Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are gonna shift gears and do a walk through of I actually don't know the bill number.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Six thirty two.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Of age six thirty two, which is the DEC miscellaneous bill. This session with our legislative counsel, Mike Tagliavia.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. This is Mike Logliavia, legislative counsel. You have seen many, if not almost all, of the provisions that are in h six thirty two already this session. You may recall last year in h three nineteen, there was a miscellaneous environmental subjects bill that the department had requested that had addressed issues such as the extended producer responsibility program for batteries, the paint stewardship program, extending the deadlines for rulemaking under the Flood Safety Act, addressing other issues such as, I think those are really some of the bigger issues that were in the bill last year. H three nineteen went to the senate. It passed out of the senate. It was on notice in the senate, and there was an amendment offered to effectively restructure wetlands permitting in the state. The committee had it recommitted to its committee, and then the provisions of three nineteen were cut up and sent to other bills or were just left in three nineteen as it exists in Senate Natural today. DEC came forward with, basically a a refinement of three nineteen, not having those sections that went in the other bills. And that's effectively what's in front of you today with some additional provisions that the agency also requested for this session. So with that, should I start walking through the bill?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. And I think you may know, but Neil did a high level. Try to get him to sort of say the whys, and so folks may have questions for you based on what Neil was able to share with us. Okay. And then thought, yes. So and then we'll walk through this.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: So on on page two I nine, section one, there was the creation of extended producer responsibility program for batteries and then a refinement of that in 2024. Part of the refinement required ANR to report back to you on how to address batteries that aren't really recycled right now, but to pose issues with disposal, including hybrid and electric vehicle batteries, energy energy battery energy storage systems, and batteries that are not easily removable from the products they power. You required ANR to do that permit in conversations ANR's conversations with the stewardship organization for the battery APR program. The stewardship organization is willing to take on this report and this assessment. They just have requested that the deadline be extended by a year from 07/01/2026 to 07/01/2027. So you will see that the requirement responsibility for the assessment is moved from ANR to the stewardship organization, and the date is pushed out one year. Otherwise, it is what you required for the assessment.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Remind me, though, did we also added certain batteries with those updates? And so those didn't we n't we able to do that in the process? We're not waiting for those to get added.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Now these wouldn't fall underneath the program right now.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: When we made those changes, think we added certain batteries.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. You added Yes. You're not changing the scope of the current EPR program. You increase the size of some of them. You increase the the types of them. You combine the renewable and the nonrenewable or the rechargeable and the nonrechargeable together into one program. That all stays the same. This is just about how to deal with those batteries that are currently not in the program but still pose an issue with solid waste management. You know? What are you gonna do with your Tesla battery that's your home storage battery in fifteen years? And how the is that managed? So that's that's basically what this is to address. Page three, line 10. This is the fuel storage tank program, the above ground storage tank program. This is a tweak to the standard for providing that a fuel dealer shall not deliver a substance to a category one tank that is is not up to standard. Right now, they can visibly say it's not meeting the standard. We're not going to deliver to you. ANR wants to tweak this so that if it's not it doesn't have a valid permit, which they should know already, or it's not meeting the current requirements for the tank require for the tank, and it may result in a a releasing a regulated substance. They just wanna tweak this. This this will allow them to more effectively red tag, especially before the dealer goes out so they can check to see if the tag if the tag has a has a permit without having to go out and do the inspection or the delivery and then determining that it doesn't meet the standard.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. So we did have some questions on this. Does it apply to residential, commercial, all tanks, above ground, below ground?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it's it's for category one tanks, and and why don't I read that definition to you if I can get it up quickly enough?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The green box. Woah. Is it the same one? It's titled 10. So

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: a category one tank means an underground storage tank except for the following, fuel oil storage used for on premises heating purposes or farm or residential tanks for storing motor fuel.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Motor fuel. Motor fuel.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: So it's it's not residential. It's not farm. It's it's your your gas stations. Yeah. Okay. Can I move on? What was that?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Morris. What was that?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Wouldn't it be combined in with

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: USD? Pardon me? They wouldn't the fuel tanks wouldn't be

