Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We are live. We are live. This is March 27, and we are finally. Thank you, Alan. I know we've had you and Maria just hanging out the last few days waiting to see if we got off the floor in daylight. We did today, but we're gonna start walking through some of the bills that went back to the house. $5.27, it is a $2.48 a bill. My version of it is sitting up there on the s bills. We didn't take that because I knew this morning was coming, and I understand they have done extensive work on this, and we will have extensive testimony, I believe. There's a lot of interest. And then we'll probably get to 09:40, which is miscellaneous public utilities. So floor is yours, Alan, and we are eating lunch because we just got off the physical.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: And I'm eating yesterday's lunch.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I didn't get lunch yesterday either, so I feel that.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: You got great.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I know you're back. LJ Cassidy office of legislative council. H five twenty seven is extending the sunset of thirty BSA 02:48 a. You have already heard about this already this session because you have the bill in your committee as well. But this is the house's version. It's pretty well, it's longer than it could be, but it's it's not it's just about the sunset for 02:48. So, section one extends the sunset on section two forty eight applications, and I would like to explain remind you about what that is. So currently in statute, effective 07/01/2026, no new applications for certificates of public good under this section may be considered by PUC. This is extending it four years to 2030. Previously you have heard section 248A is the process available to telecommunications facilities to receive a certificate of public good. When someone is looking to construct a telecommunication facility in Vermont, they have an option. They can either go through the 248A procedure against a CPG from the Public Utility Commission, or they can go through Act two fifty and municipal zoning, and they would need two permits. So, in 2007, the legislature created this 248A procedure that utilities and merchant vendors could use. Prior to that, they had to

[Speaker 0]: go through the 1950s.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It has always had this sunset provision in it, and I'll walk you through briefly what they have been. The first one in 2007, they did a three year sunset till 2010. They took it back up, made some tweaks to the law, then 2011. And then since then, every three years, this law has continued to have a sunset in it. 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023, and 2026. And so, the house has been closing four years. Yeah. And I do think that there is this idea that by having it have, continue to have a sunset provision in it, it does have legislature be required to come back and look at this procedure every three years and determine if it is still working for this industry. So, the House then proposed actually a public utility commission process to review public participation. And so, they have this session block provision, which is the rest of the bill. Do you want me to talk about 248A anymore? You're a little refresher, my friend. Public Utility Commission, this is a siting process, so it is a land use process, at least in part, and that is because there is federal jurisdiction broadly over telecommunications facilities under the Telecommunications Act. The states are limited in what criteria they are allowed to review as far as telecommunications, and largely they are the land use criteria. So, they have The federal government has delegated to the state the authority to do largely, like, what is the physical placement of these facilities in your area. They have reserved for themselves other things that the states cannot review or make permitting decisions on. The big one is related to radio frequency emissions, RF. The state does not have any authority over that aspect of telecommunications facilities. We are largely talking about towers, but it also does include antenna and the five gs small box facilities, which are a different type of technology that previously largely has been seen, and radio towers. So, it also does include radio towers slash antennas. The Public Utility Commission is already required to produce public, what was the phrase, Guidance documents. On their website, you can look at the procedural steps document, which I have that shows what the steps are for filing an application, and then what is included and what is required in the notice provisions. And then they also have a narrative version on their website as well, the standards and procedures for Section two forty eight permits. These are documents that you had already directed that the PUC produce documents for the public to assist in understanding a law. Under section two forty eight there are three categories of projects, and that dictates how much of a process they have. So, it's de minimis modification of an existing structure that's a pretty simple application process, and then there are projects of limited size and scope, and then the largest projects have a full application process. Something that's different for 248A as opposed to the 248A process, which is for energy generation project construction. There's this advanced notice period for the larger projects and the projects of limited size and scope. So, not the smallest projects. There's a sixty day notice requirement, and so it goes to It is a notice before they have filed their applications. I'm happy to talk in-depth more about this. This was a long week for me, so I'm forgetting a little bit. But they give notice to the towns, as well as the regional planning commissions, and the towns at that point have the option to hold a public hearing, require the developer to show up, and require the Department of Public Service to show up and participate in a public hearing before the application is actually filed.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: I see you have some sort of Would it be possible to get some of that sent to the

