Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Alright. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. Yeah. It is Wednesday, April 22, and we are gonna have a committee conversation about the bills that we've been taking testimony on to see what the next steps are for each. So s one thirty eight, we're done with. That was our C PACE bill. We scooped that out and sent it over to Commerce. And I know that they have dumped that language into their economic development bill, which I believe is s three twenty seven. And I think they voted it out. So I am not sure where it is on its journey, but we are done with that bill. And I believe the only change they made and I haven't pulled it up to look at the language yet, but I talked to chair Marcotte. And I think the change that Commerce made was to allow the lender to be the administrator. We had had language in prohibiting the lender from being the administrator. And but we were kinda hung up on, you know, whether that was right or what to do, and we're hoping they would take a look at that, and they did. And I don't want to speak for the committee, but it sounds to me like they landed on the belief that asking municipalities, for example, to be loan administrators would be a real barrier to uptake. So I can't shed any further light than that. If anybody wants to check-in with colleagues on commerce to find out why they made that decision, you can do that. And I think it will be I assume it's gonna be coming to the floor soon. So, like I said, I haven't talked to chair Marcotte today, but he did catch me late last week to let me know they made that change. So as know what their number is? Think it says three twenty seven. And I think they voted it out. So whether it's just coming to the floor or It's

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: in ways and means right now.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: It has to go to ways and means. Okay. So that's that. Then s two nineteen, energy navigators. And I am just driving some notes here. So we've taken I think we've taken all the testimony that we need to take on S two nineteen. Unless anybody else needs to hear from anybody more. And we did get another round of public comment from Steve Meyer of the of SEAC in Addison County. And I hope folks had a chance to read his letter. Essentially, the pitch that he is making is that this bill does not roll out their program or mandate their program or expand their program statewide, that it is essentially $35,000 for a study. So, I'm not sure what thoughts folks have on s two nineteen. I hear his point. I'd be happy to bring it to a vote, and I would vote yes. But I do think we need to, at least for now, decide so that we don't spend time on further testimony in you know, if we're not gonna advance it.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Did we hear from the DPS on that one?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We did. Yes. I'll put back and see

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: what said. And

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: you remember what? I mean, it's it's kind of like they're already doing part of

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: the study. They are gonna issue their RFP. Their contract should be a couple weeks. In fact, that should

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: be about now. They should

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: be issued in that contract. We're basically doing the same thing.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: That was a nice question. I couldn't remember how much overlap there was on what they were already gonna do.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: This is what I did with complement what they were doing, which tells me it's doing what they're doing.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: They were sorry. I'm just trying to look. I thought they submitted more of the testimony. They did.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. I'm

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: gonna put this document.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Shoot.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I thought they submitted written testimony as well, but I don't see it posted on the website.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I'm sorry. I was just I'm. It's I

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: do wanna get, though, if they submitted written testimony, I wanna track that down.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: You is me. Oh, I read it. I think it's eight. Or I might have read it in the email.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Alex, can you look to see whether Alex from the Department of Public Service submitted written testimony. He testified on well, I'm not sure what day he testified on, but I also thought he had written testimony. I don't see it posted online. On the '2? No. S two nineteen? I think it

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: was on April 2. April 2? I have my notes here. They're available. He said one of the recommendations in Act 142 of Point Point Four was to take stock and take a comprehensive view of providing statewide energy assistance for the LIHCA and figure out gaps. He said he's supportive of the design approach that SEAC has proposed after they finish their program review. Maybe he was just talking about I'm not sure what he meant. Okay. Varying levels of coordination. So they have After their RFP, the department's RFP is out now, we're planning to do a mid October phase one report. And then the second phase of the work will be looking at a coordinating structure.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Recommending design of the course grant. Yeah.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So, I don't know, I didn't actually, I didn't write down, like, in support or anything like that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I I took away a kind of a neutral feeling. Yeah. Can see whether I and I'm gonna write to him. I'm gonna write to him right now and ask if he submitted for your testimony. Yeah. I'm just seeing

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: anything in my email.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Oh, I know what he was saying. He was saying that when you have comprehensive offering and we heard this, I think, from maybe EDT as well. And you make things turnkey for low income, you get good results.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I have DPS. Yeah. Generally supportive of exploring program design. That was very similar to what you said. Right? Dara? Have an RFP out right now to do a program review and recommendation with the report due in mid October.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I'm

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: gonna ask them to submit written testimony. We just do that right now so you

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: As Mike said, I had written down the R. T. Was out there to identify four contractors and contracted a contract signing in three weeks.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I don't have super strong feelings about this, Bill. I can help out strongly about it. I can go with it. My my inclination is to let PPS do its thing, and then there are gas. Am in favor of getting more information out there. It's for sure. We'll need it, but I'm sure what the that's what it's gonna come up with.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I just heard to DPS to ask if they had submitted written testimony. I'd like to get that on the record regardless of what we do.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I'm a little anxious anxious about

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: basing

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: something this technical on a volunteer base as opposed to people who have actually experience with building and building science and okay. That's that's what I'm trying to get.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Let's well, efficiency Vermont spoke to that.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. And that and that resonated with me when we just Yeah. Yeah. It's a it it seems I mean, I certainly need see a need for this kind of a role, But I I I wonder if it would be better strengthening the what what the labs do for the low income community, what EGOT does and utilities do for people who can pay for this kind of service rather than creating another director.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. I don't like redundancy. Yeah. Is the role of the energy navigators technical, or is it simply to be able to tell people Well, it's need an energy audit. Here's who you call. Here's the weatherization programs in the state. You can apply to them, etcetera.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, they start to get into project management and advising people about contractors and what what what bids what's the reform bids, what bids are better than other bids. So it yeah. I think there's there's a question in how far they are how far they will go. Just

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: looking back over some of the testimony.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I guess I'm sort of inclined to let ESD do its thing and review this next year. Whoever's here. Yeah. Right.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: My notes on Alex's thing was 02/19 was redundant. Why I'm.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. But Alright. Well, I've written to I've written to DPS because I can't find written testimony to refer back to. So why don't we wait to hear from DPS, and then everybody can review all the other testimony that we have in hand, including the most, the more recent letters from Steve at Siak and from Efficiency Vermont and Meadeo. And why don't we try to decide in a in a day or two? I'm sure we'll hear back from DPS soon whether we're gonna bring this to a vote or not.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Well, we hear from everybody else today. I mean, Scott's got some concern. I've got concerns, Chris. And we hear from everybody else. Mean

