Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Good

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: afternoon once again. Welcome back to the Senate Committee on Government Operations Committee meeting of Wednesday, 04/29/2026. Up next for our consideration is H935. This is the act related to emergency management. Jim Devlin has joined us, and, I believe we also have, is it Jordan Gonden here? Yeah. Eric Florian now. So, it might be helpful since the third reading of the Senate version of the budget was passed today and messaged to the House forthwith, I think, have Eric go back or Tim go back over the appropriations piece of this bill to see what's still in there and what isn't in it. Right. For the record, Tim Dunkel, legislative capital.

[Tim Devlin, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you very much for having me into the community about this. I won't be able to speak with any real authority and knowledge of what was passed out in the budget itself. Apologize. I was

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: not following

[Tim Devlin, Office of Legislative Counsel]: that particular. I'm happy to revisit the exact language the of as passed by the house. So Sure. So Right. Let's see here. Bill we have we were on second. Okay. So this will get into the yes. The appropriations will begin. Alright. Section section section section section section This is a lot of contingency language in here. On page 26, it would be has passed by the house bill. So we have section 12, Department of Public Safety, Public Safety Communications Task Force, authorization for ongoing expenditure of funds. So we have a one, where we're kind of this is the free designating of, pretty obviously appropriated ones. So we have, 2,250,000 shall be available for immediate costs associated with establishment of I mean, for multidisciplinary computer aid dispatch system, five years of software licensing fees. 190,000 shall be immediately available for cybersecurity, expanding use of rapid SOS and geographic information systems. We have 4,500,000 which will be available incrementally over three years to implement and expand the land mobile radio network and include the statewide conceptual design, speed, detail designs for one or more proof of concept projects and, initially, a few other projects, and c, build out or improve 10 or more land mobile radio sites, including equipment and antenna deployment in existing choose sites. So then

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes? We have the distal node, and this was done by Ted. Why don't we just get as limit as you could get Ted to come over and update us on what make it made it through to the house.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. I have the same.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. But it's not updated to the vote yesterday. I mean That's true.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And it may well be the joint fiscal has not had a chance to get it for the interview.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No. They know what's in the bill. I mean, Ted could tell us right now. If anyways, we wanna know an update on it. We could just invite Ted over to see if he could Great idea. Okay. So then we could just So we don't have to. I mean, you have all the other parts of the film. Ted Barnett. Thank you. Enjoy. I just have to add. I'm a drop on my thumb. Sorry. Did I not say Ted Barnett? Mm-mm. Sorry. Used to have Ted, but everybody knew us. Sorry, but Lynn, so I apologize, Lynn.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That would be great. Even if you could join us virtually. Yeah. Okay. I do know some of that was not.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: A lot didn't make it over. So it's true.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. So with that in mind, are there other we have a couple of other

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We have an amendment, draft 1.1, which was requested by the folks from the fire group, and I'm fine with that. If you wanna go over that one, Tim. Happy to. So there is this one consistent amendment, and this will add a section 11 a, entitled Increasing Wildlife Fire Response Capacity Task Force Report. And this is just kind of boilerplate language about setting up the phased task force.

[Tim Devlin, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We'll create the increased one increasing wildland fire response capacity report. That should actually be task force of all of these. Well, update that. To examine and report on increasing amounts of capacity for wildlife fire response. We go on to detailing the membership, which is following an individual's entity shall be invited Mhmm. By the department of Forest Parks and Recreation to join the task force. So we have Department of Forest Parks and Recreation, Vermont Emergency Management, Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire Safety, Green Mountain National Forest, Vermont Legislative Town, and not more than two municipal fire chiefs. So hours and duties. The task force shall examine how to best increase robust capacity for wildlife. Fire response. One, examining available information on wildlife. Fire and existing response capacity, making recommendations regarding staffing, funding, equipment, supplies, and infrastructure, including vehicles and etcetera to increase wildfire response capacity. Two, identify any potential policy or statutory changes needed to include wireless fire response capacity, clarify state goals and responsiveness of state and federal entities, and recommend a coordination and communication improvements. Assistance for the task force will be provided by the Department of Forest Parks and Recreation. The report will be due on or before 11/15/2027.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And Really, it's gonna take them a year and a half.