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Sure.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. It's on the PUC's website because this is their one of their public access documents. Yep. So this is the procedural steps if you Google, but also yeah. I can Okay. Yeah.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I mean, I'm on their website. So where where is that on the website? Is it just the general process, or is there a specific two forty eight a document? Yes.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's there's a couple two forty eight a documents.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I don't have the website in front of me.

[Speaker 0]: Well, that might be a good exercise for us to just see how difficult it is to access. This was part of making PUC more friendly to the public. Right. It's that one.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Yeah. Simple Google. Okay. Yeah. Yep. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: I was on their website, not Google.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Oh, I used to. I used to. We certainly heard from people over the years, time and time again, who say the process is difficult, it's legalistic, that a layman typically can't do a reasonable job in entry. Right. And I've heard a lot of complaints about it.

[Speaker 0]: Now we work on that. Mhmm. And this is I mean, PUC used to be utility lawyers and utility lawyers, and it was 248A that had a lot of the public

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Wanting to intervene, and they are lawyers and don't speak lawyers. So this was part of the effort. It would be good, I think, for us to go back, try to find it, and then see if we understand it. If we don't, we know the public's interested. Yeah,

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so you did make that amendment a couple years ago to require them to have on their website document available to the public on guidance for how the process works. So that was the result of one of the sunset updates. And then also, the last time that you passed this in 2023, you did include in your, and I believe it was this committee, a section two forty eight report that the Commissioner of Public Service was to consult with the PUC and then report back on the process of citing telecommunications under 248A, address how to make the process easier to participate for municipalities and individuals, how to encourage municipal participation, and recommend any necessary updates, and they shall be required to hear from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, utilities, and any other interested parties. I wanted to flag that because the House has included The rest of the bill that I haven't ruled out yet, the House has also included another Report. A report on the same issues, I would say. Looking at how to agree What with does that, can I assume that report was done? Yes. And is somewhere? Yes. I do I'm I believe there were not many recommendations made because they've I believe they have done efforts So, a few you can hear about that, I think, potentially from the department and or the PUC. Okay.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: But thank you, madam chair. I'm so prior to creating the two forty eight a process, these types of projects went through at two fifty. And zoning. And zoning. If there is zoning, depending on where they are. Yeah. So what was the logic for creating the two forty eight a process? Was it yeah. What was the do you remember?

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it was in 2029 for you. What I can tell you is that the original version passed in 2007 was for, it was initially specifically for groups of towers being used. So, was for larger, it was for the larger scale projects when a utility was gonna construct more than, I don't know, more than five facilities or something at once, and so it was for the largest projects. Okay. I don't know offhand what the actual specific logic was for that, other than the PUC processes generally are more legalistic and like a court, more formal. Then, two years later, the legislature came back and amended it to any public communications facility, so I've got definition. So there was some indication that the process was working well and people wanted to use it. Okay. So I'm

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: just wondering because as you, I think, mentioned, we, the state, and the PUC has relatively narrow jurisdiction over telecommunication regulation. It's it's largely a federal regulation. So this is just regulating the citing of towers. Mhmm. And but not then the use of those towers. Once they're cited and built, they can't regulate much of

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the actual FCC. Exactly. It becomes a federal jurisdiction.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So I'm just curious. I I I that's I want that's why I wanna know some of the logics of why they went to February a because if this is largely a land use thing, it might make more sense for it to be an Act two fifty process so that I'd love, I guess I just want to hear more testimony about why it is one versus the other that's largely land use and

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: not really a utility thing. I want

