Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: We are live.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We are back, and we are going to take up each. 53, which is another simple little bill we need to get out of here. Okay, so Maria, you have a new draft for us?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I do. So Maria Royal with Legislative Counsel. So you'll remember H753 has to do with utility disconnections. There are three sections, well, four, including the effective date. The first section is just the title, the short title. The second section is a report, on, disconnections and what the trends are, based on data available to the department as well as monthly reports that are filed by utilities. But it's the third section. I'm going to share my screen in just a moment. There have been two proposals of amendment. To that section, and as soon as I get authorization to share my screen, I

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: will oh, here we go. Great.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So as mentioned, these are amendments to section three. So the amendments are highlighted. They came from two separate sources, so I wanted to keep them separate. That's why one is highlighted in yellow and the other one is highlighted in blue. So this concerns, it basically specifies that when the PUC next adopts rules concerning disconnections, utility disconnections, but no later than 01/01/2028, that it shall, those rules shall reflect what's included here. And then there are three things that are mentioned, in the house passed language. So the first proposal of amendment is I'm looking at now Subdivision A1 Line 13. So the Commission shall adopt rules that curtail electric utility service disconnections during periods of extreme heat as defined by the Commission, which may include a lower temperature threshold for households comprising persons who are 62 years age of older, and then the proposal is also to include persons who are eight years of age or younger or are pregnant. So that's one proposal. And then the second proposal, as you can see under Subdivision 3, there was a requirement that the rules ensure that the, PUC give due consideration to medical judgment regarding the duration of a health hazard pursuant to a physician certificate, when it's looking at, imposing a disconnection. So the proposed language is basically, to leave it a little bit more open ended and simply state that part of I'm sorry, was there a question?

[Sen. Randy Brock]: No,

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: we're just getting noise from the hall.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, okay, sorry. So it would now just simply state on subsection B as part of the rulemaking required under subsection A, the commission shall consider whether medical judgment should be incorporated into determining duration of a disconnect disconnection protection period for a health hazard. So those are the two proposed amendments.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: I'm happy to speak to the yellow one. If you want to. It might be fine. Fine. It just came from Philly Bright Futures. I'm on the State Advisory Council and that was something that they called protect vulnerable, pregnant

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: people and young people. And the other one, I remember there was a lot of discussion

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: about PUC knows nothing about medical conditions and making those judgments they did not feel comfortable with. This says, take a look at it and see

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: if there's stuff like you could do that. I think the testimony was if you're on a medical device, they don't disconnect you. They work with you, and I think trying to strike a balance here between people being responsible, they'll try and work a payment program, they'll but if there's no disconnects, then people tend to run up a lot of debt.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: So I think

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: that's where we are. Are there any questions on the amendment? Any concerns with the amendments? Is there any motion to amend? Anyone in the audience have concerns?

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: You're first, but you have a concern. Yeah. I'm I'm a c.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: Thank you. For the record, Dylan's been leading on you. I have heard of GMP. This is the first time I've seen the addition of the reference to the individual eight years of age or younger or pregnant. So I'm thinking through the potential ramifications there. Generally speaking, children does not have a window into someone's especially minor status and also whether or not an individual is pregnant. I'm not sure that's necessarily information that my client would want to need to have in their database as they get through this. And so, obviously, it just from an impact as the committee has heard or the consideration here is how you make sure that vulnerable households are not disconnected during periods of extreme heat as they are not disconnected during periods of extreme colds while also balancing the impacts to all repair classes. And the larger that pool of potential households or customers is that are, relieved from paying that rather than cost implications are now certainly appreciate the intent of protecting households with these these other classes of potential customers. I I I do not having consult have the opportunity to consult with our folks. Just my mind, you know, it goes to the central privacy concerns. I've just but that is not typically the type of data that we would collect from our customers at the time of, you know, sign up for service or at any other future point. Even when it comes to Green Power has their their energy assistance program EAP, which is a 25% discount on any individual who is at a 185% of the federal poverty level. Even in that program, is DCF that does the income verification and then provides us with a list of eligible customers. So they're basically a communication where the customer comes to us and says they want to apply, we go to DCF and say, there's that. That is not we do not collect income information in a similar way. Think we would be a little nervous about collecting a Medical information or just pregnancy status.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: Okay. Can ask the question, Dylan? So if you does this process that essentially, if someone the disconnection process is does it have does the customer request to not be disconnected?

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: So I'm just pulling this up. So the rule two point three hundred Mhmm. Is being they're they're directing the agency to update that rule Mhmm. With the sort of following goals. Of which is the goal of curtailing utility disconnections during period six treaty, which may include a lower temperature threshold for households compromised. So they're looking at I don't know sort of how the the commissioner would draft this rule. I haven't been, oh, two weeks since I've looked at the Mhmm. Existing rule for how it it looks at different customer classes in terms of vulnerable individuals and whether they're provided at different sort of threshold.

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: Would you work if we

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: didn't vote on this today so that you could have a chance to consult with your client.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: That would be greatly appreciated. I have not consulted with them because they have this person who's seen it.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Well, I'm gonna put this on for

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: a vote tomorrow. I just wonder if I

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: can just follow-up with This

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: is my first time seeing it too, so I haven't thought through it a lot, but, similarly with the age of the client or customer, if somebody has to request not to be disconnected or if they have to provide a doctor's note to not be disconnected, that pregnancy could be covered under that, I would assume to say. I know I'm eight months pregnant, please don't

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: share all my Yeah. So, like,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: it would be data that you would have to have. It would just be it could be included in the sort of documentation from the customer.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: The request. Yeah. So, the doctor's The way that the health care professional note works right now, as I understand it, I don't think that there's any specific requirements that the provider list out the individual health diagnoses or anything that is gonna be shared with them. So, I mean, especially as you think about HIPAA. Privacy laws, HIPAA, like

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: The general practice is you you just don't want certain types. Like, there's no valid reason why Right.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: So my already to have

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: I just really need to think through that.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: Yeah. I mean, I agree. I don't think Green Mountain Power should know whether their clients are pregnant. That for a lot of reasons, they're the like, privacy of pregnancy.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: So just I I think it might actually be covered in the the medical note anyway. They could just relax.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: It just says there's a medical condition here.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: You really want it? Or there are no children. Yeah.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: We definitely don't want our information because I was supposed to bother our privacy. And I'm not sure about I

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: mean, young children go out and play in a bucket of water and take it really cool. I mean, cooling down a young child is not Right. Unless they're sick, which is another thing, and that would

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: be kind They're of sick. Yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: But there, you can throw them in the sink and turn on the cold water.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: Yeah. Think infants, though, don't Infants. They're not

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: gonna That would, I think, again It might be covered by the medical professional. That's fine now. Yeah. Because

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: I I mean, I totally understand you guys don't wanna have. We don't want you

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: to to know that the single mother has five kids under the age of pain. I

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: mean, be clear, do have a list of customers that we know maybe on medical devices. Yeah. Because of some of this interaction. And so when there are, for example, outages is

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, VT Department of Public Service)]: Yeah.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: Teams on the phone with those folks in constant communication. Yeah. To make sure that they have what they need. And if we need that there needs to be a truck sent out, like, they're they're going above and beyond to ensure that those folks are being contacted. So we're acutely aware of the individual circumstances, but

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Well, what we haven't heard is testimony that the utilities have just pulled the plug literally on vulnerable people. I think the testimony has been that the utilities really work, but they also have a responsibility to make sure that people pay what they can because all the other customers are gonna pay it.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: I think if I may just one last thing, you know, the bill, largely speaking, as it came over from the house, the intent was, as you heard from the Department of Public Service and other utilities, current practices that when the Department of Public Service sees that there is a high warning, they will reach out to the public center to ask for a pause and disconnections. Having utilities to the team have complied with that request absent the statutory obligation to do so. And so generally speaking, we look comfortable with providing the statutory confirmation that that needs to happen, but the further shifts and introduce new aspects, I think the more we would appreciate.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. So committee, we can wait till tomorrow or we can vote at this amendment as is or we can ask Maria to do draft 1.2 and strike out the yellow highlighting. I would love to hear, Ramiti,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: what your folks have to say. I also really feel strongly that we should be protecting pregnant people and children, and there are a lot of vulnerable young families out there that I think we I'd like

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: to protect them as best we can. Okay. We will put this on for both. Maria, if you can can we just say there's it's not set out as two instances of amendment, but it looks like you may choose to do one and not the other. And Yeah. We might do both. Might do both. Well, both is done. I think that the second one isn't causing any consternation and will make the board feel, the PUC feel better. Okay. Thank you. So, it's the first one. And if we could just do it as the second instance of amendments, that would work. If we need it drafted, it's two.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: I will just mention that this is just weighing out what we want them to put in the rule, the POC So, in the they could still come up with language that if they know we want them to deal with things for older people, younger people, and pregnant people, they could create a rule that has a process that is not about

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: collecting data about who's pregnant and who has to

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: So, get I it may this language may work.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: I I will say I I just pulled off the rule. The the current practice is a written statement by this duly licensed physician all in her testimony. I think that the PAs and that repair resident or resident within the repair's household is gonna suffer an immediate and serious health hazard by the disconnection of the company's service or by failing to reconnect the service to the household. I think broadly, you see I think that gives the physician very broadly

[Sen. Randy Brock]: Yeah.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: The physician the latitude to say, hey, Nate. I mean, I don't know that because if there's not a requirement, it just says the the attestation from the from the physicians that they've been suffering and get more serious as health hazard, I think physicians can be well positioned to make that determination about whether that's because the person is elderly, because they are pregnant, because they are have young children in the home and have a lot of confidence in our health care providers, my wife included, to be able to make that determination and and write that without being overly specific. Yeah. Team is leading the provider, so they don't look at us.