[Tim Devlin, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And this was something that was updated during drafting. Think the press was actually for earlier this summer, I leave that to the commission or the committee to see exactly when you want to make a date set. I can pull up that data. It's originally recommended.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I mean, Eric's been well, we have a flyer for I mean, Eric, is it really gonna take him a year and a half to do this thinking, this one?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I mean, it depends

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: on how I guess it is, but probably, know, want to hit a shortcut. Yeah.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: I mean, it

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: it it would be great to get just Kim and talk about our where we are with climate change and the need to improve our responses and resiliency, wouldn't it be great to have this report done by December so that we could actually incorporate it over next year if we had to?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And I misspoke before the, it was asked the date we set up to 07/15/2027. Which is useless from a legislative point of view. I mean Right, they're not exactly, so you I mean,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: it's Point of It's totally not actionable for another six months, so I don't get that. I mean, might as well keep working if we're gonna but it strikes me that they could each at least begin the work on this with a report with an update to the legislature in January or December '27. They could maybe they could work, but they have an update on where they are, what their recommendations are for this next session. It would be very helpful. Climate change is only speeding up here, so I would think that we would want some recommendations sooner rather than next time.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And certainly be added to that. Yeah. I'd have to pull back because we did take testimony, I'm sure that there was a reason for the data.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I don't have a note on that. I just know that they and then the other thing I would recommend is that two municipal fire chiefs well, we our world is divided between professional fire departments and volunteer fire departments. I would really like to have one is the Goliath and one is the David. I'd really love to have representation from professional one professional, one volunteer fire department because they're very different responders.

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: If I could make a comment as a volunteer firefighter, use of professional shouldn't be, it shouldn't be career. Career firefighter and a volunteer firefighter, all firefighters.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But do you agree that they're two different Yeah. They should two different vantage perspectives Yes, absolutely. Should be included in this. Okay. So one career chief and one volunteer. I think that would make a big difference.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I'm just going over some of the testimonies of some of the other fire books that were in here, see if there's a reason why it was in November.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Here. Yeah. It says it's. I I don't know why I couldn't ask them for a final report in, let's say, November 27 with an update for us for the session for January and update to the committees of jurisdiction January. You just said? Yeah. Because so we can action on it for next year. So they can give us an update Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: With recommendations. Of twenty seventh.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I said, if they wanna keep going till November, it's fine by me. But what I'd like to have is an updated January with recommendations for them of their work so far. I mean, just so that we can action take action on anything that that is of immediate need and concern because these because we have another drought. I mean, we are in drought right now in Windsor County, and it's a Well, I think the states have. Yeah. No. No. But it's specific to certain counties for its worst. So, anyway, sooner rather than later, I think. Eric, am I wrong in taking this?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I I don't have a

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: You don't have a on that one because if they specifically ask for a date, I'm not sure what they're asking.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Did in the draft of the Wildland Fire Response Capacity Report language. Yeah. It does say honor before July 1527. Which The Department of Forest Fire and Recreation shall submit the report to the house committee on ag. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking out.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: That is That is that's correct. I've got the same name. Useless date I mean, it's really a useless date for us. So I would either I would ask that the report be, like, November, and then update and report to us and recommendations at January 27. I'm just suggesting to what you want.

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: Ironically, I just got an email from Kathy Decker saying that because the fire season most likely this year go well into December, that it would be hard to pull together a report in December. That was their rationale. Okay. They're fighting two evils. They need resources to fight the fires, but they can't write the report because they're fighting fires.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Right.

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: So they're they're tied up. All ball? Yeah. Fire season issue, it's not that good. We've already had two critical fire days, and normally, we have zero.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But then that's this year. We're looking at 26. So

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: Yeah. You were talking about getting the report in '26. Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I'm gonna be talking about getting recommendations in January 27. That might be.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Which is really '26.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I I think

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: Oh, for now.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: November '27 is quite a ways out. Much of that is also fire season, so I wonder if maybe instead of we could get it in February '27.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But I mean yeah. I just it's it's a useless day in July. Yeah. Well, I mean, it is my brother's birthday, July 15. But it is It would take forever. Exactly. But it isn't useful for the legislature. It will just sit Yeah.