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: to hear more testimony too. My understanding was is that as people wanted the system built out rather quickly, it doesn't mean they could drive around in their cell phones and they work.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So it was a time

[Speaker 0]: thing.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, was way too big

[Speaker 0]: to be too long. See. I see.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, okay.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I mean, I still would like to hear more, but that's a fair point. The time thing. Because I I mean I have heard from multiple people that like our constituents that as Senator Brock said that this is a really hard process for regularly people to access and because it's very legalistic and I mean, it's kind of fun

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: that people are like, well,

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I'd rather have that 50, but it's easier to to ask that as a as a per you know, a lay person than than this process is. So

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it'd be good to hear more

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: pros and cons. Saying is it discourages them from participating in it because there's no way that you can participate adequately by hiring an attorney, and that's an expense. Exactly. Yeah. Individuals that's a problem typically can't afford.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Right. For sure.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: So big picture, Elton. If for some reason we don't 5.7? Mhmm. If we don't do it with 5.7 in sunsets, then going forward, all these communication projects are in that two fifty.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Is that correct? And municipal zoning. So they have to

[Speaker 0]: do it they have to

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: do a parallel process for full permits if they're if they're something. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: I think this coincided with the advent of cell phones.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. They wanted the network to get built up. Right.

[Speaker 0]: And they were rather than, you know, putting huge transmission electric towers and your phone lines run down the street, these were towers and they were some were really big towers and some weren't and but they were having more direct impact on towns. There were just multiple numbers of them. We have a, you know, one trophies. Right. We don't run a whole lot of new ones. So that's it. We will start with the PUC. Know we have members of the public that are coming in, and we will and there's there's been a few projects on which there have been issues, And, you know, there are different people that put up towers, and they have different ways of dealing with the public. So we will take a look at that and see

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: if there's anything.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. I just wondered now that the network has largely been built up whether the time issue is still is making a

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: deal or not. I don't know.

[Speaker 0]: I don't know how it's like. You asked you asked the last thing to

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: tell you.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: It's pretty spotty people in the.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. That's fair.

[Speaker 0]: I got a merchant complaint that he thought that his driveway was the only place because people regularly came down on Route 2 and pulled into his lot to answer their cell phones.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So, am gonna walk you through section two, which is the report the house put in. So, section two is a sectional provision. So, the Public Utility Commission shall recommend changes to section 248A to increase transparency, efficiency, fairness, and the ability of individuals and municipalities to participate in the telecommunications citing process. The Commission shall hold at least two workshops on the issue and shall invite at a minimum the following: the telecommunication service providers that have used the Section two forty eight process, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Regional Planning Commission, Vermonters for a Clean Environment, onto page two, the Department of Public Service, the Department of Public Safety, the Agency of Natural Resources, and any other relevant stakeholders. The workshop shall address the following topics and procedures: the advanced notice process, including the content of the notice, the length of the notice period, distribution requirements, pre petition hearings and site visits at the municipal or regional planning level, pre petition supplements and amendments, recommendation from municipal entities, and regional planning commissions, which is a part of the process the municipalities and RVCs are allowed to make recommendations. Whether municipalities should be required to hold a public hearing on

[Speaker 0]: an

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: application, and whether the Department of Public Service should be required to attend. They are currently required to attend if the municipality holds one. The effect of failure to file a petition within one hundred and eighty days following the advance notice date. Procedures for the post petition comment period, including consideration of comments, motions to intervene, and requests for hearings, as well as for issuing significant issue determination during the review period under 248AF. Procedures for contested case proceedings following a commission's significant issue determination that includes scheduling, site visits, including visibility determination, discovery and motions, conduct of evidentiary hearings, including allowing for public participation and streamlining the post hearing briefing process to comply with the applicable review periods under 248A S. On to page three. Evidentiary burdens for Section 248A criteria, including rebuttable presumptions for compliance with agency determinations, how and when municipalities are given substantial deference, and if other parties, such as adjoining neighbors, should be given substantial deference. Requires for supplements and amendments to a pending petition with expressed standards for substantial and non substantial changes. Streamlined administrative process for transferring certificates of public good issued under 248A in Bullard Park, and any other topics the PUC determines should be addressed through rules or orders following consultation with stakeholders. The Commission shall submit on or before 12/15/2027, so a year and a half without. The PUC shall submit an overview of the process it conducted, the recommendations it has, and a description of any changes the Commission made to the section two forty eight process after consultation with stakeholders to the House Committee on Digital, Energy and Digital Infrastructure, and Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy,