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: Companies just argue that they are not Shutting people It's fairly broad as it's currently like, where do you expect the use of it

[Sen. Randy Brock]: to become more restrictive? Okay. One question that I have in mind is, of the poorest, least educated folks that we have in categories of danger, do they have a healthcare provider that they would go to to ask for this kind of advice in the first place? Good question. Those are the people we're probably most concerned about, not the average person.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yes. Assume having heard the utilities say they contact people when they're overdue, that they could tell them to go to their health care provider, which could be the emergency room, it could be your local alternative.

[Sen. Randy Brock]: Would it be that or could it be something, and again, I don't want to create burdens for business on the one hand, but on the other hand, a flyer that might be issued by every utility to every customer as part of their normal billing routine, for example, if they bill by mail. Just advising people that in the event of this, you can do that. If you don't have a healthcare provider and it's, here's where you can go, where that would be, quite frankly.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: I do think that the consumer assistance program at the Department of Public Service plays a valuable role. And I think you've heard from over there. They they are the folks at the state who Mhmm. And they I think whether you call the consumer assistance program at the office or any other or DCF, that will they'll eventually the the customer will get funnels

[Sen. Randy Brock]: to Oh, yes. That's that's the question, though. Do do all the customers know that this even exists? I hear. That's the question, is it too much to ask providers to make people aware in the normal course of business and communicating with customers in general?

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: Health care providers or or utility? Utilities.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We

[Sen. Randy Brock]: I I because, again, if a person can't consult with a health care provider, they don't have one. And there are a lot

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: of people who don't understand that. And and I think you've heard testimony before from Andrea Cohen at the DC who's talks about, you know, fielding calls and being seen at last. Her staff that are getting calls from customers too, you know, aren't able to pay their bills for whatever reason. And in the normal course of communication, generally, I think they have referred to their that is the point at which you there's information you check about what options are available.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: If you have a serious health issue, then you should be seeing a doctor or you're probably going to die. I mean, with serious health issues generally do have a medical provider or People's Health and Wellness Clinic or they make regular emergency room calls.

[Sen. Randy Brock]: It would be interesting

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: to There might ask be someone out there. I'm just reluctant.

[Sen. Randy Brock]: I'm saying, wouldn't it be interesting to ask the Department of Health, do they have any records of people succumbing or becoming seriously ill because their power's been cut off or because they've had no access to heat, electricity, or coldness in hot weather or cold weather?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We have not heard

[Sen. Randy Brock]: any We haven't heard anything to best of my knowledge, but never asked either.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: No. But there's enough advocacy groups out there. I think we would have heard.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: I was gonna say, I just think we're trying to really point that this is about rule making. So Right. When the rule making happens, they may decide that, yeah, these folks are already included in the vulnerable individual, and we don't you know, it's not necessary to carve them out in any specific way. So I I think it just seems like it's would be okay for rulemaking. Do you not agree, Dylan, or you well, you're gonna get back to us tomorrow anyway, but okay.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: Yeah. I mean, initially, right now, because I looked at the rule as it currently is breaking in

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: It's fairly broad and in the

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: things that are in the health care providers realm of what they're entitled to work they can do. In current practice with respect to eat, we would expect that that would carry over too. I just I always worry about that as we're talking about sort of stalling up pregnants pregnant individuals and Yeah. Children. There are I could there are a whole host of other specific categories that you could imagine just Yeah. Going on there. And at some point, it becomes you like such all a routine. The time. It's like it is. But this is not an exhaustive list. You

[Sen. Randy Brock]: don't wanna overshibble it. I understand that fully. Don't do I have any intention doing so, but I guarantee you the first time you have somebody who dies, because the heat's got turned off, the conversation will change.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Well, if that happens, there would be news stories.

[Sen. Randy Brock]: That's right.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: And there would be an outcrow.

[Sen. Randy Brock]: That's why I ask, has this happened? Well, for heat,

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: there there isn't I think before you're returning this year, the idea that there is there is a statute in place today and a rule that's been for heat. What the this is really trying to do is sort of codify and statute the existing practice that it is in place today for periods of its.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, high heat warnings, no one twenty years ago, no one in Vermont had air conditioners. If you were really rich, you had a big windows fan, but we didn't have the kind of heat where it didn't drop down at night, where you couldn't get cold off. I mean, we just it was Vermont. It didn't get over 90 more than maybe one day every two years. And so we focused on the cold because it did regularly get below zero for a week at a time. It hasn't done that in a while, but we are seeing more heat days. I just I know we're all trying to be helpful, but I have a feeling we're trying to solve a problem that may not be a problem, that one incidence we've heard is a landlord who didn't pay and who got the notices and chose to ignore them and somebody lost food in their refrigerator. I assume they can go to small claims court and sue the landlord. I don't know that we need we could put in, they could investigate other areas of vulnerability that might I mean, is eight the right age? Why not six? Why not six months? Why not 10? I mean And there's always gonna be some child with a super condition that doesn't fit in. So the broader, the better probably.

[Sen. Randy Brock]: Oh, one thing I think is as you mentioned, I'm sure since we don't know if there's a real problem yet. And you don't get answers to questions you don't ask.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: But their job at rule making is to ask. Well, I do think I

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: mean, senator Brock brings up the point about do people know? And so we could add something about I think they have PFCS report back to us so they could or throughout their rulemaking process require that they take testimony on.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, VT Department of Public Service)]: In terms of whether that

[Sen. Randy Brock]: is a problem. Yeah. Second, the Department of Health, like I have records, if there is a problem, another piece of paper reported that shows that there's an instance. If there are not, that will also help us answer the question. They don't wanna solve a problem that doesn't really exist.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I I remember there were two deaths in Montreal when there was an extreme heat up there a couple years ago and that was well covered. There's never been that I can remember an extreme deep death here. It was caused maybe they're too poor to own a fan, but not because their electricity got shut off. So what do we wanna put in this bill that we will vote on tomorrow? The

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: general

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: rule is very broad for medical. If there is any reason that losing your electricity in heat or cold would be life threatening that the doctor writes a note and just says, don't shut it off. We could be more specific, but being specific would risk losing, leaving something else out. So we might just want to say you should consider are there any more vulnerable groups that should be included and leave it wide open or do nothing.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: For what it's worth, forty eight thousand people died in Europe last year because of extreme heat. Yeah. They just haven't adapted quick enough to the big climate change that's happening there. It does say that women and the elderly have been disproportionately affected. And it does say pregnant people are more vulnerable to Heidi.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: Yeah. So, for what that's worth.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: It's hydration. Because it was so, it was cool in Europe because the the Gulf Stream kept everything pretty.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: It's all hotter than the Gulf Stream.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm trying to

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: get a slaughter when I notice that.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Opened up Up here, it's the Labrador Current. West for Labrador Current is more They need off Cape Cod. Yep. Southern Cape Cod has warm water. Northern Cape Cod does not.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, VT Department of Public Service)]: The

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: problem the Paris And Sargassum Sea might come this way. Could we ask Maria, rather than sitting here and trying to think for ourselves of every vulnerable group and why we should or should not include them, should we just ask her to write in there they should consider whether or not there were any other groups that would be negatively impacted by the shutdown. With that

