Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Okay. We're back. We're gonna spend a few minutes with Arthur Whitman, Vermont Seat Fuelers Association member. And we are talking about section the former section 10, now section nine. And, mister Whitman, good to have you on. The floor is yours, sir.

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: Well, thank you. Sorry sorry for the delay, but technology, but I'm still getting used to it. My name is Arthur Whitman. I'm a resident of Shasbury, semi retired. I had a family business that ran a feed store for fifty years in the town of Shasbury. I ten years ago, I sold it to Pull and Grain. We we serviced an area around, Southern Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York State, with mainly bulk dairy feeds. After selling the business, I was I became semi retired. I do have a small fleet of trucks that spread lime and soil amendments on fields. So that's a seasonal thing, so I'm able to somewhat retire and spend a little time in Florida. But I also have a small farm that, and raise a few beef cattle. I'm currently the president of the Bennington County Farm Bureau, So I come to you with quite a bit of knowledge in agriculture, but I also have an understanding of the, uncertainty of solar and that sort of stuff because I was chairman of the Shasbury Select Board when a proposed 80 plus acre, solar field was proposed, for the town of Shasbury, and it is now waiting for, public utility commission approval. So I but I come to you as a farmer, and a landowner on this, issue of s three twenty three, which is, on the size of of solar and the size of electric generating facilities. I just don't understand why you would restrict a landowner or a farmer, their ability to generate power, on a certain a just affecting the size of it. Because there is economy and scale, the the larger the facility, the less the the cost per unit of output keeps getting cheaper. That's that's, economics one zero one.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: I don't wanna take your presentation away from you, R, but I think we're gonna strike that size portion out of this bill, should we proceed with it. So that is not gonna be a factor, with us as far as with what, you know, how the bill was proposed. So I think we've made that decision not to restrict sides.

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: Yeah. We had a long discussion before before before your your testimony, so it's a little bit more scaled back.

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: I I guess

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: So good job, Art. You've done a good job with that.

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: There there's there still is a lot of there still is a lot of, concern over, preserving prime ag land and that sort of stuff. And some people have the fear that solar fields are gonna take over all of Vermont's precious soils and all that sort of stuff. But the reality is is that these larger fields can only be established where there is a high tension line in a close proximity. You you have to have huge three phase power or lines running next to these facilities, and they're just these are not all over the all over the whole state. So the the amount of land that may be utilized for such, large fields is limited as to where these large high tension lines are. And that is a that's kinda like a a misunderstanding. People think these fields are gonna take over the whole state.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: So are why do people come to Vermont? Do they come to Vermont to look at solar fields, or do they even come to look at primax soils that growing something?

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: Okay. I have a I have a small farm that has a 20 acre, side hill pasture. And the reason it's a side hill pasture is because it's nothing but rocks and ledge. And so I live on a dirt road, way up, and there's nothing but farms all around me. So if I wanted to, not raise cattle anymore, I wanted an income from this land, I could I'd like to put in a solar field, and I don't wanna be restricted on the size of it or that sort of thing. As long as we're abiding by zoning and that sort of stuff, nobody's gonna see it, unless they're lost because, the only way in and out of a hollow, is is the way in and the way back out. So, I don't see a lot of people traveling past my facility, all the time.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: But I love the idea of putting solar on that 20 acres of that pasture to let you land. It's a little bit harder to build on and keeping that, prime actual with the ability to grow food. Because if if we do wanna become a food resiliency center for the Northeast, we're not gonna grow food on that that ledgey side hill, but we are gonna grow food in that nice prime axle hill.

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: Exactly. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: So are you near a high tension line? I didn't know.

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: No. I'm not.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: So you wouldn't be able to

[Unidentified Committee Member]: do that 20 acre solar field?