[Speaker 0]: and probably your community as well.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And it takes effect on passage. So, I did just wanna say based on this, this proposes to give them a year and a half to do at least two workshops on this entire list of things. The structure for this procedure is mostly based on what happened in H710, which is another bill that you're going to consider. So, last year you did ask the PUC to get with the stakeholders and come up with a, do a workshop process to come up with a recommendation for changes to the definition of plant in Title 30. The House Committee felt like that went very well because it resulted in very clear, language that is now

[Speaker 0]: in a bill. Hedges and gnaw. Yeah. Yeah. So you're gonna take the what? There what they're screening. Plants, how high did they have be, and yeah, remember last

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: How you define what is now? Oh,

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I remember this now. Yeah.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so you have that bill on your schedule next week, but the House committee felt like giving the PUC specific direction on who to meet with and for how long resulted in a good process. And that is sort of what they were going for here. You may want to consider if that This is a pretty long list of things to consider.

[Speaker 0]: That I would say it is a substantial list. And I would I'm gonna start based on the bill as it came to us, and I first people I would talk to was the PUC and the public service department and allow them feedback on the bill, and then we can go from there. We'll take public testimony. I have Citizens for Clean. I know that, you know, they wish to testify, so we will have them in.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then they did hear testimony from attorneys that were in this process and then also in Act 15, so I think a lot of the recommended language here was coming from people who have been through the process in 248A and have outlined a lot of the steps.

[Speaker 0]: And so asking the PC to review those steps and how many changes can obtained, but we hadn't been turning to a Barry.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, yes, I do think

[Speaker 0]: she'll hear it be a lot of things all the time.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: She's now on the third.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: She's now on the third. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: She's on the third.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And she did testify in the house. Yes. Because she has worked on both the house disease. Yep. Okay.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Still think I should call up the review board for his land use. R B U L E M.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So It's such a long week for

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: you, Glenn. I'm sorry. Don't panic, Alan. So,

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yes. In in statutory changes, this is a very short bill, but there are a lot

[Speaker 0]: of different issues for you to dig into, I think. I think, yeah, we keep refining it. In general, it seems to be working.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: The answer test would be some compliance tests of how what's the average time it takes to produce the time the average time it takes to get a result. Con is people who actually are people who are applying. What's easy, what's difficult? I mean, a lot of questions that would be asked if you really want a clear evaluation. I'm not certain that all those questions are being asked.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I would also just add that I do believe they had testimony from one of the attorneys for one of the utilities. The active 50 and municipal process is still available and that there are some people who do choose to go that route. So there are pros and cons to

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: either. Why do people choose to go that route would be a question that

[Speaker 0]: I also want to ask. Okay, so we will definitely have some chilling. I have a feeling we'll hear from people who have been through the process. Anybody here has Enisburg in their district? Enisburg. Enisburg. I think that was one of the towers. There were a lot of issues around. So you might have some folks that won't come in. And we will look at this, and if we can refine further. The idea was to have a simpler,

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: quicker

[Speaker 0]: kind of process than having to go through two fifty, which could keep you tied up to several course.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Well, that the whole idea of two forty eight a, is that it would be a super process and easy for people to administer. But most of the feedback that I've heard is that it's not. And again, they're complex subjects, obviously, to begin

