Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We are live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It's April 29 and we are here to discuss, walk through, and potentially vote out S two zero two draft number 2.2, which I think is posted on our website right now. And the floor reporter on this bill this bill will not go let me just confirm, Ellen. This shouldn't have to go anywhere else. Right? No.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It doesn't have any money in it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And I don't see any ways and means type stuff. So the one thing we just might wanna think about with our floor reporter, Rut Morrow, is timing. So if we vote it out today, it'll be on notice tomorrow and on the floor Friday, Tuesday, which we sometimes try to avoid just to and or if if that means you would have to be ready for full on Friday. So we could discuss markup today and vote it out tomorrow, which means it's notice Friday, and then you have until Tuesday to get your full report ready. So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's probably preferable.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Probably a little bit better. Okay. So why don't we go ahead and do, discussion and markup and plan on voting it out tomorrow. So I'm rep Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint Johnsbury.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Richard Bailey from the model too.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Christopher Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia, Christopher Howland, Rutland, four.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Graham Puttner, Chittenden 13, Burlington.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Laura Sibilia, Windham two. Great. And joining us on the roof?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Bennington Walsh with.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Great. Gabriel Lamoille down Franklin Martin.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Super. Ellen. Ellen Sibilia, Office of the Great. Do you wanna walk us through? Or Sure. Great. So before Ellen takes over and does the real walk through, I just wanted to tell folks that I I think, I believe, and everybody had a chance to look at this yesterday, that I got all the changes we had talked about to Ellen. And I guess as we go through, you'll let me know if I missed anything.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: S two zero two, strike all draft number 2.2. The changes from the prior draft are highlighted in yellow. Page one, section one, language is being added to subdivision C. This is the definition of plug in photovoltaic device. Already, subdivision C requires that they comply with the UL 3,700, Added to this subsection is that and is installed and operated in compliance with by EEE fifteen forty seven-twenty 18 and any successor standard. On to page two, Using default performance and setting profiles on systems with those developed by regional transmission and distribution system operators.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So let's stop here for a minute. Yeah. Rut Morrow.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So I need need 1547 as a and not is there any u l cert number, or is that the system?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: No. It's not.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Which one you believe is industrial electrical or electronic. Okay.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So that's just

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: There's an email from

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Sarah that that kind of summarizes what I'm gonna say. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, yeah, just to recap. So, the the this was a request from ISO, and we did talk about it some in the testimony. When when ISO joined us last week to talk about basically nuclear power on the ISO grid, all we kicked off our conversation with ISO by discussing the written testimony they had submitted, and and that testimony is posted on our page. And then I had a follow-up clarifying the conversation with ISO that I forwarded to everybody, I think, this morning probably. And we're gonna post that as testimony as well. But my my understanding is that I feel like we have two two buckets of safety requirements that overlap. And Ralph Southworth can speak to this as well because he's, I think, become our tech technical expert here. But UL 3,700, which we certainly took a deep dive into, has to do with the certification of the device to state of of the actual device to safety standards that will be credentialed or it will be it will meet UL 3,700 credentialing. And UL is not the only recognized national lab that does credentialing. So we're saying UL 3,700 now has this credentialing standard. Any device that you buy and use in Vermont has to has to have that credential, and there may be another equivalent lab that comes out with an equivalent standard, and that's okay too as long as it's equivalent. So that has to do with the actual device. And then we had ISO come in, and what ISO is saying is that they would like these interlocking but separate IEEE fifteen forty seven standard to also apply, and that relates more to how this safe device is installed and operated. And that was all that testimony we took from ISO about masking and how they interact with the grid. So we're making sure we're covering our bases here. Mike, did I miss

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. And 3,700 also speaks to how it is connected to the circuit and what circuit it's connected to. Yes. Whether it's a stand alone circuit or