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Can I say one thing?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah, please.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So yes, you certainly can do that. As was already mentioned, you know, this, basically says that the commission may consider whether there's a lower threshold, for households that, you know, fall into the categories that are listed. And so you could say, or any other categories of vulnerable populations. But the other thing I was going to suggest is you do have the Department of Public Service coming back to you next year or January 15 with their report on utility disconnections. You might want to ask them to see what if they can get any health data from the Department of Health or whomever regarding disconnections. And then also, you know, whether there's sufficient information notice to ratepayers about what their rights are with respect to disconnections and then come back with recommendations. Because this rulemaking isn't going to happen immediately. I think it was amended a couple of years ago, the PUC rule. So there isn't a current rulemaking scheduled. There's just that end date by 2028 or whatever if they haven't already initiated a rulemaking. You do have a little bit of time. So if that would be helpful to kind of get a report back on some of the topics, you could include that in the report.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: That sounds good. Okay, that sound good to everybody?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: Sure, yeah. When all else fails, ask for a report.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah, in the legislature for nothing. But it's probably better to get a report than make it a This is not your person. No. Okay, Maria. You can wrap that for us. We will vote this out tomorrow.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And now I'm sorry I've said anything, but sure.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: You can listen to yourself say it again.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: That's my brilliant idea. Thank you. Okay, no problem. Okay.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, VT Department of Public Service)]: I'll take it, I'm sure.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Alright. Now. That was the easy one. We've been through the easy one, guys. Now we are going to age five twenty seven, which is natural labor of extending the sun set about 30 VSA, two forty eight days. It's self powered, citing the alternative permitting process. You wanna try? Chocolate. Chocolate.

[Sen. Randy Brock]: They haven't done a surgery on

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: those objects. Could you go get us some of those Werder's? Okay.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: You guys start without me. I'm gonna go get

[Donna Tazuka Smith (Westmore resident/intervener)]: some treats.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: I have a hard time focusing. Werder's delicious. Alright. And chocolate.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Any way, I mean, we had a bill in here which we didn't take up because my bill, it called for not for just extending the rule and not putting the sunset on. This is one we've been around for fifteen, thirteen, a lot of years. Higher, higher. More than fifteen years. And we keep putting two and three year sunsets on it so we will come back and look at it again. There is always concern on both sides. This gives a shorter way rather than a huge two fifty roll. You don't have to go through 250s to do cell towers and amendments to cell towers. So we're going to hear from people. The House bill, as it came to us, extends the rule for four years. It puts a four year sunset on it. I believe that's the longest we've ever done.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We usually do two. So I guess the question is, at what point do we if it's been in effect for fifteen years, at what point should we either pull the plug or just let it go if we can always come back to it. So we are going to start out with Alison. Alison?

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: I'm here. Yes.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: You are over there. Okay. We have your testimony. You put it up? Yes. Okay, is that right? Just appeared, I saw a face on the screen, but it wasn't yours. Right. Alright, so come on up. Okay.

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: All right, thank you all for having me. Allison Descathie, Promoters four Clean Environment, Community Environmental Health Director. I have ten minutes and a lot to get through, so if I talk too fast just slow me down or if there's questions just let me know. So basically, the issue that you guys face among many, and thank you for your work, I watch several committees closely, and you guys tackle a lot here, so thank you, is there is a real issue going on with regards to the sighting of telecom way too close to people's homes, and people are upset and they cannot participate at the PUC. The PUC takes money in lawyers, towns are struggling, neighbors are struggling, and it's difficult because as you heard from Hunter Thompson and Greg Faber, who are both great guys doing great work, there is a federal preemption around talking about anything related to health. So since 1996. Yes, there is. So there, I'll go back to that in one second. What came out of the House, there was extensive testimony as Kathleen James said, and no resolution that anyone was happy with. It was moved out quickly because they needed to get to things and they said we'll let the Senate fix it, we'll let the Senate fix it. So basically what ended up happening is there was an attempt to try to make the PUC process more able for people, better for people to participate in and not just immediately contest it. And what ended up happening is the list of issues was given to the telecom industry, and even Greg said this, and Greg Faber from the PUC came back and he said, this is a telecom industry bill. Why don't you just give this to the telecom industry? This is obviously one of the parties, We've got the telecom industry and then we've got Vermonters in this situation and trying to figure out how to allow them to communicate. The PUC came and testified and they said, we don't want this, we don't have time to do rule making, we're not gonna be

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: able to fix this issue. And

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: long story short, they heard about the health effects, they heard about the issues from the towns and the people, and quote unquote, Kathleen James was enraged. She was incredibly upset that this is going on and towns and people cannot participate effectively at the PUC. The PUC, as you guys well know, it's your committee of jurisdiction regulating electric utilities. It's not supposed to be involved with siting and it's not a people friendly, town friendly process. So there's a lot of issues that arise as you've started to see testimony coming in. And if you can hear from some of the people here, Gail Fowler, Tin Myth, she's like everything at the Tin Myth town. She's zoning and so that forward and everything. She testified in house energy, she was former representative, I would highly suggest that you guys hear from her, to hear the struggles that are going on with talents attempting to participate. We are all fully dependent on this tech. We want this tech, we need this tech, we use this tech, but if you had someone coming in your neighborhood or next to your home and you have kids and they said, we're gonna put a tower 300 feet from your house and we allow 10 to a 100 times greater levels of RF radiation than any other country. No monitoring, no enforcement, no blue lines. As you can imagine, parents and families are flipping out. They're moving out of state. They're getting money together and they're trying to push back and say, no, I don't want this 300 feet from my child's bedroom. And this is multiple cases. We've got towers coming in and industry saying, we're gonna put one seven hundred feet from this house. We're gonna put one there's an 80 year old couple who lived in their house for fifty years in Timmint. They wanna put one five hundred feet from their house. These are radio towers or cell towers. I think you guys all know, think of it as vertical real estate. They rent out the antennas, and then there's massive amounts of radiation that are allowed to come off of these. We should have setbacks. Other countries have setbacks. Other countries are way far ahead of us. Talents and schools are trying to implement setbacks so we can do it properly. I think it's just, what it is is we need an honest conversation of there's absolutely known health risks and we can do citing properly and we can get this coverage. It's not working at the PUC because the PUC is failing to acknowledge there's an issue. They do their process. It's very legal based. They do a great process. The telecom shouldn't be going through there. This used to go through Act two fifty, and Stanek District six Commissioner, as well as Christian Sultan from the Valenius Review Board, in the 90s, they were all doing this telecom sighting. They were not denials. They were happening quicker. You've got at the PUC tons of cases being appealed right now. In Annisburg, there's a family that wanted to put one four hundred feet next to their house. The family and the neighbors all appealed it at the PUC, and then the company came back and they said, Oh, we're just gonna make it 20 feet shorter. So now they're in this whole process again. And you might hear from the CTI gang week guide who comes on later, we work with people, we work with neighbors and everything. They're not working with people. And it's very difficult to engage

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: in They're the whole day for AT

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: and T, Verizon, ITW. They never work. It used to be that AT and T with Will Dodge, who I know you've heard from multiple times, they would use to work with people, but they're dealing with the panel case right now. There's families moving because of this. There's families offering other sites on their property. Can you please put it 1,500 feet away? Because we've got peer reviewed science showing that that's out of the danger zone, and they're saying no, we're gonna do it 700 feet, and we've got money in lawyers, and it doesn't matter what you say. Okay, what's the right setback? Well, I'll show you that here. I have the peer reviewed science that I did link in, but what they're seeing in the science is at least 1,500 feet. So it's 500 meters for step backs. And I did, with my rep and dear friend, Bert, I did write a bill that's in house energy that addresses where we're at with some citing and if this was to go through Act two fifty because basically with Section 248A, they've tried to fix this multiple times. Six years ago the PUC was supposed to fix it. A few years ago the Department of Public Service was supposed to fix it. It's not getting fixed. It's getting worse because there's more of a tower build out. Right? You know data is the commodity. We're all hooked on this stuff. Can we place it properly? So this is where we are 10 to 100 times greater levels than any other country. And also I should say, Carr, who's the FCC chair right now, he was appointed under Trump and now he's chair under Trump. They are also trying to make it where towns and states have no say, completely stripped towns and states from having any say as to where the stuff goes. If we want to put it 50 feet from your house, we can do that. Well, they do that or? I know then it's like what can we

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: say, right? You have to push back.

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: A few This is an important one that I'll just add in here quick. 10/13/2021, Environmental Health Trust won a landmark case against in the federal court ordering the FCC. Why have you ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radiation? They have not appealed it because the next stop is the Supreme Court. There's tens of thousands of peer reviewed literature showing there's risk around this. What are we gonna do about it? National toxicology program, they concluded, this is out of NIH, FCC limits should be strengthened up to 200 to 400 times current level in order to protect children. It's tough to talk about something when you can't see it, but it's there. New Hampshire had a bunch of experts in to try to figure out where should we put this. They landed on 1,600 foot setbacks for cell towers to reduce exposure to the public.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Is that the regulation in New Hampshire?