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: That's right. I was just was giving that as an example. No. I am not near a high tension line. So it's just not practical, and that's the whole point of my talk is it's just not practical. Everybody has this fear, and it's just and the practicality of these big places being all over the state is not is not realistic.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: K. Well, that's that's the issue that we run into, Art, is that where three phases that they they like to hitch into mainly runs on more traveled areas. So it's hard to find the ideal spot when it comes back down to the the power whoever's doing the field goes, well, that's a great spot. Nobody will see it. But now it's gonna cost too much for us to bring three phase in to do this jet a field here. So we prefer to do it out where the power line is, right where everybody sees it. And that's where all this worry comes from that people are like, it's gonna clutter up the our roadsides because that's where the power lines are. So we're sitting here like the chair says, hey. If you got a field that's not great and you wanna put it in it, we're all for it. But then they'll say, well, there's not power close by. My my I come from a family farm. We had 80 acres, and solar company came and looked at it. And then when they realized there wasn't three phase there, they said it it it cost too much to bring three phase out there, they walked away through the project. So we're trying to find that medium that, hey. If you're gonna come in and do this, we want the farmer to have the right to do it because I'm very big about that, especially if you farm the land. You know what it's worth.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: You pay taxes on it.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: You pay taxes on it. However, when the situation like what we have in Lowell, that is the really great place for

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: the solar to put it.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: But the town's like, it's right in the center of town. We don't you know, we have no set. PUC comes in, zoning in that doesn't matter. And when it comes to other industries coming in, it was a manufacturing company or any that all comes into play. So my personal belief is is that that should come into play as well when it comes to solar, And that's the the the the ground I'm looking to get out of this. Protect the farmer. He wants to sell it. They wanna sell it. They should be able to do it. However, if you've got if we had an uproar, we wanna do a a small manufacturing company just outside of Bristol, and the townsfolk just put up such a stink. It never happened. So in the solar field, you're you might not have that same opportunity. What's happening in Lowell down in Shasbury as well.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: So how do how do

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: we as legislators find that common ground? If I was to ask you that.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: I am asking you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: Because you you're a farmer. You deal with farmers. How do you how do we find a common ground in all this?

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: In traveling back and forth to Florida, I see huge solar fields right off the interstates and that sort of stuff that cover many, many acres. Other places don't seem to be concerned about the aesthetics is what we're raising in Vermont.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: But we have also a culture of tourism where we are trying to protect that so that people will still come here and see that because we don't have that large industry to support our state. We're we are a tourism state. We are an agriculture state. And so I get it that other states don't have the same, but they have other opportunities to create to create dollars to to support how they run. And we are supported by a ton of tourists, a ton of agriculture, and that's what we're trying to get to as well. And to your point about to your point, very well taken point about the power source of where it's at, we've used this analogy a few different times. You've got a thousand acres of farm. You got 250 acres of prime land. You got 750 acres that most times sit right next to that prime ag land. So they're gonna have that same power source. They're gonna have everything. We're just asking, build in that less desirable land and because you're not gonna use it for much other than pasture that we don't use anymore. And and it does two things. One is it stays out of our prime ag land, but it also gives the farmer a bit more money for land that they have deemed not so valuable. So we're trying to help the farmer in that way as well to make okay. You know, that's 750 acres of land that really is just because it's part of my farm. Okay. Now I can get a few extra dollars out of that because nobody's gonna buy it for anything else, but here we go. We'll put some solar on there. We get that it's gonna cost the solar people a little bit more to build on. We get that. And I know that they argue, well, that just raises the cost of solar. That just raises the cost of energy. Well, you know, we're buying we're buying power out of the Midwest on natural gas for 6¢ a kilowatt, and we're getting they're getting 21 16 to 21¢ per kilowatt on solar as it is already. I think they're doing okay. I get that. It's the only industry that I know that actually can build a project and is absolutely, positively guaranteed that we have to buy the product at a preset price that we don't have much stay in it, that the open market doesn't seem to dictate. So, you know, we're not trying to get in their business a little bit, but if their costs go up a little bit, it's just what it is, so be it. Over the twenty five year period of that field, I think they might be able to recoup it. They just might not be able to make as much as they wanted to make.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: Okay.

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: Are are you gonna put any size limit on it? Or No. And you took the five acres off.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Took the five acres off, and we weren't favored from that right from the beginning. But we wanted to go through the process, and we wanted people such as you to come in and be able to say something about it as well.

