raised, and so it is the congress that is the congress issue. And so I'm approving this to get this financing of resiliency, energy efficiency into the works of CPASE. Okay.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think Mike raises an important point. Is CPASE 100% duplicative of a program efficiency Vermont is already running? And the two questions I have, I mean, CPAES provides lower rate loans, lower than market rate loans, and as we discussed earlier, has access to more capital than we could possibly ever use. If those are both also true of the Efficiency Vermont program, then there's a question of why now. Also true that 40 states have done this and it's been successful, and presumably, of those states have efficiency utilities that have copied up. So I am not gonna vote against it, but I just think it's a good question.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So, Ellen, I does it change your vote? No. K. Anybody else? Thoughts? We discussed this earlier today, so that's usually when we raise concerns. Anybody else have thoughts on this?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. I'm good.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Anybody else? K.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. That I want people to.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. Yeah. Okay. Right, Ellen, don't you walk us through the changes? I don't think I

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: was the Office of City Council. I have for you under my name today, draft 1.1, Retragal Amendment S138. The changes from the bill that you all discussed from the bill as it passed the Senate are highlighted in yellow. First, at the bottom of page one, this is where it lists the types of projects that can be funded by this. Upon a vote of approval by a majority of the legislative body of the municipality voting at a duly warrant meeting, The municipality shall allow for the imposition of a special assessment to secure private financing for property owners of commercial and industrial buildings. So I'll stop right there. I rephrase to the sentence to incorporate the resilience projects, the resiliency projects, and the water conservation projects. And so it said commercial and industrial buildings previously at the end of the sentence,

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: so I pulled it

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: up further so it's easier to read. So The words are what they were in the prior version, but I just reframed the sentence so it's easier to read. To secure private financing for property owners of commercial or industrial buildings within the boundaries of the municipality, to page two, for renewable energy projects, and that was already there, energy efficiency projects as defined, water conservation projects, and resiliency improvement projects. Below that is subsection C. Previously, the definition of district was on page one, but I've also pulled it into this definition section since you're adding other definitions, so all the definitions for this subchapter are right here. On page two, subsection C, as used in this subchapter, commercial or industrial building was already in here, but that's a residential building with fewer than five units. District is the hold municipality. And then resilience means the ability of interconnected ecological, social, physical, and economic systems to anticipate, adapt, withstand, respond, and thrive in the face of current and future conditions and disasters. Resiliency improvement means improvements that increase the resilience of a property, including air quality, storm water infrastructure improvements, snow and flood mitigation, energy storage and micro grids, alternative vehicle charging infrastructure, and fire and wind resistance. 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 the water used for drinking or cooking.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: The next page is the bottom of page three. These are the types of analyses that need to be performed. In the prior version, it was resilience improvements, so the defined term that you're using is resiliency improvements. And so that's why it's paid from my notes. Next, on page four, subdivision four. For new construction certification by a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm, stating that this proposed qualified improvements will enable the project to meet or exceed the energy efficiency or water efficiency or renewable energy or water usage requirements of the current builder code. And I do think you did you also asked me here to change that to commercial building energy code, build building energy standard in the cities. So I have another draft to give you where it has that change.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Oh, it should be not instead of, but in addition to it. Right? In addition to it? Yeah. So build the code and and commercial and CDs. Okay. See. Yeah. But

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Why can't we just leave it the way it is without mentioning the CDs? Because it's it's it's

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: It's a different code? It's it's a different yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's a different code. The energy code is

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: a subsection of the building code.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: No. See, we don't have

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: a building code. Code, actually. We have a commercial building code. We have a commercial building code. Yes. But CBs is not is not part of that. It's a separate it's a separate code. It should be in the same code,

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: but it's not. K. CBs. If we had a residential code, it would be in there.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Oh, that'd be the Right. Reseed it. Well, the residentials. It's complicated.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: You don't need to come this way.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. We won't come this way.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: But there is one other thing on this page. So at top of the page, something I I could feel earlier, and I and I should have mentioned it and and and did it, where it talks about recognized building standards. So the whole sentence is starting from the bottom of page three, where resilience, resilience and improvement of the gross certification by the EE stating that the quality of the improvement will result in further claims and reporting its state, local state, or nationally recognized building standards. And I guess I wanted to buildings seems just because we're also talking about site work here in this case. So buildings seems like it might be the wrong word to have. And I wonder whether it should be construction or maybe even just to leave it altogether. I just rather recognize standards. If you have any thoughts on that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I defer to your

