Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's loud up there. Okay. We're live. Thanks. Alright. Welcome back, everybody, to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It's Thursday, April, and we're gonna have a committee discussion of S213, an act relating to the use of advanced metering infrastructure devices. I'm Rep Kathleen James from the Bennington 4 District.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Chris Morrow, Windham Windsor, Bennington. Michael, Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland Gorge.

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington.

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

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: S two thirteen, what I was hoping we could do is

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we've taken some, you know, decent amount of testimony. I wanted to just skim through the bill and discuss it kind of section by section what it does, what it doesn't do, how folks are feeling about that particular section, See if there's any additional testimony we need to take or things we need to find out and just get a sense of the committee about where we're at. So I'm just I'm just looking at the actual bill right now, not at any kind of particular testimony. And we start out with, like, a a definitions section. So I I didn't really have any comments or questions on that. On page one and the first half of page two, does anybody have any is there anything we need to talk about with the definitions? Okay. All right. So starting at page two, I think that's where we get into the meat of the bill. So it starts out with just a legal definition of advanced metering infrastructure device. And then on page three

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah. Make a point, the definition here, and it comes up later. Just this question of two way communication. We heard testimony that a lot of the water systems are just one way devices. But then it references in the water section that specifically talked about two way. It's regulating two way, but a lot of them are just one way. And so that it's confusing to what this actually does if we have, you know, in practice, they're one way devices, the bill says they're two way communication. Mhmm. So I just wanna flag that. I don't have you know?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. Because it's not

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: like it sends something out to be able to be read. It's just they have to be in vicinity, and it just blips it.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: You can't communicate back to the meter. Yeah. That makes sense. So it's as opposed to the electric, which is

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Too early. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: As are we gonna remove electric from from this bill as we go forward? Well, I don't think we've gotten there yet. But no. But looking as we go through this bill, should we go from this point forward just thinking water? Or as we go forward, do we have to look at both water and electric?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, I see. Well, I know the electric utilities are supportive of this bill because right now they can't charge. So I removing electric utilities would really bum out our electric utilities. So I as we continue to go through this, I'm operating on the assumption that we would keep that in. Because I think from their point of view, it's the whole point

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: of the

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: bill. Right. The electric utilities would have to receive through the rate structure their permission to assist.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. They would.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: So all this would do if this if we continue is this would set the baseline for the electric utilities to

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. To do that. Charge for

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: opting out or whatever besides.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So, Brammer, so your question about the definition is that phrase two way?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Right. I mean, if we if the intention is to have this cover consisting, what are the utilities? Then you should take that out. Right. It's the one way. Or we only wanna make it apply to the the two way communication that needs to be clarified later in the water section.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So I think meter or advanced metering infrastructure enables measurement in two way communication. Okay. So I think that's a question for Albert.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So we heard from the largest water district, the Champlain one, that said they also just use water. Is that right?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah. Shelburne. Oh. Shelburne. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I think it's I I wanna flag this and keep going. Yeah. Because this is a question for Ellen about how we how this definition should be worded based on what's in the bill. So Right. So we're unclear about whether this is the correct definition. And I don't know where she got it.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. Because I'm forgetting which one, but they said that their meters aren't even considered advanced meters. Right. So AMI doesn't capture what they're determined. Right. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. So that's an Allen question. Alright. So let's keep going. So so we've got questions about that definition as it applies to the rest of the bill. Okay. So getting to the cybersecurity part. So we're switching in a way, sort of switching topics now because my understanding is that this now gets to a higher level cybersecurity question about not about these individual meters, but about public water systems. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: So ABS testified that basically, but they already they already did this. Yep. And I I don't see a need of having this in there. If it's already in practice, I mean, we're not gonna know every single detail that goes into cyber care cybersecurity protocol when it comes to water systems. That's why it's called security. So I I don't understand why we would need to put this in. And even ADS kind of alluded to it didn't really need to be there. So they came up with a language because it requested to a further number of partners.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I think what we talked about was the difference. I think it depends with how strongly we feel about it. I think it's the difference between ADS saying testimony where we could already do this if we want to and legislation saying do it.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: I think it's already in practice statewide, especially for the larger municipality of water system. Well,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: and we're not even saying do it. We're just saying the secretary

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The secretary.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: You know, this this cybersecurity question, not just related to water systems, but power systems, state IP. And I was reading this morning about these new generations of AI and cyber cybersecurity, and it it's really scary. This needs to be on our radar. Maybe maybe the last over the next session, but this is a very serious issue for all our systems statewide. So I, you know, I don't don't mind it being in there. I agree with representative Southworth, but I think that this is a a larger conversation that needs a deep dive. Okay. But that you know, that's beyond that's beyond the scope of what we're doing here this morning. Just that was my editorial. I was thinking on this. There are significant threats to the whole thing.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It certainly does no harm to leave it in. The ANR. Leaving the section in doesn't Doesn't. Doesn't. Just if ANR wants to request it, they can request it. No. Did you have anything you wanted to add about the What did you hear me, chortle? Cybersecurity advisory council.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, have I not suggested that, madam chair?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I don't think in committee. Yeah. Oh, yeah. No. I definitely think we need

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: to add the cybersecurity council on here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So another reason to leave it in.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Just a question I've been asking before.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Mean leave it off.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I'm I'm asking just rep Sibilia and pitch her idea that she's been, you know, murmuring about for months.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Years. Years. Yeah. Yeah. Years.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Didn't know she knew how to murmur.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: So yes. Oh.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, anyway, we have an idea. The

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: yeah. The cybersecurity council I would like to put

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: in here

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: and make sure that

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: all all that all that it does

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: is actually puts a legislative member on on that council, which we've been trying to do for, I think, seven years maybe. The administration even proposed at one point to be

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: What's your bill number? World, but it's

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I mean, it's not gonna solve everything, but it certainly would at least have the legislature aware what's happening. I'd have

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: to go for a look

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: at madam chair, which I'm happy to do right now. Okay. So

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: back to the pill

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: that I'm looking at.

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

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: We can just leave that piece in there, and and it's and we can move on and just kinda go through the rest of the pill.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. No harm. Yeah. But yeah. I have a

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: quick question about this section. The annual report that's referenced from the council, is that a report again?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. We should put that on our list of things to do. Did we hear it, Pepper? It also might be

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's h five sixty. There's a chair.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: H five sixty? Yes. Okay. Let's come back. H 560. So, basically, is is it even is it short form? H 560 might even just be a short form that just says that just adds legislative appointees to the cybersecurity advisory council. So, R. Sibilia has been trying to get this done for a long time, but she's seeing an opening.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. It is not a short form, but just

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: does. Alright. So, it adds both legislative and judicial pointees.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. So let's just, like you said, flag that and move on. And the cybersecurity advisory council report could be one of those ones that didn't that either came to us and we didn't have time to go through it, or it could have come to us and we went through it last year when we were getting started and nobody remembers it, or it could be that

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: probably a third option. Now I see it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's Is it posted on our web page? It's shipped 01/23/2026. 2026? Okay. So, alright. Great. Well, that's testimony we need to take. So, we could actually get them in, we could go over their report. We haven't had them in, have we?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I don't have no

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: memory of this. We could get them in, we could have them present their report, we could ask them about adding, you know, we would need to hear their testimony on adding numbers from on H560, and we can probably do that pretty quickly. Okay, so H560 plus January 2026

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: annual report. And that when the administration had proposed it before, it came from the secretary of agency of digital services. The previous secretary had proposed to add these things back in COVID times. Okay. We were down

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: at Room 10. So, Alex? Mhmm. Can you reach out to the who's the chair of the I mean, is it is it just secretary Riley Hughes, or do is it Yeah. That was there another chair?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's no. Did I say chair? I'm sorry. Oh, of the committee.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Of the of the council. Co chair. Co chair.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. And and Sean Naylor.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Sean Naylor was who had proposed it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Alex, can you please reach out to Secretary Riley Hughes and Sean Naylor?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: I think