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: Okay. Well, thank you for your for asking me.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Yep. Thank you for your time. Thank you, R. Thank you, R. Thank you for coming. Thanks for taking the time.

[Arthur Whitman (Bennington County Farm Bureau President; farmer, Shaftsbury)]: Alright. Thank you, sir.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Goodbye. Yep. Okay. Let's get back to page 18. Page 18. Page 18. Let's try to figure out what we can do here.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: So if I were to suggest, line six. With respect to solar energy generation facility to meet this criterion, a licensed or professional engineering firm approved by DEC shall perform a full spectrum audit of energy payback time, carbon dioxide emissions at the cost of the alpha, period. The audit shall include a calculation of the costs of disposal of all technologies required, including solar panels, concrete, photomicrotransformers, and batteries, I think they already do that to some degree, but I'm not a 100% sure of that. But to me, if the PUC was going to approve a permit, it would be good for them to be able to say at the end of the life, the applicant has to take care of breaking it down and putting it back into production if that's what we're talking. And It's just a suggestion. I just I took out a lot of the other stuff in there that Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: And that's a projection of what it would cost twenty five years. Yeah. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: That's supposedly the life of the panels even though Yeah. We don't have

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: any So let me ask you this. Yeah. Why does it even matter to us that we know that cost? Why don't we just put something in there that they will bond for the Be responsible. Be responsible for the cause. Not even bond. So what what's it even matter that we even know the cause? That's a good question.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: Maybe And they'll do the calculation for saying, yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: I It how does that strike you? Do that anyway? I don't know. That's that's something

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: I mean, that's That's crazy.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. If we put

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: it in stat, then we know they have to. Could be a real Well, I

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: think it's already an existing stat, but I quickly. Maybe Ellen will be able to

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: But since they did Senator Ingalls, since they had to do it Again. We care because they

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: they fit the bill for it. Yep.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: You know? So it's it's up to them to they're they're You're right. That that that if they were smart business people that they would, you know, try to figure out as best they could, but they're responsible afterwards to to make sure that they use a second part of the chi chi good sense and atone.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: Yeah. My other, I guess, additional question. Is it in statute now that if twenty five years happen, that company could just pull up and walk away and never be responsible for anything else? I don't know what the current statute is or not, but that would be something to ask him.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: Guess Peter's behind us. Do you

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: I was about to do you do you

[Peter Sterling]: know what the current statue is? There there's a decommissioning process that the the solar Peter Sterling for the record. There's a decommissioning process that the PUC runs. They hold they that, basically, there's a certain amount of money in an escrow fund that there's a letter of credit that has to be reauthorized every few years to make sure it's it's kept up. And it's the process the public utility commission has created. And

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: But does it have the weight of law for the developer? Yeah. It's in

[Peter Sterling]: the yeah. Yeah. It's in the the certificate of public goods. Okay. So it's illegal in Doblin.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: Oh, so they're just already money put in escrow to As part to or if they can't just pick up and then walk away.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: Okay. Well, they could pick up and walk away. But, yeah, they would But the

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: money the money's there to someone's going to if if Someone, not

[Peter Sterling]: the state or the landowner Right.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: Will Yes. Fixing that that bad debt.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: And that's held in escrow for each

[Peter Sterling]: project? There's actually a letter of credit that the the developer has to produce.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: So it's not like a bond. It's just a letter

[Peter Sterling]: of credit. So what happens is the developer has to keep a certain amount of money in a bank account, and that and that developer has to produce every couple of years a letter saying that they have this money set aside. So it's not technically an escrow fund, which is a different legal thing. Right? But the developer has to certify that they have money held in an account that is tied to this project's interest, and the PUC oversees that process.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: So there's language, Peter, that we can gather to make that more clear, or we can reference the language. We can reference the statute or what it is. That the legislature created that statute guiding the PUC's decommissioning process.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: So can you answer me this, Peter? When that solar field gets sold from one company to the next company to the next company, I have a farmer that he in Bristol that he goes, I don't even know who owns it anymore. It's been sold so often. How do we

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: make sure that money is there for when it comes time to be closed down with that facility? The Public Utility Commission monitors the decommissioning process regardless of who sells it.