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: It's a wanna reach out to them and see what I

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: think we should. There's a good reason for us to move the day we need

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: to And see if they would have enough work already given it goes into effect upon passage. Yes. When does it go into effect? Well, like, first. So they could be working on it as as the season permits. And and they have some immediate recommendations that they wanna wait make for next year's session is the point. They just don't wanna have a whole year and a half go by before we act on some of their cause. If there's stuff that we can act on next session, it would be great. Maybe there isn't.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Let's hear. Nobody cares. Stay both. Nice. Well,

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: if maybe perhaps if there's pertinent recommendations that we could act on that legislative session, we could be provided with that information. But I do think my hope is that they would focus on the wildfire prevention response over reports for us because I love the idea.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I'll be fine. They're not gonna be

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: I mean, fine. No. I guess I just wanna say I love the idea that you're worried that we would not have the information we need to act in the first year of a biennium. However, I have found that oftentimes we get reports and we put them well in advance of the session and we still don't act. So I would much prefer waiting for the second year biennium if that's a better option for those people. Because I've asked for many reports that have come nice and early, and then they still don't do anything with them that year.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Also that come in the form of a witness coming to give us an update and a recommendation for action. That happens.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Yes. And I think we could That's

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: what I'm asking for. Oh, update. They can give us the damn report whenever they want. Oh, well, that's okay. Twenty seventh. Oh, okay. But the I don't think July works for us. I think that's a date that doesn't work for us. But what I'm asking for is a body in a chair in January or February saying, our preliminary work says we need to do this ASAP and our recommendation for this session is blah. Oh, okay.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: I think I misunderstood your point then because I thought you were saying you wanted the report to come before the I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: don't care about reports. I care about body some seeds in front of people who are listening saying, this is this needs to be fixed now. These are our recommendations for how to do it. We are asking you to act on

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: that this year. Keep in mind that that can be the report unless it specifies written. Correct.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Ted responded, he said Chris is the 57 staff.

[Tim Devlin, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So should they try to be sure? I'll just note that the task force is limited to not more than three meetings. So according to the amendment. The day aside It's

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: not a legislative task force. Why would we limit it when we're not spending that money? We tend to Well, they get diem. What?

[Tim Devlin, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They do get per diems and stuff. So it does have

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: some significant Well, okay. Okay. I I wow. That's crazy that we've limited them to three meetings. Well, those would be

[Tim Devlin, Office of Legislative Counsel]: what they asked. Yeah. This is they They asked us. This is. I should specify that's just placeholder language. The for diems, they're actually exploring that. Like, two BSA, ten ten. There's a reagent in there that says, essentially, if these individuals are otherwise salaried, that they qualify for it, the per diem really is in there all because it contemplates individuals that could be volunteer. Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, in some So that's

[Tim Devlin, Office of Legislative Counsel]: just it's kind a default. It's more airplane lane.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: It's a $50 honorarium is what we pay. And if if we're not limited to three, that three is, like, we barely get going. So I don't I think three is ridiculous.

[Tim Devlin, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We can change that. Okay. So let's do this. Aside from the date of the final real, no kidding, useless report, do you share a

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: lot It's not. July is useless. It's always the report is important. Okay.

[Tim Devlin, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We could get an an update in February 1 So Oh, great. If you could make that. Yes. And then I would strike

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: An update and recommendations.

[Tim Devlin, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. I would strike line five on page three. You could reference the title 32, section ten ten, but just stop there and not say for not more than three meetings. They could be as often as they need you. Yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Sounds good. Okay. So that's an amendment that we will see in the bill. Does anyone else have questions for Tim at this point? Okay. You're welcome, certainly, and love to have you stay with us. Okay. So next, let's move to the Department of Environmental Conservation has asked that we add Wait a minute. Wait. Before we leave Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Tim, did you get the the request from Eric and me also on on six that that it be two fire chiefs, one a career and one a volunteer. Yes.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And that gives seven to the quorum of

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, says not more than two. I mean,

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: if you add up everybody at the it'll be several. So