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'd like to hear from DPS just to make sure they're on the record. But so, Chris, were you're you're a I'm a no. You're a no.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: It's it's it's repetitive. It's usually old adage. The danger of you get what you pay for, and you may what you get for free may help you. You may get there may be a propensity to get the wrong information passed along. There's no risk to the person who's volunteered and can overstep their boundaries. I think there's enough organization, other places in the state to emulate if we we're gonna program, and we should have redundant Approved this.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. And remembering that this all this calls for is a study and then a pro design. So it basically just means that DPS would do its study, and then they would say, we've done our study, here's a program that we think could work, this is what we would recommend, and that would be ready in time for the legislature to take up next year. So instead of waiting for the department to do its study and having only that, it would be there would be a second step of saying, okay, we've done our study. Here's our report due in mid October. We now take this information. Here's a recommended program design that we think should work and that would be ready for the legislature in January. It could save it it moves the work one step farther down the field. So, I the thing I'm trying to think through is you know, forever's here in January, if the first question for the department is gonna be, well, thanks for your study. Now, what would you recommend? And they say, well, we didn't design a program because you didn't ask us to.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think that's what I want

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: to hear from the department.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: What exactly are we gonna will they be publishing in October? And if that's enough for the legislature to go on, great. Yeah.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And could we ask them also if they could just incorporate this in there, what needs to be so as you do in the landscape study, they'll capture this.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think they Existing. I think they Right? Already would. Yeah.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I guess just to clarify, because just I think it's mostly an appropriation, like, they need from us. Right?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, it's an appropriation. It's it's contingent. Right?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Which means? Yeah. It's no. It's right. The appropriation is contingent. Right? So

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: really the best way for this to be successful is if the department incorporates it to their what they're doing. Okay. That seems like the way it's gonna happen regardless of how we

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: do know what I'm saying? Yeah. We can ask Caledonia to come back in. I I'm still on the fence until I hear from

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. The department. So just I did not take

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the notes that day. I I didn't either.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I've asked him if he could just come back. Okay. Okay. So that's 02:19. We'll hear from the department, and then I think we can just either vote on it or say we're just, you know, say we're not gonna vote on it and let the senate know why, what we've decided and why. Okay. So that's that. Then water meters. Meters and water meters. Okay. Let me get that bill out.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: right. So this bill, I feel like this bill merits a vote. And I can tell you what I I can tell you what I think. I think that the general gist of all of the water meter language is useful. I I know a lot not a lot of people are gonna, you know, take advantage of this, but I think it's hopeful that water utility customers would at least have consistent option across all water utilities to opt out if they want to. Right now, that's handled utility by utility, so there's kind of a patchwork. It's not consistent. And so I think there's benefit to having it be consistent statewide. I think people who want to opt out should be able to. I do think that the customer should pay for it. And the the unresolved question I have in my mind, and we started talking about this a little bit today, but I I'm not sure I understand the answer, is who regulates the water utilities in terms of setting that price? And I do not know the answer to that. So if every utility can set whatever price it wants without any oversight, that's probably not great. I you know, I would tend to think they'd be fair, but there wouldn't be any consistency there either. And I I don't know. I should have asked Ellen to come in. I don't know. I don't know how that works. And I'm not sure that we talk about it.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I'll get back to us on the two way, one way issue.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. What were so what were our questions for Ellen?

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: It was

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, right. Yeah. She well, she hasn't come back in. We haven't had her back in.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: No. I didn't have any.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: So The I got the water meters or the one way information going out where the utilities have a two way communication. Excuse me. Okay. Where the electric meters have a two way communication. And we testified today that they had been using this power, which was also mentioned as a photocell. Yeah. But they're going now with the with the radios at somewhere in the 900 to 920 megahertz radio frequency movements. And went off of that device. It was continuous maybe twenty four seven versus there's some imprints on the Internet that a utility could just turn them on and off to get their data, the intermittent. And then they said, I asked them for the that they were using and they were supposed to get back to us. And the megahertz being he found the. That's the frequency that he he had tested. I think he had tested for the same frequency. There's another band in kilohertz on the Internet that they're available, and that might be the wavelength that they brought me for.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I'm catching up here.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: So I have some concerns with Burlington Water Company at $75 a quarter. They get picked on me when I said something should be socialized. So I don't I wouldn't mind if in electric utilities that they they recover most of their costs, but maybe not all of their costs. Are services that individual customers got when I worked for the utility, like, if you had high bill high bill complaint too long, they'd test the meter for you, but they didn't There was something that only tested once or quite twice a year, and I wasn't involved if there were 10 customers where we'll be playing teams. I take the $75 a month fee. And we had no control. There were no that was they testified they weren't under the PBOC for their water water things.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So I'm getting an email ready for Ellen. I've asked her question about what if any regulatory framework would exist for water utilities that would provide some sort of oversight or governance on what they could charge. I told her that we're interested, I believe, in specifying that electric utilities would have to go through the tariff or rate setting process. That may be implicit. It may be how it works already, but maybe we also need to put language in there. I don't know. So that's those are two questions for Ellen about, like, on the electric side and the water side, is there any is there any over how do we manage the rates?