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: a regular circuit. My takeaway from all of this, and I did read the ISIS testimony, and it's posted on our website for folks who have questions. But we are now covering the device itself, how the device plugs into the building, and how it is connected to the grid. So we've we've basically met the safety requests of the grid utilities throughout.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I feel like we've covered covered our bases. And another interesting thing that ISO noted in their letter to us and in their testimony is that what's what I think is interesting about this bill is that we have technology, safety standards, and legislation all all trying to move forward at the same time and stay in lockstep with each other or at least stay in sync with each other. And so you'll see it happening in different ways. You know? Utah, which went first, didn't even include a mention of UL 3,700 specifically because that standard wasn't even it wasn't even published yet. Then you see some of the later bills, including a mention of UL 3,700 because that was published in December. And now you see ISO in a way sort of getting on board and saying like, hey. We think this is equally important, but, you know, we didn't get to Maine in time. So Maine published their legislation, and let's not try to do all this retroactively. Let's catch these bills as they go forward. So you see you see everyone, I think, trying to stay in lockstep, but it's it gets a little complicated. So I I feel pretty confident that we're doing the right thing here. And I think you'll see ISO engaging with future New England states and their territory to request similar language to this as future states move forward, Bill. Did I catch everything?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Are you looking for are you looking for us to move this?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Uh-huh. Yep. Yeah. This is the committee just like, tomorrow's the vote.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: No. Tomorrow's the vote. So you're not looking for a motion now?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. Uh-uh. But I am looking for if you've got a problem with this, now's the time to speak up because by by the time we vote tomorrow, we'll be hoping that we can just vote it out. Okay. Okay. So that's the ISO language. Thanks, Helen.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Next, on page three, there's new language in section two, which is amending which is creating the section on the specifics for plug in devices. So on page three, there's a new subdivision g. A tenant of a multiunit dwelling shall provide notice to the landlord of the tenant's intent to install a plug in photovoltaic device in the building. The landlord may respond with any reasonable restrictions on the installation of the device or may deny installation.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Virginia. Right? It's not. Okay. I've wrote it, but it contains, Virginia requires at least seven days notice and then a period for the landlord to respond. They also, I don't think, allow the landlord to deny an installation. You have, what I took from Virginia was that they may respond with reasonable restrictions on the installation. Okay. So you have a a lot of options here, but you needed it one way.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm not

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: sure how you wanted this work with this.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: From our conversations, I think we wanted to allow the landlord to deny.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah. I think particularly because bill and the standard will require and let people work Right. In the building, and we don't wanna compel anyone to spend that money.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. After hearing Owen talk about the time frames, notice frame. I don't think that's a bad idea. They'll notice x amount of days prior to and then response to have a, you know, a reasonable time frame for the landlords to respond because they may not be right there. They may be somebody owns it and that has to go through channels even out of state. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's fine by me. I does anybody have Jeff?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well I think it's a great idea.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. What works with Virginia?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So Virginia so Virginia says landlords can't deny prohibited a tenant from installing a portable device, though they may require reasonable restrictions on the size, place, and manner and placement. Then the tenant is required to provide a notice at least seven days prior to installation, and the landlord may respond with reasonable restrictions.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I've not been a landlord, so I don't know what's reasonable. We have

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Ten days prior? I would think

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: fourteen. I would I would would think going for myself. Ten days. Is it ten calendar days or is it ten business days? And in the area of of Killington where many people use management companies, there's sometimes delays in just getting lacy driveways, sand, it's gonna cost them another nickel. Don't put down pretty much sand.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Ten days, two weeks, whatever. Yeah. I'm Okay. On the time frame just so I think it needs to be there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Let's just go with two weeks, ten days.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Ten days.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Ten days.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then is there a time frame by which the landlord has to get back to the person? Thinking of somebody who's bought one of these and has it, like, sitting, waiting to install. I feel like that landlord needs to reply in

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: a timely manner too. So right in the ten days.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Ten and ten. People.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. You guys okay, Finn? Yep. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm also thinking about how people tend to pull out one section of statute and rely on that. So I get there are a lot of other requirements in this section. I'm wondering if it just if we should add in subsection g tell me about install a a plug in, a PI to PV in accordance with since it's in this section for something like that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You mean requirements in the whole bill? Well, I think Don't they apply in the whole Not requirements in the Well, that's I guess that's

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: In this in this section.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Subsection a, maybe.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Maybe subsection f.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Whatever, Ellen, whatever you think. I don't wanna accidentally narrow it. I I just assume that the whole deal applies to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well I don't know. Just just something to so that somebody can say, well, I I did not one on I did notice last year. I bought yesterday, I bought one on on the Internet, and I gave notice. So what's the problem? Just maybe I guess I should just divert short circuit, but it may head off questions. And also to that, it would be, like you said, pick a key part in the bill. And landlord may just look at the last three words of that sentence and is keying on that. Yeah. So maybe we do need to have something that may deny based on reasonable or documented issues or something to that, but that it still leaves it open. I don't know if it's strong enough to.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sure. So what so we're wanting I I just wanna make sure I understand what folks are wanting. They're wanting to make sure that tenants and landlords know that all the requirements of the bill apply to this too. And that so can I get that first part right?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I guess I'm required. It