[Speaker 0]: with, which is Used to be dealt with by two attorneys who battled it out before.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: It's sort of on the list that you would ask the question of what is the process of government that you would impose on your deepest, darkest enemy and where they would rate, and I gather that 248A would rate It high on the

[Speaker 0]: probably depends on what you want to accomplish. If you want to prevent anything from being built anywhere near where you live and it's not very efficient, you will like that process. If you want to build towers everywhere and have five g available in every rural back road, it's probably a very inefficient process. So we will hear from both sides, and then we will make our decision. But the more things we add that they have to do, the longer we're gonna make the process. It's like those grains of sand that eventually become a beach. That's been my health care thing. We keep adding little grains of sand.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: They're really good things. Addition is always a good little subtraction.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Now we have an expensive beach. So okay. So this one, we will start with more. This is one of the larger bills, so more important it needs to come out. So I'd like to see if we can move it along as quickly as possible before we get bogged down in tax and school funding and all that good stuff. Okay. Let's move on to $9.40 unless there's other question.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So $9.40 is truly a miscellaneous bill. It has three topics in it currently. There was a fourth topic initially and that has gone away, so if you looked at the statement of purpose. The first two sections are within my area expertise. The third section is technically Maria's, but it's just eliminating the Telecommunications Advisory Board, which hasn't met in at least four years. That's the last section. So, it's a board that stopped meeting and it's getting

[Speaker 0]: We say that that, we will hear from them, that is probably a mature industry that is advising itself right now. And you've created other structures too.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you have different reporting now. Yeah, build up in these early days. Okay. But the first two, the first, the rest, basically 90% of the build, is related to energy. So, the first section is use of thermal funds. And this is a successor to EMA, for those of you who are familiar with that. The Energy Efficiency Modernization Act pilot program, which started which was enacted in 2020. And this is the issue that the efficiency utilities, their budgets come from very specific pots of money. And so broadly, there's two categories. There's electric energy efficiency, and then there's thermal and process fuel efficiency funding. Those two pots of money have specific things that they can be spent on and not, they can't I use the funds for other

[Speaker 0]: know. Colonization.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, and this committee historically has talked a lot about that. So, Efficiency Vermont has efficiency utility jurisdiction for most of the state, the exception being that Burlington Electric is another efficiency utility, and their jurisdiction is their service territory, which is Burlington and a little bit outside of it. But their territory overlaps with Vermont Gas Systems, which is the third efficiency utility. Burlington Electric and I'm picturing Vermont. And VGS overlap, and their pots of money for thermal efficiency, they both each have a pot of money for thermal efficiency, and they can only spend those dollars on thermal efficiency, which is a lot of weatherization. It's often weatherization. It can be spent on other things, but because they overlap, their customers also overlap. Burlington Electric, under original EMA and Efficiency Vermont, that initially allowed them to start spending their thermal dollars on things other than thermal efficiency, including transportation. So, EVs was a big thing for them to spend their money on, and then this is efficiency Vermont. No,

[Speaker 0]: no. Burlington Electric, that's right, because I remember about in Burlington electric, they were charging stations that went in.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And they use it actually, most of what they use it on, I think, is actually incentives, because they Yeah, get it. Yeah, made it. Under EMA initially, let me just finish quickly. That was a three year program and then it was extended to six years because COVID was in the middle of it. And so, that pilot program went for six years and it was both Efficiency Vermont and Burlington Electric giving them flexibility on how they spent these funds. Okay. This bill you have in front of you is just specific to Burlington Electric because of the unique nature. Efficiency Robot has not asked to continue that flexibility. They're comfortable right now, I guess, with how it's going without an additional change.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, because we did another program just before COVID that allowed businesses essentially to retain their efficiency charges, line charges, and invest in efficiency projects which could be thermal projects. Yes, did that too. And then we had to extend it because COVID threw a wrench in everything. Yep. And I've been thinking we should revisit that, so this would be a good time to revisit it.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. That was a different program also.