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Wet head mentioned under current regulation they cannot charge. Correct. So if we're gonna permit them to charge, there has to be something has to be done. Correct?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Correct. Yeah. So on the water side, we're gonna give them the ability we're gonna make them notify customers. We're gonna make sure that customers are notified that they have the ability to opt out, and we're trying to figure out if we can have some control over what what they charge customers who wanna opt out. So that's on the water side, different regulatory structure. On the electric side, there already is state statute saying you can opt out, but electric utilities don't have the ability to charge customers. And that's what we're gonna change. We're gonna say the electric utilities do have the ability to charge customers. And we wanna make sure, though, that they have to go through the tariff process. And so that they're not just charging whatever they want, that there's some kind of Right. You know Justification. Justification.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So both Chittenden Plain Water District and Shelburne both testified that the opt outs are already in effect in the municipal water systems. Right. So did both of them actually go into saying if the language is left open ended, it can have unintended consequences for them in managing their businesses. So what does that mean, and how does that affect?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So so there that's two of our water utilities. I I guess, but oh, we're I guess I'll repeat what I said earlier. I I think there's benefit into having statute because then the statute will guarantee that every water utility in the state has to have a consistent approach. So no matter where you live or who your water district is, the law remains the same all across Vermont. So I'm I'm very interested in that consistency.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: They they use one way meter systems. Right? Right. So the way this is written down, it only applies to two ways. It's Yeah. That even apply to them.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, that gets to your question, and I wanted to to get that written down for Ellen too. Yeah. So definitions.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So definitions on page two. No. And then it repeats it in in the electric section, but all the electric ones are two ways now. Right? So that doesn't matter. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: On page two, lines, you know, 15, that whole section there, specifically line 17 says two way.

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

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So And it refers to that definition in the in the rest of the bill. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So on page two, line seventeen, eighteen, the language calls out two way.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Communication. Foreign company. They they go in that two way.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh. The only reason they were doing this, they wanted to be able to shut off shut it off, but they don't do

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: that. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: what we learned in testimony that not all water meters

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: are two way? One one way. Yes.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: One start one way. Yeah. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's So which one? So what else? I wanna be sure the bill captures both the current and future technology. Is that do I have that right? We learned that not all water meters are two way. Most are one way. We wanna be sure the cap bill captures both the current and future technology. That water utilities are used one way.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Just both of those entities don't feel it's necessary. Right. And I'm having a hard time with the water versus electric because electric is a standalone different all The water, the municipality, some of them don't even have meters. They don't even meter the water. Right. And now we're looking at trying to put legislation on something that they already deal with, and there's never anybody complaining about it. We don't hear of that. And and

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Take the water section out. Is that what you're saying?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, if the whole thing is to look at the electric electric part, because that seems to be where we're keying in on is those utilities. The water part seems just so minimal. I don't understand why we're gonna try and regulate that further.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Even regulated at all right now.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Right. But Do we need If we put regulation on it, that means somebody's gonna have to put an enforcement tool or mechanism in place. We don't have that, and we don't know who's gonna do that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We don't enforce it with the electric utilities. It's been statute

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: for a long time. The PUC complaint. So there's a there's a mechanism that they can go over with a complaint. Right now, there is not for the water, and it would create something, then we have to have something that's gonna be able to take those complaints and do something like that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think it was either Cham Kleppner or Shelburne has that there are multiple levels of recourse.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Within their own boards as

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: But I'm talking about at the state level because now we're mandating state law.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Thinking if a water company does decide to put in smart meters, someone won't stop, opt out. The water company says, alright. That's $75 a month. They don't have anywhere to turn to or relief from that.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: They go to their the board, the water board, and that's

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: it. Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So but if we put something in play and you become state law, and then okay. So if they don't get what they want from the water board, what's the next step for them? Just like with it? And

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't think that would be a problem because it would be state law that there are lot of job downs. I mean, the water the company would be breaking state law.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So I just heard those two in particular when they testified that there's just no need for this. And and that's I'm listening to that. Yeah. And you're talking about the largest water company in the state saying that it's not necessary.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I guess I'm more inclined to listen to Vermonters who might wanna opt out. So the companies are

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: But they cannot opt out on the water. They already do. I mean, they are both.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. If they unless they change their policy or decide they don't wanna let people opt out.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And it's those two that are lots of other water systems. Yeah. We don't know that they all are inclined to let people opt out. So there's yeah. I mean, we wanna protect people's rights to opt out, but we also wanna protect the other water rate payers. If a water district could make the decision that we're just gonna absorb the cost and spread it out by the other rate payers, which we decided didn't feel right to us on electricity. So,

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: honestly I don't think much will change for the water companies if we pass this, but it does guarantee protections for Vermonters. You know, like I said, we we heard from the two from two big water utilities, they're letting people do it, they're charging

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: You know,

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: or What they wanna charge.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: All we're saying, with the waters, they have to let people opt out. Mhmm. And they may charge them, but they're not required to.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yep. Right.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Notify, allow opt out, charge them if they want to.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Let's see if does any harm. That might do some good. Provide some protection against armed robbers.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So you said armed robbers.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: They can protect themselves.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we had My god. It's so hot in here. I'm just looking through some of my notes. Electric side seemed

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: clear. I think there was one part on the electric side that I wondered if we should ask Ellen about adding

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: pulling up with the

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: know, so so the electric companies will have the ability to bill as approved by the Public Utilities Commission. I think we should just add that last bit, as approved by the because that's how it happens. Think we might as well just say it.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I already I like my notes.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I saw that in other states have it

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: that way. K. Alright. So we have a question about the definitions. There was a question about let's come back to the cybersecurity thing. There was a question about previous On page five, we had a question about h five one five.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: And

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: then also page seven, line three. Line three. That incurring any charge or such removal. I think that we would like to think we talked about deleting this so that if you want it removed from your existing meter removed, that you can also have that option, but similarly, the customer would have to think about. Okay.

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

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: four.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. What's the second one?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Page four nine. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Here's the thing on page four. Fine. What is it? Fourteen and fifteen. 14. In regards to electric utilities.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, no. That's okay.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just one. Two way definition. It's where it whenever it's it's used.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Right. Okay. Okay. Then we're deleting reports that don't happen anymore. Okay. Back to the cyber. On page three, We took testimony from EDS that this language wasn't necessary, that ANR can already request this and that the cybersecurity council could do this if they want to already. It also does no harm to leave it in there. I did talk to secretary about this when she was in the other day, and they're sort of neutral about it, to be honest. Like, it's not necessary, but it doesn't if you wanna leave it in there to make it clear, fine. One reason to leave it in is that we had talked about whether we wanna scoot in there some language from h five sixty about adding legislators to the cybersecurity advisory council.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Alright. Yes.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I'm not for doing that. Really?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Adding legislators to the cybersecurity council?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Adding it into this bill.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: That's general rule. If if we wanna do cybersecurity, we should do that on a stand alone and add in what's wanted and make it clear and concise. Butting it up into this, when we sit here, everybody say it's not necessary. I need it. Let's just stick to what this bill is and not not to get any further. And and it's not a cybersecurity risk for the water. Everybody has testified to that, and I don't believe that it's necessary in this list. Yeah. If if