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: It is a USD.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: With The US yeah. It's a USD.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: It is a USD.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's a USD?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Underground storage tank.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What's a t? I thought you're saying d.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: P. P. Sounding okay.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Thank you.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: It used to be L U S T. But decided that I wasn't the great

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What did the L stand for? Wiki. Although I have to say that would help us kind of in finding our way. So back to what this is really doing.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Not having

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: a valid permit.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: This is one you should have the program in to tell you what issue is because it it's a little it's a little wonky. It's a little wonky.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We will.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Page three, line 19, section three, there was a program funded through coronavirus state fiscal recovery funds that was called the Healthy Homes Initiative that gave funds for repairs or improvements to drinking water, wastewater, or stormwater systems for low to moderate income individuals in manufactured housing communities. The information in that application and permitting was required by the federal conditions to be confidential. And it wasn't clear in the authorizing language that that information needed to be confidential. So to ensure that the information is not disclosed under a public records request or similar access to information, the language on page four line eight through 14 is being added that all information submitted or compiled by DEC and the issuance of funding under the Healthy Homes Initiative shall be considered confidential unless the person providing the information designates that it is not confidential. And it's going to apply retroactively to that information that was produced or compiled from 07/01/2023 on.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Hoyt. Thank you. Are manufactured housing communities like mobile home? Yes. Okay. Other questions, representative Warren? Clarification from from me, and I'll try to pronounce it pronunciate it correctly. What about a a leaking septic tank? If a if a tank's septic tank is leaking on a property and it could be proximal to another property, is that still confidential? Or

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, if you got funding through this program and the fact that you were funded through this program and your income or your other eligibility requirements under this program, that that would be confidential. If you were going to ANR or ANR was going to enforce against you for a failed system, that would not be confidential.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right. Yep. Yeah. Just a personal information. Right. So

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: moving on on page four, line 17, the next five pages are all extensions of dates in the Flood Safety Act from 2024. So the first, that section four is in the river corridor base map, and that would push the the map requirement for river corridors from July January 2026 to January 2027. Similarly, on page five, line six, the requirement that DEC conduct education and outreach with municipalities, environmental justice focus, populations, property owners, farmers, etcetera. Regarding the River Corridor program and permitting of development within it. That would be pushed from 01/01/2027 to 01/01/2028. And then the report about that education and outreach on page five, line 17, would be pushed from January 15 to January 2028. January, 01/15/2028. And then on page six, line 12, section five, the required mapped river corridor rules for permitting of development in river corridors would be pushed from 07/01/2027 to 07/15/2028. And then on page seven, line 12, the permit for development in a river corridor would be pushed from 01/01/2028 to 07/01/2029. And then on page eight, line one, section six, line five, the reporting date for the study committee on state administration of the National Flood Insurance Program would be pushed from 08/15/2025 to 08/15/2026. The date for when ANR shall initiate the rulemaking for mapped river corridor and development within mapped river corridors is being pushed to 07/01/2028. And then page eight, line 16, section eight, the and and this is this date is admittedly already passed. We'll extend the date for rulemaking for net gain of wetlands from 07/01/2025 to 12/01/2025. And I don't know if Neil talked to you about that yesterday.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Very much. And so.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: You touched on it. Oh, we

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: didn't know the status of it. Talk about it. I we need to get a handle on the status of it. And so we'll have someone from the wetlands office in. Okay.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: On page nine nine twelve, you're now dealing with the clean water service providers. Do you need a summary of who the Clean water service providers are?