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Jordan

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: of Gonda is here from the Department of Environmental Conservation, and this was a request from Neil Kamen. It had two sections to this bill, nine thirty five, Both of which were in a bill, as I remember last year, that ran out of yardage. We didn't get to pass it. And it has to do with rule making authority in the face of, well, I'll let Jordan explain what we're trying but to do I don't have any problems putting this back in. We'd already passed this, but it didn't get to the finish line. Welcome.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jordan Gondam, General Counsel for the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. I just handed out some language. It's pretty short and sweet. I'll talk about a little bit of what this would effectuate in terms of rulemaking authority and sort of the justification from the Agency of Natural Resources perspective. So this proposal and the language for you would add an additional basis to adopt emergency rulemaking based on federal changes that affect state regulatory authority. We're proposing a time limited amendment to the Vermont Administrative Procedures Act to include an additional base for expedited or emergency rulemaking. If you are not familiar, Title III Chapter 25 is the Vermont Administrative Procedures Act, and among other things that establishes the authority and process for rule making by state agencies, the general process, There are other rulemaking authorities specific to state agencies that live in various parts of statute. But it sets the general process and timeline. Under typical circumstances, proposed rules do not become effective until the end of the rulemaking period. So that's once LPAR has had a chance to review. This can take several months, up to eight months, and that from the date of the initial filing with the Secretary of State's office, and this does not account for any pre rulemaking engagement or policy development proposal development. Currently, however, agencies can adopt emergency rules in very limited situations. In those cases, the rules, emergency rules can become effective essentially immediately once they're filed with the Secretary of State's office. They remain effective for one hundred and eighty days and are still subject to LTARR review. The basis that I'm speaking of for which agencies can initiate emergency room making currently is if those rules are necessary to address an imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare. And that's codified in section 844A of Title III. So what this proposal would be adding is an additional basis to initiate emergency rulemaking, so rulemaking that becomes effective upon filing with the Secretary of State's office to address any gaps in state protections that result from changes in federal policy that conflict with or jeopardize an agency's ability to build state statutory mandate. Just walking through this quickly, there's provisions of, so not currently in H. Nine thirty five, but could be amended, two sections of additional language that would add that additional basis for renewal making. This would sunset, that additional basis would sunset on 07/01/2028. So that's basically the new language in the handout. So in terms of justification, this proposal focuses on federal changes, including but not limited to the amendment or repeal of federal regulations, as well as the issuance of new federal policies, directives, or enforcement of certain policies. As you may know, the federal administration has proposed a swift and sweeping effort to deregulate environmental and public health protections. As part of these efforts, beginning in early twenty twenty five, the administration issued several directives to agencies to identify and prioritize the repeal of regulations using the Federal Administrative Procedures Act's Good Cause Exemption, which basically allows agencies to bypass notice and comment rulemaking. Good cause under the APA allows immediate repeal when the regulation is necessary, impractical, or contrary to the public interest. That good cause provision is not new, however, the federal administration's direction of federal agencies to implement that standard is new. And you can see that in several executive orders and memorandums that have been issued throughout 2025, requiring the agencies, federal agencies, to identify unlawful regulations within sixty days of the issuance of the EO based on specific Supreme Court decisions, essentially directing federal agencies to determine whether their own regulations are unlawful, and then act swiftly to identify and prioritize those for repeal, including for good cause, which means that repeal or that rescission or modification becomes effective without public notice and comment.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And this So we're running to prevent that. I'm sorry? We're running to prevent that.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Well, what we're doing is proposing, asking you to consider giving each state agency the ability to act quickly if any gaps and protections are created by those factors.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Which has government at this moment. Correct. And

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: again, we already have the ability to initiate emergency rulemaking if there's an imminent risk. That's something that agencies have to demonstrate to the legislature as part of the emergency rulemaking action. This might give us more flexibility to not necessarily have to show that imminency, but allow, nonetheless, for important protections to remain in place, or to bolster state authority that we already have in the presence of any conflict or gap that's created at the federal level.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Have you had an example of that? Luckily,

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: no, we have not. We have been tracking federal deregulatory efforts as best we can. There's a lot going on. Sometimes the notification out to states is helpful. Sometimes it is not. I would say from ANR's perspective, our state authorities are are strong. They're comprehensive. But I will also say that some of these efforts are aimed at activities that don't really affect Vermont. So larger energy producing power plants or types of facilities that we don't see here. However, there's still a few more years left under this administration's tenure and continue to be press releases, notifications, calls, stakeholder calls, and calls with EPA Region One about new things coming down the pipeline. So, not yet, but again, we want to we'd like to be poised to act quickly if necessary. Do you have any questions about that? I can speak further to ANR's relationship with federal authorities. As you may know, we rely on our federal partners in either a delegated status. That means the federal government or EPA has delegated their authority to ANR to implement certain regulatory programs. Or we work cooperatively on an enforcement basis, or otherwise to administer some of the programs that are important to Vermonters. For instance