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: really is subsection a.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Just subsection a. Yeah. Maybe subsection a.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: If the device meets first the definition, that's how you'll know. Otherwise, it won't be considered a plug and foldable tag. Then subsection I on page two in two fifty six is about the maximum inverter capacity that can be installed and making sure that it's using a smart meter and securely fastened

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: or attached.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: The other things have to do with not being under the PUC's jurisdiction, not having the utilities have extra requirements placed on them. So really the requirements for the device are in subsection A.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Good. Is that okay?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Sure.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, also possibly f, but I think f also just worked in conjunction with this section.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. And then, Rick Southworth, what were you saying about mermaid? You wanna make sure that if they're denying, it's If

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: they're reason for a reason. Legitimate reason. Yeah. I'm saying I don't want that out there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. I think that's what you

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I don't know how to word that, so it's appropriate.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: You know, I wonder is the fact that they don't wanna deal with getting electricity to put in a dedicated circuit a legitimate reason to deny?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, I'd imagine cost Well

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: being amazing.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Reasonable restrictions to me would be if I were I'd say, great. You can have it. You pay for the installation. To me, that's a reasonable to me, we've Yeah. Covered that. That's probably what I would say. Great. Do it. Well,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: it was my case reaction period. May to my installation period for any reason or no reason. Yeah. Right. I think that's very open ended. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't So does reasonable mean anything? Yeah. Yes. But it would be determined if they went to to court, maybe. So currently, landlords have authority to deny installation of almost anything in a unit. There's various prescriptions on them in Vermont. So, like, any other appliances, landlords can currently say no to for without a reason.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Maybe I'm just overthinking that. Well, that's a. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Multiunit versus just a tenant in general. Like, what about somebody who rents a whole house?

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Must put this out the

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: back decker or long. Or

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Whatever the sunny side is. Virginia had four and five. They had a definition between four and five unit two, but restrictions.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: That was how they were defining a landlord.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: That's five or more units was Well,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: it's no landlord who owns more than four rental units or more than 10% of an interest in four rental units.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So it's was a healthy unit.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Good.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Ellen, what happens if we just strike

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Multi

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: unit. Of a multi unit well, just say a tenant shuffled by notice to the landlord. And That would cover your question if you're

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Renting a house for somebody.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Well, you're right. If you if you got a condo

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Condos are covered separately in here.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. And I wonder if

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: we don't wanna rewrite this to say a tenant shall not install a plug in photovoltaic device without the landlord's express permission.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Is that happening in any other state?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Think we should I I don't

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: like that. I think it makes it just that hair more restrictive. I Yeah. I feel like the overall context of this bill right now considering the market is that, like, this is gonna be hard to do. And so I I'm not sure I want even long as it doesn't have to do with safety, I'm not sure I wanna add language that makes it even that much harder. So you have to notify. You have to notify. You have to get permission. So, to me, the may not language starts on starts from a less permissive vibe. Yeah. Go ahead, Southworth.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So back to what Ellen said about there's no current state law that prevents the landlord from saying, no. You can't put that in there. So maybe going further just muddies the waters even further than it needs to be.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: John?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Think I'll leave it as it is. Take out multi.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Add the ten days ten days.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: From a landlord point of view, how would you look at that? Well, as long as I could restrict it and I start as onerous, that's fine. And some of these panels, you know, they're not gonna have room for a dedicated circuit. I mean, there's all kinds of the way things that could come up in this installation of one of these things. So we'll yeah. The whiteboard fees. So maybe we just leave those. That as is right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So we Success. Drop multiunit, add ten day ten day notice, add a reference to subsection a to make sure we're clear that all the other stuff applies.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: And if the landlord does not respond within ten days, is that assumed permission or assumed denial? Assumed permission.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do we need to Well,

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: we confirm if we have a requirement that they respond within ten days, I think we do need to say what happens if they don't. Often it is, if you don't hear anything, puts the burden of denying on the landlord. The landlord blows it off and the tenant has the green light.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, yes, Alan? What's Silence silence means

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: debate. So I think it could

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: go either way. Think it

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: could lead to a problem. If you have a position that you wanna take on this, you should probably write it in there. If So you want to start from the default that the tenant can do this, unless specifically denied, you could say that. You could also say the opposite. A tenant may not install without permission.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I like the latter language. The tenant, you know, don't they not gonna know that they can they need device that meets all these safety standards. They buy one off of the Internet. So if we simplify that whole section with just what Alan just said

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think it simplifies the section. Well I think it adds to the section. Okay. So it probably

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: with addition to okay. Yeah. Yep.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So it probably is going to read something along the lines of a tenant may not install a plug in photolithmic tank device without permission from the landlord. A tenant may shall provide notice to the landlord of the tenant's intent to install a plug in device in compliance with subsection A of this section in the building at least ten days prior to installation. The landlord shall respond within ten days with any reasonable restrictions on the installation of the device or may deny installation.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's better.