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. Just take it out. It's the standards. Just take out take out the safety standards. That seems that seems right to me. Do you think, Caledonia?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I was gonna suggest everything after, but in accordance with with just get rid of the half that sentence.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: It works with with standards. Right?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: And just the that result in improved resilience.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, I see.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: like that idea just because Okay. More more flexibility for what resilient

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Okay. Can look like. And it's more just in line with what the analysis by the engineer is.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. Okay. Good. So central maintenance, I guess, like, lot of cost of cost. Dara and I were talking about this before we came out, whether we should be talking about resilience or resiliency. Should did you have preferences about resiliency? I

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: do think resiliency works because it's an adjective with improvement. Right? Not that. So, I thought it read better when I changed it on the prior page to resiliency improvement as opposed to improvement. So, I thought resiliency.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Can I ask your opinion about our definition of resilience? Like, I read it, I think it makes sense in the context of the implementation strategy. But I feel like when we're talking about commercial property, like, this feels like loftier than it would need to be. I wonder if we might wanna target it a little more to the fact that it's not in that buildings. You know? Rutological, social. Well, we we could say it means the ability of infrastructure.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Alright. Where are you, Dara?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm back on page two. Well, you know, the resilience definition. I'm just feeling like commerce is gonna read that and be like, Well, what we had discussed earlier is having a broader high level definition and then a more descriptive property appropriate list below. So that's what's there now. Well, yeah, and item three,

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: the definition of item three is what's on your on on the on the on action office.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: The thing is resilience improvements, This number four refers back to resilience. It does say up a property. But, yeah, I guess, I don't know.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Does this on four, does it mean we have including, and then we have all these other things. Does that exclude other things that aren't on this list?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: No. The broad statutes annotated has a broad definition that anytime the word including is used, it also means including, but not limited to. It's an include good list.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Okay. Good.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: What about if we said resilience and resilience improvement mean? They basically mean the same. Because that's how well resilient. So if you you know, if the committee Oh, well, then we could just not use the term resilience. We could just say resilience improvement earlier. I don't know. It just it's it reads funny to me in this context. Terribly concerned. Do you like it? Ellen, do you think it's necessary to have the broader, higher level definition of resilience? Or could we just I don't think it helps.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it is important to define resilience if you do use it in the bill. You have the ability to be more targeted in that definition since this is a definition that will only be used in this sub chapter. In places like this climate action plan, this would conflict. You can tailor it if you'd like to be more specific to property or infrastructure.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: You know, I'm okay with the double whammy we have here. People feel strongly about changing it. Suggest language. Yeah. I would suggest resilience means the ability of natural or built infrastructure to

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Dispaint that. Dispaint.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: And then Do you think all those things?

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: A little bit. A little bit. Right? But we say built and natural infrastructure, that could be like a green storm of effect. You know? So I'd like yeah. So I think that might be better. I just think that ecological, social, physical, you know, just a lot.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's the problem with that. I worry that infrastructure is too narrow because, you know, it's a building infrastructure or not infrastructure. I think of bridges and roads and transportation corridors.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And what about in the building? She's anticipated commercial business.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: But I'm

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: build buildings and parts of office.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We wanna make sure

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: it

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: covers. Right. Which is why we took the AC ability of

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And if it says infrastructure, comma, buildings, comma, and site, then I would Yes. Feel comfortable that we have covered the stuff that we intend to cover. I see. Also happy with the way it is. But

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Should we go on and and let Dara see if she can come up by nature?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. I think we should just I think It has done now. I think we should just do it. The of the buildings. How do we wanna say the site building sites?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. I give that a lot. Want to figure out. That's where we make if we make a spot for floodwaters to go. Right? So we make a spot that's ordinarily not it's a green area. But Right. But it could be It's intended as a as a overflow for

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Which natural infrastructure would capture?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yes, or also places that are left untouched for the purpose of being overflowed, so flood away, flood areas. And

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Does systems capture that?