[Speaker 0]: Yep. Okay. But this also, we allowed because efficiency Vermont bodies raised on the line charge could only be used for electric. Savings. And we allow them to do a certain percentage or amount towards thermal. And is that what we're now looking this is This is the to Chittenden County. Yep. And Those two. Alright.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And this is the opposite because this

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: is

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: saying efficient Electric has this pot of money that can only be spent on thermal efficiency, and they have not been spending all of their funds because their customers are already getting thermal efficiency from BGS. Okay. So, can they spend their thermal funds on electric efficiency? So, it's the opposite, Okay. Including electric vehicles. And there's a couple of examples in here what they use, they what the programs they have and you can hear from them. This is it is it was part of EMA, but six years have passed. That was a pilot now. This is again this is for another three year cycle because that is their budget cycle that

[Speaker 0]: they go through with the with the PUC. Okay.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Where does Burlington Electric's pot of thermal efficiency money come from?

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the fuel efficiency fund is made up of revenue, so the regional greenhouse gas credit sales, and the funding from ISO New England forward capacity market, capacity that efficiency Vermont bids in, and we have been we're ready for

[Speaker 0]: that. Efficiency for we don't put claims for what we say, that was what we were told we were crazy. What we asked for that in this committee from ISO New England, and we got it because of the efficiency that we have put in. We are reducing our future claims for more electricity as so it's less electricity that they have to produce, and we get credit for it. Yeah. Think it's just those two funds.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Are there any other electric utilities that that that's about thermal efficiency money?

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. It's just the three. It's efficiency Vermont heat Vermont Gas Systems and Burlington Electric is the only three.

[Speaker 0]: They're they're they're independent efficiency Utilities. Utilities. Yep. Everybody else is one big mess. All the utility companies, most of them are in efficiency per month.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, because I believe at least what happened was in 1999, when there was a process to create efficiency utilities large scale, Burlington Electric had already had in house efficiency programs, and so Efficiency Vermont was created to cover most of the state, but they said, We already have our own programs. We're doing it for our service territory. Can we not be part of Efficiency Vermont? Vermont Gas Systems also was like, We do something, but it's totally different. There's mostly the state is covered by Efficiency Vermont and have access to their services, but Burlington Electric and Vermont Gas Systems are a little bit unique, and so we have three efficiency utilities instead of just one.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, it it just seems kinda odd that I mean, I get Burlington Electric and then efficiency Vermont. That's kind of all the rate payers Mhmm. Across the state. Then the thermal deficiency is to, you know, the Vermont gas and just services one part of the state for Vermont.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, because the rest of the thermal market is unregulated. They're not utilities.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay. Got it.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Okay. So it is an unusual situation. Let's find it unpack.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Yeah. Okay, thank you. Yep. Do

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you want me to read through this language for this program?

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Sure. Okay.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: HI-forty 40 pages. The first part is not that long. Close, round it down. Well, section one is not that long. HIE So, four eighty secondtion one, use of thermal energy and process fuel funds for greenhouse gas emission reduction programs. So, notwithstanding any other provision of law or order of the PUC to the contrary, The entity appointed under 30 BSA two zero nine(two), which is Burlington Electric Department specifically, that is also a retail electricity provider, so an entity pointed under the energy efficiency utility statute, and is also a retail electricity provider. Which there is only one. Yep. For calendar years 2027 through 2029, so they have a three year budget cycle, may spend any amounts the entity has available to it through annually budgeted thermal energy and process fuel funds, and carry forward thermal energy and process fuel funds from prior periods on programs, measures, services that reduce fossil fuel use, and greenhouse gas emissions in the thermal energy or transportation sector, regardless of the pre existing fuel source of the customer. The entity may also use thermal energy and process fuel funds under this section to deliver thermal and transportation measures or programs that enable fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emission reductions, such as geothermal test well funding, regardless of the pre existing fuel source of the customer. That is part of what's already in the statute currently, is that fuel source is also part of the tie, is fuel switching allowed under the use of these funds? Again, this is what they have been doing for the last six years, but this is again doing it for another three year cycle.