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: we leave this list, and and if and, actually, the whole thing about radio frequency communications off of any metering any metering devices. It seems like it would be good to put something in, maybe a finding or something, that these things there's no evidence that they

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: that they are causing the

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: problems. Just so this we're we're sending the message that that this is being this is being this whole bill is being done, and and removal of devices is is being allowed based on customer consumer preference, but not because they're injured. Right.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: It was the we have that study up on our website. Right? Folks wanna do that? Add a couple of findings up top?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I I think that would suffice, and we take those pieces out, Or or we

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: can leave them leave them in. It should be for the for the purpose of satisfying

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: the people who are concerned. But I think cybersecurity, if we're going to do something that with that, it should be on a stand alone, and we should look at that in totality, not just certain little pieces at a time. That's my opinion.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just one thing about this, though. This the cybersecurity part of the bill on page three is is not about individual leaders. That takes a step up.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Well, it's tied in with this whole bill. Yeah. The crux of it is it's tied to the leaders because it's invisible.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm not sure I agree with that. I mean, it's it's pretty common to have a bill that has

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. But if

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: you still provide

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: bits of policy. It's not

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: But when

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: That happens all the time.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Right. But

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: when you have people say that cybersecurity doesn't have anything to do with the water meters, it it's just the wrong avenue for us. It's the wrong vehicle for this. And there's always concern about cybersecurity. It's always changing. And if we really truly wanted to address that and add a person onto the council, that needs to be a whole separate bill so we can address everything that's a concern and get everybody in here to testify. I have my own concerns about adding more people to a cybersecurity panel, but that's a different story. That's a different topic.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I thought that we I'm back to the sorry. I'm changing I'm back to the findings, if we might wanna add some findings. I thought that we found the Department of Health report

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And and posted that as public testimony. Now I can't find it on our website.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: This reference is someone's testifying. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: But we found it well, I thought we found it. And Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I thought we had put it up on it.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We put it up on this website.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: It's like DPS is starting to wonder if we didn't hear him while he was testifying on another bill, and that was added in after. Maybe. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Let's find that and get it posted. Does anybody remember shoot. We just wanted to find that word of the prize. Does it sound like it would date to 2032? That sound about right? Sounds to the I

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: don't know. It's after that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I found something from February 2032, radio frequency radiation and health smart meters. Nope. You have electric utilities.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. Because that was the first round.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You're looking at stick there.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Well, this is what I pulled off, and I showed it to Laura and Laura says that, yep, the this was just the brief report, and there

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: was some huge report. There's big huge report.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. 200 pages. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's what I'm and I thought it was more It was a study that

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: was done. So one of the years that we reauthorized the cell towers

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

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: We had a big RF discussion, and so we included another study on RF and the Department of Health did this big report. And so I came in at fifteen. So it's after fifteen. I think it was, like, seventeen.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. I'm looking. Or eighteen.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I know. I'm also trying to find out.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: There's the

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: one from 2019. That's it. Okay. Where's that?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I just found it online, but I can email it to you to see if

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: it's going. If that's the one? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Send the link. Maybe we could add some findings like whoever suggested that. So Mhmm. Did you send it? Yes. Okay. Alrighty. Let me find it. Okay. Alex said they'll come in from DPS and testify. And you're copied on that? Can you just get them, like, as soon as possible? Feel like we even have maybe time tomorrow. Okay.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I am scheduled for Tuesday, but I can ask if it's switched. Tomorrow would be great.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: You can come in, I think, thirty minutes. Alright. So here's a report. Report to the Vermont legislature Produced by wireless technologies, including cellular telephones and FCC regulated transmitters. I don't know if that includes it's talking about wireless technology. No. It just came to me. I'm gonna send this to everybody. Tell me if you think this is the right one. I don't immediately see smart meters in here. Well, Ellen can find it. I mean, she's

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: there's one thing I Well, I think you found the smart meter one. This one is a a a larger one. Okay. Alright.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. And let me send this smart meter one to everybody. Okay. So, Alex, you have the big one, and now you have the smart meter report. K. Could you please get those posted? Mhmm. Okay. So smart meters are doing out those.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, here's what I've got so far. The question for Ellen of how are the water utilities regulated, if at all, what is the framework, and so who would regulate, who if anyone would regulate what they could charge for opting out? We wanna specify that PUC has to regulate, which, like we talked about, it's probably already how it works, but something like what Dara suggested, like, as approved by the PUC. So electrical. Nice. Slow.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: On electricity.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Uh-huh. So water is we're kind of at water we're asking, Alan? Like, how

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: does this We're gonna have a cup.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I'm

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: just gonna send him out.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: He's our safety officer.

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

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I don't feel safe.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Don't swap. Put

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: the put the pinball

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: on. Wanna swap. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: while this exciting project goes on, so I'm asking if there's an overarching thing, which there probably isn't. And then I said, or could we put in language specifying that they can't charge more than actual average cost, which is just a phrase I yanked from Lewis Porter's testimony this morning? From Webb? Well, Morris Porter

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: may charge which shall not be unreasonable or something. It's obvious. It's very subjective about what's reasonable and what's not reasonable, but at least it has something there. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I mean, there's

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: a objection of cause.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I think that's good verbiage.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. What Lewis said. Then similarly, we're gonna have the PUC making sure that they have to go through PUC stuff on the electric side. I've got a whole rambling question for her about the definition of two way and how and where that applies and it's throughout the bill. We are removing without incurring any charge for such removal in the two places it appears so that the utility could charge to remove from an existing house, like if you buy a house and it's on there, you don't want you can request it if you've taken off, but you you would have to pay for that if the utility wants to charge you. Then we have some interest in adding some fine a couple findings. And I'm just gonna say we have posted two studies on our mini web page. Web page? When was the one from the Department of Health? 2012. Of Health in 2012. 2019. That was

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the big one? Yeah. February 2012.

