Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Hi, everybody. Welcome. It is Thursday, May 21, and it's house energy and digital infrastructure. I'm Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: I'm Pamela

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: from Saint Johnsbury. Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington. Michael Southworth, Malignonia two.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Christopher Howland, Robin Ford. Garrett Pourre, Washington two. Graham Butler, Chittenden Thirteen, Burlington. Laura Sibilia, Windham two. And joining us?

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: Dan Fingus, Vermont Conservation Voters.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Johanna Miller, Vermont Natural Resources Conservation Voters. Great, so thanks everybody for being flexible. As promised, our agenda changes on short notice at the end of the session as bills are ready to be taken up. So just looking ahead a little bit, we've got, three bills still in play. Wait. Yeah. Three bills still in play. Oh, wait. First of all, congratulations on data centers. Yeah. Yeah. That was great. So I Good vote. Yeah. It was a good vote. And a lot of folks, especially rep Spillie, worked really, really hard on that bill. And it'll be off to the governor for his consideration. So that just feels like a really important step. So congrats to all. That was great. So the bills that are still churning around, we're gonna talk in just a sec about h seven forty. But we have two bills that are under active consideration by the senate. H five twenty seven, that's our cell tower bill, is third reading on the senate floor today. Third reading? Yeah. It is third reading. And as you're seeing, there's a lot of, like, messaging forthwith. And so bills are not you know, they're often moving, like, straight to the notice calendar. So could that be on the floor tomorrow? Yeah. They suspended also come to us today. Right? Yeah. So I would say on h 05/27, be ready for a committee meeting, you know, maybe even on short notice to take a straw poll on that. That's cell towers. And then h seven ten's single plant is on the senate floor today's second reading with, I noticed, a proposed amendment from senator Ingalls. So I guess just TBD on that. I'm just gonna be trying to keep an eye on the senate floor. I'm staying in really close touch with senators to just find out what's happening. It's you know, how quickly your bill's moving, but we should just be expecting that stuff is gonna be coming over fast. So speaking of fast, so h 07:40, we've moved it to this afternoon. It's gonna be up for floor action. And I've been doing a lot of kind of thinking and strategizing in my own mind about how we can make sure that this bill doesn't get hung up. And I am gonna ask for a motion today or ask for a straw poll on moving to a conference committee instead of concurring. I think the Senate is okay to do that. I think it can move quickly enough to get done and it would give us a chance at conference. One of the things that the senate changed was the funding. I know this is a long shot, but we're out of time to do proposals of amendment. I would love to see if there's if it gets shot down in five minutes, it gets shot down in five minutes. But I would love to see if there's conversation to be had about getting some more dollars in this bill, and that would be one of my goals. So with that, I think the plan here would be we can straw poll on the floor this afternoon. I'll report the results. And I think that we could probably expect that this will be messaged over and the request for a conference committee won't be a surprise to our counterparts on the South Side. So we'll see what we can get done, you know, as time runs out. So with that in mind, all those who straw polls yeah.

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: So so we are now taking a poll on Move to not concur with the senate.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Changes. Yep. And move to a conference.

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

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So yep. Right now?

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: Could we vote on up or down on on the senate proposal? A yes or no? Should we have a yes or no vote on the bill itself? And then depending on how it comes out of committee, vote for media conference?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't think so. We don't possess the bill. So all we're doing at this point is just that we don't own the bill. So all we do at this point is take a straw pull on what we recommend as the next action. So concur further proposal of amendment or move to conference.

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: Okay.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Where do we find the bill that will mark that to be?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: It was in yesterday's I've been working off of yesterday's calendar.

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. I I think I I can print something.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. You guys wanna print it out?

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Sure. I have I printed it with highlights.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: For anybody. Thank you.

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: What's changed? Who would I to copy? You?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Actually, I'll take one so I don't have the one I ripped out of the calendar. Sure.

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: I think that are you printing them out? Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Are you printing them out?

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. I'm printing them out.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And that actually, that was a good question about because I realized I don't we've really walked through through this. What are the options on the? Did you find the ones that they have?