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Every program, as far as we can tell, and

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: to go through

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: the budget process is important to help Vermonters.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Right, and some primary areas are Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act. We also rely heavily on federal funding to implement some of our clean water programs, for example. So definitely a long established relationship with our federal partners from a regulatory perspective, enforcement perspective, funding perspective, etcetera. So I'm sorry. I asked, does anyone have any did you have

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: any So

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I take it this is you don't have your own bill, so you're adding on to the $9.30 Yeah. Which I believe is I'm not sure where it went. I think it went in the emergency bill last year too.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: $6.32, I think. It Yeah. It was a yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Can I add that language from last year?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, it didn't get passed. I don't know.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: I can't say. Well It just didn't happen. It just didn't happen.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So we're trying to make it happen.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: I think there might have been some confusion, but I can't say for sure.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Is the effective it's not the effective date. It's well, I guess it is. 07/01/2028.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: So that's when this this provision would expire.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Was that true of the provisions that were in the previous bill?

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Yes. What I've handed to you today is the language

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: We that you all had this conversation because I then asked, a lot of damage could happen between July and November. So why are we ending it in July 28? That's Not December 28. I'm sorry. But

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: The the the sunset date is one that's been proposed.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. I would propose that we consider December. And other than that, I think this is a great addition. So you and I

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: are gonna disagree. That's okay. We're allowed to disagree. So nothing's happened last year, this year. Well, I struggle with giving emergency type authority to agencies, Americans, I just always have. You give some examples as to why you would need that one.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Right, so I just want to clarify though that this is the emergency rulemaking authority. It does not change the scope of rulemaking authority that is already granted to agencies. Correct. It's just the timing that they could be affected. Correct. The LCAR would still maintain review. So LCAR would still review the rule to make sure that the standard is satisfied,

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: that it truly isn't needed. Oh, what a sergeant. She scared

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Oh, she scared me too. No. No. I'm sorry. I'm just late for legislative management, which I probably forgot about.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Oh. What? Yeah. She

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: And that is. So if you can give me some examples, please. Yeah. So Of why this is so critical and needed.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Well, hopefully, you know, again, this is a prophylactic measure in case there is a gap or a conflict related with presidential directive and executive order or We

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: can always have that. It doesn't matter who's the president's going to be, but I understand the president is right now. I think you have a

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: I would say that with the specificity of the types of federal laws that have are on the administration's list to modify, to repeal, to rescind are those that overlap, look similar to state programs, and so far have not caused the gap or a loss of protections to Vermonters. But the concern is that on this track with those priorities expressed, that there will be an issue where the agency of natural resources or other agencies, the Department of Health, HHS, Department of Corrections, there other policies or other areas of law or policy that the federal government has explained, you know, may be subject to these deregulatory efforts.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: You've got some examples of DEC.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: So one area that has been a focus of the federal government's deregulatory efforts is around climate change and air emissions. Endangerment finding. The endangerment finding is an instance where the state was resting on strong state authority to continue its regulatory program. In other areas, primarily through some of the federal funding programs that we participate in, We've been directed to remove language, policy related language around DEI related activities, climate change. So it's it's a it's a hint that we're no longer in alignment with our federal partners on some of the the values and the policy that are important to Vermonters that for which we have strong state authority, but it is starting to it is starting to disintegrate those pieces that we once shared concerted effort. So the example that

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: I'm sure

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: you quite gave, but the example that you gave, give me an example how the rulemaking would fix that.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: The rulemaking would allow us to act with haste to bolster our state programs in the in the face of a of a federal gap. So for instance, where we rely on EPA issued standards for certain contaminants under our hazardous waste or hazardous waste materials program. So for contaminated sites, for for hazardous waste generators, we incorporate into our some of our state regulations enforceable standards set for certain contaminants. And we rely on those standards that are adopted by rules. That may be a scenario where if EPA backtracks on some of those risk related standards for those contaminants, we may be able to come to Elkhart and say we need an emergency rule because of the imminency that this creates. However, if there's not a strong imminency, if this is really due to keep the regulatory or permitting program stable, to keep regulated entities, to not allow sort of a gap in compliance or enforcement efforts, that would be an example of where we want to maintain our regulatory authority as a stable administration of authority throughout, you know, as opposed to taking eight months, twelve months to develop a fill in state standard that we would then run through the normal rule making process.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Wyeth?