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

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: It's gonna

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: have Not supposed to.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: We want this other one to be posted under the pill. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: That sounds like that's where it went up, Alex. It's posted under Ruth, and we should make sure it's labeled Vermont Department of Health or whoever published the actual report. The data. Okay. Then how do folks feel about the cybersecurity stuff? I mean, I I don't have strong feelings.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: What did you do? I

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: feel pretty strongly about keeping an interest. I get it. Well, not this, but adding in the counsel.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Well, I feel like we have to keep one to keep the other. Do you know what I mean? We I don't think we we can take this out and then just randomly

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Is there another bill that we can put the cybersecurity council on? I don't know. I mean, we've been trying to get notification and involvement in the legislature and the judiciary for Ebb's? Yeah. The administration proposed it. So, I mean, when the Christmas tree comes back in theory, but, I mean, it's not really connected to the Christmas tree.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is the Christmas tree coming back? I think it is. Well, I think so. Let's look up there.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: If it doesn't Let's look up our tree. Christmas

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: tree. Our

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: tree went on to what's the number of the tree? H nine forty. It's an approach. So ah, okay. It passed finance. It passed natural resources. It passed approach. So it is quite clearly coming back.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Do they have anything to do?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't know.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Do

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: wanna look

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: it up?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: There's another vehicle for the cyber Stop. So I'm happy to take this out.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't know. I I don't think finance I'm just trying to find it, guys, to see. Well, anyways think they had anything

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: unless I missed it.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean, we could

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: 940. Is that the number that

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: 940. I'm just trying to see if anybody made any changes.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I I know.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Doesn't have time.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I have to roll it in.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So how are people feeling okay. Okay. So I just went through the changes I'm gonna request from Ellen. Water utilities, electric utilities, two way definitions, charges, adding some findings, clarifying that they don't know, that studies have found they don't was a health threat, nonetheless. We're allowing the opt outs. So it's kinda down to cybersecurity. Okay. Setting all of that aside, who's a yes?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay. Then I What's what's 213?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. 213. Just I'm we we're not deciding about the cyber so so setting the cybersecurity thing aside, who's yes. What

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: so the cybersecurity is aside?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just if it were. If it were okay. If it's in, who's the yes on the bill? The cybersecurity stuff.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And with the other changes that we've

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: talked about. Okay. Just arguing. Yep.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Here's what I'm requesting. Water utilities, we say average cost or reason nothing unreasonable. So we say something about they can't charge too much. Yeah. Electric utilities, we're gonna make it clear that they have to go through a tariff thing with the PUC. We're gonna figure out the whole two way definition deeply. We're going to make it clear that you can get these meters removed from, like, a house you buy. If there's an existing one, you can get that taken off, but you might have to pay. We're gonna add a couple findings.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: K. So So a lot of that changes, but okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So in that form, does the cybersecurity thing change people's minds? It's just It changes mics and things. Okay.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: We change know why it's even at all.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I think it just started talking about water. Oh, okay.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And I think advanced meters are more susceptible to cyberattacks than dumb meters are. So as we contemplate going forward with advanced meters, potentially, it does make sense that we want them to be cyber safe.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I mean,

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: what's the report you just sent around?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They're they're Yeah. As as of now, not connected to the Internet. Right. So any any attack would be would be somebody driving around and and somehow hacking into hacking into a a water meter that doesn't receive information. It does transmit information, but it doesn't receive information. It's yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I just want to reiterate number. Yeah. But I want to reiterate something really important that we keep I think we keep missing. This cybersecurity section is not about individual water meters. Yep. That's true. It's not about that. This this changes subjects a little bit and says we want to make sure that we have good guidance documents in place for public water systems. So we have to keep reminding ourselves that we've changed topic. We're not talking about water meters. They're not a cybersecurity We're simply saying that ANR can ask the cybersecurity council to develop best practice guidance for public water systems.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And we heard neutral testimony on that. ECS was like, we don't need this, but do it if you want to. So it doesn't it doesn't matter whether it's in

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: or out. Yeah. However Yeah. So I actually think we're not paying enough attention to these types of things. Actually, I think we probably should keep it in there. But what if we were to ask for testimony? Some more testimony

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: on it.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I mean, there's reports out there. I mean, like, mean, the AI report, I think, Chris, did you forward that around everybody? The vulnerability that we're looking at potentially with I'm

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: not sure who I forwarded

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

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah. I mean think

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: it was just as though

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: forwarded everybody. Yeah. Yeah. It's worrisome. Oh, yeah.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I mean, I definitely think we're under worried and under thinking it. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Riley Hughes with her hat on. Not probably. But is there someone else from the council that we should get rid of?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: No. I'm talking about cyber in general. I mean, like

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Oh, you mean, like, a cyber expert?

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, we could get Norwich back in

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. About, like Water systems. Water systems and other systems. So

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: No. I don't not on the.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well about that.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Spilling. Right?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But in

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: in general, in system yeah. Water, electricity. Yeah.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: We're at the time of year and at the time of session where there's, like, less and less vehicles leaving a station that can make it to the Governor's Desk.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So So you're that for this session? Yeah.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Like, I'm actually worried about this stuff a lot. So These are pretty minimal things, but, you know, at least pointing to them and, you know, the cyber council at least putting a legislative and judici judicial member on the council, you know, I mean, it moves us in a better direction. I mean, right now, largely polite. This doesn't feel like we're doing our job.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, so everybody heard I really need to decide whether we're gonna spend more time on this. So I feel like we're at a crossroads. So who yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. Not that I wanna bring in this part of the project in, but on municipal water supplies that are not regulated

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: by the PUC. Right. And

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: are they not already in aren't they using two wave metering or two wave radio metering?