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yes.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: So underneath the Lake Champlain and the Lake Manfremagog TMDLs, there are wasteland allocations that are not regulatory, meaning that they can't be achieved by ANR or Agency of Agriculture or AOT going out and saying, you, you regulated entity, you need to do this in order to achieve our waste load allocation. There are projects, stream bank stabilizations or or culvert replacements, lot of different types of projects that that can improve water quality, reduce phosphorus to Champlain or Memphremagog. And the state needed someone to take on that responsibility or the coordination of completion of those projects. So clean water service providers are created for each watershed in the state. And those clean water service providers are directed and authorized to effectively find projects and fund projects to reduce phosphorus and improve water quality when it's not regulatorily required. Now what is being changed here are the notice requirements for clean water service providers. Clean water service providers are effectively under current law regulated by ANR's default notice and comment. There's a chapter in title 10 that says, for this type of permit, you do this type of notice and comment. For this type of permit, you do this type of notice and comment. For general permits, you do this type of notice and comment. And they're referred to as type comments. Like, you could have a type one notice in common, a type two, type three, or a type four. And what was done when the clean water service providers were initially enacted is that sometimes they had type three, and sometimes they had type four. And there's just been confusion about what type of notice and comment that they need to do. And you'll ask, well, what's the difference between type three and type four? Well, type three, you can you can have a public meeting. The the interested persons can request that the agency have a public meeting. Type four is no public meeting because type four is generally for general permits, which you you you don't have a public meeting for coverage under a general permit. It's just usually That's a pretty big difference than what we're being asked to do here. And I

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: wonder I don't expect that you would know, but may but, like, how many public meetings were requested and what type of projects?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: I I don't know. I think if you really want a true measure of these changes, you have to ask how the whole program is doing.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The whole tight yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: The whole clean water service product.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That too. Yes. Although this is because I was here when we made these type lumping changes, and and now we're going back to days. It's ironic that that was the we tried to true them up by calling them types and not having different business days and, you know, whatever references throughout statute. Now we're going back to thirty days.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, thirty days is the default notice and comment for any anytime notice and comment is referenced unless otherwise specified. And under type four it's otherwise specified under type four it's fifteen days. So you're actually increasing the amount of time of notice for the one where it's referenced as type four but you're taking away public meeting from those that are referenced as type three. And so trying to true out, make them uniform, you're gonna have to give or take in order to do that, or you just say that they all need to be one type.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative Austin?

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I'm just going back a minute. On page eight, section eight, the net gain of wetlands, does the executive order impact that at all, that paragraph?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: And how does that work? I

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: don't know because the net gain wetland rules haven't been enacted. The state policy in statute is that the wetlands of the state will be managed for a net gain. I don't know how that will be met with the proposal in in the government's in the governor's executive order and the ANR trap rules without knowing what the rule would say. So I I I'd like to. Will they be required to meet the ratio for net gain? And if they're going to build in a unmapped class two wetland, is that subject to the ratio? I don't I don't know. John, I know.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Does one supersede the other? Does the next executive order supersede legislative intent?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: The short answer is no. The executive the executive orders generally don't have widespread application and statutes control over executive orders.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: It it it raises a question about the go there.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: shared the letter that you drafted for me and Senator Watson with the committee yesterday. It's posted to our webpage now. So if you feel up to you if you wanna answer the question further.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: But what I'm gonna say is that that Vermont is is it's not unique, but it's one of those states that doesn't have a constitutional directive on how a governor uses executive order authority. And so it's it's implied from two or three clauses of the constitution the state constitution. The the take care. The governor is directed to take care to implement the laws and administer the laws of