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: he retired. Or is he back?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: He's back. Correct. He's back. I believe his last name. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: In their capacity as co chairs of the Cybersecurity Advisory Council. Tell them that we would like them to present an overview of their January 2026 annual report. And if you could find it on our webpage under reports and resources and link it for them. And tell them that we're also taking testimony on H560 and we'd like their opinion and send them that link. Maybe they come in next week. Okay. So is that that section? Okay. Moving forward unless I hear otherwise. Okay. Page four. Moon. Okay. We're in water systems. So public water systems, if you if they're putting in, these new meters, they kind of by right can do it as long as they provide prior written notice. Inform them of their users rights and allow the user to opt out and then charge the user for the cost of removal and old school meter reading. So I I haven't gotten to previously installed yet. I'm at we're putting one on your house. So thoughts, committee discussion? I'm okay with this. So I think it's gonna impact very few people.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. But it allows people who want to

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: pay the cost of doing it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. People And who want to can do it as long as they pay the cost. Because if they don't pay the cost, we're all paying

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: the cost. To the other rate payers, which

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: and those people that wanna opt out don't wanna pay the cost. Yeah. So I feel this is, you know, wind down. I should

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. You've mentioned that.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: And I don't feel that I think the way it sits right now, we should just leave it alone because we're either gonna have rate payers taking that cost or the people that wanna opt out paying that cost. They don't wanna be. So it's it's no win, and and I don't think anybody is feeling a benefit from that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Who's paying right sorry. Can you guys remind me?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Are a lot people can opt out right now.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's right there. Utility,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we're all paying that cost. That feels very unfair Where to

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: are we talking? Are we talking about water or electricity?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right now we're in the only the section of the bill that talks about water.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Water. And the utilities that we had come in were not PUC regulated water utilities. Correct? That PUC doesn't control their rates or rates or whatever. So what are we talking about? The water companies. The the neighborhood water companies are in my area. They're called fire districts that get well water distributed to a development center. And I don't know what their status is. It's automatic. I don't know what how they read their water consumption in the fire.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We heard from the Vermont Rural Water Association, and they represent three twenty members.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: If I remember correctly, they're not even metered, most of them.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Four zero three public community water systems.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah, we certainly heard the East Middle, right? Wasn't an example

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: of the Yeah. Ocean on

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Most are not metered. 3%, only 3% of 403 community drinking water systems are regulated by the PUC. Just looking to boil down their testimony. They focused their testimony from the from all the community water systems and rural water systems focused on cybersecurity, mostly.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: So then it gets into they're already back to the same as the other bill. The water companies are already in practice, in theory, doing this to appease some people. And we're looking at affecting the way that they can operate. So as technology increases, we're gonna be limiting them on what they can do. We already heard there's lifespan on the meters. So are we going to say that twenty years from now, when they have to change out a meter, the only thing available is an advanced meter? We're gonna tell them they can't. How are they gonna regulate the water to that person at that time?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, one thing I always say is that any bill can be changed by the next legislature down the road if it's become if there were unintended consequences, if if it's become a problem.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: It does affect the business model of these water companies as

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: it sits right now too. It does. I mean, the bill says the water system may charge the unit to leave in or not take out and hold one. So they don't charge their discretion. Right. So they don't have to change their business practice. And I guess that means we're really leaving it up to the water utility to decide what feels most fair to them, whether it's most fair to have the individual payer to have the other rate payers in their water district pay them.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I look at it from a consumer point of view. If, I am not concerned about the safe you know, the safety of these devices. But if my neighbor, for whatever reason, really didn't want them, I would want them to be able to opt out. I think it's such a small universe of people. And it's a choice they're making.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: why would the utility have to pay?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: So with that said, people are already opting out from having electric vehicles.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Right. We have that choice.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But you're not paying for that. That that's what I'm to me, the point is, like, I I I can't understand why the utility would have to cover the cost of that. It's it's a choice that a very small universe of Vermonters might make or might wanna make, and they should absolutely be the one to cover that cost. That is their individual choice, and they I think they should be able to do it, and I think they should pay for it. There's there's absolutely no way I could justify if I didn't want one of those meters on my house saying, hey, guys. I'm gonna pay a $100 to have something taken off my house because I I don't want it there. And it's gonna cost an extra $70 a quarter for them to come read it by hand. And thanks, everybody. You can pay for that.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Appreciate it. Metering me, and I'm still paying the bill. You

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: pay just as much for a gallon of water if you're one foot away from the pump as the the person that is five miles away from the pump.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's not the cost of the water. It's the cost it's the labor cost.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: No. No. What I'm saying is we socialize in the utility business. We socialize the cost over the entire utility. It costs more money to get water 15 miles away than it does to get it a mile away. So we socialize that. The person that's mild person, the that may not be 15, but eight or whatever. We socialize that. And so to socialize these opt out costs for any reason, there is an argument for socializing that because somebody had for some reason, isn't unhappy with what they perceive to be

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: A health concern. Yeah. I would offer a slightly different analogy. The people who don't want fluoridation in their water, and if they were to go to their water system and say, hey, I think fluoride has bad health effects on my family. Can you unflourinate my water? They wouldn't be able to do that, and they'd say, you know, you need to go get a water cooler and fill it and spray it. Water bottle. Do that.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Yeah. Buy a bottle of water.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: And it's a little hard to imagine asking their neighbors to pay for their bottles and their water cooler, but it they're worried about. So they didn't get fluoride water. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: So just not available. Do we have a test? That's a

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: little different, though. No.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: No. No.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I mean, that's that's that's I'm buying that. I don't why do you think it's different?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Well, because, honest, you can swap out the device. It's a one time thing, and there is recurring labor charges, but it's it's, seems like the burden is all is is tangibly different than having bottled water every day to once a quarter having some guys swing by and make your meter.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And the burn day big cost. Well, and that's the burn thing, I think, is important to for me, it underscores why I think we should pass this and leave it as written, which is that if we if there is no financial burden, I think, rep Southworth, you were some we had heard some folks being worried this would proliferate and everybody would opt out and that would pose

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: a problem. On both sides, no matter how you look at it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, just to finish my thought. So, would proliferate and a lot of people would opt out and then that would become I think that is about the odds of lightning striking, but it would, you know, become a problem for the business model of the utility or whatever. I think that risk is greater if there's no cost to the customer. So you at least make people think about it. Do they want it, if they want it enough, to have it removed from their house, are they willing to pay the cost? To me it seems so fair.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I mean, to your point, there's a cost and the question is who bears it? The individual who makes the choice or

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Anyone. Where's the cost?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Everyone on the system. So I think who who bears that cost?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And and who who do you go to if you feel like you're being unfairly charged? Because there's nobody looking. Right? Who looks at these rates? And who decides it's a fair charge? I don't really know. Like, would you do you end up at the select board or, like, what's your Your water commission.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Water commission. He talked about that yesterday. He did. You can come to us, and then Yeah. If you don't like that, you can go to select board. If you don't like that, you can

[Jenny Rushlow (Conservation Law Foundation)]: go to But

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: but he he that company has said they charge $75 a quarter Yeah. If they were the electric utility, and they would have to go through the rate setting process. And I find my immediate assumption was $75 a quarter for somebody to make a visit to a house. Well, if the guy has plumbing qualifications, it would be something. But but, yeah, that that do they make the opt out rate at such a rate to convince people that $300 a year is not worth a opt out of the meter?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: It's not just the cost of the person to go by. You know, they have to to alter their billing system. Right.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: That's too different. They still have to run the billing system for one meter as much as they have to for the other 3,500 or whatever, 35,000.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah. I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: think we need to remember too that the actual scope of this in the real world. Like, I I think we should vote this bill out. I'm okay with it, but this is not gonna be a huge, you know, Champlain Water District serves what did they say? 56? Now I'm just trying to reply.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Tens of thousands of customers, and they've had, what, three people?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Absolutely. Got a thousand to opt out. It was cost might go down a little bit. But, I mean, what think we what are we trying to solve here with this whole smart metering? Was that the public utility commission control the electric company? Is it were there AMI and and I think the perception of this bill was that there was radio frequency, high we don't we haven't heard testimonies from what frequency it is, but but the electric utility and its two way communications has had some sort of concerns when they came out whatever year that started to develop. These didn't seem to be lower frequency radio, k m f m type radio waves. You can't tell the local radio station, don't send your radio waves past my house because that's the way radio waves work.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. And