[Senator Rebecca White (Member)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm very happy to see this. I it actually gives me a little bit of relief because I have been worried about this and I wasn't sure kind of what our response would be, but I think it sets us up both from the literal rulemaking standpoint to be better prepared, but also potentially litigation wise long term if we move forward with certain things. It gives us a way to properly respond and set ourselves up when we have our state's attorney fighting further. I was surprised you didn't mention the agency of transportation because it's but I guess ANR kind of regulates it in a way with like DEC and stuff. But vehicle emission standards and enforcement of the Clean Air Act and also our tie in with the California standards. I do worry that we will lose the authority with changes to federal regulation to enforce those. And I do hope that we can maintain them. And whatever happens with simp, you know, who knows? But I I think that this is a very smart move and seems like only a way of keeping on with good values. And I also and I I know that you're not gonna say this because you're a nonpartisan person. But it does feel like politically at this moment, are drastic thank you. There are drastic changes that are taking place that might very quickly be returned to normalcy after we have a new election. So I don't think it benefits us to be trying to flip flop our own regulations when maybe in less than, how many months, thirty one months now, we may have a completely different set of regulatory framework.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. I would suggest that we lead the 07/01/2028 date since that's what DEC asked for. I'm also just making sure this is for an emergency type situation where, as Jordan has pointed out, in most cases, it does take a little bit longer than sixty seconds to affect a rulemaking change. If it goes through LCAR, it's months and months and months. So there's sometimes public hearings. There's a lot of testimony. So this would only be in effect if something happened that immediately was a threat to promoters, from what I'm understanding. And, again, if there's an the supremacy clause would would rule if there's an executive order that says, hold on, Vermont. Here's the new executive order. Then that ability to immediately change a rule would not have precedence. Right, right.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: And so in many cases, the state can enact protections that are more stringent than the federal standard. So, and I also do wanna point out that again, I'm here on behalf of ANR. Language does so it would extend you any entity that's defined as an agency currently under type three. So that includes other and you're welcome to hear from other agencies or departments or other entities that have rulemaking authority, it makes sense to extend this additional emergency rulemaking authority to all of the state agencies.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: How would there be?

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Oh, I would know off the top of my head, but work closely, ANR works closely with B TRANS, with the Department of Health, the Department of Public Safety. In terms of regulations that affect the environment and public health and safety, so those are just to name a few that might benefit from something like this based on proposed federal actions.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Any other questions for Dorfos? No, Brian. And again, I'll just point out, this was passed last year. I don't know what happened either, but it didn't take effect.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Know,

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: gotta phrase this carefully. There's constant tension some of the time between national administration and state governments back and forth, back and forth. It does seem as though there is a heightened sense of tension, you know, since the election in '24. I have no idea what the next election's gonna bring, but as senator Morley correctly pointed out, this would still be in effect regardless of who is elected in '26. I guess I'm I'm not really that upset or disturbed by something like this. But again, it would have to be a real emergency situation where an existing federal law kind of got in the way, and we could at least temporarily enact something that would answer that emergency situation. Yeah. That's how I'm understanding this. Is that fair?

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Yeah. And I I think one if I'm trying to think of, like, an emergency example because it doesn't seem like the climate change example is coming across as much of an emergency to folks, but I consider it an emergency when we reduce our air quality. Understood. But I don't know if you could give us an example of, like, especially around rights related to folks who are transgender, for example. There does seem to be a very significant move towards changing our own laws related to that. So I I would consider it an emergency if there was, like, a disagreement with like, you have to have m or f on your driver's license, but Vermont state law allows you to have multiple options including, I believe, non binary and Yeah. Or x. Exactly. So if the federal government were to change that, we could still do emergency rulemaking to allow it with another way. It's my understanding. Yeah. And and maybe a good maybe an equivalent that's under the a h a ANR umbrella is environmental justice and act one fifty four. And so that's another area where we have we have a state specific law. ANR and other agencies are subject to to the requirements of that law. But we're seeing a drastic change in federal policy around environmental justice and some of the the terms and concepts that apply to those principles and we're being directed, at least ANR is being directed, to not change our policies, but to no longer can find and use that language or use certain parameters in some of our funded programs for which we rely on federal funding. So we are seeing a chipping away or at least an effect from that perspective on what some of the state does. And what that means is we have to consider the risks of accepting that funding, we have to find alternative sources of that funding, and there are other risks that come with continuing to act in a way that the administration is directing federal agencies to not act.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Understood. LCAR would still have the ultimate say in