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I I

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: don't think that was. I don't

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: wanna water.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: It's all gone.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: It's all gone.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: If we let's say that we go with who feels strongly that cybersecurity should remain in there, that we should tack on the language adding folks to the council and take a little bit more testimony so that we understand public water cybersecurity better? Who would prefer that approach? Because we have time to do that. I am fine with that.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: It's like that. Yeah. I need more testimony.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Would need

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: a little bit more testimony, but Sure. Okay. I didn't see. Okay. So just And then I look not okay with that.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I look at all of the testimony that we talked The Bramado World Water Association, Champlain Water District, Shelburne. There's not a single one of them that finds there's an issue and would support this. I just can't get away from their testimony because it makes sense what they're saying. They're already dealing with the opt outs.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They do it on a local This is this is not this is about the water system, not about the business.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mike, it's on just the bill.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I'm just on the bill in general. Mhmm. It it just find it difficult to try and pass legislation where there's nobody that says, yes. We need this. And I just find that difficult to swallow that we're gonna just, Yep, gonna go through. Don't care what it infuses me. I just find a very big issue with them.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And the water pieces. The electric pieces, they want it.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: The electric piece to me is a separate piece of this because it got added in as soon as this came up, then everybody goes running in to throw something on a bill instead of keeping it clean. We muddy it here. Electrical is different animal. I'm not saying I disagree with that at all. The water piece is what I'm having a problem with.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think the origin of the bill is the opposite, though. It's Started as water. Started as water.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Gotcha. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I guess I'm I'm fairly accustomed to it from my point of view, it's it's not that I don't care what the water utilities think. I just don't think it'll actually change their world much. And if we wanted to, we we we don't have time. And I'm not inviting this because I don't think it's necessary. But we certainly could have invited a whole round of testimony from all the people who want to opt out. So it's a dynamic we often see. Right? The company doesn't want to change their practice. They don't want to do the thing. They don't want to change what they're doing versus the individual who does want that. And I I just wanna emphasize, I I don't think this bill merits a, you know, a big human cry. I I think we just decide from my point of view, if there are 800 people out there who want their water heater taken off their house, I wanna make sure that no matter who their water utility is, that there's a consistent policy.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. And I and I understand that. That's more rhyme. And I agree with that to a point. But when the one person who was the start of this bill with their senator was invited to come in and testify and they would not.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, maybe they were intimidated. I

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. I would just say that if if it's truly something somebody's passionate about and wanna get behind, we would have submitted some kind of testimony, writing or in person. France?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: For what it's worth, I had this vague feeling since just went to spend some time on Burlington Public Works. They do have two way water meter communication in Burlington. Frequency AMI.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: So maybe then we'll just have to add the one way definition.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: One more data point.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Okay. So getting back to the cyber thing, rep Southworth, you might you might just be a I know on this bill period, which

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I I'm trying not to be.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know. I know. I'm just trying to figure.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Go on, man. Is listening to anything.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: You people are

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: not That's why it's difficult.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Who's not listening? Well,

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: everybody that raises their hands, yep. It's gonna go. It's just I'm listening to what the people have been testifying to and trying to understand why we can't listen to that. I

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: That's all.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Not saying I have a complete I could be a no on or a yes on this bill if we just look at different pieces of it. I

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: listened to the testimony, and I don't agree with them. Maybe I need to be more blunt. Like, if I I heard all their testimony. I don't agree that this is problematic for them, and then passing this bill would be a big deal for them to comply with. So I'm not trying to be a jerk. It's not that I'm not listening. I just I don't I don't agree with them. I I think this bill will be helpful to some people. So I'm willing to to say it in the water companies. I I heard you. I understand that you would rather not, but we're gonna do this. I which also happens all the time. I I am listening. I just I don't agree. I think we should do it. Do we?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I'm sorry. I don't recall. What did GMP said their total number of meters is?

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Around 80. 80.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: 250,000.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. 8,000. Thousand that are out. So 800. Over 8,000. 8,000. Over 3%.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. 8,000.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: The black cat's currently 32 at this point.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Opt out.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. 32 out of

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I believe that they have. They're not a

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: very They well, they're trailing in installation. GMP has been installed for a long time. So So

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So they've got dumb smart meters, like, Right? Lewis said they've got the dumb smart meters, and they're gonna move to smart smart meters.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And he thinks more people will opt out of that.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And he thinks more will opt out. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So getting back to the cyber thing. Yeah. Because Do folks wanna take more testimony? We could hear from the cybersecurity advisory council. And we could hear because we have not heard from them.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So we got 11,000 customers right now. They're at a third of a percent. So it feels to me like the percent of people choosing to opt out of advanced infrastructure meters for water is gonna not see it's gonna be in, like, most 4%. So I agree. It doesn't feel like it's gonna be a big bird from the water companies, and we're allowing them to charge if someone chooses to opt out. And if it's more than that, it means there are a lot of people who wanna opt out. So she feels like we gotta give them that option. So feel like there is value to I think we can protect Vermonters who wanna opt out as water systems start putting in more advanced meters to protect them, the monitors would want to opt out and give the water utility the right to charge or not as they see fit. Tend to agree. It does not feel like a burden to me on the water. There may be some upside, very little downside.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, so to really try to focus on your next step and not feel like we're all repeating ourselves including me, so I am not going to do that anymore. What we need to decide is what we're gonna do with the cybersecurity section. We either pull the whole thing and we don't address that, but I think we have some strong opposition to that. Rep. Sibilia definitely wants to keep it in and I think she'd like to consider whether we should add members. So, what testimony do we need to hear to make a decision about that? We need to hear from the Cybersecurity Advisory Council. And, who else would we need to hear from?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: We've got ANR and ADS involved in the cyber piece, right?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: For the council?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Right now it says that upon the recommendation of ANR, we already heard from ANR on this bill.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So for the council, we could hear from our IT and judiciary's IT.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I mean, we did hear from a member of the council.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Of the cybersecurity council? Yeah.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. So not Greenwater District.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. But we didn't hear two. Yeah. And Denise. Yes. And so the the cybersecurity council says that we would add representatives from the other two branches of government who are currently aligned to this. That's so, I mean, that that's that's