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: it's a technology that came just like sending your child your child to school to go in the door in kindergarten, you gotta have these immunizations. And I don't know what the procedure is for getting out or if there are procedures or health concerns for the population because that's the basis they're using is are they not health concerns? Seems to

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: be most of it. I mean, think the what we are trying to do is make it possible for the water utilities to adopt new technology as it comes online and to not have the small handful of people who have concerns make it impossible for them to roll out and technology will allow them to be more efficient, deliver their services less expensively, all those things.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because right now it's hit or miss. There aren't guidelines in place. So, through this bill, we would make sure that notices provided, which I think is great. So, customers would be notified. They would receive information about the device. They'd be informed about their rights. None of that is written down anywhere right now that that has to happen. And it would specifically allow a handful of people to opt out, opt out, and it would specifically allow the water company to charge for that. That that's the problem we're solving. None of that is written down anywhere. Right?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: And as we've heard from the electric utility side, the term cost, cost, or space.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Right. Mhmm. So as, you know,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: as Richard hits, it says two ways. So I don't think the the water companies are gonna adopt any two way meters in any any you know, in the next ten years or something.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: So And that's a

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: that's a basically makes it irrelevant

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: to them. It's a one word fix if we wanna include them by two way or one way. Just remove the word two way.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. We can ask I've got that flag to talk to Ellen about it.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Or we leave two way, and then it's irrelevant to them till the technology advances to the point where it's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, but when we move to the electric section, the definitions appear again. So I actually think you're right. I think that the definitions on this is Ellen, but I think the definition at the bottom of page two applies to the water part of the bill. So we need to make sure it's right for the water part of the bill. I see.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: So the smart meters are electric. We heard they went over the electric lines. Do they not not use radio waves? They did not

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do we move on to the electric part of the bill or should we stick on water? I'm I'm really trying

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: to go in

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: order. Yeah. Alright. Let's let's stick with water.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So right we're still talking about water. So, the final water bit is at the top of page five, which says that if you basically move into or buy a house that has one on it and you don't want it on there, you can ask that it be removed without incurring a charge. I actually don't agree with this language. No. I think that if you buy a house or move into a house that has one on it and you want it taken off, you should pay.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: So it's striking.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah. Just just like if you buy a house that has an ugly porch, you have to pay to remove

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: it. Right?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Oh, no. I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: don't think we'd strike all of section three because the previous sections are talking about when they're being installed. So the previous sections, I'll say, if the water company is rolling these out, there has to be notification. You have to be informed of your rights. You have to have the ability to opt out, and you would pay for that opt out. That's here's our new technology. We're gonna put it. And then section three deals with if the utility the water utility has already put them out and I buy a house that already has it on there and I wanna ask for it to be taken off. So that it addresses a different scenario. So the only part I objected to was that the the cost. I also don't think the water utility should have to pay for that. The homeowner should pay for that.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So just so I get a sense of whether we need more testimony and where folks are at, like, who supports

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Can I

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah? Just ask one question about that. Are we gonna stay consistent with the language above that the water system may charge the user for

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the cost? Yeah. And that's what I would wanna do.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah. Okay. In in that case, thank you. I think that is wise.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And it would be whatever we said. May charge the u yeah. May charge the user for the cost.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Of the alternative device and and any additional service charge required to offer for the alternative device. Yes.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara, did you agree? Well, are we going to electric now? No.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Not yet. Because I wanna know how people are feeling about the bill. Just on the water. Just on the water part. So I'm at a yes. Yes. Yes.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Just as written without any additional language at all?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: As we just all talked as

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: we just

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: talked about for what

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Fixing the definition

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Adding a bit about user pays. I'm not even talking about the cybersecurity part. I'm just on, like, water with the changes we just talked about. So something's wrong with the definition and the things we talked about. User pays, whether they're putting it in or whether you want it off a house you just bought.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: I just kind of have an issue with just this being dropped by one person as a concern, that one person does testify. Yeah. We're trying to make this an all encompassing change, and I just I have a hard time with that. K. But we have one person that brought it. They wouldn't even testify for whatever reason, and then they now want whatever. But we're doing this huge change in the way people operate their businesses because one person brought up an issue. And is it

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: a huge change then? Seems like Yeah. Been this already

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: in practice. Is it really?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Well, that's what I mean. Why do we have to put

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: in law if they're already doing it

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: in practice? Right. Well, that I agree with, but I don't think What

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: we're putting in law is we're giving the water utilities the right to charge if they so choose. Right. Which I'm not sure is clear they have now. It's not clear, I think. So I think that is a helpful clarification and worth.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: But it's an option. That's what I meant, Vicky. Exactly.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Yeah. I'm fine with it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I'm I'm fine with it. You're fine with it. You're fine with it. You're fine with it. You guys?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: I I could be. I just haven't wrapped my head around. If it's just the water piece, then I

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: would probably go ahead with him.

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

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: I I would probably support that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Scott's on board. I know I talked to him earlier.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: I'm not quite sure that it's needed at all. K. I mean, that's what we had. I think we had that question when it came through.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: So if we're trying

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: to pass something, probably okay to where we are. Right. Okay. Are we are we do we

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: have a version 1.1 on this,

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: or is it as issued?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: This is as past the senate. They never made any changes.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Sorry. The last few senators, I

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: was trying to find the version 1.1. I'm on the I'm on the right version.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. As passed by the senate, we haven't done anything with it. Okay. So electric. So now I'm on page five. Okay. So here we have the same definitions. So this one could be fine for the electric utilities. Right? That's the way they think? But I think that we need to flag the whole question of definitions for Ellen anyway just to make sure they're all right.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Okay. Good.

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

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: I have a question. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: So the the radio waves are concerned about on the water part just because it's inside the house. No? Or

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. Yes. That's what they said yesterday. Yep. It's inside the house. Well And

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: some are outside.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But some are some are outside, some are inside. That's what it sounds.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: They they they testified. They I think it was the Champlain Valley said that if the meter was transiting in the cellar, that they may have trouble getting through the foundation, all of the dirt out to get to their receiver. Imagine their receiver being in a car, a vehicle Running. On the road, and they line it. They they mention line of sight, which that's I don't know. AM radio goes line of sight. FM can bounce off the bounce off the clouds or or so forth. So that will lead it down to the radio radio frequency. So then they put a rebroadcast or out on the side of the house if they can't get through the

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: Well, that does that that

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: moves it out the outside?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: It's still a it's still a I would perceive that it would be a, like, a rebroadcast or, like, the Wi Fi in my house that I have to, put a thing in an outlet that picks up from Right. One and increases the signal to broadcast it further through the the house. So so they use rebroadcast. And but if you want me to comment on what I learned when the electric meters were being introduced.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, we're at electric now.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Yeah. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We achieved electric

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Right. When I when I attended conferences, AMI was the the big thing. At that time, CV took and used a meter that communicated to your neighbor's meter and on down the road until it collected so much data or couldn't reach something. And then they put a collector on the side of the a utility pole, and then that would then rebroadcast through the system back to whatever collectors and substations and the like, but it was a a feeder system. What Green Mountain Power old Green Mountain Power did was they used some cable integration and but I never heard power line carrier in in the communications of of were were used in that in between the meter and the utilities collector. But I wasn't I was only an observer because they were on the utility pole. You know? And I just you go to the conference. You have to pick that session to go to.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: So, you know, we're this question of wired versus wireless support, because it comes up here again. Like, it says advanced metering infrastructure device, and the definition says wired or wireless. But then if you look at b one on page six, it specifically says, for prior written notice that the device will use radio or other wireless means. So, you know, it's only a problem if it's a it's a radio or wireless meter. Right. Going through the power line the way it's written. This isn't even it's kind of con it's there's some internal contradictions. So we

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: In the definitions.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Because we

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So I mean, it it you can't you know, they they the the electric wires come into the house. Right. They want electricity. They can't get rid of that.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Right? So we're only talking about if it's a wireless or radio communication.