[Peter Sterling]: The Public Utility Commission has staff people. I think you should bring that in there, the experts.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: I'd like to answer on

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: that because yeah. Yeah. Other than that, it

[Unidentified Committee Member]: should be a bond that

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: follows because that happens in construction all

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: the time.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: Maybe that's asking for construction. Do we know

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: well, I think you have to

[Unidentified Speaker]: have I hear you. I think you

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: have to have a little trust in the process.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Mhmm. Mhmm.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: And that if we can borrow the language that they're bound to and and insert it in there, that should be able to circumvent that should be able to circumvent anything. Just twenty five years from now, which there's

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: one in New Haven. Or for Jen's, it's gotta be coming up.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: And again, Senator, what I just don't wanna get to wanna be a partner with people. I know they don't see it in that way. Right. I don't want them to see that we're trying to get in their wheelhouse and make it more difficult for them to do that. And if there's already language in there that says that that's what they must do, I'd just rather go with that I agree. At this point in time, we're not trying to change that industry. They there there's our it's already been determined that that's what they're gonna do. I'd rather just do borrow that language for this bill and trust that that's in there properly.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: Actually, it's more of a procedural question because I'm feeling good with the changes that we just talked about.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: And we're gonna get that language written out to Yeah. To make to get to Allen. But just sort of I don't

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: know if it's a jurisdictional question. Do we have to limit this to when it's a project that's on primary or peripheral soils? Because do we care if there's any additional time, like, when it's done in a parking lot? So I I don't know. I I literally don't know if that's needed or not.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: I am I will go where the committee goes. I am focused on prime, actually. Think, Russ, it's a very good point.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We don't care about anything but prime.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: So if it's something like with respect to

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: a solar energy generation I know. I don't

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: on a prime.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: I think that's almost another committee's jurisdiction on that or as far as whatever. I don't care about anything other than the private part of it. I don't I'm not trying to change that business of their I'm not trying to change their business model. I don't wanna change their business model other than where where it touches us.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: Spelling that out, what you just said, if I add

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: somebody Would you would you wanna read that opinion for Ellen? How are we getting what we want changed then?

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Well, search, write something and send an email to Alan and say, can you include it on and just be specific about the lines of where we're gonna be? Do you

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: have time? Can you send me an email first? Well, I'm not married to what exactly.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: Yeah. Just sitting here. I'm not

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: sure what our specific details are. What are the We want

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: How about respect to solar generations on

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: prime ag land Yeah. Has to meet these criteria. Prime or statewide importance? Well, primary agricultural soils is defined. It's And it includes that. Okay. It includes primary statewide. Yeah. So, yes, I can I can I think I can do that all all Because Yes? It comes to prime land, they shouldn't be scrutinized more than

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: Yes. If they're that that I think that's fair.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: I think it's being fair to all parties at that. And that's something that references the requirement.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Right. They're they they already have the language for the deep conditioning and all of that. I don't wanna change that. Yeah. I'll reach out to him. That's not enough. Okay. To be honest with you, it's none of our business.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: So now we're trying to like, with the hemp, it kind of gets pulled off this way. It does. It's got pulled off. Stay on the lane. That's what we're doing.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: Yeah. Stay in your lane. Yeah. Well, that's Okay. Section nine. Everything with you all. Can I just ask attorney Collier? Maybe you were listening earlier. Maybe you weren't. Hi.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: Not before I walked in. Oh,

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: okay. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: We going back to page 15 of draft 2.1. Do you have 2.1?

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: I do have that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: So page 15, we deleted the reference about the agency of agriculture food markets and just let the existing statute read the agency of natural resources shall appear as a party in any proceedings, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I think that was at your I don't wanna say request, but you indicated that it would be another job that have to be there all kind of thing.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: We already have the authority to be there when we think we should be there, and we are compelled to be there for some projects. Right. The larger one.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: Yeah. But you're okay if we just took that other piece out? Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: I have

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I kinda remember. What?