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: I did. And there may be none of those ones.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Unfortunately, I didn't It's all chocolate chip. Already mixed with. Didn't think of it, so I've already

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: All good. Thanks. I really very much appreciate it.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I Did you notice the rye flour? I notice. So the rye flour makes it a little Mhmm. A little. A little less. And I I didn't use as much sugar as recipe. Mhmm. I read them reviews. I've done that. Too sweet. Thanks, Doctor. Sibilia. Okay. So Walking through the changes. There's one little change. Okay. So the first change that the Senate made thanks again, R. Bailey. I've been so immersed in this that I cut to the chase way too fast. The first change the Senate made is in the section that lays out the rule making authority for ANR to create the new greenhouse gas emission reporting program. The house had sent over the language that we sent over ended at fossil fuels by sector for the various sectors and by ZIP code, municipality, or the smallest geographic level practicable. And then the senate added something that I think is important that also protects the individual identities of consumers. In other words, we're not, you know, we don't want your household information. So I I think that's good change. And then we had had

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. The italics italicized language is is what they deleted. They couldn't find a way to strike it down. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: then we had had the contingency language basically saying that So we had no money to fill. And basically said, if funds become available, the work will happen. On the Senate side, they did add direct appropriation language. So, the money now rides with the bill, basically. So, this language sets aside 300,000 from the general fund to ANR to use to do this work. And that is base funding. And it is less than what that's why this is one of the things I'd like to at least talk

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: about in

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: conferences. Less funding than what ANR had said they need to do the work. And then section four, just a tiny little change. They are repealing the clean heat standard language. And that was added, I believe, as a floor amendment from senator Watson. So that's what's in the bill now.

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: Yeah. And then there's another thing.

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: They have a nice page. Right. That's yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: What's the story then?

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: Actually It doesn't have to do with the clean needs standard.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, so it was related to the seat. Yeah. So that's what the senate sent us. And what I'm proposing is that we move to conference. And I would, you know, move that on the floor of the second. For the purposes of zinc, I'm confused. Mhmm. Deal with that. One eight would Yeah. I think the money would

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: be a

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: lot of sense. I think the money would be good to talk about. One thing I might wanna think about is and I don't know whether it's but discussing the money feels important to me. So Okay. Alrighty. If folks are ready, we can take our straw full. Okay. So all in favor of moving seven forty to conference committee. There's 123456. And she's ready to stand. And all opposed? Six three. Alright. So thanks, everybody. I don't know when when how how quickly this will all happen or when this will be back to the floor, but I will keep everybody posted. And then I'd say, just depending on when we see 05/27 and 07:10, just be ready to come and have a sort of a similar meeting. Like, on 07:10, we've already had some decent amount of testimony, I think, on what the senate has done so far, which was, one main change was that they, I think, reworded that single plant language to make more clear the language that we tried to make more clear. Mhmm. And then they added the decommissioning piece. And like I said, there's a proposed amendment on the floor there today.

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: And I'll just say, I just read senator Ingalls proposed amendment, which requires an engineering study on lifetime costs and all this other stuff for solar that's gonna be cited on, quote, prime agricultural measures, unquote. We had some of us have discussed the fact that we both want solar on structures and second most on existing nonproductive open land and cutting down trees or putting up in ag land to lower here. So making it a bit more expensive to put on prime ag lands doesn't apparently seem problematic to me. I you know, I I wish it had been a little more specific to row crop lands because we know you can put solar up on the grazing land and have to be fine. But that's not what's under any rule of amendment. So

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: And the amendment does include a reference to a full spectrum of energy payback time and carbon dioxide.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Why don't we wait?

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: It's pretty burdensome. Right? So it'll solar out of.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Doctor. Howland?

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: How much experience do we have, you know, in grazing around solar field? I good. I I I would think that the larger end run into some of the equipment, but I don't know how. He can go to cheaper. Yeah. I go to cheaper things. Don't know if it's You know? It's not like bigger. Yeah. Because I think in New England, both the agrivoltaics are grazing land for smaller animal goats and and sheep. We do know that one of the biggest solar developments in the world in this Western Tibet Plateau, China built, like, a 160 square miles of solar. Oh. And then they jacked it all up 10 feet because they thought it was empty, but then they discovered there were herders who took their animals through there. So they jacked it all up to make that work. So globally, there's a decent amount of experience, different kinds of size of the animals. So And then the recovery of the packers with the shavings. And that means some sort of shavings. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Well, I guess we'll see what comes over from the senate. And when it when it comes, we'll make sure sure that we have time to understand any new any language that's been added. So with, like, with council yeah.