[Speaker 0]: Have they found any geothermal? Now, understand geothermal is really efficient, but finding it is really expensive. So, network geothermal has started to come up

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in the state, and that is smaller scale geothermal. It's not like the large scale geothermal, and it is a viable option in parts of the state. The issue is it expensive to do retrofit on, and so it's easier with new construction. But there is a medical office building that has geothermal already in Vermont that beat the Vermont gas systems. I know

[Speaker 0]: that's been here. Yes. One

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of our schools is beautiful. Oh, see? Yeah. The Meadowbury WI. You

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: You just have to have soil that doesn't have super high sand content

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: in it.

[Speaker 0]: Well, there goes my yard. How about super high?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: What's going on 20 feet below your yard?

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, back up down, then I got clay.

[Speaker 0]: I don't know what's below that.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We all know so much about geothermal. Also.

[Speaker 0]: But the water table's really high too.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: It's a lot more than people have realized.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, under this section, the entity shall also prioritize weatherization and thermal sector efficiency programs with its offerings pursuant to this section. Onto page two. Burlington Electric did negotiate with the Department of Public Service, who was a little bit concerned about the continued use of these funds, and so they negotiated about They're going to allow this to happen, but 60% shall budget at least 60% of the funds for programs under the section for weatherization and thermal sector efficiency programs to be offered to customers regardless of their preexisting fuel source, with a minimum of 60% of those weatherization and thermal sector efficiency program funds allocated for customers with low income and low to moderate income, and projects requiring electric panel or wiring upgrades or abatement of other health or building related items to facilitate weatherization of thermal efficiency. Thermal efficiency is one of the things that these funds can be used for, and the department had an interest in making sure a specific amount was gonna go to weatherization, particularly for lower income customers. The entity shall seek approval from the PUC for all planned expenditures through the three year performance period as part of the tri annual energy efficiency utility planning process and the demand resources planning proceeding. Report to the PUC annually on program participation, including any customer survey data obtained that discussed how impactful incentives offered under this section were for customer adoption. Any funds spent on programs, measures, and services pursuant to this section shall not be counted towards the calculation of funds used by Burlington Electric for energy transformation projects under the Renewable Energy Standard and the calculation of project costs under the tier three Renewable Energy Standard. They have to keep these separate from the tier three obligations that they have, and some of these things may technically qualify for tier three, but this is separating them out, so they still have to

[Speaker 0]: do their tier three requirements. Okay. We should probably get a refresher course in here on tier one, two, and three. I remember spending hours, and I'm not sure what we did ever made it out of natural resources. So I think at some point, we'll have you come back just remind us or inform those of us who have done this before what they are.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure, so then sections two, three, and four are on an entirely different topic. Sections two, three, and four are about the Regional Planning Commission process, specifically about enhanced energy planning. So, in 2017, you created enhanced energy planning, which is a process municipalities can go through, as well as the RPCs. It's an optional process, but if a town goes through an enhanced energy planning process, and they get their plan approved, that gives them substantial deference at the PUC for section two forty eight energy certificate of public good process. So, gives the town a stronger voice to weigh in on whether or not they want something built.