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: the

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: state. Separation of powers, the the powers of the administration, executive are are separate from the powers of the the legislative and the judicial. And then there's a a couple of more nuanced ones, but where where does that that power to to implement and administer the laws end? And what does it entail? Does it entail as the executive order on housing did that the governor can direct the secretary of natural resources to do things that are under the secretary of statutory authority. I it it probably does. But in so doing, the governor can't direct the the secretary to to conflict with statute or violate statute. And that's what the attorney general's opinion effectively said in a very nice way. And so there's a a whole dynamic there. And a part of that dynamic as well is that the the authority that the secretary would use to adopt the rules is legislative authority. You delegated that authority to the secretary. It's your authority that you gave the agency to adopt those rules. Now how they administer those rules is their authority. So that's why when rules are proposed, they come back to you to say, is this consistent with your statutory authority? Other states give their their administrative rules committees the ability to veto rules. That hasn't been tested in Vermont, but we didn't draft our statute that way. So LCAR doesn't veto rules. It just objects to them, and that changes the standard if there's any litigation on that rule. But say you're in South Carolina, the legislature there can say, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, we we object to and detail your rule. But you can't do that in Vermont.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: South South Carolina court said that's because the authority is legislated. If the the legislature granted it, the legislature doesn't like it, how it's gonna be implemented, then they can veto it. But we don't have that under model. But I'm going afield.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: So back to clean water service providers and the notice page 10 when implementing the requirements of the the the secretary of natural resources, very key roles in the clean water service providers, one of which is developing targets for the watersheds that are are going to have clean water service providers. And on page 10, the notice and comment that she would need to go through, that's being changed to a period of not less than thirty days. That's type three. That would take away the ability to request a public, meeting. Section 10, after a water is listed, the Secretary has to propose a timeline for the development of projects in each watershed. So the timeline on page 11, line seven, is going to be specified as not to exceed one year. And any timeline or design life for a project is posted on the A and R's website that's at the bottom of page 11. Then on page 12, line nine, when implementing those timelines or setting forth what the targets are going to be, the notices moving from type three to thirty days. And then when implementing the requirements of sub C, it's moving from type four to to, thirty days. And so that's the clean water service providers. Then you get to stream alteration. If you are going to modify, alter, change, etcetera, the course, current, or cross section of any water course in the state, you need to get a permit from ANR. It's called a stream alteration permit. And, it's it's not for a you know, you take a rock out of the water, you don't have to get a permit for that. You had to be moving 10 cubic yards or more of in stream material in any year in order to require that permit. Now when I first started, this this permit program was limited to watersheds that drained an area of 10 square miles Yeah. Or more. And the agency the agency said, you know, we're missing things. We're we're missing alterations that are just significant because the watershed doesn't drain 10 square miles or more. So you took away the 10 square mile threshold. But going to any alteration is is something and I don't know if Neil talked to you about this. It's causing administrative burdens for the program, having ambiguity for developers and others that might be doing alteration. So they want to to change the threshold, not going back to 10, but going to point five so that they don't have to to go and look at every little, movement of 10 square 10 cubic yards in in water courses that really are not significant.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We're gonna have the agency in on this one. Okay.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: And you'll see that change conforming change is made in section 10 and section 13 to define the scope of the water course subject to the permit. Section 14 is the storm water section. You you had this discussion last year with the agency. It's largely about whether or not the three acre permit should have stormwater fees. And, on page 15, you and the general authority for rules for stormwater runoff, they're striking the requirement that the standards include stormwater impact fees. And then in the specific three acre general permit on page 17, they're striking that the secretary has to allow the use of stormwater impact fees for that three acre permit. So you're basically removing the fee provision for stormwater. And I'm not sure if they intended it just to be for three acre, but the change on page 15, that's that's not just for three acre. And fees are a way that if you can't they're either intending not to to meet the that load that can't be met through on-site measures. They're intending to either waive that, which they they talked about last year for the three acre, especially for the residential sites. Do what you can on your site, and then we're gonna waive the rest of it. I I don't know what they're intending here with that change on page 15. I get I get it for three acre. I don't understand it here.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Here would be for the whole universe of storm water. Yeah. Yeah. Including new permits. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I that's did did you wanna comment on that?

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. That just seems like they're not what we wanna do, especially at, like, large commercial industrial sites. Right.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Well, we're gonna hear more about this as well.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: And there's a new head of the stormwater division. It's Kevin Burke. You know Kevin. You've met Kevin. On page 17, line 18, section 16. I know you did all of this last year, but EPA apparently provided comments at the last minute last year that they wanted changes, and now ANR is asking for those changes to the KPA permit statutes. The first, page 17, line 18, section 16, this is just clarifying in title six, the agricultural title, that this permit in 4851 is a large farm operation permit. And remember, you can still be required to get a large farm operation permit because the LFO permit isn't just about water quality. It's about land use and vectors and etcetera. You can still be required to get that. But on page 18, line 18 through 21, the secretary of natural resources shall direct a large farm to attain a NIFTIES permit under 10 VSA twelve sixty three if required by federal regs for a CAFO. So just distinguishing the first reference to the permit in this in 4851 is about the LFO permit. The second reference is about the NIPTIS permit. It's really it's pretty technical. Then you on page 19, line four, section 17, you're still in you're, you're moving out of the ag title and you're moving into the natural resources title.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can I just roll back to the first change, which is the cow calf pairs? Was that your change or the agency's change On line 21, page 17.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: That was EPA's change. That's EPA's change.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. It's less clear than rather than more clear. Cow or calf pairs.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: So I