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: You're doing better than I am then. And

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: are we suggesting that we just, on page 19, strike out from the end of nine to three gas impacts. The rest of that is struck. And then Rob's gonna work on the preceding page, page 18, with respect to the solar energy generation facility on the TriMag land to meet the criteria, etcetera, etcetera. K.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Well, I think we funds it. Yeah. I think we have to. Everybody do with that? Yep. K. Well, then let's move on. Thank you guys for that. That was good committee work. I appreciate that very much. Okay. We're gonna move on now to, go on as three twenty three, obviously. And we have our general counsel for the agency of Agriculture Food and Market and legislative council, legislative council. And I think that we're gonna spend a few minutes on at least one through three. Okay. And is that what you guys are expected to do? Or I'm Or I'll what do you wanna do? Well, whatever you like, Mike. Okay. Thank you, Peter. Oh, thank you for doing. Take care. Thanks.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: If I may. Yes. So Brad is showing off with it. And I just there's only one change that I made in a strap that's highlighted in blue. The patient's probably already seen that. Had to go over that change. And then I it sounds like you're working on the solar piece, and there's two more sections that the committee indicated might come out, and I wanted to get an update on that.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: I okay. Sounds good. And that is perfect. I just wanna make sure that before you two gentlemen leave that we can know that one through three of where it needs to be, sections one through three. That's that's very, very important to us. So yeah. Any other changes, attorney? Yes. Absolutely. I wish

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: you hadn't made it blue.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: Yeah. I didn't I didn't realize. Printing. When you print it out, it's so hard to read. I I but it's easy to read on the screen, so I apologize for that. Won't use blue anymore.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: There's a there's a complainer in every crowd.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: I had the same reaction. I'm like, I can't see this. What happened? Good to hear you. It's definitely a nice light blue on my screen. So, we we could if if we wanna just discuss that that highlighting content. So this was a a an error that I made in the last draft. And so what this has changed to is provided, so the current statutory language has provided that, you don't need an accessory on farm structure permit provided that more than 50% of the total annual sales of the prepared or processed qualifying products come from products produced on the farm where the business is located, and then the addition is or no more than $250,000 adjusted for inflation in total annual sales care process, qualifying products, comfort products that are not produced on the farm where the business is located. Mhmm. And then there is an adjustment for inflation in there. We decided to keep the, CPI. I did concur with Steve on this, and I think that that's probably the best inflator to use in the situation. It's policy choice if you wanna use the CPI just for food. Farms use other items, you know, equipment, housing, things of that sort that might be affected by inflation as well. But there is an employer just for food if the committee wanted to change the employer to to CPI just for food. But as it stands right now, the employer is a super price index for all. That's stupid. That's what? Sorry.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: It may just that as long as we the way I see it is just as long as we had something to that follows inflation. Yeah. It it just doesn't matter.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: And and that people understand the likelihood of what review is the default inflation. Right. So that is Yeah. This one

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: you said is more objective.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: Right? Okay. Yeah. I'm I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: I wanna be able to easily have everybody as we're reporting them to help understand what we just said. Yeah.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: And then the other two questions that I had were on page 11, section seven, and then continues on, to section eight going on to pages twelve and thirteen. When we last left the committee, these are changes to, the current use program. Section seven change and the committee was considering taking these out. I just wanna get an update. Section seven seven, changes requirements for owners to notify when the land has changed its use, and then section eight changes, creates presumption that a new structure on enrolled agricultural land will be used for agricultural purposes. And

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: I wanted to know if

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: the committee still plans to keep those items in.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Yeah. Yes.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: So you're saying? Because I think we can take another bite of that apple if we continue our work with the with what we had yesterday for that conversation. I don't wanna lose I don't wanna lose that conversation. I'm not willing to lose that conversation. I think that if we're gonna work, do some more work on it, that we can we can do that in that next conversation. Because I as soon as we get this bill passed, we're gonna still talk about what we talked about yesterday.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: I'm I'm good. Sure.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: Wait. So That means we keep it in? No. Oh, take it out.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Take it out.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. I'm not. I said, yeah. I don't think