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: But, again, that's not at least that's what it says in one, but the definition includes both. So we're we're back to that question.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. When I think we should have Ellen come in to review the definitions and do, like, a MARGO or something.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Some of your utilities haven't gotten to the point where they're all AMI anyhow. Like, we're still in the process. Right. So

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: are those those you're actually reading the number on the device, or are those radio?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: We we can we can BEC are both in the process. I think BEC is a little bit That's a Uh-huh. That's a they provide a bulk power to the Their members. Maybe we need They do they have transportation. Retail customers. Utilities.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: No. They're Maybe. None of them are are radio, are you?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Well But

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: they all. You're the ones?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Me maybe we Yeah. We just need that conversation and I don't know what to say.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We hear from office. Oh, great.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: We heard reading out

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: the power, I believe, and GMP. Guess.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: Look. It's mostly the water being electric meters are all on the outside. And what guess I'm trying to figure out what the concern is unless you're standing by the meter. Isn't that where the only radio waves or Is there radio waves happening?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: One would think they have to be broadcasting forward to the street if they're doing the drive by reading. Right? So not towards the house. We do have the health report posted on our site.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm just looking at this bill who we've heard from.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Yeah. Okay. I've had meter reader at my house for English.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We heard

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: Well, probably my utility moved my meter out to the street so they could just read it from the trunk. Smart people. Yeah. No. I know.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We heard from that.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Solves all the problems, doesn't it? Yeah. Like, no one's worried about how to put it out by the road and easy for them. And Yeah.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: That's it.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: But, I mean, the the rate the AMI meters, aren't we don't they need that for the solar? Yeah. The net metering? For net metering and all that stuff that can work or not?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So on s two

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Smart meter comes with about eight channels, I believe, and and so they do all sorts of of reporting. Right.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: But they need that type of meter

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: in order Well, it was in this bill if you had was it in this bill that you no. It was in the plug in solar that you had to have a Like, you had to have a smart meter in one of these bills somewhere along the line. You had to have

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I I seem

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: to remember that the fact that it was running their AMI or the automatic reading meters through fiber back to their. What? Not on bees. See, I'm sorry. Bees. You know?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alex, I think we can we get a witness list on this? Because I feel like we've heard from more people that provided written testimony, which is really becoming a major bugaboo for me.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: On s two thirteen?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I the only written testimony we have in the folder is from back. K. GMP was just here in the room, and I think they're listening online, and I'm I'm sure we can get rid the testimony from GMP. They're supportive. They wanna be able to charge. So we can get that in writing. But I'm wondering if Candice already spoke to this and we just don't have

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Just clarification on how that meter actually works. Is it connected via radio waves or is it running right through the power line and there are no radio waves at the center?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Yeah. I thought it was about power lines.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: But I mean, we have a 02/2012 testimony in our folder from the authority from this department of health. Okay. It says it's radio frequency radio.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: But

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: that's old and another source. Okay. So we

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: need to hear from Alex. Mhmm. On s two thirteen, we need to hear from GMP. Candace either needs to come in or we actually, we need Candace to come in. We wanna learn about their meters and how they work and ask questions and get their opinion on the bill. And I don't think we're best money will do. I think we need to just book a half hour and get Green Mountain Power in. And then we've already heard from Vic. Do folks wanna hear from Vipsa and what?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: We don't. I I respect just need that clarification.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: EMP. EMP. It yeah. It does say, just

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: googling, radio frequency mesh networks, cellular networks, or power line communication, PLC, to transmit the data.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So we need heard about that before.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I think we heard that before.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: You might be good to hear from one of the cause. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, we heard from Beth.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Even if we can just get written testimony, they don't need to come in. Just this question. How does it work?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: UPSA or WEC? WEC's not doing it. Right? They're in the process.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Yeah. They're switching over right here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So, Alex? Yes. We also need I'd I'd rather have him just come in so we can ask questions from my We also wanna hear from. That is Washington Electric, so that would be Lewis Porter.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Regularly had on today's agenda.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know. Yep. So And just tell them we are taking testimony on s two thirteen, and we wanna hear about WEX meters and how it works and what they think about the bill and So I'll put down GMP and WEC. Okay.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: And we're gonna speak with GMP GMP about their where they are today and where they came from and what they're using. Uh-huh. The merger between the CBC system and the Green Mountain Power Systems. There are two different types of systems when I was employed there.

[Jenny Rushlow (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yeah. I guess

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: 2000 late in the takeover of 2012, we can be able to take over CBPFs. Yeah. And so she may need to bring some meter tech with her.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Don't we wanna hear about the meters they're using now?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Right. So we Well, if they've retired all the if they if they're down to one means now, if they've eliminated all the wireless type that I think CV used in the 2011 right here. K. Maybe a meter only lasts twenty years like a motor. I or seven years or whatever I have.

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

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: I'll get your tag on.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we'll get GMP and WEC as next week. Okay. Where were we? So that okay. So Okay. So we don't need to hear anymore about the water part. We need Ellen about the definitions. Okay. And then let's keep talking through the electric part. We know we need to hear from GMP and.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah. That's the lab facility.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: We've finished what we're doing. We need to keep going. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. We do. So forward we go. Because I'm not gonna be here tomorrow, and I want Alex to know what testimony we can schedule.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So on the electric part, we basically have the same thing here. I know for I know for a fact this is at the request of at least GMP. They wanna be able to charge, and that's the nut.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: One question, Lamoille, what he says. So because it involves charging customers money, should we be hearing from our consumer advocate? Pardon?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: They testify on the scene. I I know Jim Border thinks so. He didn't talk about electric.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: He talked about water. Jim. K. I just wonder it because this is a change for the electric side, and I don't know that we've heard from this.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I just just wanna not spend huge amounts of time on this. This is a relatively inconsequential bill.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I mean, if we have other issues to tackle, that's my only concern about Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I I would say and always don't hand supporters

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: have somebody covered it. I just

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Don't forget to we're all empowered humans who can reach out to anybody with our own questions. So if you have an individual question, ask your individual question and and get your individual answer and share it with the community if you think it's relevant. Charging, that's what page six is about. And then we on page seven, we strike a bunch of old reports.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: And then there's also the the that I'm currently getting charged with suction level, which is same language you had issue with on the water side on top of page seven. Where's that, Mike? In number three on top of page seven. Oh,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: thank you. I'm sorry. Blew right past that.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Without insurance. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So alright. So, Al, she'll reach out to GMT and WEC. Rectory, if you get me additional info from Yeah.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I'll just double check the gym folder.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Or, you know, reach out to him. Yeah. Okay. Alrighty. And then oh, I'm sorry. And then we're also gonna hear from the cybersecurity council. We're gonna have them present their annual report. We're gonna get their feedback on this bill, and we're gonna ask what they think about us dumping $5.05 60 or five ninety in there. So we have three chunks of remaining testimony for this bill. Am I missing anything?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Five sixty. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Ben, thanks for waiting. Sorry. We had to we had to finish that. Of course. Or let me go. I had to finish that. Alright. Great. Thanks, everybody. Good talk. Good talk. Ben. Jenny. Hello. Hi. How are you?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Good. How are you?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Good. Alrighty. We are back to h 600. So let's all just have our heads spin around.

[Jenny Rushlow (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Does anyone want a copy of it?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Of h 600? Yeah. I've got one. Anybody else? No.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Okay.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I got one. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So where things stand with this, let's hear our testimony, guys. Then if we have time, let's talk about let's talk about h 600. And when Ben and and Jenny and Joey are done, if we have time and we're done, let's put together a remaining witness list for this bill too so that we can start hearing who we need to hear from still on this bill so that Alex can start reaching out to people. I think for sure we wanna hear from the National Association of Electric Motor Makers or

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: The email.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Staffing. Okay. So I'm gonna start a

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: the factor of the system.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm gonna start a list for this too.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Ben, for the record.