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: They are trying to get some implemented. This is where the study committee Okay,

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: that's the study committee, but New Hampshire has

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: an issue. They're in the process of trying to implement this too, like many states. Because there's more acknowledgement and recognition around, there's risk, there's not good regulation federally, so what can states do? Who's today that said Oh, this is, you can see the list over here, this was the expert committee in

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: New No, who's today in New Hampshire that's trying

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: to Oh, get legislators. Oh, the legislators are, there's lots of bills in New Hampshire, in many states, with them trying to figure out setbacks and how do we do this properly. Because we all, you know, we all need it, it's just Okay,

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: but it hasn't passed. No. It's about to pass.

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: Right, no, this was just a commission they put together. Yeah, this is, yes, exactly. Because then we could copy that, right. Okay, just, okay. This is just, you know, again, you've got a lot of studies coming out on the dangers. This is Doctor. Joel Montenegrove, who's a friend of mine. He works at Public Health University of California. He runs that. They house tens of thousands of research studies peer reviewed that show effects of this since the 1990s. But we're pre ended because of the 1996 telecom act. We're not supposed to talk about health effects. Obviously mentioned that, Greg said that. So the question is, do you keep going down that road and let them come in and put these towers 300 feet from people's homes? Children are more affected. So again, just a few things just with regards to exposure. VNRC in the 1990s came out and they were well aware of this. We've been aware of this for like thirty plus years. They got together and they said, we know there's health effects, we're not supposed to talk about it. So there's a lot of history here. Here's the peer reviewed, some of the peer reviewed research showing at least 500 meters away from people's homes. And parents are aware of this. Mean, are gonna do anything, you know, to keep their kids safe. And this is where you see a lot of it as families trying to engage with the PUC and towns stepping up for these families and then not being able to have a good process at the PUC because it means you need money and lawyers.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: Are there any states that do the 1,500 fee currently?

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: I have that coming up here. Okay. Yes, yeah. And you can see, you know, Turkey, Greece, Chile, Bangladesh, there's a ton of countries that are stepping up in capping radiation, especially around schools. They're doing step backs to residential buildings, playgrounds. So other countries, like France is amazing. France is like way ahead of the game with talking about, I have some stuff in here if you're interested. But the thing is, it's like we have to talk about it, it's a real thing, and this is the citing issue that keeps resurfacing, and it seems like over the years it keeps being like PUC, you go deal with it, Department of Public Service, you deal with it. No one has dealt with it. So, this is where the towns and the people are all reaching out to you guys. Senator Hardy. So,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: you know, I've talked about this. Are your, is your proposal I mean, we keep just moving the sunset. Yeah. That's in your mind not sufficient. Right. Because it's just it's kicking it down. Yes. So do you feel like the Act two fifty process would be sufficient, or do you think there would need to be modifications So have to deal with prostate

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: when Ed Stanick was there and also Kirsten Sultan, which you can talk to That was before No, that was actually after. That was after. And they basically were very cognizant of the setbacks in the homes. And they were also cognizant of, if you've got power and people are renting antennas, what's the sort of cumulative impact? But we've gotta keep moving. Yes, you're almost there, yeah. The last I'll thing just witness this. In response to what Senator Hardy was saying that at 02:50, you were not getting denials. People could participate at least initially without money and lawyers unless they had to bring experts. The ladies review board, Brooke and Peter said they do have capacity for this. So that would be something. And what I had put together with Greg was some state level recommendations and then the Act two fifty. I mean, it's in here. I have a copy for all of you so you can see. And the only other thing, just back to what Senator Gulick was asking, mostly what you're seeing are communities and towns starting to push back on his grassroots level because states aren't going there. Where's Shelbourne at? You sure it's not Sherwood? Shelbourne. I don't know, it could I be Kirby have Shelbourne They in my

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: have nice suburb. They have a

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: lot of money there. Yeah. Then basically there's a ton of experts here who could, but it's just there's a real problem. People are upset for a real reason as we start to understand more, and the PUC process has just not been working for people. So that's sort of the bottom line. And I do have this bill I'll just pass around if you guys want to take a peek at it. There we go. There was the shell burn. Oh my bad, thank you. Think there's enough there. So thank you. I think obviously you'll hear from other people, it's just difficult to participate and something has to give and it hasn't been happening. So thank you. Okay, thank you. Yep.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: I

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: find the right one. Is Donna here? I am. Good day. Okay. Well, we could ask you to introduce yourself to the record and if you represent a group, that's fine. If not, you're just you, and it's yours.

[Donna Tazuka Smith (Westmore resident/intervener)]: Okay. I'm going to try to put two and a half years into ten minutes. My name is Donna Tazuka Smith. I live in Westmore. I was the elected representative for a group of interveners in case twenty fourseventeen fifty five PUC. It took two and a half years of our life and it's still ongoing. We're in Superior Court now in Vermont. The PUC process demands that once the intervenor group is established, which is not easy to do under their process, Once it is established, they have to have only one voice and that they chose me because I'm the one with the biggest mouth. So, it's not fair to all those other people. I'm not in a butter. I live way at the other side of town, but I'm part of this community. So I felt at a disadvantage because I never received a notice. So you have to realize that's default number one. I was one of the last ones to find out. The way the process is set up right now, the companies, the applicants have gotten it down pat on how to run over a community. The other problem with the PUC process, they make us do one and then they tell us what we can do. Which areas can we argue about? We could only argue about aesthetics and town plan. We were not allowed to argue about colocation. We already have two towers in our town that were put through Act two fifty where the community had There's an not resentment about those. There's resentment about this process. The other thing is that on paper, 248A looks really good. It's written well, it looks good, and then it carries over to the PUC, and that's where there's a disconnect. The PUC is quite honestly is overwhelmed. Telecommunications citing with the PUC is low on their priority. They have many other things, just like you do, I notice, on your schedule, your agenda. You have so many other things, and this sounds like a small thing, but we're not protecting Vermonters. And I was quoted in the Seven Days article as saying, if this tower can go up and it is a radio tower, there are no co locators. This has been approved for a radio tower, and they said if it can go up in a national natural landmark like Lake Willoughby, then it can go up anywhere in Vermont. And that is what's happening. Your applicants, because of the PUC process, it is overwhelmed, it is daunting. Municipalities do not want to be part of it. They're afraid of litigation. They have limited town budgets. They cannot fear how they have to spend money to fight the process. In our particular case, we weren't heard. Our town plan is very well written by NVDA and our town. It protected us, so we thought. It was disregarded by the PUC. It's not mentioned in their decisions. We have a there's a the problems that I tried to narrow it down to. There was never a site visit, though there was many requests. And so all these people that made this decision about what's proper for our town never visited our town. They never welcomed public input. Matter of fact, when we finally got public to input, they said we didn't do it during the thirty day magic time window of when the petition was first submitted and the thirty days when you established the intervener. That's a big problem. It's not understood on the website. People get lost on that website, and to be quite honest, when you call them, they're overloaded and they they do not help you. They just direct you to all the written stuff on the website. One of my biggest complaints is the way the process is, is that we are dependent on mandatory parties in the petition, ANR, Department of Public Service, and the Historic Preservation Society, all of which should have been heavily involved in this case at Lake Willoughby, and they did nothing. They rubber stamped my phone calls to them. I say, Can I have some of the paperwork when you discuss this? Well, we just had discussions. Never received anything in writing. Now, we were dependent that ANR, who is the steward of the National Natural Landmark, would oversee the fact that this tower is in the view shed of our National Natural Landmark. I wrote to the Department of Interior. I got support from the National Natural Landmark, Deb Quinenzio, saying, Why isn't ANR involved? She was getting frustrated. So our state agencies are not supporting Vermont, Vermonters, or our beautiful natural the way Vermont is. People don't come to us to say, what's the cell service? Where's the broadband? They come to get away from it. They come to be in nature. They come to look at nature and enjoy it the way it is. And it's a grave disservice that the PUC process has allowed the applicant's legal representatives to commandeer the process. They have commandeered it against the citizens and the municipalities. We are losing who we are as each municipality is its own entity. That's what makes Vermont so beautiful, is that the people determine where they live, how they live, and what their community is going to be. That's been robbed from us with this process. Please, all I can say is do not, do not let this go. I know that the applicants were like, oh, you make it into a state statute, you know, make it permanent. Please don't. And even if you do do a four year, three year, another sunset, let's not waste another three or four years. Let's honestly look at it. I do believe Act Under two fifty, of which I've been involved with a few of those cases in our town for different things, is much more community friendly. It allows an individual to be involved without a lot of fanfare. And we get heard. People get heard. We will agree to disagree, but a conversation takes place. It's land use. That's what these citing things are. It's land use. If I want to put something on my land, I have to listen to the town plan and the bylaws. How come these companies don't? And under Act two fifty, we've been very successful with the numerous Act two fifty things we've had, if you look under Westmore, that there's no community backlash about the Act two fifty process. Think you stand a better chance with them. And then the things that I think I have to highlight, no co locators are on this tower and nobody, not DPS or ANR, looked to see the 10 towers in the 10 mile radius of Lake Willoughby, how they already serve us. We already have service, but that was DPS' responsibility because they're the keeper of our ten year telecommunication plan for Vermont, and they never brought it up, and no one's ever reviewed it. And in that plan it says towers shouldn't be more than 140 feet, all these towers are. They recommend that they need to fit in more with the landscape and that our topography totally challenges us. Which brings us to the next point, which is this outdated technology between broadband, which the state is doing quite well with broadband, especially your communication districts, and satellites. In our state, satellites would serve us better than 100,000,000 towers on every peak valley and everything else for what? In the statute it says that they are not to be seen by I-ninety one and I-eighty nine. They are to be turned down. Oh, but they can be seen by a national natural landmark when you come and visit and hike the mountain peaks and see the towers dotted throughout? Does that make sense? Not to us. The things that we, so the main complaints we had, we had no site visit, we had no public hearing, even though we asked for it. We asked for it through PUC, we asked through DPS, nobody ever held a public hearing. The public input was stymied because when we finally got people to submit stuff online, they said, Oh, it wasn't in that thirty day period, even though this went on for two and a half years. The other thing, this whole process lacks transparency. Do you realize that these tower companies approached the landowners two years prior to it ever coming to the town's notice, and it's already in the landowner's deed and the details are not in the deed, it'll say it's proprietary information. We only found this out after the fact. There's no consideration or respect given to the community with the way it is right now. The credibility is low, people get involved, and then they just say, this is taking over my life. I have to do something else. And I'm probably close to my 10. But the other thing is there is no follow-up accountability. Donna,