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: you have

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: that upset. No.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: I'm positive. Yeah. I mean, I like the idea. So we think you have enough. We're taking out

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: Probably that 15.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: The what was underlined? Fifteen through Seven.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: We'll just be all seven. Oh, all seven.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: K. Center? Off the bill.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: Yes. And

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: But not on out of our minds.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: No. No. Definitely not on the blinds.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: And then the last piece was that I still have not heard from the CCB on I

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: just sent them an email today Great. And said and I said, you FYI and send me your your your opinion case.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: Okay. Okay.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Well, we hopefully hear back on that, and we need to hear back. I'll put some more pressure on.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: Okay. Okay. That's great. And that's all the questions that I have.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Okay. So, mister Collier, ROEs one through three.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: Great. You're good? Steve Collier. Yeah. Agency of Agriculture. Yeah. It's perfect. And I think that the House Agriculture Committee will be passing something that's different so you'll have another chance to revisit all these issues. But, no, this is, this is a compromised position that we took. We're very appreciative of your listening to all those efforts. We still are talking to the other stakeholders who wanna continue those conversations. Ideally, we'll still get to a place where all of the form farm organizations and the league are all intent with what moves forward. But I think this is a a great place to start, and I think it's also good that it's different than the house version so that we'll facilitate some continued communication. Because if anyone's getting exactly what they want, they stop talking about, hey. Change it. Right. Right.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: True. Well, so I

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: what's typically in the house version is gonna see this difference.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: Yeah. So the framework is a little different in that there's, I mean, essentially, farming is still the exempt, but not in tier one a and tier one b, which is what the league wants. They want to be able to zone in tier one a and one b. We're very concerned about that. However, they have narrowed very much the scope of what could be regulated in tier one a and one b. And we've had conversations with the league about, you know, I think I told all of you this, that if there's specific things in tier one a and b because it's densely populated that you think you need authority over, let's talk about that. But let's not extend zoning carte blanche to farms just because. And so that's what the house ag committee, I think, has tried to do is they've limited it to things that are more likely to implicate public safety, like traffic ingress and egress, signage, posted, markings on the pavement, animals that are close to roads, which towns already regulate animals that escape. But so I think they've tried to limit it. It's a good I I think it's a good faith effort to sort of satisfy everyone's needs, which is exactly what you have. It's just ours is focused, I think, more your version is focused on the entire state of Vermont, and treating farming the same everywhere and not treating farms tier one differently. And that focuses gives the league the league a little bit more of what they want. But, again, if we're I think it's great to have some different options moving forward. Because at some point, if we can't all agree, then all of you are going to have to choose. And and I think both options could be viable. Our position hasn't changed at all because we we think what you have is is a good balance.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: Have we gotten any closer with the negotiations if or it hasn't stopped with, opinion, Citizens Advocacy? We I I

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: I think we've only we haven't really talked to him a lot since we were last Yep. Here. I think because everybody sort of recognizes crossover. Let's get let's get something passed so we keep talking, and let's stop focusing on the margins because we don't need perfection right now Yep. To cross over, but we do need to build a path. So so and I think all the stakeholders agree that the current situation is untenable for farms. So let's not needle around the edges too much and lose sight of the bigger picture, but we all still have we're very worried about extending zoning to farms in tier one. But maybe if it was carefully crafted and well defined, you know, maybe that would be okay. We're we're not there yet. So we like this. This doesn't talk about we don't and the tier one is not even drawn out yet.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: So it's

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: so hard to assess. And and the way that they're all talking, it could be delayed. It could be a veto on that 03/25, and it's all back to the drawing boards, and it's a year or two away anyway.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: It's very confusing to try to evaluate impacts when the maps aren't even drawn. And and and, also, we don't think that we're just because you're in tier one is what's important. What's more important for balancing the interest, in our opinion, is whether or not it's densely populated, whether or not you have enough land to manage livestock. So I think there there are multiple paths, and I still am very thankful that stakeholders and and you were all were very appreciative of all your work. I mean, people are agreeing on far more than they're disagreeing on. That's wonderful. And I I was in house environment yesterday testifying, and I I wasn't sure how it would be received, but I think they're they seem to be comfortable with what the House Agriculture Committee had passed, which is water or not passed. Sorry. Which