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: For the record, Ben and Julie Walsh with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group for. Thank you from for hearing from maybe from us again, this time on efficiency standards, and particularly the federal backstop that Vermont has in law and how this

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: would update it.

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: So I just wanna note upfront that some of what I'm gonna be covering is certainly information that you've already heard. I wanna emphasize certain things and flesh out others. Great. So if it's redundant, I apologize. And also that's sort of on purpose. So I wanted to just very briefly it's the only slide I have. You heard a fantastic overview of compliance efficiency standards from Chris Grande yesterday, but just touch at a very high level on a couple of pieces related to the sort of context that we're having this conversation in. One, these are standards that have five decades of history. They literally, the the first enabling legislation at the federal level celebrated its fiftieth anniversary last year. It was passed in 1975 under Ford, another piece of major piece of authorizing legislation that has sort of led to a lot of these standards you've heard about was passed in the eighties under president. Vermont's current backstop language was act 42, which was signed by governor Scott in May 2017. And that's obviously what this bill So you've probably probably recognized this. You saw the three charts I'm about to show you from ASAP earlier today, but I wanted to just dive in a teeny bit more than they were able to since they were covering a lot of other content that I am not. So why appliance efficiency centers? Like, why are these a valuable tool in our toolbox in terms of energy affordability and pollution reductions. They set a minimum standard, protect consumers from unknown costs down the road after they buy something. You see the sticker price, you don't necessarily know how much you're gonna pay down the road. And each individual standard can save American consumers, Vermonters, you know, dollars, dozens of dollars. But when you're talking about 60 standards across a wide array of products, which is roughly what we're at right now, you're talking about hundreds of dollars a year for individual consumers, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for businesses, and you've obviously seen these numbers from ASAP earlier today. So, you know, really at its core, this is about anything. It's about energy affordability and consumer protection. It's obviously also about environmental protection, and I'll get to that in a minute. Number two, there's another aspect of that, which I sort of touched on very briefly, but I wanted to just flesh out a teeny bit more, and that is the collective savings that these enable and result in. And I don't just mean when you have a lot of consumers that you add up those individual savings and it's a big number. That's also true. But when you're talking about energy efficiency, you're talking about a system that also is seeing effects from, you know, the massive energy savings that these are bringing. So when you're talking about a, you know, 200 peak in the summer, that would be 200 megawatts higher based on numbers. And I mentioned these when I was here on data centers. You know, that's about the headroom we have in our grid. So it's pretty unequivocally and I haven't, you know, GMP hasn't done an engineering study on or something like that on this, but you just look at the basic math. We almost certainly would have had to build a larger transmission and distribution grid here in the state of Vermont if these standards didn't exist at the federal level. And that would come with really substantial costs or repairs. Going forward, if you look at a world where potentially some of these actually are pulled back at the federal level, Vermont keeps them and not every other state in New England does, our peak load's gonna go up slower than theirs, than the other New England states that are not actually sticking with these standards. And given the way that we, as a state and our utilities and as a result, our rate payers pay into regional transmission costs, it's a percentage of it's like Vermont's percentage of the New England grid, and that's calculated in large part based on our peak load. So if we're keeping our peak load lower, we're paying less for reliability transmission projects in Connecticut and New Hampshire and Maine and everywhere else. So the cumulative effect of these in reducing the infrastructure needs for Vermont's grid is very substantial. And, potentially, again, we don't wanna be in this world, but if we are in the, you know, a future in which Vermont has more stringent standards because of these backstops, potentially, that could save Vermont consumers a decent amount of money on regional transmission costs as well. There's a bunch of other sort of follow on effects, but those are the ones that I wanted to highlight. Lastly, obviously, they also are incredibly effective pollution reduction measure when you look at all of the various policies and programs that have been enacted in The United States ever on pollution reduction. This comes in at number two, the second largest pollution reduction measure ever enacted in The United States behind only the corporate average fuel efficiency standards, you know, efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. I also wanted to this is another graphic. It's it's not one you saw this morning. It's from a a report. It's a little old now. They came out within 2013. I looked for a more recent one. I couldn't find one quickly. We you've talked a little bit in committee about the upfront cost, like what is the impact of having a standard on the upfront cost. And what you're looking at here is an analysis they did. You can't quite read that, it's refrigerators, clothes, washers, electric water heaters, anyway, different appliance categories. And then these last two are average and median values. And what they did was they looked at DOE cost assessments. Every time there's a federal standard, DOE has to do an assessment of what they think the effect on the upfront cost of an appliance type is going to be because the standard goes in place. And that is the blue line, the left side of each of these dual bar categories. And then the right is a retrospective look after the I don't know how many years, but several years after the appliance standards actually went into effect, looking at the real world prices and what the real world effect of the standard going into place was. And as you can see in every single case, the real world effect was smaller than DOE estimated. And in some cases, actually, you saw cost reductions after the standard went into effect. And the average and median, as you can see, essentially are nil. That doesn't mean that there won't be some price increases for some products some of the time. But generally speaking, the cost s the estimate of the upfront cost increase is pretty low from DOE to begin with. That is also apparently a fairly conservative methodology that overestimates the cost increase that you're likely to see. And I I will I apologize for not sharing these in advance. I can I will send along these slides, and I can also get you the report that this came from?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That'd cool. Yeah. Okay. So this is the what DOE projected was gonna be the price impact on any given appliance. Right. And then what it actually turned out to be once the standard was in effect and the market had kind of adjusted? Correct. Okay.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: So

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: I'm getting close to wrapping up here. So, you know, why a federal backstop? Why this bill? As you heard earlier, there's a whole slew of standards that the current Trump administration is attempting to and they're using different methods for different ones, but in one way or another, god repeal weekend, etcetera. Not in in every single case. Sorry. Let me restate that. Depending on the way that the Trump administration is trying to do that, preemption may or may not still exist. So there will probably if if any of this is actually successful and it will all be fought out in court, But it is certainly possible that there could be standards that are weakened at the federal level that courts allow that. We don't we don't think they should be able to allow that. But if they do, we may not be able to backstop them. But in many instances, preemption would ultimately not exist and that if Vermont backstop would go into effect. And it's I don't have the exact list that the Trump administration attempted to weaken or repeal under the first Trump administration, but it was a much smaller list. They're clearly going much harder at these standards this time around. They did this time. And so to the extent that there was a reason to do this in 2017, there's much more significant need for this kind of legislation in December. Obviously, the sort of core of this is if there's a consumer benefit, if there's environmental benefit, if there's an affordability benefit to having these standards in place, there's a risk to the standards being told that consumers could and and I wanted actually go on this point just for a second because there was a discussion earlier about, well, you know, are are manufacturers really gonna start making worse products because they now are not legally obligated to not to not do that? And my biggest concern here is actually similar to the one that you heard about earlier, and that is, you know, we have a global marketplace. There's 300 some odd million American consumers and billions outside The United States. And The United States appliance efficiency standards are among the strongest in the world. And so to the extent that there are refrigerators, microwaves, etcetera, being sold elsewhere in the world manufactured already, you could just start putting those on container ships, sending them to United States, and having Americans maybe save a teeny bit of money upfront, but pay through the nose in their energy costs. And that winds up being no skin off the back of the manufacturer that sold an extra microwave, but Vermonters end up paying the literal price. And then obviously, the more standards are pulled, the larger the cumulative risk, the more you're talking about those sort of grid scale impacts, if we actually talk start seeing, you know, significant, numbers of these pulled. And the last point I wanted to make is on the expanded scope electric motor language you heard about from ASAP earlier. This is the one standard that is not that was finalized under the Biden administration that's not caught simply by changing the date because of that odd sort of limbo that it sits in where it was finalized, signed by the appropriate official, sent to the federal register as I understand it the first day or two of the Trump administration, but then act never actually published in the federal register. And so it's in this sort of, this limbo. And by adding that extra half a sentence, you would be capturing that one last standard like you are all of the others with this federal backstop language and, you know, pulling it into to rule here in Vermont. And given the importance of that standard, you know, the the numbers you saw earlier just to translate it to Vermont. I don't have the gigawatt hour number off the top of my head, but I did the math. And it's a third of a percent, something like that of the total electricity in Vermont, give or take. It might not sound like a lot, but when you're talking about a single standard, that is you know, that's pretty substantial. That's probably thousands of UVs that could be put on the road and charged for that same amount of electricity, the same amount

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: of strain on the grid.