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I ask you a question.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: Sorry, know you were on a roll, but I'm curious about the, have you been involved in the past with one of these projects that's gone through the ACU50 process?

[Donna Tazuka Smith (Westmore resident/intervener)]: I've only been here twelve years, so it was the year before I actually purchased that the other tower went up, And so I was not involved, but I've been involved with we're only agriculture residentially zoned, but we have commercial things, so they have to go through Act two fifty, and I've been And involved with it gets contentious, but it ends up okay. At two fifty, I give a lot of credit to Kevin Anderson and Kirsten when she was there. They know how to de escalate it, know how to establish communication between the parties. And the other big thing that people really, they just feel totally overwhelmed and they just give up. And that's when a process is like that, and that's what it causes, that's when you know the process has to be addressed, something magic has to change, because the people that represent these tower companies have our Vermont process down for their benefit, and it's not for the benefit of Vermonters. And another good thing, another thing too, you're the finance community and I thought this was relevant. Do you know that the town gets nothing? We get nothing but the eyesore. We don't get any beneficial, any financial profit. And I do think the way these if you're going to allow towers, you should have it set up on a percentage basis that the town and the state gets a percentage of the income that those towers bring in, not a one time payment to the landowner and that's it. If that tower is going to be there forever, it's a one hundred year lease. If it's going to be there forever, then the towns and the state should be benefiting. The best way to do that is saying, Oh, you're going to have co locators? We get X percentage of what you get monthly.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Well, property tax the and then Yeah. With the revenue from the Property tax goes to the dam. Well, the

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: property tax does, but the revenue from the contracts of things on the tower, would those be part of corporate tax?

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: Yep. Yeah.

[Donna Tazuka Smith (Westmore resident/intervener)]: Yeah. Just so you know, West Westmore does not tax that tower. I've I've already gone to the listener's office. I have an email from them in writing that we get nothing from the tower. She says whatever the state gets, they get, but we get nothing. Doesn't improve the property owner's value of the land or anything.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: The law has been changed. They are still working on it, but that towers, telecommunications towers, two way transmission will be on the grand list, and you will get paid property tax on that. They're still doing an inventory at the tax department, and we've had controversy about that this year. But one way broadcasting is not, but two way communications towers should be showing up soon on the grand list.

[Donna Tazuka Smith (Westmore resident/intervener)]: But how are they gonna value it? Like some towers are properly co located, like the one in Island Pond has three co locators on it, three different providers. That's big

[Allison Despathy (Vermonters for a Clean Environment)]: part of it.

[Donna Tazuka Smith (Westmore resident/intervener)]: And that's making really big Right. Oh, so they would do it on a percentage basis. But more importantly, to tell you the truth, it's like we've got to decide what do we want Vermont to be? Do we really want it to be dotted throughout with these towers, which are going to get outdated so quickly, ever so quickly, But more importantly, how it came in place, they disregarded the people that are living there. We were not included. And even when we put all that effort and money into fighting it and that we're still very we were not heard through the PUC process. That's why we are now in Supreme Court Superior Court, I'm sorry.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Did everybody in town post the towers?

[Donna Tazuka Smith (Westmore resident/intervener)]: I couldn't speak for everybody, but we have a good percentage of people, and a lot of people will just say to me, Donna, the state's going do what they want to do. People just have that thing like, oh you know what, I got a life to live and I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this, so we have a core group that really got it, and then when we had to go to Supreme Court, of course then we had to lean on people, now we need money, I couldn't do a pro se anymore, we had to get an attorney, that's really complicated, and so that's you know that's where we're at now, so it's our time, our money, it's really the quality of life. This affected our quality of life just fighting it, never mind it being there. And in this particular case, this is a radio tower for one particular company to use like a two way radio, and they gave free space to one EMS provider who all the other EMS providers in the Northeast Kingdom use the tower on Troy. This is the only one that doesn't for whatever reason. It's like why can't he use Troy? It's successful to everybody else. Then that's where DPS should have co location maps, they should have done this work, they didn't. DPS is obviously overworked also, we need to streamline the process in favor of Vermonters. Right now it's streamlined in favor of the applicant. They know the weaknesses and they're using them.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Thank you. Committee, are there any other questions? Okay, I'm not seeing any, and our next witness is here. So, thank you, and welcome to stay tuned in with us. I've got Alice Peel next, and Alice, I see you're up there. Just tell us who you are and your name for the record and if you represent My any

[Alice Peel (Waitsfield; CVRPC commissioner)]: name is Alice Peel. I live in Watesfield.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Watesfield.

[Alice Peel (Waitsfield; CVRPC commissioner)]: And I have been a planning commissioner and chair of the planning commission here for close to eight years. I'm now the town's representative of the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission. And so I'm a commission member there. And I also chair the new regional plan committee. CVRPC is writing a new regional plan. So I'm also right now up to my neck in Act 181 also. Can everybody hear me fine?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah, I hear you just fine.