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I think it's fine just the way it is. Right? Would would hate to influence something to avoid blood from being blocked or not used. You know? Water water gotta only go down.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Extreme. No. I mean, my my intention is is is to include that in something that is considered a resilient Right.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Structure or something. So they make improvements to allow for water to Into the stream. Upstream, reduce the amount of time that it Yes. Take to get it down. Or or or deciding not to

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: build in an area where there's where so that's in order to allow for floodwaters. Right.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Building with any associated Side Improved or unimproved. You know, site, improved or unimproved associated land.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So just to remind folks, you decide is fine. The reinventing the wheel paradigm that often happens in the legislature. We're now moving away from a definition that was pulled directly from the resilience implement strategy of the climate action office, which they would have taken testimony on, worked on, embedded. And I I'm just saying this is fine with me. I I really don't It's true. I mean, we're passing it on for further work. So it's been Certainly flagging. If you'd to work on it here right now, that's great. I'm not opposed, but there was some logic to taking it from the implementation strategy. So if we're gonna rewrite it, let's make sure we're not cutting anything else. I'm ready to just pass it on to them. And certainly have a conversation with anybody to see if they're like Where did you

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: guys get that? Okay. To give them

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: some history. We'll probably go introduce the bill to them. Yeah.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: The next change is on page six. Subsection f. The combined amount of the assessment plus any outstanding mortgage obligation to this property shall not exceed 90% of the appraised value, the as completed appraised value or the stabilized value of that property.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Second?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: If they were specific in wanting to be sure that it was a stated stabilized appraised value, not the appraised value as it is now.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. I I think so too. So I think

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: we should scratch the first appraised value. About exceeding 90% of the as completed appraised value or stabilized appraised or appraised stabilized value.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Let me just look and see. We have this testimony from a number of different people. We wound up closing back at, but let me look and see what the C PACE Alliance suggested. Venus. Last one. Yeah. I've moved on from Venus since that the list with the or thing was probably not ideal. Castle Green suggested the combined amount of the assessment plus any outstanding mortgage obligations for the property shall not exceed 90% of the appraised real property value of that property, comma, as stabilized or as complete. Let me look and see. We have difference. Okay. We have the same same language from Petros Pace. That's Michael Yacke and the C PACE Alliance. It was slightly different. Let's see if the chamber

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: let's see.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'd be comfortable with the language from the CPACE Alliance since they work across multiple states. Yeah. See. You guys okay with that?

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I think we've got

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: it all captured. If we

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: cross out the first, the appraised value, can we add the word appraised after stabilized? So it says 90% of the past completed appraised value or the stabilized appraised value of that property. Think that covers all the different parts of these various definitions.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: If we do that, I wanna make sure that Calmer sees the language that the CPACE aligned suggested.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Doesn't adopt the CPACE.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: In case it's better. And The CPACE. I I don't know anything about

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

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: It's just a better language.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I wish you That's what I meant suggesting. Let me just make. Yeah. Agree. Totally agree. Okay. Alright. Let me send that to Ellen. Thank you. From Michael Yaki. K. I just sent that to Ellen and to everybody. Alrighty. So we'll fix that. Okay.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: The last change is on page eight. This is regarding program administrators. The Department of Financial Regulation shall consult with relevant stakeholders, including the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Vermont Economic Development Authority, Efficiency Vermont, the Vermont Economic Progress Council, the Regional Development Corporations, and agencies from other states with CPA programs in order to identify appropriate entities to serve as program administrators. On or before 12/15/2026, the department shall submit a report on recommended program administrators to the House Committees on Commerce and Economic Development and Energy and Digital Infrastructure and a Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. Awesome. Alright.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So the only changes that I think in the end we're making are on page four. Right? Adding the CDs. Is that right? Other changes there. We're gonna substitute for sea based alliance language on page six.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Oh, we're also on page four to the top of the page. Were at the heart of resilience, we'll do the rest of that. That reward resilience, the very first line.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. We're we're

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: taking everything else out.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Okay.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Resilience period. Yep.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Sorry about that. Alright. So we've got that.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: How does that sentence read now, three?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: It ends at result in improved resilience periods.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Where resilience improvements are proposed, certification by a licensed professional engineer stating that the qualified improvements will resolve resilience. And a licensed professional engineer will follow local state and national standards. Is that what they do?

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: But that doesn't read that because they will.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Well, we assume that they will because if they know that they're basically using their license. Yeah.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Standards.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: You wanna go back to putting standards on there?

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: No. No. I don't. Oh. I don't. That's what I don't wanna do.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we're all good. So we're taking it out.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: We're gonna stop it?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Stop it.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Resilience. Resilience.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: And not mention any

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: That's right.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Any vaginal bleeding. Right.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: All good? I am. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Alright. So We are making changes on page four. Two changes on page four. We are making a change on page six. That's it. And that is it. Ellen, what is your current mind?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: I am in free until 03:30 right now.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So I can do this now if you'd like. That'd be great. Director Walker is not gonna be able to get us written testimony today. So what? So what time do you wanna come back? We can read and read. One minutes. Sounds good. So why don't we go off live, and we'll be back at

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: 03:00 to the both.