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: So where

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: did the senate find the money? They cut something else out or was just adding to the overall $9,400,000,000 budget?

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: You're back on July?

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We were talking single plan.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, I know. Yeah. Yeah. But I just Thanks for breaking. Well, when the

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: it's it's general fund money. So when we when the budget went over from the house, the natural resources committee was staying in close touch with the senate appropriations committee. So when they did all everything, they shifted around into budget. They included this. So it's not like they took it away from that to do that. I the senate made numerous changes to the budget, and this got popped back on the list.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And if I did I am I remembering correctly when we first talked about this bill, the secretary of K and R said there was no way she could do it either with zero budget or with existing staff, and then she thought or proposed stuff that she did not need me to do that that list. She gonna make a list to get back to us to say Yeah. Did that ever come back? Or

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We did talk about that. She proposed in her original testimony, there was a chart that showed the money that they wanted to get the work done sort of at the maximum funding level. That was 800,000. Right. Right. Some of it was one time money. Some of it was an increase in annual base. Right. And then in conversations with secretary Moore on the house side, we had worked that down to 500,000. And so when it left the house, I think I'm not looking at the bill that passed the house, but I think we just had we had contingency language, and we were hoping for or asking for 500 k. And then the change in the senate, but it wasn't in the budget. It was just Right. A wish. Right. The change on the senate side is they reconfigured all 200 pages of the budget and moved everything around was that they did take out the contingency language and say, no. We're appropriating 300. Here it is. We're putting it in the bill. So it's less than 500, but it's no longer contingent. The money is there. So it's you know?

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. That that part of it. Thought she said if there was no money, that if you wanted her, then it just don't pass. And if she wanted us to do the work, she I thought she said something about I need to provide you with

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: the plus stuff that you

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: can't in order to do this new work. And did I not understand that part? Oh,

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: you mean if if she receives no money to do the work, but she is asked to do the work. Yeah. I don't know. She didn't send us a list of specific things she wouldn't do. I think it was a my recollection is it was more of a vague there would be things that we would spend less time on or not do.

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: But we never I didn't ask her for a specific stuff. So we left our committee. We had 500,000 in every and then, of course, the appropriations took out a little bit to run longer.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. That's right. We voted on 500. Yeah. Approbes made it contingent. Right. Yeah. Actually, now that I remember it, Approbes made it contingent and knocked it down

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: before. Oh, I don't think they had anything. They didn't have a dollar amount. And a bunch of them.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: But it was in the well, it was in a wish list.

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: Oh,

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: alright. So it is it's now moved off of wish list status into Okay.

[Pamela (Staff/Legislative Counsel)]: So that in fact, it's a wish list. Wasn't. Right.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And then, again, 05/27 up for third reading. And we've already talked about, you know, what's in 05/27 unless it changes today on the floor. I don't see proposed amendments, but who knows? And we discussed that. I'm kinda distracted yesterday or the day before. It Yeah. Yeah. Knocks out our the POC workshop. Yes. And it was yesterday. Yeah. Yeah. Days feel long. Ninety two days. Makes the instead makes the makes a public hearing with with DPS attendance mandatory, duly warrant public hearing with DPS and attendance mandatory and takes the sunset back to three years from now. So that's what we'll be, I I assume, looking at when it comes back from the senate. We'll need to probably move quickly on that. If it's not amended, it's suddenly gonna be here. So and I think are you the floor reporter on cells? Okay. And, Bram, you're the floor reporter on single plane. And if it hasn't passed, they're breathing some We can't. But we could on the floor if necessary. Yep. You mean the If it's classic gathering and oil? Yeah. I guess I guess we'll see. Maybe you can ask for us to gather some place more interesting. Oh. At Creamy Stent. Creamy Stent.

[Dan Fingas (Vermont Conservation Voters)]: Charlie O's.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: How about how about up at the balcony? I think we're done. Alright.