[Alice Peel (Waitsfield; CVRPC commissioner)]: So I just finished serving as a witness for a cell tower installation in the town of Marshfield. And the reason why I was asked was two things. One, to talk about town plans and planning commissions and review the Marshfield Town Plan and see what I thought of it. But also, the big thing in my life is understanding, studying, and knowing about wetlands, natural resources, habitats, etcetera. And so I was asked to be a witness. And I did re review the town plan, commented on the sighting of the cell tower along Route 2 in Marshfield, which is a very scenic road. But I commented a lot on wetlands and where I see a big disconnect between the PUC and ANR. There's really no connection. But preparing for this, I read a lot of documents, and I did read the Du Bois and King engineering plan for this cell tower and the location. And the Du Bois and King environmentalists who worked there at the time, and they have had very good environmentalists, did identify two three wetlands right in the area where the tower is proposed to be. There are two class two wetlands and one class three wetlands. I found was that, speaking with ANR, that yes, it required a site visit by the ANR regional manager, and that site visit was requested but never followed through on. As I proceeded through this being a witness, I was deposed and all that good stuff. I will tell you that I agree with Alison and I agree with, is it Donna or Deb who just spoke? I agree with all their issues. I can see it. And I did attend the first hearing by the Senate, by this committee, when two PUC staff members testified. And I kept thinking to myself through this whole case, this representing a number of the town interveners who were appealing the decision, I kept feeling like I was working in silos. Like, what do I say for the PUC? Well, then what testimony is going to be the best to give for Verizon? Who wants to put this in? Who wants to cite this cell tower here? And what's gonna be the best testimony I can make to point out that why can't you move it someplace where you're not near these wetlands? It's not that hard. And I kept finding that I was saying things like streams that recharge groundwater sources and things that were saying, you know, just bringing the trucks and hauling the construction equipment there is going to cause damage to you're going to be crossing streams that need to be put back together. And I felt like none of this went anywhere. I felt like the PUC really didn't want to hear it. I was questioned on it by the Verizon lawyers, but it never went anywhere. And I really could hear that, this, when the PUC staff were testifying to you, I felt like what they do is make sure that they are having set up boundaries. This is the boundary of what we deal with. We're not gonna deal with that because it's not, you know, we can put a boundary up and not deal with it. And that's what I kept feeling is the boundaries. And Senator Brock asked a question that set me thinking when he asked, does the PUC follow how many complaints are put in about the quality of the cell phone and the internet services from the various vendors. And the PUC member could kind of go, well, we know about a couple of them, but really basically he was saying no. And Is that information they should have? Well, yeah, and it's not hard to get. It's all in a database that they should be able to get from the particular vendor like AT and T or Verizon. So the upshot of what happened was my wetland questions, my habitat questions never really went anywhere useful. They really weren't considered by the PUC or the Verizon in the final settlement they reached with the interveners, the settlement was on not having lights on the towers, not having microwave on the tower, oh, and then they were gonna paint the tower a shade of brown that they felt would fit in better. So that was the upshot of this case, which I thought had much more important things that should have been addressed. I think myself that the wetland and the permitting issues still exists and it can be followed up on. But I really felt like there was no communication between ANR and the PUC. So I thought a lot about it, and I also agree that 248A sunset. It's not working. I was sitting there saying to myself, Wow, do the select board members and planning commission members and residents understand this? Do they know what to ask for? Do they know how to ask for hearings or questions? And I felt no, but I felt like there was a reason for it, because nobody would give them any information that was useful for them. So that's where that wound up, was with this brown paint and no lights and no microwave settlement. And I really feel that Act two fifty would have been a much better way to have addressed this case.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Committee, any questions? Thank you. Thank you very much. That was helpful.

[Alice Peel (Waitsfield; CVRPC commissioner)]: Thank you. Thank you for letting me testify.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Thank you for doing all the work you do.

[Alice Peel (Waitsfield; CVRPC commissioner)]: Everybody kept asking me. The Verizon attorney asked me. I I've done wetland studying now. It's a whole new learning experience for me and knowledge. I went to college for journalism, but I was asked in the deposition if I considered myself an expert. And my reply was, well, I'm confident in my knowledge, and if I don't know something, I'll say, I don't know, but I'll find the answer. But I think what I'm good at is going out and finding the experts I need to be able to assemble and give the good information, especially if I'm giving testimony like this.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. We're gonna have to go to our next witness cause I think she's in her car and I'm getting her.

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. Okay.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Which is flipping around. I'm assuming that's Tara Murray?

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: Yes. Hi.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Hi. Okay.

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: Sorry, I'm not driving. I'm pulling over.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Us your name and drive safely. Okay.

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: Yes. Can you hear me? I'm not driving. I'm fine. Thank you so much for allowing me.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We can hear you.

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: Thank you for allowing me to testify. My name is Tara Murray and I live in Rochester. And I just I wanted to take the opportunity to tell you about my experience, my family's experience, and, my our neighbors experience, our town's experience from my perspective, of course. So I love Rochester. It is it's my home. It's an amazing little village that I think is the most special spot and it will always hold my heart. My family moved there in 1988 and then last June, my husband and I bought our home on White River in the in the village. It took me six years to convince him to buy in Rochester, not because he didn't love it, but because he doesn't work in town and was from out of state. And here too. And I just wanted to tell you what happened. So shortly, we found out that Verizon had proposed a cell phone tower abutting our property. This was extremely upsetting me because all the things that I find special about Rochester, I felt as though would be, threatened by a tower. And it's not that I'm against cell phone service, it's that it's the wrong spot. So this proposed tower would be on a property that's basically abutting our land. And so a representative from Verizon came to our town, attended a meeting, and literally said, you can't stop us to people in the audience. This is what we, the people, the the the residents of Vermont are up against. It is very slanted toward the developer. And this is what I have a problem with. The proposal from Verizon has many untruths in it. And so for example, the state level or the PUC probably is not even aware of these things in many instances. It took us months. Us meaning myself, my neighbors, all the other abutters, and many people in town to uncover all of the things that Verizon had basically lied about in the never in proposal. This this proposed tower violates our town plan. It goes through a wetland. It is on Scenic Route 100, which is also a violation of our town plan and in many other issues as well. I hit the ground running because I had a lot of skin in the game and I felt very upset about this and especially how we were treated and I knocked on doors. I talked to people. Most people didn't even know about the issue. So I started to petition with a bunch of other people. We went to every meeting and the issue is that the whole process with the PUC doesn't work. It is totally broken for the people who are actually living experience. It's been a nightmare. I bought this old 1,800 farmhouse with my husband last year with the intention of raising a family there. I'm already quite old and we have been trying to do IVF and poured our hearts into having a family. And the idea of all of that being under a cell phone tower is appalling to me. And so, you know, we help collect like two fifty signatures in town, attended every meeting. And the problem is that the the whole process doesn't work. Finally, our town came out opposed to the tower, which was wonderful, and I'm very grateful for that. It was a long, difficult and very confusing process. And we had a lot of help on the way from some other people who have been through this and also Annette Smith who has been advocating from a state level. The filing process is totally broken. The system on the PUC website doesn't work. I even had somebody high up in the state tell me don't even look at their dates because they don't mean anything. It's it's confused. We had people put comments in that disappeared. I can say that I am now a intervener in the case legally as are other people, and the system is so geared toward the developer that it is extremely upsetting. I can just tell you that at one point, a motion was ruled on by the PUC off, hearing officer prior to a deadline that that we, the interveners had in order to to reply. And I just I find that kind of stuff extremely upsetting because it literally is like us against the giant and it shouldn't be set up that when something violates a town plan that the people

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: We

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: have lost you for a moment. You're frozen if you can still hear us.

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: It's slightly. Is this a

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: minute or two? She's not driving.

[Sen. Randy Brock]: I didn't know.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: Okay,

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Tara. I can't hear you. I wanna give it a couple minutes. I no. We've lost her completely. So, we'll go on to our next witness, and if she shows back up, we'll put her in at the end. So, we're going on to,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: right,

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Jeremy Crandell, who I believe is on soon. Jeremy, welcome. I just ask you to introduce yourself and who do represent? And the floor is yours.

[Jeremy Crandell (CTIA)]: Thank you, madam chair. Can you hear me okay?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: You're a little soft.

[Jeremy Crandell (CTIA)]: Can you hear me better now?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: That's fair.

[Jeremy Crandell (CTIA)]: Alright. Madam chair, members of the committee, thank you for having me. My name is Jeremy Crandell. I'm here on behalf of CTIA. We represent the wireless industry. We are their trade association. I also wanna thank you for the opportunity to present remotely. I apologize that I'm not there in the room with you. I do wanna level set a little bit the kind of work that we are ultimately talking about in this conversation about Vermont's two forty eight a citing law. Let me just start with this because there's been a lot of conversation, important conversation about siting of cell towers. And let me just go into a little bit of background there. The siting of a cell tower is technical, it's complicated, it's expensive, and most of all, it is a time intensive endeavor. The average length of time to site a site a tower from the inception of an idea to put it somewhere to activation to serve a community, and I really wanna emphasize that the purpose is to serve the community. That customarily spans at least two or years, give or take. Now what is that work? What are we exactly talking about? We're talking about analysis of other cell sites as well as expected population growth and traffic both in the moment and into the future. Every site is evaluated for environmental concerns, construction constraints, safety and security and other elements. Every tower is required to comply with FCC environmental regulations. And then there has to be evaluation, of impacts on wetlands, storm water management, drainage, and there are also specific compliance with the Environmental Protection Act, Historic Preservation Act, and federal aviation rules. Now I wanna pause. Everything that I just described exists independent of Vermont's two forty eight a sighting law, which I'm gonna get back to or come back to here in a second. Now I do think it's important to emphasize this this point as well. It is in the best interest of our members for this siting process to be effective and successful for Vermont communities. It is imperative that any site effectively serve the needs of that location, whether it's first responders, it's local businesses and and residents, or anybody else that'll ultimately utilize the cell tower. Now this is especially true in a rural mountainous state like Vermont. You all know better than me and better than anyone that there are many communities that struggle with reliable connectivity to this day. That reality exists at the same time that when you look at the demand for wireless services, and what I mean by that is the amount of data that we all use every single day. That is growing at historic rates every single year, and it is going up exponentially every single year. That includes connectivity for Zoom calls like this and family FaceTimes. But just as importantly, we're talking about connectivity for 911 calls and first responders and local businesses. Now the last piece of this puzzle is that the most effective way for us to respond to both of those realities, better connectivity plus that demand going up is investing Now our our providers did invest $29,000,000,000 in private funding in 2024 alone. That number's 220,000,000,000 since 2018. All of that, all those puzzle pieces are made possible through predictable state wireless sighting policies. Madam chair, would you like me to continue? I saw the other witness popped on. You want me to carry on?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I was Tara is back up. We will let you finish once this witness is finished. So hopefully, connected. So if that works.