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: So, again, it's cumulative total impact when you're adding up all of these standards, but if you're looking at them individually, this ESM standard is among the more important ones that the Biden administration adopted.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: That's what I have for you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Questions for Ben, or should we move forward? Great. Ben, do you have I think you may have sent me contact info for me.

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: I no. I I'm sure Essex can get

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: it for you.

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: Great. I've sent you other information, but I

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: don't leave it for them.

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

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. We need to learn more about the I need to learn more about the electric solar power. Hi. Thank you for coming. Good morning.

[Jenny Rushlow (Conservation Law Foundation)]: It's traumatic. Here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm sorry about that.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: It's tropical in here. Little.

[Jenny Rushlow (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Let me try Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You can open the door if it's quiet in the hall.

[Jenny Rushlow (Conservation Law Foundation)]: We're having I'm fine. I'm just

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, I'm having separate control problems. Yeah. It's a long morning

[Jenny Rushlow (Conservation Law Foundation)]: to sit and listen to people talk about appliances and.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It is hot. We can't we're we've been from opening our windows and that little thing that work. I understand. Yeah. I'll talk about Shout out ahead. Yeah.

[Jenny Rushlow (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Great. Good to see you all again. I've been here before. Jenny Rushlow from Conservation Law Foundation. I'm currently the interim vice president for CLF in Vermont, former law professor and resident of Norwich. Here to support h 600. It's a simple but critical update to the state's existing appliance efficiency backstop statute and ensures that our residents and businesses are not left exposed in the event of sudden federal rollbacks of appliance efficiency standards and that manufacturers aren't faced with regulatory uncertainty and stranded investments. You've heard quite a bit of testimony in support of this bill, including very thorough testimony this morning from ASAP, and I would urge you to give great weight to their testimony. They know as much about this as anyone in the country. And CLF supports the additional language that they propose regarding the expanded scope electric motors for the bill. So we we endorse their testimony, but wanna take a moment to go on

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: the record

[Jenny Rushlow (Conservation Law Foundation)]: ourselves to provide some context for why there is an important role for Vermont to play, and hopefully add a few additional useful points. First, I wanna underscore that this is, at its core, a consumer protection law. Your average consumer doesn't have the knowledge or time or opportunity to develop that knowledge to know any more than the sticker price of an appliance when they

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: go to the store to

[Jenny Rushlow (Conservation Law Foundation)]: buy it. They I know, I don't, I think, and I'm I'm an energy professional. I think most people don't have the technical knowledge to understand whether when they buy an appliance, it's going to end up costing them twice as much a month because of the energy or water that it takes. That's simply beyond their ability. And so that's why we have consumer protection laws. As with many consumer protection matters, the government has a role in making sure the consumers aren't taken advantage of in that way. And the energy savings here are significant as you've heard. One way of looking at it is appliance energy efficiency standards provide the most energy savings of any policy, second only to the CAFE standards, which are in the transportation sector, kind of the analog, you know, the way of making sure that you're not using any more transportation fuel than you need to. And the associated greenhouse gas emissions are significant. If you think about the commitment that The United States made under the Paris Agreement, 20% of that commitment can be accomplished simply through the existing appliance efficiency standards we had in 2016. So we've had more since then. So this is a big bite out of what we've committed to do for climate change with standards we already have. So that that takes some of the the fear out of, you know, the ability to get to where we've committed to go with standards we already have. To say just a bit more about the federal context here, as you've heard, these standards are usually set by the federal government. The state is preempted from setting standards where the federal government has already acted. This means that states can do two things. They can regulate other appliances where the federal government hasn't done anything, And there are many instances where Vermont has done that and other states have done that, and that's very commonplace for there to be state appliance efficiency standards that may only exist in that state or in a patchwork of other states. That's already the case. The other thing states can do is serve as a backstop as we're talking about today. For appliances, they're already federally regulated in the event that that change, that the federal government drops those regulations. If that happens, those regulations no longer exist and therefore the states aren't preempted from acting on those appliances that they once were. So they can step in, ensure that the appliance standard doesn't go poof here today, gone tomorrow, despite the fact that the market has long adjusted to that existing standard. Very briefly on the legal background here, you know, this all started with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act or EPCA, one of the first and biggest energy laws we've had in this country, adopted, in 1975 under Ford. Energy laws can be passed for many reasons, as you well know. Some of them are for climate change. Some of them are for other reasons. EPCA is a law that came to be because of volatility in oil supply and prices. That is why that law was adopted. It wasn't because of greenhouse gas emissions. It wasn't because of air pollution. It was because of prices. And that remains highly relevant today. What a time to be considering this bill, given its history. Obviously, we continue to experience volatility driven by geopolitical instability and incredible prices. This program has only become more popular over time, and that's because of the broad coalition of stakeholders that support these standards. They are coalitions of states, manufacturers, consumer groups, utilities, efficiency advocates, and they've all joined forces in support of this program. Despite all that support, these policies, like many policies, are still subject to fluctuations in administrative and political priorities and we currently see ourselves in a downturn. Where we are now, you've heard that the Department of Energy has already proposed to repeal, I think, at 17 standards. They've also proposed to weaken a whole bunch of standards, delay a whole bunch of standards. But I wanna clarify that for purposes of h 600, that is not an issue that you need to worry about because a weakened federal standard is still a federal standard. The state cannot step in where standard has been weakened, only where it's been eliminated. So, not great that those standards are being weakened, but I want to make sure that that's some context with Zelle that is understood. And in fact, I mentioned a moment ago the broad support that these standards have. In fact, in the recent proposed regulations, several manufacturers and industry groups such as the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers did submit comments opposing proposed regulations that were being put forward to roll back these appliance standards. Congress is also considering legislation that would constrain the Department of Energy's authority to maintain appliance efficiency standards. And why are they doing this? I wanna acknowledge that there are arguments on that beyond what what I'm bringing here today. Why why would people not want these appliance standards? One, well, where there's optics to having less regulation, this is a regulation that we could have less of like anything else. The arguments behind these specific rollbacks seem to be encouraging consumer choice or allegations that efficiency measures would increase the cost of an appliance at the point of sale. And I just wanna speak to that and say, you know, what the research shows is that many products do not have a sustained price increase. And in fact, many products get cheaper over time despite the stricter standards. And if there's there's no argument that life cycle life cycle savings don't overwhelm any short term increase in the point of sale. And for that, there's a reason that there's such a broad coalition that supports these standards and that's because the facts and the numbers bear it out. I just wanna speak to two things that came up from committee members earlier today. One, ASAP testified about states with backstop laws, and I just wanted to reiterate that since I know that that was a question. There are six states with backstop laws. I mentioned two in my testimony, but research shows that there's six. One of those was just adopted last week. That was in Virginia. And then there in addition to those six, there are two bills being considered right now. One in Rhode Island and one in Illinois. I mean, I know that has quite a bit of detail language of all of those if that's anything folks wanna see. And then as to the potential patchwork of efficiency standards, I just wanted to point out that because states are not preempted from regulating appliances that don't have federal standards, there is already the patchwork of appliance standards where standard that applies in Vermont might not apply in another state. That is the status quo. So manufacturers are accustomed to operating in that environment and this bill wouldn't change that. So for all those reasons, I urge the committee to vote in favor of h 600. Thank you for your time.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Thank you. Are you gonna be did you send written testimony? I did. Great. I'm now I've now come fixated on written testimony. Makes sense. Great. Thank you. Do we have questions for Jenny? Okay. And, Joe, you have submitted written testimony. Right?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I did. Were you I mean, I'm I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: submitted written testimony just because I know you all are very busy, but I'm happy to read it if

[Jenny Rushlow (Conservation Law Foundation)]: it's helpful or just concur with what Ben

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: and Jenny shared on record, but I did submit it. It's very brief. Super. Is everybody okay then? Great. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Yeah. Really appreciate it.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Thank you all.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Why don't we I wish Rep Campbell were here, but I know he's down in the Senate. Let's just switch gears and keep getting our stuff done this morning. So, let's see. Energy Navigators Committee Discussion.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Let me

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: pull the bill up. Sorry. And while I am looking for that, I just wanted to remind folks that I think I think I know. I'm out tomorrow all day. Reb Southworth, you're out tomorrow?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: I will not be in. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Reb Southworth will not be in committee tomorrow.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: We don't have any.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: We don't have any. Look. It's your update to be done.