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I just like when Michael talks about the statue statue. So Is it less clear? Or

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: So do you know do you know what the that mark, which everybody calls slash, is not the guitar player for Guns N' Rosy. It's actually called a vergoule, and the courts interpret vergoule to mean an oar.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Like that? You wanna comment? No. It strikes me that

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it should be an and, not an or. Cow and calf. It's a cow and calf pair.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Vagoule equals an or by the courts. I just need to process that before we jump to it. Sorry. I'm a little slow today.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. I agree.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: So so when you see somebody say x and y or,

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: know, z slash t, what they're saying is x, y, or z or y. And there's a case out of Tennessee where the statute was written with a bunch of verguls, and it let a drunk driver off because the oars the court was like, well, that means an or. And then, no. They were like, that means and or. Court like, no. For goal means or. And so the drunk driver didn't meet all the criteria, and they let him go.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So in this scenario I'm sorry. Thank you for bringing us back. Go ahead.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: In this scenario, a pair has to be a pair of a cow and a calf. Can't I can't cows or two cows, a pair of a cow and a calf. So I think in this case, maybe the vergoule was not appropriately used in the first place. I'm pretty sure if we ask the ag agency that this is supposed to say how if we're gonna replace the ragool with a word, it should be and. But we can ask the agency to

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: make a note of that,

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Let's see. I I know this because I did a CLE presentation for on conjunctions. It was a lot. Maybe you

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: could edify us further at another time on that. I

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: have a great quote from Word on for ghouls.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Pete While we interrupt you a little bit, can folks, including you, Michael, stay after the top of the hour? Do we get through this, or do we need to come back to it either do we need to come back to it after lunch or another time?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: I can stay.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: In fifteen minutes? Okay.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Hearing a lot of I can stay. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: So you may recall you directed the, agency to adopt a general permit for the CAFO permit for the KFO program last year, and you required them to do that by 12/15/2025. They have not done that. They've asked for an extension to September 1. And then on page 20, line eighteen and nineteen, remember when I was talking to you about residual designation authority? It's like when the secretary and or EPA can require a permit whenever they want to effectively. EPA wants that reflected that a large CAFO shall not be required to have a CAFO permit unless one of the following conditions is met. The secretary determines in the secretary's discretion that a CAFO permit is required. That's RDA authority right there. EPA wouldn't have that reflected. On page 21

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chapin. Just going back

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: to the date change at the bottom of page 19, that seems like a really big change. I guess I'm just curious if this might not be a question for you, but is EPA okay with that change?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: That's not an EPA request.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: I presume not. Yeah. A year and A year and nine months later. So I guess I just wonder if we should maybe find out the implications of that for EPA.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Geez. What are they doing? Yeah. Terrios. Can

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: I move on? On page 21, nine four through nine, Once a CAFO is covered under a permit, the farm is covered for five years. So this is really technical. It's moving from a farm covered by a CAFO permit shall renew the permit. It really is a CAFO permit shall be renewed in accordance with its terms. The the renewal term will be in the permit itself. Moving on on page 22. This is language that I don't really know why EPA requested it. It was about the two or more individual farms that were owned by common ownership. If they were adjacent, they were going to be considered a single AFO. It does the same thing. It says two or more AFOs under common ownership are considered to be single AFO for the purpose of determining the number of animals out of an operation if they join each other or if they use a common area or a system. It's the same language. I don't know really why they changed it. It's the same effect. Page 22, line fifteen and sixteen for the mature dairy animals, whether they're milked or dry, You still have your dry cows on your farm. It's they're still gonna be counted. And then for the next two changes, they didn't like the cross references to title six. They want the definitions to be specifically in title 10. And so the definitions are it's the same definition that was in title six. It's just brought in here. And then the same thing on page 24 for a medium farm operation instead of cross referencing title six. The definition is here in title 10. It's the full Noah's Ark. Nothing's different really except Milkter Drive, cow calf bears.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Is she a problem with that just from a drafting perspective, or your what is your thought on that?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: You you know, in our drafting manual, we're allowed to do it either way. One of the things that we have been doing more frequently is to try to coordinate definitions across programs and across titles.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: I I can see what EPA is looking for. They're looking for the specific statutory authority for the delegation of this program, and they don't and they want it in one place. And I can see why they don't wanna have to look. They wanted one source of authority right in front of them. And I understand that, and it's allowable under our drafting manual