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: is their consent. Yes. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: K. Thank you. Okay.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: So I think where we are with our bill right now, the language change that we just did in section five, it was section 10, section nine, and we hear back from the people. And and then I think we're pretty complete. Everybody seem to be in agreement with us. Yes, sir.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: Sorry. If I can just Steve Collier. You can do that. Just make one comment. I don't think it's important that we change this right now, but in on the first page and the second section, so line 15 where it says the Vermont Supreme Court's decision, and then 16 sorry. Line 16, it says reverse the application of the past twenty years of law. I I think that's a little misleading because it's true and that for twenty years at least, it's been the law, but I don't think towns have ever had the authority to to use zoning bylaws. So I might recommend you just put in reverse application of at least the past twenty years of law because at least since 1987. We'll be I'm sorry. Page one. Page. First page. First page. Page. Line 16. I just think putting a reversed application of at least the past twenty years is better because it if you the way it reads now, sort of by reverse implication, it might suggest that before that, towns were zoning for me. I don't think they ever have. At least I can't find a law where they ever have.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: So change for me again? Change?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: Well, at least least Just reverse applications of and then at least the past twenty days. Yeah. Observing the the word and the phrase at least. Yeah. Thank you. Before past. The past. That makes sense to you, Brian. Yeah. That makes sense. The the

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: law going back to about 1988, and and then stated that municipality saw organic agriculture. Ellen did some research on that and found status about as far back as we could get it, but it's been that long that way since '88 at least.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: K. Everybody good with that? I can Yep. K. Was this I'm get into the pillar. I know. I'm probably gonna be messing this up and something that any or three people would really like a nice deep dive on the last thing now. So Anyway, so

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: I don't know what that. Okay.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: So they're not the whole reason. How are you? We are good. Are we

[Unidentified Committee Member]: committed? Yes.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Are we done?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: Yep. Yep. Yep. I think

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: we're Everybody knows where we're at. We're happy. We'll get to you. Hopefully, we're gonna try to pass this thing out tomorrow.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: Okay.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: We certainly wanna get some language to natural resources on Section 9 tomorrow, if not later today, and let them do a drive by of it. But other than that, we're gonna drive by and say, fill out tomorrow.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: Okay. Yeah. It's No. Is someone going to need language for Section 9? Or

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: Yes. You need other one.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: Okay. That's great. Worries after the That's great. Very good. Right.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: Yes. I'm sorry. If I could bring up one more point, just talking to Addison here too. On Section 4, I I think there was an early address. So this is the accessory on farm business at $250,000.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: Yes. And

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: I think you heard from Paul Ralston earlier in the earlier draft included donations because Oh. He wants to give away food, which everybody supports him doing and other people being able to do. So I don't I don't see the donation

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Okay. No. I think that was important. I think that we wanted him to go catch on that.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: Is is do oh, I'm sorry.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: No. I was gonna ask. Is is he a nonprofit, or is he just doing it as He has nonprofit sets. Because that's why we did I think that's why we put it in. The 250,000 was so we can donate and show it on his taxes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do we need to put in

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Robert Plunkett)]: that verbiage? Because I'm happy with it, but do we need to put it?

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: It does say sales, right now in both both there's two ways to meet that threshold, either by, you know, majority of your sales come from crops on the farm or 250,000 total annual sales. So I think if you just added sales or donate Okay.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Yeah. Yeah. I'd I'd like them to be in there. I think that, you know, Paul worked really hard with us to get Yeah. Some of the stuff that he wanted. We couldn't get a lot when he'd done, and I wanna make sure that Paul would be happy. And

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: and some other areas where you've used donations, like in current use, you sort of tie that back to, something that's traceable. I don't know if you want to do that here or not, but, it should be