[Jeremy Crandell (CTIA)]: So I'm now trying to do your Tara, you want me to keep going or pause there?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: You- could you pause now and let Tara finish? Okay. Tara, you've got about three, three, four minutes. Wow, we are not hearing you. Can you

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: hear me now? I'm not muted.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Can hear you now. Picture is probably, maybe if you shut off the camera, can you do that?

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: Sure. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Hear you now. And Sorry, Mike. Less distracting having your picture bounce, not having your picture bounce around. So Okay. There you go.

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: My device all all of a sudden said it was overheating. I don't understand. I'm I'm just I'm just sitting in my car and it's not hot, so I I apologize.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. You wanna finish?

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: So I just want Yes, thank you. So I just wanted to finish by saying I don't know when I got cut off, but I feel as though the PUC process is not working and it doesn't work for the people who are actually involved in it as as in the residents of the towns that are affected by this. And I I I feel as though it's very geared toward the development companies and not toward the residents or the towns. It is extremely complicated forcing towns to do tons and tons of work and investigation to defend their town plans and to hire attorneys and such. And it's also very confusing for those people such as myself who are involved in the filing process. And as I said, the filing process is extremely confusing. The time frames are not reliable and to have a ruling ruled on prior to a deadline is very disturbing. It's not something that I feel is is justice for those involved. And I feel as though I've looked at other states and how this is handled, and I think that there's far better ways to do this. It shouldn't be that that a PUC officer decides all of this and for for villages and towns. And I feel as though there has to be other things put in place to protect town plans, town residents, and town character because we're Vermont for a reason. And in our case, and in many towns, our ridgelines are our industry. And to have an 140 foot tower on the ridgeline is an extreme change in the character of our town. To have an overlook a village is also a permanent change to that. There's no going back. And again, we're not against cell phone coverage. It is just the wrong place. And we know that Verizon approached many people in our town and asked if they could put one there and one, you know, one landowner took the bite. So it's not like it's the best place. It's kind of where this company has proposed and where somebody took the offer up. And so I feel as though to make this process better, it needs to change and it needs to change soon. It's not like we can like, we're in the middle of this. It's an emergency and a disaster for people such as myself who are living this nightmare. And I would really appreciate you guys taking action to end the way this has been dealt with. I really appreciate it.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. That is helpful. Thank you. This the tower that provided service in the gorge?

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: Say that again?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: It isn't in in the the gor in in the the gorge in Granville Gorge. Yeah. Gorge. Yes. In Granville Gulp. Yeah. There's another tower in Granville. There's another tower. Okay. Yeah. No.

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: This this tower was proposed right outside the village in Rochester. You can see it from the town village and everywhere along 100 starting about a mile north. I'm I'm Niles North and all the way through the village. It's visible from the town park everywhere. Okay. If it goes up, we're trying to stop it. Thank you so much.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mister Crandell, I apologize for the interruption. We are having cell phone connectivity issues, which is self attached, but looks well, it's settling down here. There are obviously some thunderstorms in the area, so maybe that's got something to do with it. But No. Floor is yours now.

[Jeremy Crandell (CTIA)]: No. I'm happy to accommodate, madam chair. And and just a couple more comments here. So, you know, I was speaking there at the end there about the realities on the ground of not, you know, universally reliable connectivity, but also the demand that no matter what this committee and what the does is gonna continue to grow every every year. I do wanna segue to discussion about the two forty eight a law and the bill that that's before you and what we're talking about. Put simply, I have to emphasize that it is our perspective that what Vermont has in place right now, it is a predictable, workable, and most importantly, well balanced framework for wireless wireless sighting that balances the realities that I was talking about before. You've heard there's been a lot of discussion about how two forty eight a works. I do wanna share a little bit more from our perspective. First, right now, law gives the PUC ability to ensure that any company or or deployer complies with environmental and historical impacts. Current law says any project cannot have, quote, any undue adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, public health and safety, or scenic corridors. Applicants are required to provide sixty days advance notice to various state agencies that as you heard. And I also wanna really emphasize this last point. It does protect the all important role of municipal governments and communities in this process. I think it's important if you really take a close look at what's in the two forty eight a statute. Any affected municipality or regional planning commission or local landowner must be given sixty days notice of an application. Localities can request local meetings, and the stance and position of local governments is given substantial deference on any siting project, which I'm not familiar with the project that the former the previous witness was talking about, but that sounds like exactly what occurred in that case. And so I'll just conclude with, you know, we do feel strongly that all the because all these provisions exist in current law, it is a well well balanced framework that's in place for Vermont. I do just wanna conclude with this, madam chair and committee members. We support the currently proposed four year sunset extension that's in the bill before you. We would also support a longer period or elimination of it altogether because really predictability is paramount when it comes to these types of siting issues. But just generally, appreciate you having me and our industry on to discuss the bill. I'll pause there.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Any questions? Okay. Thank you, This is we're just starting on this. We'll be at it for a while. So stay tuned, and thank you. And we are going to go five minutes. I was gonna give you a whole afternoon, but you wanna do a three minute rebuttal? Yeah. Okay. And then Damian is here. We have a request for an amendment or an amendment that's going to be made to the transportation bill.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: Senator

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I understood that senator was gonna

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, VT Department of Public Service)]: speak with you.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Here. Yes.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm here to

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: your backup.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Here to hear what what you decide to do with that.

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: Okay.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: Yep.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, VT Department of Public Service)]: Hunter Thompson, Director of Telecommunications for the Public Service Department. Thank you. I apologize for keeping the next few minutes. I do want address a few things. The first is I'm not going to comment on the RF radiation because we are specifically preempted doing it. It may be inappropriate for the director of town, these statements have saved a month to start talking about RF radiation in the southern process. Or mention something in the Westmore case that seems to get crossed over when this case is discussed. That is on 06/18/2024, the Caledonia Westmore Planning Commission Chairperson Bob Kennedy submitted a public comment to the commission via email, copying all the other Westmore Planning Commission members and Mr. Kennedy ruling part. The tower is far enough away from the heights of Mount Isa and Mount At work to make it an insignificant detail up in the wide panorama. I believe you would need binoculars to know where know where to work and be able to distinguish it all. Two people reported they were on the they could not see what the impasse from the top of picks up after he was on, after he's not on the job. On July 9, the Westlaw Planning Commission filed an additional further comment that included the site ITW has chosen is as acceptable as any that we could readily match. So it was in February's present that the other comments came after someone else With was put in that the tower again in Rochester, would like to point out there's no Verizon cell phone service and that the department's position on that largely mirrored what was said here was given the interest in the aesthetic impacts of the project and the Rochester Planning Commission's request, the department has hired an aesthetics expert. And based on that, we respectfully ask the commission to schedule a conference study to allow site visit and further litigation into this project. So, I take a reminder accepted at times I feel like traits at the one in the year. I would also like to point out that the state and the auditors the ciders do work together. In fact, in Marshfield, I agree, I believe an agreement was just come to last week where everybody is now in favor of the tower being placed under two. And in panel, the tower that has been discussed started as twice as high in a different location that has it's being petitioned now because the department pushed back and said 180 feet is too high, and the town pushed back and said 180 feet is too high. And then a buddy ran over said it's too visible, so they moved in behind a large curtain. That We was

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: moved out of view in sometime because you're the public service department. So lay it out first what your role is with the there seems to be a confusion or concern about the ability of the average citizen, and this has been going on for years. The PUC is a judicial board. It operates by rules, and if you don't know the rules, it's hard. I've heard a couple times that ANR doesn't get involved, so we'll have ANR in. But I know one person that's probably happy about Route 2, which was the business owner who has complained to me that his driveway was the one place you could get cell service if people regularly blocked his driveway to his business, pulling over to get cell service. And I do have family in the Grand Gulf, and the first time I went to visit, my maps went away and trying to watch for the road. The second time I went, I was getting set to watch for the road again, and all of a sudden this voice said, your turn is in a 100 feet, which startled me. But I gathered that that was the cell service that had been put into that area. I have been stranded without cell service in an emergency area, and I think that's the value. If your car breaks down in the middle of winter in sub zero or in one of these high heat things, or if you are having a medical emergency, being able to reach someone and we have people used to die. Now we have gotten used to being able to reach emergency services 20 and I don't think we ever guaranteed that 911 would be, you could reach them 20 but that seems to be a goal that people would like, and so we're trying to protect public safety and, other public health, even though we can't rule based on public health, but we might be able to do something in that area. So we shall see. We will have you back. And now I'm looking for senator West

[Sen. Randy Brock]: He's down the hall. Did you wanna take a quick break?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: The syllabus have a meeting at four or three.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, VT Department of Public Service)]: We will grab them.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Is it

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: is it possible for me to make one comment? This is Tara Murray.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We've already gone on. You're welcome to make a comment. We're Very quick. Gone here.