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

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Thanks. I'm sorry, I still have the question. What happened if the tenant provides notice and the landlord does not respond?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: They may not. Starting with stop.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. Yep. Sorry. But the landlord has to respond with restrictions. If the absence of response, there are no restrictions.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: They cannot. They may not.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: They may not.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: A lit a tenant may not shall not install a device without permission, and then the notice. So the default is that they cannot install without permission.

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

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: I don't know. I I'm sorry. I hang us up on this, but I mean, someone can request permission. The landlord can just ignore it forever, and they can't install. And ignoring forever seems like an observation I give people.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I think the landlords should have to respond. And if not, I think then it can go ahead and install. Maybe it's not ten days. Maybe it's twenty days or whatever, but I don't think we can just let people be ignored in their request to their landlord.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. Laura, do want me to respond? It

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: does not. It already says shall respond.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yep. Yep. Yep. Okay. You get into all kinds of weird Yeah.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's like, you know, what if they text you and you don't get the text or, you know, there's all does it have to be by certified mail so the landlord, you know, so the tenant knows the landlord got it or and if we had email or, like

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I've done the back of the check.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I do feel like we we are dropping into a bit of a rabbit hole. I mean, we're we're assuming a bad faith landlord who specifically blows off a request from a tenant to do something that would involve rewiring their unit. So for some reason, they're just gonna not fly to that. And then the tenant would be so mad that they would, like, sue because they I I don't know. I mean, I know that there were scenarios that happen all the time. Deny it. Yeah. I Right. Yeah. I I yeah. I it's hard for me to imagine if I owned a building that I wouldn't get back to the person, or that if I hadn't seen it, if I were traveling or didn't get the text or didn't get the email or whatever, I would also not probably wanna come back and find out that a tenant had rewired my unit.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And for context, there are some notoriously bad landlords in Burlington who

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: There are.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Ignore leaking pipes for months, multiple requests from the tenant. Now, you know, that's a bit different, but I can imagine a landlord just simply ignoring and ignoring and ignoring forever. And I think we can force a modicum of decent courtesy on the landlords by requiring the response. And, you know, by sanctioning them that if they don't respond to maybe as I said, it's not ten days, maybe it's twenty days, or maybe it's thirty days. But they don't respond in some period, I think that should apply permission. And that's the last I'm gonna say about that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Now that I've said it sometimes. Alrighty. So I don't agree with that. Why don't we just draw a poll? Let's not bog down in this ever.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think that I do think you should have to have permission. So who who would like to see that language in the bill? Okay. On we go.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: The only other change in the bill is the addition of section five, which is on page, five. You have already seen this language. This is the h 600 language. Oh, there's a typo right there. The this section is amending nine b s a twenty seven ninety five, the efficiency and water conservation standards and statute, and all it is doing is amending subdivision six to update that. In the rules, the commissioner shall adopt minimum efficiency and water conservation standard for each product that is subject to a standard under 10 CFR sections four thirty and four thirty one as those provisions existed on 01/19/2025.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So, this is all the testimony we took about h 600 and the appliance standards, which we haven't talked about this week. But this is as we kinda, I think, come to committee agreement on or mostly committee agreement on, this is the date change, not including the electric motors, which we didn't we didn't dive into.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Good. Good. Good. Good.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We do have testimony that are written testimony that arrived earlier today that I forward to everybody about the electric motors. I've not had a chance to read it yet, but I think we had sort of agreed that we're gonna move on without that piece unless people feel strongly. I'm gonna read the letter myself. I'll let folks know if I feel strongly, but I am getting worried about how running out of time this year. I don't wanna lose the bill or this underlying my budget.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So if everybody has no more questions about this, or concerns, then Ellen will revise. And, we could put a vote on the agenda tomorrow, and that would give you time to look on your full report over the weekend.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Sound good to everybody? Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks, everybody.