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: If you ever hear the saying too many people in a vault cause leaks, that's what I'm concerned about.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I'm just reading ANR's testimony. The agency's testimony in the Senate was largely focused on the cybersecurity provisions. This is ANR. Cybersecurity provisions in section two, we believe the language does not meaningfully change what already exists today. The water sector is represented and active in the Cybersecurity Advisory Council, and the council is diligently working to improve cybersecurity readiness and develop standards and protocols for the water sector. The work of the CAC and its ongoing support for cybersecurity preparedness for the water sector is of critical importance. The CAC is scheduled to sunset on 06/30/2028. The agency believes the extension of the sunset date of the CAC would meet the underlying intent of the cybersecurity concerns expressed in s two thirteen. So that's they're saying we're already doing this work, but the council is sunsetting in 2028. You should extend that sunset date.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And was that again, Anna?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: That was Brian Redmond. Uh-huh.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: The date of the council itself.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I probably bet that something's gonna be coming out with that sunset on the senate. They're not gonna sunset the sign of scared against this. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So here is my proposal. Why don't we allow a couple days? I'm gonna ask Ellen to make all the changes we talked about to the whole rest of the bill. I was gonna say, can we find another vehicle for the cybersecurity? Yeah. I you know what?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Let's do that. Let's just do that. But what would it be? I don't know. I will work on that. Okay. But let's move this.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So because there's there's the sunset issue. There's okay. So I'm gonna say for now, strike. Page three, lines 11 through 19. 19, read the cybersecurity council. We'd like to find another vehicle for this language. Sibilia is working on that. And maybe also extend the sunset date of the CAC and add a legislator and then judiciary. Add reps from legislative and judiciary to the CAC per the language. And what was your bill number? Do you know? Oh, I have it.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: 560.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: NH560. Any vehicle ideas? Regardless, strike it from this. Is everybody good with that? Send. Okay. Sent it. Okay. Great. We'll hear back from you all on that. So we don't need to schedule any more testimony right now. R. Sibilia has a homework assignment, which is to try to find another vehicle for this this language, H560, the sunset date, whole deal. What about that miscellaneous bill?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's what I'm looking at right now.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. The technical corrections bill.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: What's the bill on the wall that's really, is that for security purposes? H five sixty.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So maybe we can maybe it's not too late to stick that into the gov ops technical corrections bill. Okay. So that was oh, 02/2002. My god. We're not done yet. 02/2002. Okay. Two things about 02/2002. One is we have additional testimony from ISO. Let's talk about that. I sent that around. Should be posted. And I think that is the last scrap on 02/2002. Okay. It's posted on April 16 in the bill folder. S two zero two from Sarah Adams at ISO. Alright. Okay. So they watched and reviewed the April 14 testimony from UL. They understand now that UL 3,700 is a thing, not just a white paper. And they still request that we specify compliance with the latest version of I triple e one five four seven. Rep Southworth?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So I compared that letter against UL 3,700 to see if there was compliance with the way they wanted to be, and it's not.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: But then I just start questioning the I triple e is relating more toward rooftop solar and all that. Right. And I thought that that was exactly what we didn't want to do with this. That was just my end thought after I did Disney comparison and read their letter again. We didn't wanna make it so cumbersome that people wouldn't do it.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. Can you say more? About so the the I triple e one five four seven has to do with

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: It's more in line with rooftop and regular wired in solar panels into a a built, whether it be rooftop or an array on your back lawn. It's just it's more geared toward that, the way I interpret it.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: But it is referenced in there, something.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: It is referenced, but for only certain pieces of it, the way that it interconnects in the building and how it trips and so on. So it's it is in there, but it's not to the extent that they want it

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: to be in there.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And their their written testimony does say I triple a fifteen forty seven dash two two zero eight establishes the required settings and performance behavior that must be enabled to ensure reliable interaction with the electric grid. We got voltage and frequency rise, reactive power, and coordinated response. These are generally not intended to be putting anything into the grid, I think they do sometimes. Right? No one's throwing any power in the house, the things plugged in, but it'll be a small amount. Right.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And I I think, in all fairness to ISO, they're looking at this taking off considerably within the state. And with with Wright, they're thinking, okay. If everybody does this, all of a sudden, there's gonna be a power spike.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. If there's 10,000 people

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm just going by myself. I

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I understand where they're coming from. I just it's not addressed in UL 3,700.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm reading UL's second round of testimony. UL 3,700 requires that plug in PV inverters behave in a manner consistent with the technical requirements in IEEE fifteen forty seven and IEEE fifteen four seven point one for interconnection including voltage and frequency response, abnormal condition behavior with similar PIPV output protection issues.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: It doesn't go to two zero one eight. So that that's the difference. Comfortable with 37,000. And and I I would agree with that as well.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. But, Curtis,

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I just wanna see what Maine put in there because we have the same list of just to see. Okay. Maine. Because they've they've put theirs isn't law now. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I was gonna look up Virginia, but you're right. We're not the same. So mains is blocked, you said? Mhmm. Okay. I think Virginia's laws are much harder to read.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Formatting people. I can't even read. I literally can't even read, Virginia's. Alright. Come on. I will do a search. What's it called? What's the number? 15?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: 1547. 15472018. K.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Let me search it. You're searching Virginia for just 1547. It's not in Virginia. So,

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: they have you up 3700. Spell out 1547.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. So are we gonna put it in or not?

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I think we should put it in.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: The argument for putting it in is

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I I reviewed a a neighboring district, a person from Rutland, Vermont, query the senator. Senator sent it to me. I responded, he has picked out a particular model of plug in solar. And that plug in solar, it was the literature was pre 3700 passage. I don't know where the white paper was, but it had the controls that it couldn't export. It couldn't manufacture more electricity than the was used on the load side of the breaker. Yeah. So it didn't export, and that's what ISO New England's concerned about that if you if you plugged in something you bought somewhere else that didn't have the controls, that they could get Yep. X cord. Some piece of power. I doubt that they would drive the frequency or the voltage because it has to get the voltage from the system in order for the inverter to work. But I I think that by including this, provide controls that the imitation knockoffs don't just get plugged in. Know, I started to think about this. How long before they have a receptacle that's required and the plug that you can't get? How hard is it? Somebody go to manufacture a jumper and sell it on the Internet, you know, so they could have the conventional plug, and then you have a jumper to be there just as quick as plug exchange on your computer.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So the sorry. Just wanna finish with myself earlier. The argument for not putting it in is that we believe it really is already covered. The argument for putting it in is ISO continues to believe it's important, that it should be there, and I'm a little bit personally reluctant to just kind of open a little ISO on a safety issue. Me too. Rep. Sibilia? At 1000%. Yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And what what harm does it

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: do to? I don't think it does harm.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: No. It's not gonna make it any harder for consumers because they already have to get circuit and all that. It may make it a different requirement for manufacturers, but I think that's okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Brooks, go ahead.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I do have a question if I might ask I saw his rep in the room. I don't know if I have the answer. Is that alright? Sure. So, just the question of Maine's policy. Do you have any

[Unknown ISO New England representative]: I am not familiar with the Maine's bill. I know they beat Vermont to the punch, but Gabrielle Lina, Dara

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: but Martin.