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: Very quick. Is that okay?

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: Yep.

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: Thank you so much. I just wanted to reply to what was just said about the Rochester case. The the aesthetics report, the issue is that the reports that have done by Verizon for aesthetics and other things, even environmental, everything that they did, there has been issues with so many of the reports they've done, of the experts they had. And the aesthetics report that was done originally wasn't even done for the correct area. So it didn't have the correct information for the village or any of that. So it's it's very disturbing. And so it's it's a a problem because they come with money with these reports from experts and then towns are forced to. There was a whole discussion. How is the town gonna hire experts to find out what was true and what wasn't? Because everybody found out that so many of the things and their ex the reports were not correct about where it could be seen from, about the wetland, about even the size of things, all of that. So there was so many issues, and it's it's forcing towns and people to try to dispel these facts which are not necessarily true and that's the issue. So, I just wanted to point that out and the last thing I say is about the service. There's no the the reports show that it's not gonna improve service in that much of an area for Verizon users even in the area. And so there's always gonna be gaps in coverage because we're in a mountain town. There's gaps on 89 and everywhere else. So I don't think that it's reasonable to have a goal that there'd be no gaps in coverage. It's kind of like what we live when we live in the country. And so I think we'd have to all have a cell phone tower in our yard basically if we wanted to have no gaps. And so that's where the perspective of of honoring the towns comes from. Thank you so much.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry, senator Bushman. I didn't know you thought it was

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: I thought it was just, you know, gonna take They're they're

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: a very friendly committee. They don't fight. And I think you may have a fairly friendly amendment. So if you wait. If Damian, you have the amendment?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I do. Would you like me to pull it up?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: You could pull it up. Yeah. That would be helpful. And then everybody can see it. We'll send it to Charlotte. You can put it on the website. It website. Is on

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: Perfect. I would have published it by

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: twenty minutes till we have a

[Charlotte (Committee Assistant)]: chair's meeting. This shouldn't take long. The upshot of the amendment after listening to what the feedback was from this committee, our committee took it out. We worked on it on Friday, and we finished this morning. Basically what this would do is bring back hybrids in, non gas vehicles, which I think the gas vehicles were a major concern within this committee.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: And on the first page, it would on line 13, you would see it would be a PEVs or a hybrid electric pleasure car. So it would take gas vehicles out. On the third page of the amendment is the other big piece. We knew that for for some of the members on this committee, the cap was, a problem, and it takes out the cap, and for each covered vehicle, the commissioner shall conduct the amount of fuel tax credit deemed pursuant to the subdivision. So basically, it would develop a system where they would give credit to those EV owners that pay for their gas, and the amount that that is under the $154 for the average vehicle,

[Tara Murray (Rochester resident)]: they

[Sen. Richard Westman]: would figure out a system to to get that for the hybrid vehicles. And that's the gist of of the whole amendment in a piece. It basically, in short form, would bring back plug in hybrids and hybrids into the system. Starting this year? No. Starting in two years because the problem is with all of this, it's taken us three years to get to the point with electric vehicles. This would it will take at least two more years after that to get to the point with See, these systems don't turn on. We're noticing.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Hardest had asked us to do this in a very limited

[Sen. Richard Westman]: have you talked with them? No. Agency. The agency has Patrick and Michelle are both in the room. They both helped us through this. Would say part of the reason that we feel some pressure to do this is that $3,000,000 grant that they've got runs through 2028. It can be used for this, and I can show you the specific language within their grant that talks about EVs and expansion. And if we don't do this now, if we try to do this in the future, it's all on our own dime. And we wanna make sure that this and the development of this system is on the $3,000,000 dime I'm federal. Federal government. We'd like federal dimes. Can I ask the question?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: The the amendment that we ended up voting would have just done GBs, bullying GBs.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: Yeah. Correct. And if we were I mean, I liked your first proposal as you know, senator, and three of us in here voted for that. But if we were to go with this, which is the sort of middle ground, What happens with the gas? Is there still a report or something for the full gas vehicles? There's still There's still no ARC in

[Sen. Richard Westman]: the Okay. That. But I I would say to to be totally fair with this, you can't you never can take the step step to complete gas vehicles without developing a system where you get credits anyway. Yeah. Yeah. This does the the step in figuring out a system where you would develop a more of a

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: step than the amendment that we have.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: It does it with the federal grant.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Yes. It does it with the federal grant because that money runs out in 2028, and this is legitimate use of that grant. And what was the vote in your committee on this? We were unanimous. Okay. And the question is, would you offer the amendment? Would you like us to how would you how would you

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I think you should offer it since you developed it. And then committee who was presenting our senator Chittenden. What should Senator Chittenden stand up and say about the position of this committee? Are we in favor? Can we live with this? Are we going to object to it?

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: I am okay with the language that is. Repose, do me a favor.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Oh, yes. I've got three, four yeah. Yeah. Okay. Got five zero one. Have a question here. I have a question, though. In terms of process. Yeah. Because RMM, it also has two other things in it.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: So can we if we

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: What?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: If you go on order where the transportation report as amended by finance, as amended by appropriations, that votes through, and then you consider further amendments or you take this amendment after those three. The way this is worded right now, you would be striking out sections 21, 22, and 23, which I would have to revise the lead in language, but you could read it as deleted sections 21, 22, and 23 deleted in their entireties and inserting them through thereof three new sections, twenty one, twenty two, and 23, and their reader assistance heading and add that. And then a second instance that amends the effective date to add back in that.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: So you would be deleting some things that were in our amendment?

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: It would

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: it would yeah. The sections you've deleted in your amendment where now it just says section 21 deleted in brackets. You could do that. The alternative would be to offer a substitute amendment for your amendment where you replace the second instance of amendment with what you see here

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: easiest thing to do.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: And then where you add a fourth instance of amendment. We would delete With the new effective date.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We would delete or delete and add this amendment in.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. And you could offer a substitute amendment too?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Well, I'm just thinking if we did a substitute amendment and we we struck whatever we deleted the and then put this in I I think that would be the clearest way. I was gonna say, I think it's cleanest to do a substitute amendment because then it will also avoid

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: unnecessary debate Yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: On the floor.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Yes. That's that's why we're we were open to Okay. You doing it or or our committee however you want. Okay. So senator Chittenden, you can work with Damian. And

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll I'll have a substitute amendment to you by tomorrow. What is this on the floor? It just voted out of

[Sen. Richard Westman]: a It will on on the floor. So yeah. Because it'll be on notice tomorrow.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. Then we need to get the substitute to the

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I'll have it to you by the end of the morning tomorrow.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: So Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: You will substitute That's my understanding. Okay. Perfect.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Okay. And we'll we'll stand up and support that.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: See? Just You can buy anything with some maple sugarcane.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Well, you got more. I'll bring

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: it in. Do you want does Damian, does the amendment have to be all members of finance or would it just be senator Chittenden? Because I can't I don't know if You can't substitute a committee report.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Yeah. I think you can. Yeah. Yeah.

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: But you have speak to members of the committee.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: We can't amend, but I think we can do a sub

[Sen. Richard Westman]: what Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. Ask so As

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: long as he can say it'll be half off.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Right. I'll touch base with the senate secretary, ask him how to do the lead in, given that this isn't gonna be on the calendar until

[Dylan (utility representative, likely Green Mountain Power)]: Right. Tomorrow.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: It in so we can get the substitute. If the substitute amendment is up there

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. I might even be able to get it done in the next ten minutes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy]: Good. So

[Sen. Richard Westman]: And we appreciate you working. Anytime. Thank you.

[Hunter Thompson (Director of Telecommunications, VT Department of Public Service)]: We

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: did some good work today.