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

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we did add so education bill is third reading tomorrow. So so we didn't skip I didn't originally schedule any testimony because I thought education bill, I'm gone. You know? So who knows? But we did add something to the agenda for 01:00 tomorrow for folks who are here. And, R. Torre, can you fill folks in about what that is?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Sure. It's just, a new heat pump technology I learned about recently, and I thought it might be of interest to committee members because it's, it's in the window. Okay. So, it takes away some of the barriers. Super. It's being

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: piloted. UL certified.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I bet it is.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's up to you, You're gonna do that. And then next week, Alex will get our agenda posted. But for that. Oh, you're you're gonna love to share your screen. Well, I'm just gonna Which is fine. Next week, we have on two I'm gonna do this by memory. We have we're gonna be trying to book in testimony that we talked about on on water meters. So everything we just talked about. The cybersecurity bar and and GMP. So we'll try to cram that in so that we would hopefully be rounding the corner on s two thirteen. S two zero two plug in solar. We have Yeah. Written testimony has just arrived from ISO. ISO is still requesting that we put in that I triple e thing, and they have a letter that either just came to all of us or came to me, and I'll forward it right away. So I think that we can talk about that and decide what we're gonna do, but I think we're done take, otherwise taking testimony on 02/2002. H 600, we need to hear I I I need to hear more about the motors. So I wanna hear from. And I think that Ben had suggested a big California the leading manufacturer of these motors. Can

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: I ask that we hear from more than that? This this encompasses a lot

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: of products. Who

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: do you

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: want to hear from? That

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: would be something I don't have any answer to because this is something that just got thrown in at us and it's going to be big. It's not just a couple of little pieces. This is a lot of motors based on what heck little we've seen. And I think it's going to be quite the rabbit hole. Why

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: don't we start with NEMA and this leading manufacturer and then see where it takes us. Okay. Because I don't know who else to invite at this point

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: to Actually come from the Chase

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: have bearing on energy related products, you know, savings products, conservation products. So 600? Mhmm.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So help me understand. We're just extending the date.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. The the the you out? Yes. Okay.

[Ben Edgerly Walsh (VPIRG)]: Well, that's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: There's a request. That's okay. There's a request. There was one standard Sorry. No. That's okay. There was one standard for electric motors that are within many things. Mhmm. Powering many things. Oh, really? That got caught up in limbo. It didn't get approved. Right. The Biden administration did that. I anyway.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: It got all approved, but it didn't get published in the federal register.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So it's caught, like, this far from the finish line, and we have folks requesting that we do that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So the trade association is gonna come and talk to us.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. We're gonna start with the trade association and then

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: just go from there because I don't

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: know who else to ask at this point, Mike. But

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: I don't either. It's it's not just one manufacturer. This encompasses so many products that I I just I think we're gonna muddy up a bill that most of us are, if not all of us, are behind. And throwing this in there may change the way I can vote for it. It just encompasses so much and affects so much. I I I think this is late in the game if we're looking at trying to get a bill over time. Okay. We'll hear from Nima and

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah. Yeah. Nima represents all of the manufacturers. Right? Everyone from people who put their motors into the blenders to people who

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: make great dressings. Right. But I also want to hear from the opposition to me because they're obviously good about it, and I'd like to hear that side of it as well, you ask me if we can.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Think there's Vermont manufacturers who put electric motors into their

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: products. Would be nice to hear

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: from New England Air Systems.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Well, you take heat pump, hot water heater. That's got a condensate pump. There's a there's so it's going to affect our energy efficiency goals as well because it's going to do something to that. It's it's it's a spiraling downhill cost. And and they say it's gonna be offset, but it's still a cost, and you still need to be cognizant of what that's going to do. Is that gonna be a further hindrance for people to change over?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Can we start with Nina and see what I think? Because I I really don't know where to I don't know who to start inviting it till we've heard from their national trade association.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Well, one thought is I think I heard that there's another couple states that have taken that language. So they may have taken testimony, and let me get some

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, that's a good idea.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: He gets some witness ideas from the states that are Okay.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: We're attaching this h 600 to s two zero two. That's essentially what we're doing?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's the idea. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: And it is germane?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't know. I mean Okay. We're taking testimony because I didn't know if we want to do it. So I'm not Can you tell

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: if you wanna see if it's germane? Because if it's all germane, we're kind of

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I'll talk to Betsy

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Anne Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: For sure. I ran a buyer earlier, and she was non a little bit noncommittal that if we like it and we wanna add it, we can vote as a committee to add something that's not germane, but we have to we have to vote on that. We don't wanna just sneak it by and find out on you know? And then have some big floor wacky floor thing. So but we have if we like it and wanna add it with or without the motors, we can take that boat. So I'll talk to Betsy Ann today. I actually flagged I actually told her yesterday I wanted to talk to her about something that was this. So I just didn't catch her yet.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Well, that when they they mentioned the quarter horse up to three horsepower motors, I really think there are a lot of mini three sixteen horsepower motors that are out there. I think there are a lot of lot of little motors that well, maybe has that specification that they only build one quarter to three quarter, one phase to multiphase.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Alex, let's you and I sit down and figure out who we invite from NEMA. I'm they're probably just online and they probably have, like, a government government affairs person. Okay. What is it, the National?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: National Electric Manufacturers Association.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: What's National Electric? Which owners association?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Name it would be would be National Electric Manufacturers.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It was in today's testimony. Alex, can you look it was in today's testimony from ace ASAP, and they mentioned the name of the freight association that they said worked with the federal government on this rule. Okay. And if you could just find that and invite them. Mhmm. Okay. Alright. Good. I feel like I know what next steps are on H 600. So then alright. So next week, we'll take hopefully, we'll get in take our next step on h 600. We'll get our final testimony on s two thirteen. On Tuesday, we have a joint hearing with senate institutions about Alex, I'm having a moment. Sorry. On Tuesday, our joint hearing with senate institutions

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Uh-huh. It's on IRT.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. It's on yes. Of course, it is. It's on or enter enterprise resource Management. Management. Yeah. So if folks haven't read the recent article that was in Diggers seven days about that, do it. But we're gonna get a status update on that really important IT upgrade. There's been a change to the rollout, how it's gonna be rolled out, the timing of the rollout. And so we're gonna hear from secretary Riley Hughes and Lisa Govan. And Lisa's working on getting us information about how much has been spent today. So I think it'll be a really good hearing. That's on Tuesday. We're also meeting with Lisa to just briefly review the the very brief draft memo that she just kicked off our first time conversation about sending that to about the FY '27 ADS budget. And I read her memo. It's really brief. We can talk about it when you see if it says what we wanna say. I would probably reword some things, and it would be intent was that she wrote it as if it were coming from me. I asked for her help drafting it, but I think it would my thought was was that it would come from a not from me. So that is in your inbox somewhere, and I read it last night. It's short. And then then we're also having testimony next week on from ADS on the dashboard and the status of different how the dashboard is doing. I think they'll walk us through I think it's mostly gonna be focused on the actual dashboard. But we'll have an update on some of those important projects that we're tracking. And then most importantly, Gavan is preparing to walk us through the actual meat of the projects that she's tracking for JFO. So next week is kind of a big ADS week. So we'll be working on H 600. We'll be working on two thirteen. We'll have to have a conversation about the request from ISO on plug in solar. And I think we're also hearing from the auditor and building and grounds because the auditor did a report on the state energy management program, SEMP, and sent that to the legislature a while back, and I flagged it as we should take testimony on that when we have time. So the auditor's coming in, and BGS is coming in. And we're also gonna hear about Merck.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: And he was right about NEMA.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Ah. Okay. That was Never question.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: That was a 15 dash five plug that they called. That was a NEMA 15. No.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Just a mistake. Go. No.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Take the time. Go. Okay. You got it. Okay. So, anyway, so I I just wanted to take time to do that because we're on the floor. We're not gonna be back today. And then, you know, I'm I'm gone tomorrow. I get back Monday night.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: And Friday is contingent on being available at one, or are we gonna roll that back to two or three if three