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: It's not our current preference, but I I get it. And then on page 27, you get line six section 19 going on to page 28, the powers of the secretary. She will specifically have authority to establish technical standards and require a CAFO to comply with technical standards that are consistent with USDA nutrient management standards, vegetative buffers, and any other CAFO requirements that comply with the Federal Clean Water Act and the enabling rules. And then there are specific references to certain federal rules that establish requirements, NIPTIS requirements for CAPERAL permits. And then section 20, you're in the CAFO permit requirements for ANR. This is really more of a technical change on page 30. In referencing the authority to for there to be a directive to a CAFO to do certain management practices, they want to reference that it's as determined by the secretary or as specified in federal CAFO regulations. As specified in federal regulations and as determined by the secretary. And then section 21, this is probably something I should have done last year, in making conforming amendments. This is the authority of ANR's appeals authority. And part of this authority allows the secretary of agriculture to ask the secretary of natural resources to use the secretary of natural resources enforcement authority against a farm. And last year, you got rid of the memorandum of understandings, and you replaced that with a document that outlets outlines the process for implementing the subsection. And so I should have changed that. This there's no more MOU. There should just be this document to implement the subsection. Section 22 is this almost the end. So the agencies are concerned that with the way that some of the federal programs are going forward and the amendments to federal programs that the federal repeals or amendments could basically remove authority for the state programs. And and and I say that because many of the state programs say the air pollution control program is largely dependent on cross references to the federal Clean Air Act. And so if that those cross reference sections or or rules are repealed, then the agency doesn't have a lot of it doesn't have a lot to stand on because the cross reference authority no longer exists. So what this does is on page 32 going on to 33. Well, first is the the people know what emergency rulemaking is. So there's the Administrative Procedure Act for general rulemaking. It sets forth all the requirements that a public agency needs to do and go through in order to adopt a rule. They have to have a notice and comment. They have to file with the Interagency Committee on Administrative Rules. They have to respond to public comment. They have to propose the rule to the secretary of state and the legislative committee on administrative rules. They have to respond to Elkhart's objections to anything in the rule. That takes if you follow everything as fast as you can to the letter, to the day, to the minute, to the second, it takes five months. But it generally takes an agency eight to ten months to go through APA rulemaking. And it costs them, they say, $4,000. I don't know how, but it costs them $4,000. Emergency rulemaking allows allows the agency to skip all of that. They just they don't have to go to public comment. They don't have to do filings. They don't have to respond to anything. They go to emergency rule. Now the emergency rule is just temporary, and it can only be issued right now if there exists an imminent peril to public health, safety, and welfare and may adopt emergency rule. Or and this one's a little antiquated, and this one is something that

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I was I was involved.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: So the migratory bird treaty act, under that, you can only hunt those species and number of species, bag limits that the US Fish and Wildlife Service authorizes each year. They just issue those really late, like, in, like, September for a hunting season that starts in, like, October. And you can't do any rulemaking. And so we used to do emergency we'd get the the MBTA numbers, and we do emergency rulemaking, two weeks to get the numbers. It was ridiculous. And so we we allowed our state Department of Fish and Wildlife to do it by procedure, and it's so much better and so much easier. But there is this antiquated law in the emergency rulemaking that allows for a program to implement a federal statute through emergency rulemaking, which is what we were doing for the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This is adding a third category. And so in addition to the grounds for imminent peril, health and safety, in addition to implementing a federal statute, an agency may adopt an emergency rule under the section if an amendment to a federal statute, rule, or policy will materially conflict with or threaten the ability of the agency to implement a statutory or regulatory program required under Vermont law. Majority vote of the entire committee, the legislative committee on administrative rules may object to proposed emergency rules for adoption under the subs So Clean Air Act and, you know, air pollution regs in Vermont. If the Clean Air Act sections are amended, say, for fuel motor fuel fuel emissions, they'll be able to adopt a a emergency rule to fix their rule so that's still implementable without that cross reference to the federal VNAIRE Act. Now this authority would only be temporary. It would be repealed on 07/01/2028, And that's that.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I have a question, though. Page 28, there's a reference to the federal existing rules, and and it's kinda funny because it says current. What line are you? Yeah. I'm getting there. Sorry.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Line five? Yes.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Consistent with current US Department of Agriculture Nutrient Management Standards, and then it then it references as such as, which seems kind of vague. And so I'm curious your thoughts on both of those, the current because current can change, and then specific vague reference to