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: this, Yes, this would not change LCAR's review and they would have the ability to determine whether an emergency rule making does meet the standard that this would create. Great.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Thanks very much, Jordan. I appreciate it.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Thank you.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Wanna go next to, do you have a kind to strength of any sort? A little bit. Okay. Let's go to Chris Rutland, and then I know you've been very patient, Eric, but I think we're gonna be able to get what you wanna get done based on your previous definition. Oh, good. So, yes, please join. This is Chris Rutland from the Joint Fiscal Office. I got a note from your committee assistant to come over. Yeah. I'm quite frankly not entirely sure why you wanna hear from me today because I don't really have anything I don't have anything new to report from when I was here last Tuesday.

[Chris Rutland, Joint Fiscal Office]: The budget that you all passed out today had not materially changed with respect to this bill, the ensuing eight days. So Oh, okay. There is still just as there was a week ago, the senate budget construct still does not account for the half million dollar appropriation for the Ready. Ready Response Yep. Grant program that's included in the bill. So I would presume that should this committee vote the bill out as is, that might be something that your colleagues and senator Brooks might put a contingency clause around or something because, you know, the budget is still being negotiated with the two bodies. They haven't gone to conference yet, so we don't know where things are gonna shake out. But, you know, based on where things are right now, that appropriation in the bill, it's the only appropriation still in the bill, is not funded in the budget construct within the House of Senate. It was in the House's budget construct. It is not in the senate. And I just wanna be clear that when I talk about budget constructs, the money isn't in the big bill. The money rides in a separate bill, but we keep a list of the handful of bills that have their of appropriation, and and they go onto the big spreadsheet that we use to build the budget so we're not spending the same dollar twice. So maybe I can suggest Tim, Devlin, put in a phrase that just says, As appropriations are made or approved, this will or will not sort of I mean, to me, it's Yeah, Mr. Chair, you already have similar language at the end of the bill with some contingencies around the other grant program. So it's in the text of the bill itself. So you might okay. Lynch Council might be able to sort of mirror that and say, you know, the duty to implement it is contingent on corporations being made. I do see that now on page twenty nine and twenty nine. Nothing else is changed in that. Okay. However long it's been since I think. So the 2,250,000 was not in this year's FY seven. Are we talking about the public safety dispatch money? Yeah. That is a prior year appropriation. Was 11,000,000 originally, and some of it has been spent down. This is all verbally describing what's in the chart in the last page of the fiscal note, but some of that has been authorized for expenditure. There is some proposed reallocations for some of the remaining balance that's in this bill. We expect that should all that happen, about 2 and a half million of the original 11,000,000 would be remaining for the legislature to figure out what to do with. But my understanding is nothing's changed. Hope to. So does anyone else have questions for Chris? Think it sort of clears up. I don't know if you were in the chamber when we had third reading, but it is, and it's been I was to the house. Yeah. Nothing's changed with respect to this in the last week. I was here talking on what was that? Like, it was a Tuesday afternoon, I think. They were doing markup right next door. That's right. So they were finalizing the decisions that they gave a thumbs up to right before the weekend and making sure we captured it all on the bill. So nothing material had changed on that front. Well, appreciate your promptness in getting over here. No. And just so the committee's aware, because I know this is not a money committee, so I mean, come up with creative ways to spend money.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We will update a fiscal note when a committee updates the bill. The fiscal notes don't arrive at the budget, they arrive at the bill. So whenever you all decide to make a change to the bill and vote it out or not, that's when an updated fiscal note comes. But it would still go next door. The bill's still gonna go next door. If there's appropriation plan for Janet. So Okay. Thanks, Chris. No problem. Eric?

