Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, good instinct. All right, this is the Joint Conference Committee on Stage seven ten. Yes. The committee of congress, and so we passed out age seven ten. You all asked for the what would you like to write? Great, so do you guys introduce yourselves over in the Senate? I have representative Kathleen James from Manchester. Boris Sibilia.
[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara Torre, Allison District. 13.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm Rutland from the Allison District, and Washington from the Washington District, and we will be joined by Senator Scott Beck from Caledonia District. Great. Right, we're gonna, he knows, we're gonna go grab him. Super, he's double booked, we're gonna get him when we are further along his conversation. Okay, we can bring you guys up to speed pretty quickly, I think. So we met with, and maybe you guys can help me if I miss anybody, but we've had a chance at a couple of different meetings as Senator was working on the bill to walk through the changes you were making with Ledge Council, and even, we're trying to stay updated in real time, even to take some testimony and meet some of the stakeholders and stuff. So we have walked through your new decommissioning language. We had walked through the revisions you had made to the definition of a single plan. We had a chance to talk about your intent language, and our company did not have any questions or concerns with any of that. Then we had some concerns about the study language, not with the intent, because I think we agreed that it's really important data to get, but with the fact that we all received a letter from the Department of Public Service, which, as things start moving this quickly, I think you guys received after you passed the bill, but we had time to take a look at So we received written testimony and had a conversation with the, let's see, the Public Utility Commission came in and testified, and then they worked quickly with Department of Public Service, ANR, and AG to come up with suggested language on the study that they thought or hoped would gather useful data, but also be googled, be data they could get in the timeframe that we've asked. So that consensus language we proposed to you guys in draft 1.1. Okay. And then, in the interim this morning we heard from the Nature Conservancy the fact that the high level data that our proposed study might achieve wouldn't provide the kind of insight we need, or the kind of breakdown we need on aggregate trees cleared versus whether some, many, or any of those trees are in the two kinds of forest habitat or forest blocks that we really want to make sure we're protecting, or at least understanding impacts of. That made sense to us as a cost team, and so for your consideration, we sent along graph 2.1 that still gets at the forest data, but would provide a little bit more probably useful data on what kind of impact we're seeing on the forest sites. So that's draft 2.1. I'm not sure if it's supposed to get, but I did send it along. And I thought it was supposed to support and it was just like, we have the original language. Yeah, so instead of the last five years, it's the last two years. Yeah, and I'm happy to elaborate or try to call some of the tests that were being heard, but basically, we felt that we would still get useful data by limiting it to the last two years for projects one megawatt or greater. That means that when the PUC goes to review the certificate of public good, it's a more manageable scope of work for them, and then the info is all right there. So we talked to them a lot about, and read the letter from the Department of Public Service about data they feel they don't have, can't get, would require a lot of resources to get. So we tried to bring in scope to information that, you know, it's going to take the department, they're going to have to do some work, the information should be right there in the certificate of public good and or readily available. And for the forest work, we've learned from TNC in the environmental impact assessment, that is also a part of those public documents. So the information could also be theoretically invaded? I don't think theoretical. It's the theoretical. Yeah, don't think it's available. Yeah, the CPG and the attached or I guess associated documents. So it would be a good start. It's not everything that you would envision getting, but it's doable, it's skittable, we can have it by January. Okay, well, so grateful for all of the hustling that I think it sounds like happened with other people, with you all, at least communications anyway, so very grateful for the brains that are on this since this report came up kind of as a last minute thing. So that's great, and I'm fine with this. Yeah, as it is. I appreciate the support you guys did, because we, this was in Florida, as you know, so we weren't able to take the testimony. I appreciate that all of you agree to dig in for sure. Yeah, and we appreciate the whole point of the study. Okay.
[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I have a couple of quick questions maybe for the council. The second line, disagreeing votes of the two houses upon house bill. Is that a proper language? Should be two chambers.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'll check out the office of legislative council. That is the standard conference committee in Trump.
[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Great, thank you. And in other places where we say in the last two years, is that adequately clear or do we want to say in the last two full calendar years?
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think it's a great sign. I don't think it's a big reason for me to do the brick calendar.
[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: No further questions. Okay.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I have one more question for you. I see that this draft 2.1 has a place where we can sign on the bottom. No. No. Okay. I was going to say, I an awful It's an obsession. Oh, you have a However, if that's the draft that you would like to, I do have a clean copy for you. Okay. Unless you're making an additional chance. Should I go with Richard Bailey? Let's see if we can do a good center back. Yeah. That'd be good. Do have one question for you. Does it matter if my face fell? Yes, it does matter. It does matter. Yes. Oh, didn't do an eon. It's okay. Well, I think it's me. It's all right. Todd, you said, I can, well, I can do it right now. We're waiting for a sitar. Yeah? Okay. Looked, mid, mid typing, I went to look it up. Then I got just, I did, I was gonna say, an easy place to get distracted. I'm hanging out with my teammate, Senator Bennington. Because they sort of merge. Yeah. That's the best thing. People don't always, she's This is because she's no me. She's no me. I know. Those are the points that I had not appreciated. I'd call now when I was talking Yeah. I'm talking about committee work. Yeah. And I mentioned my chair. My husband, Jason, is always like, and with an e or and without e. Which I have to specify it. Right? You know, to and. Oh my gosh, I did not even think about that until just like, listen, but how. So you're a man. Yeah. There
[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: were several Diane's at Bennington when I worked there. One of them did not spell the name of the name. And so she picked up the nickname, Noe.
[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Noe. Noe. I just called for a. Is he coming? He was in mid sentence, so I asked He's not here. Okay. I'll take the call. I think we can probably go offline for just can you open the door?