[Speaker 0]: Planned, okay. So,

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is an update that attempts or or is is seeking to merge the new regional plan update process that was created as part of act one eighty one. And so it's merging these two processes because previously, the regional planning commissions would submit their energy plans to the Department of Public Service. And that still is gonna happen here, but now it's merging it with the process that the Land Use Review Board is also doing the regional ends. Okay. And it is amending some of the same statutes that Central District Yeah, I was gonna ask you

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: about that. I was like,

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I recognize this paragraph. I said some of these are starting to sound. Is it is

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: it gonna be problematic? Well, I'm

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: going to try real hard to make sure these things don't conflict, and perhaps it may

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: be a good

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: idea for them to be in the same pill. Yeah. We

[Speaker 0]: should speak together and decide on the vehicle. Mhmm. And what we'll go where, okay.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And so, the S-three 20

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Yeah, think they're looking at me.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: S-three 25 is a vehicle that has language related to this as well. Okay.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Yeah.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section two is amending 24 BSA, 4348, adoption and amendment of the regional plan. So, it's adding that sixty days prior to the first meeting on a regional plan, if the regional plan is seeking the optional determination of energy compliance, they will also submit it to the Department of Public Service for review and comments on whether or not they have conformed to the statute.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Yeah,

[Speaker 0]: the more I look at this, the more I think we might ask if Natural Resources might light this bill, especially if they're working on something similar. Well, signing out for

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Resources just sent their bill today to the house.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. That was the bill we did on Yeah. The floor

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we had the issue where But if the house that house

[Speaker 0]: may be interested in putting it in s three twenty five.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. But maybe natural resources should work

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on this since we've just done it. Well,

[Speaker 0]: yeah. Work on over there. Maybe our people can talk to the houses people and figure out the best path.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And in everyone's defense, this bill started before S-three 25 even existed. There wasn't initially a land use vehicle. Then on page four, the RPC shall, if it's submitting seeking the optional determination, solicit feedback on the enhanced energy plan, including consistency with the requirements when they do the initial thirty days prior to the first hearing on the plan. So, it's working it into the existing procedure that the RPCs have to go through instead of going through a separate procedure with the Department of Public Service. And then at the bottom of page four, after the plan has been adopted, the Regional Planning Commission shall also, at the same time, if seeking the optional determination, submit the plan to the Department of Public Service for review. So, after they've adopted it at the regional level, then they submit it to the Land Use Review Board. At that time, they are sending it also to the Department of Public Service for review for concordance with the statutes. Section three then updates 24 BSA 43.5, which is about the municipal planning process, and it adds to the list of requirements that the municipality shall have as part of their planning process. If they are seeking the energy determination, they shall also include the enhanced energy standards as part of their municipal plan process.

[Speaker 0]: This is for client. Yes. Yes. And

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then there's one more section on it, is section, which is actually the statute on the Enhanced Energy Planning.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. I'm going to send an email. She's the chair of natural resources and ask her to take a look at this and see if they want it in conjunction. I'd rather let them work on it or decide it's already been done to some extent, but see if she would like to work on this.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: This is different than what we did.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. It's it's different than what oh, but it definitely is more municipal land use other than the couple things up there on utilities, and we can work on that.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Do you have a DH bill from them that you can just I practice

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: don't think so. I mean, we haven't gotten all of our DH bill. You would know, but yeah.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, there is, so, no. So, that's one of the awkwardness here, but communication, I think, will help. But the house already passed this, and so they have your land use bill. They could put this on the land use bill. And you still have, we're only halfway through the sessions.

[Speaker 0]: And then I think two forty eight is going to take up time and we have a major school funding. Missile is taxed, bill headed our way, which is one of those things that as the pressure finally mounts and things start happening with maps and districts, we will need to be prepared to move quickly. Yep,

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and that's just so to remind you, I already said it, but the Telecommunications Advisory Board is repealed in Section five.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, okay.

[LJ Cassidy (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And they haven't met in, I think, least four years. Okay. So, we could do

[Speaker 0]: telecommunications and efficiency utilities. Getting rid of the board. Rid of a board, Randy.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Get rid of bees. Don't tell me before.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Vice Chair)]: Sorry.

[Speaker 0]: We lowered bees.

[Senator Randy Brock (Member)]: Condition. Yep. Okay. Yeah. I like it.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. I think that's it.