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Right. If you don't go along. I think Yeah. I would just communicate with Alex.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I'll leave that up to you guys. You you know, if Floor is going really late, people may just wanna cancel. Right. We can get them in some other time. Yep. Okay. Finally, to the point. Energy navigators. I wish Rutland were here because he had some ideas about how we might want to pivot on this bill. But it's really just a committee conversation. I wanted to hear what folks are thinking about it. Oh, and we had I'm sorry. We did have some follow-up. This is actually important. We had some follow-up thoughts from Sia. And I pray that came to everybody and didn't get stuck in my inbox. Came to everybody. Right?

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: Yep. K. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: let's take a look at the most recent thoughts from Steve. And I wanna hear from you guys. I I don't have any prepared remarks. Curious to know what folks are thinking. I know what Rep. Campbell was thinking was that there might be a, you know, sounds like we think that there could be a proliferation of programs and do we want to shift the direction of the bill? It would obviously require taking more testimony, but why don't we start with what we've got right in front of us? So what are folks thinking?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Go around the room.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. You wanna go first?

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: No. Think it's duplicative of other services. I think it's another another path that's already out there, and I'm concerned about repeating too much. I think we have some organizations. And and we're funding I mean, we got an efficiency Vermont that has the electric side of the and the heat side is separated by the energy efficiency fee we pay on our electricity, and then they have their weatherization fees. Money comes from their ability to get money on the advanced marketing energy they save. So I would look at the expansion and incorporating this type of energy adviser, energy navigator in the existing systems that are out with throughout the state of the society and the leg throughout the fourth and the gallons.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Kathleen?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: For part? Yeah, it was good to

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: learn about what they've been doing over there in Madison County. Know, I think that different things work in different communities too. Like, there's a need we have statewide. And if you can customize in your own community, knowing your neighbors and their needs and add capacity on the local level. I think that's a good thing. So, you know, I guess I'm still kind of mulling. Think in this budgetary environment, I think it's gonna be hard to meet the operation request.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Nothing was in the budget, right, for this?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: That is not doing any funds appropriate.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 35,000 contingent. Yeah. We've been hearing a lot of

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Also, energy navigation is important. There are a lot of programs and they're complicated. It's very helpful to consumers to have something to guide them through the

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: hands. I don't

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: know that having a consultant design a statewide program is the best way to achieve that. Seems to me the Addison County Center, Adam and Steve in particular as leader of that, are more than welcome to share their expertise with other towns and other regions. I think any county who called up and said, hey. Can you tell us how you do what you do? They'd be happy to to to share that. And if the problem in Windham County is lack of money to do that, having a consultant isn't gonna help with that problem. So and to

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: not see a great deal of value

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: in this particular approach to solving the problem, the complexity of all the programs.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I I would say that I feel similarly, you know, that Two Rivers has I think

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: mentioned before a model where the towns have all invested to have a shared synergy navigator. You know, that collaboration is happening from the bottom up in that way and has delivered some pretty good results. Lots of room in this space. I definitely would like to see more supports and, you know, would like to encourage that. Think that model feels right to me in this moment. So I don't think that

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I can What's my work feels right to you

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: in this moment? The the one that I was referencing to your research. Yeah. Okay. You know, towns coming together with their coalition and funding that for themselves, either via contract position, and that's done They were they were incredibly helpful, instrumental in our municipal energy program as were the town energy committees and others. So, I mean, I definitely agree we want assistance out there. They just need the model. This is not.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: And I feel the same. And I just can't support the appropriations Okay. You know, the overall concept, probably pretty good, but not quite sure.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow]: I guess I'd like to know is what kind of programs are already out there being offered. And and then let's see what's there first so that we can figure out a new program or something can be designed probably because Yeah. I know whenever I'm doing energy improvements in my house, I'm always looking at everything that, you know, I essentially didn't make sure if I can make my house as secure ship as I can at a reasonable price.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Yeah. So

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Yeah. I generally agree. I think

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Well moment

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: in time, Brad. Probably don't need this item in favor of energy efficiency, information getting out there for sure. A little worried about some of the things we heard about the wrong information getting out there and that our people in the field who are working on this professionally having to go back and clean it up. That's the Vermont, you know, monitors on the receiving end of that in an awkward position and sometimes spending money when they shouldn't be. And that just creates more work for the people that are doing this professional. You know, the training the training aspect of this would be really important. I don't think you'd have the the money or the infrastructure to do that at this point.

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

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Yeah. I I would agree. And especially hearing the testimony from efficiency from from Neil, based on what they said, I I don't think that this is the right construct to to follow through on. I think they're the ones that are doing it. They're very good at what they do. You know, we heard in testimony that from SEAC that, you know, they have a hard time closing the loop. That to me is even more of an issue that I don't wanna go throwing money at. Appropriations are are the third reason that I don't, but based on testimony from those two entities, I don't think

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: that we should be going any further.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't wanna speak for him. Scott had an idea. Agrees that the navigator role is really important. He feels like it's something that could or should be done by town energy committees or RPCs. How do we systemize referrals to existing programs? So we would need to refocus the bill. I I'm not don't ask me questions about Scott's idea. That's Scott's idea. So but anyway, I just thought I'd toss-up. So there's another idea. So I wanna I wanna review all the testimony and just quickly remind all of us and myself of what the bill would actually do. So it does not take the SEAC model and roll it out statewide. It appropriates funds for DPS to work with a third party consultant.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Oh, that reminds me. DPS is already doing this study.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. DPS So That's some of the testimony I wanted to make sure our

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: future Sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. That's okay. They are delivering We have an RFP out right now to do program review and recommendation with a report in mid October.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: Yeah, and Alex said they were gonna issue the contract within a couple of weeks for PON E.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, generally supportive of exploring program design. And they're doing a report during October. So, it would build on or supplement or be in sync with the work they're already doing. It would build on findings from the review they've done of all the existing programs. They'll consult with a bunch of people, including Siak, and they will design a proposed program. So I I just wanna remind us of what this bill actually does and doesn't do. So it has DPS work with SEAC and these other stakeholders to design a proposed program that would be statewide and deliver a report on that proposed or recommended program next March. So basically, this is a study. Okay.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: Which they're doing already. Right? Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I don't really have. I I wanna look back at what DPS said, read some of the testimony over again. Like, I didn't intend to make some hard and fast decision today. I just wanted to get a sense of, like, does everybody wanna move this? Does nobody wanna move this? So I don't think we need to schedule any additional testimony right now.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: I already know where I'm at. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. And let's make sure everybody please read the written testimony from Steve that came in.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: I did.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Please read the testimony from ISO that came in on 02/2002. And at this point, it's just I think it's just up to us. I I don't think we need to have ISO back in. I think we just decide.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: So I mean,

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: if so you send

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth]: us a at that, and

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: then I'll look at it. I think, well, 3,700.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That would be really helpful.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Sent us email on ISO. No. Is in today's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: testimony? It's in

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: In the email.

[Rep. Richard Bailey]: Today. Email today.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Yeah. I was gonna say. So I don't always remember to check whether it came to me to forward or whether everybody already has it. So everybody already has the ISO thing?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner]: From Alex. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, from Alex. Great. Alright, guys. So we can go off live. The committee is back tomorrow at one, pending our floor schedule. Okay. Thanks, everybody.