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: something similar to definition or else. Yeah.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: We'll figure out your. Yeah. Yeah. No.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: I think that's right because this is a different section. Right? And so it is the donations piece was added to the land use value appraisal section of this bill to make it such a donated could be eligible for value appraisal. And so this section could refer to that definition in that section. I'll double check to see if there's not already a definition of donations in this title pen. But, otherwise, I can just say more donations as defined in Yeah. This place and and have

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair)]: it at that. I'll I'll highlight it. For every time. Mhmm. I'll make a change here. Sorry.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: But before Bradley leaves, I I think on page 10,

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: line

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: seven where it's been added or the equivalent value of farm crops. I think that should be donated to farm crops because it's defined below as donated.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: Okay. I'll check with, Kirby throughout that section. I'll check with him. But and I I don't see a problem with that. But if there is an issue, I'll raise it with the company.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: How are doing? Yes?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Everybody good? Yeah. K. Thank you.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Thank you. Yep. I don't know. Probably, we'll get it voted out tomorrow by the opportunity if we can get it voted out tomorrow.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: Okay. Okay.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: And it's definitely by Friday. Obviously, by Friday. But we're gonna try really, really hard tomorrow. It all depends on, Again, I drive by by another committee on section nine and which we're working on hard. So K.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: And I will keep an eye out for the information from the. I will put some blood pressure on them. Great. Appreciate

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: it. Thank you. I just wanna spend this few minutes on this. Don't know. I need some wisdom here. General Collamore, general I mean, attorney Collier. When we get the House version of their bill, are we able to amend at that point in time? As long as it's germane?

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: Absolutely.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Yeah. Okay. And I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on this. As long as we're able to do that, let's not clutter our brains with stuff that we can't that that's not important to our our bill as it is right now. K. Yeah. Just take a look. I'll give that a We're just creating an exemption for law.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: And, again, that's a jurisdictional issue that the house already has authority over that. We don't. Okay.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Natural does. But I have I have it set right down with Natural, but they have said give it to Ag. Okay. So give it give it to Ag and let them deal with it.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: So is this something you're thinking about adding to 03/23?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: Or

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: We'll work with the house version. About 03/23. Okay. When when the house version comes back. Great. So Yeah. Great to talk about this. Yeah. No. We've all yeah. No. We've all talked. That's your copy. Okay. Thank you.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: Yep. Yeah.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: And then so yeah. So I'm not gonna clutter our committee's brain without right now knowing full well that we can amend the House bill. Yeah.

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: The difference is there you're talking about amending the House committee bill. Yeah. Yeah. I I I mean, I don't think there's anything on the house committee bill that's specifically about this, but I do believe your committee bills because it's agricultural related. There's wide flexibility.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: And they and they and they have that. They they I mean, not they don't have that language, but they have that right as far as forestry in their in their in their committee and where we have to beg forgiveness for for doing it. So That's

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated; possibly "Brad/Bradley")]: not part of your the final scope?

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: It's not. So it'd probably be right to have it in their in their bill and in themselves and then make sure that our counterparts over here were okay with it. You you might wanna talk to Michael Grady or your leadership just to when you it's

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: you can amend anything that comes over to you, whether you're expanding the scope or something else. I think there's considerable attitudes, essentially whatever the senate wants. But if it's not specifically there, I don't know. I I would and if it's not within your jurisdiction, you might just wanna ask. We will get secretary Glimmer Yep. About I think you can.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Yeah. But I'll get we'll get forgiveness from the ProTam and

[Steve Collier (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets)]: the financial resources as well. Well, that's the other way.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Yeah. Yeah. So yeah. So gosh. Cool. Anything else that you guys wanna talk about? We're looking really, really good. Anybody got any concerns about it? Does anybody everybody's good? Everybody good where we're

[Unidentified Committee Member]: at? Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: Yeah. Everybody gets a great feel. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Steven Heffernan, Clerk)]: K. And as

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: Steve said, you know, not everything I might

[Unidentified Committee Member]: have wanted in it, but

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Sen. Brian Collamore)]: that's what life's about. K.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair, presiding)]: Then we will it will go off

[Unidentified Committee Member]: with