[Unknown ISO New England representative]: I haven't seen it. I do know that Virginia has a report back on standards, so I think different states are doing different approaches. They will be in tomorrow if you want to ask specific questions too.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Sarah or Eric. You wanna? Okay.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I said no words. I said no words. I'm sorry. Sure.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: They're coming in tomorrow already, so we can continue to discuss this tomorrow. No, am gonna stab you with chopstick only, and so it won't be. Alright. So we'll continue this discussion tomorrow with ISO for five to six minutes. And then we can decide whether we're going to add the draft language that ISO has recommended.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Generally, it's important to be good.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Me too. I think we should just add it. But, yeah. We'll talk about it more. Okay.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I mean, I I don't care either way.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I'm just telling you what I read. Yeah.

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

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I interpreted it. That was all.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think close. Honestly, I think you're probably right. So I'm not really questioning. I think it probably is covered, but I I just don't wanna cut any corners, and I I just don't want ISO to ever come back and say, we've requested this. We asked for it in testimony. We haven't written testimony in, you know, when it comes to something pertaining to safety. So alright. So we'll discuss that with ISO tomorrow. Then the other question is appliance standards. We were making good progress and then we got hung up on motors. And, Alex, we were gonna need be needing more testimony on motors. The other thing we could do is I just I need to get a better sense of when our bills are coming back from the senate. Whether we're suddenly gonna get super busy because we could hang two zero two and just kinda wait for it and see if we wanna add appliance efficiency standards. Or we could resolve two zero two tomorrow, vote it out, get that one done. And then as long as we know nine forty is coming back, that's already a miscellaneous bill. And if we want to, we could add appliance standards to that.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: If you had H600 and S2O2.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Are you a no on h 600 or on the efficiency standards period? Like that that concept? Or does it matter where we put it?

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: I I'm not quite sure on the efficiency standards and placing that into legislation in anticipation of the feds removing the sufficiency standards. What we were having was a Yeah. Environmental, very conscientious senator, and I I just can't see that coming back from the Fed's reducing the the standards. I think that h that h six 100 is a little bit indicative in some anticipation of legislation that may not or changes that may not come down. In order for age 600 to take effect, the feds have to abandon everything, not just modify. Right, repeal. Well, I don't think it's necessary legislation.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So it doesn't sound like it matters where we put it. You're just you don't like the idea.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Well, not a definite no, but I'm with the, you know, movement underneath. Okay. Not necessary legislation.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. If

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: it is truly just changing the date, which is just updating existing law, and we don't put in electric motors because I think we don't have time to learn enough about them in order to put them in there, I would be okay with h 600 with just changing the date. But it would be a yes over time. Okay. Because it's just updating a date on what's existing long. K.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we've got I don't know about the whole idea. Yes, but not the motors?

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yes and motors.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. I'm a yes and motors.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yes and no motors.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes and motors. Yes and motors. Yes and motors. Yes and motors.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Generally, yes. And I don't quite know what the options are with voters. Is that

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We have to take more tests.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Not cover them here and then sort it out with a different bill next year because that probably the what would happen with voters would be done? Probably. Yeah. Okay. It would just be undone.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Work undone.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: It would just be another piece.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. I'm yes to end motors, but I'm not invited to the motors. For the same.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I just feel like I don't know enough about the motors. Yeah. So because we haven't I mean, we had we have appliance efficiency standard advocates asking us to add the motors, but I feel like we haven't taken testimony yet.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I don't know enough about them. Same. In order for me to get there, I think we have to have a slew of of knowledge thrown at us because right now, unlike everybody else, I don't know anything about them.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm. Okay. So I think the question is I don't wanna give up on it. So the the question I'm then debating is do we hold two zero two for a hot minute, take some take a bunch of testimony on motors next week and see, or do we pass out two zero two? I just need you to think about this. And then hope that we have something else to add motors to because I I do think I have not motors. Add the standards too because I I do I don't want us to miss our chance to do the standards. So I think we need to find out what's happening to h nine forty. Like, for example, if they didn't change anything about nine forty on the senate side, and it's coming back, and all that's needed from us to get that bill done is just concur.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: If change they it, then it's done.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, then it's done. Right. So that may not even be coming back to Yeah. Alright. Well, I think we need to find out about 09:40. And wind up motor testing. Oh, I saw 09:40. Think it's coming to the Center Floor. Yeah. You're right. If they didn't change anything, it's just doctor.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. 940.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: It's on the 9 doctor. A.

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

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Well, I feel like that was a good talk. So Mhmm. Can you just I I feel like we can finish two zero two, whether we then vote it or leave it hanging for a while. I think we can be done with two zero two Does everybody agree?

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: All we have to do is decide about ISO. We did a nice job. We did do a nice job in that build. K. So that's good. Mhmm. DPS is gonna come in and put a bow on energy navigators for us, and we just have to decide. You know, after we hear from GPS, I may be the only guest remaining around the table. I have no idea, but let's get them back in, see what we're gonna do with navigators. And meters. I just sent a whole slew of everything we just talked about to Ellen. And so when that comes back, we could do a walk through. And representative Sibilia has been tasked with finding a different totally separate vehicle for all the cybersecurity stuff. So we might that bill might be done. Listed done. Okay. Great. Alright. That no. That was good. That was really good. I'm sorry about the chopstick. I didn't actually deploy it.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm feeling like I might wanna wrap my shelf with it at this point.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. We we can go off live, we're back.