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: existing federal regulations. This is specific EPA request.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. But it seems to reference something that could change. And I I guess I wanna explore that not right now, but I want your thoughts on it. It seems odd to me. I think their intention is what's in what's in these rules now. Right. It could change.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Basically, I think they're saying that the secretary can establish these standards that are consistent with USDA standards or require CAFO requirements that are set forth under 40 CFR four twelve point four and and one twenty three point two six. So when you when you look at the EPA rules for CAFOs, they are they are animal specific. Like, there's there's a rule for pig KFOs. There's a rule for cow KFOs. And so I think they're just wanted to get in their cross references to the dairy requirements.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Which I think is great. I'm more interested in the moving target of federal Okay. Regulations Yeah. Topic in this one. So I don't know. It just seems we wanna I think I wanna revisit that thing.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And then the last section last substantive section. When the general assembly required onboard diagnostic system inspection of automobiles during the the inspection process. There was concern that that the requirement to fix a car that failed would be too expensive for those of certain increased levels. And you put into that you you created a program to provide vouchers to persons that qualified for repair of those vehicles that did not meet the onboard diagnostic system test. The criteria for income qualification you use was the LIHEAP standard and the standard at Department for Children's Families. The the agency is proposing to just be very specific about it, and just set forth the specific voucher amount for the specific type of income eligibility. And you will see those on page 34, line five through 16. If you're not required to file an income tax return because of your income, you can get a voucher up to 2,500. If you have an adjusted gross income at or below a 185% of the federal poverty level, you have voucher up to 2,500. You're a Vermont resident with an adjusted gross income at or below 250%, you get $18.75 dollars If you're a Vermont resident at an adjusted gross income at or below 300%, you get a voucher of $12.50 dollars And then you have the effective date.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chapin and then Pritchard.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: So I'm not sure you said this explicitly. Is this codifying in statute what the eligibility is currently under the most recent LIHEAP program? Or is this a new set of eligibility?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: It's a new set. Mean, it's it's, you know, the LIHEAP and the DCF things doesn't have the voucher amount max. Right? And so this is going through and saying, if your income is this, then you get this maximum. But this is new, and it's not in statute. This is session law. It's a session law.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Representative Pritchard. So I'm just curious. I I don't know if you would know this or not. So is there is there any ceiling on that amount, or is there where is that budgeted? Where is where does that money come from?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: It's it comes through your appropriation process.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: K. Okay. Well, how does it know how many people qualify for that?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's that's part of the per the the agency is gonna have to go in And and provide with the request and Fine. With numbers to back up the request, and they might not get a full request.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Further questions? Thank you, Michael. Thanks for staying over, folks. And then we currently don't have anything for this afternoon.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Could I could I just

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: One one

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: last thing. In my presentation on water the other day, I said one thing wrong. I said that Maine was a non delegated state. Maine is a delegated state. Massachusetts is the one that's not a delegated state. And then I said that that Green River had surrendered. It's Burke. They had applied to surrender. They haven't actually received the surrender

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: yet. It's their intention to surrender.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I I I was told that there might be some wiggle

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: room. Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Legislative Counsel)]: Just wanted to get that record.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. And thanks again for walking us through this and for a good week, everyone. It's week of session. Don't forget to do your expenses, have a great weekend.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Oh, you're sure. Bye.