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: I don't have any additional testimony, but I did want to do a couple of things. So Sure. The first part is the Ready Response Grant program. So just being cognizant that there is no funding, the nature that we don't force an EM and sue banks to to penalize $500,000 of our own money. It's a great idea. We've been talking about all along, so we'll continue that work, but just making sure that we're not forced to do it. The second part is the technical rescue grant program. Again, if there's no funding, I would say strike the whole thing. We had a a myriad of concerns about the structure that was built in there. It was too complex and not necessary, but if there's no money anyway, I'd say we just heard from them. And then those teams are mostly getting held down by team anyway, but they're limited funding. It's just an extra benefit there. I won't get into the funding of research. There is a section on local and regional organizations, so our emergency management committees talking about who should be involved in them, and I had some discussions. I think I probably liked about this and people communities that we had some discussions about that. So just let me know if if there's more that I can provide on that one. We had down the whole community, like, at her resource on one of their and they tied it back to that single language. I know you had some concerns about that side or something. I do. Understand that. And I think the way they worked around it was they said whole community and they had a caveat, like, including potentially the screening. So there there was somewhat of a callout, nonspecific callout.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Well, rather than making an explicit callout, because I I know you pointed me to the place in the, like, in the the FEMA definition where it sort of specifically named people with disabilities, I would much rather have us I tried to think of a way to sort of explain my concern. A whole community is a great idea in theory, but when you're on the fringes of a community or society, but because of structures, structural oppression, from within sort of inside may fully believe they're including the whole community, never considering that person. And and that today, we may be talking about people with disabilities. Historically, we've talked about people of color. We've talked to and and a lot of times, think we've we've created these frameworks, you know, and I think when we're talking about race for a while, it's like color blindness. But that didn't actually solve any of the structural problems. It just put a pretty picture and made us feel good. So I I would rather have us call out that we're we're doing and you talked about it, this analysis that you do after an all hazards event of like, who didn't we get to? I wanna find a way that we sort of name that for when you won the lottery and moved somewhere really cool and it's not you doing this work. And the whole community's definition doesn't quite get there for me.

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: I don't

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: know if that helps. You know, it might have turn.

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: I under you and I are around the same.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I think we are.

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: We we don't like lists, but we understand that we might need a list. So, like, sometimes a list excludes people by the absence of their name. Sometimes it's too inclusive and doesn't allow you to go as much as you need. So I get it in whatever way that you think you can manage that. What I've seen is last year we added in that specific language it was AHS and then we added in food related organizations. Now this year we're adding disability level organizations. Next year it'll be another thing. So and there's 50 other organizations that aren't on there. So trying to think of a way to be all inclusive, understanding that when you become all inclusive, there are things that fall through the night, and how we got where we are. So I I I see both sides of it, and I don't have the magical definition. I try to find something more specific on the whole community. That's as close as we got because it's a theme that arises. It's not even a theme that arises. Generally used across the population. So it's close as we got. So I I I see what you're saying. It it's not going to be an issue for us specifically on that section because we're already trying to put it down. So if you're pointing out specifically, we're already doing it on your accurate if if it's not in your making sure that the next person does it to you. So it's not a a battle that I think needs to be fought at this point, but it's good either way for us. Like I said, we're already doing it. I was just trying to facilitate the need to not do it every year. There's always gonna be a troop

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: and Yeah. No. And I appreciate that. And I I would prefer to use that sort of broader umbrella. I just want some sort of call out for that process of who wasn't included in the in the whole community approach and how do we bring them in. Because I actually think that it's less of a naming, oh, this time it was people with disabilities. This time it was getting the food access and more of a how do you how do we caught up by the analysis that says who was it and how do we bring them in? And I don't for the purpose of this bill, maybe we don't need to do it, but I think longer term, it needs to be more codified.

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: And that's certainly something that will be put into every after action. It's just we do not we did not benefit from our actions during this event. Have to make sure that that gets split up. Thankfully, that number is getting smaller and smaller, but it is always something that we're focused on. We spent a lot of time over the last year with foreign language. It was 19 to 25 different languages spoken in Vermont and how we could get to them. And, you know, they were gearing and, like, laws, how can we get to them. So we're working on all this, but it it's a valid point.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. No. And I appreciate that. And I'd be happy to try to workshop stuff around maybe for next year that really directs future you to keep doing that.

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: Well, it's good to hear that I won't be here forever.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: We were like,

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: forever. So that was the whole community approach. I think that was in a couple of. There was a section. This was one of those sections where there was some language originally about detailer being accessible to individuals with disabilities. One, that's a very wrong term. But two, we don't have the ability necessarily to define if we're successful in that metric. Right? So we already have it available to the auditory challenge to the visually challenge. You know, they could do text or email or audio. We're working on the language. So in this section, I think you actually changed the language to if feasible type of language, which is fine. But in general, is it necessary? We're not really sure. But if it's something that we, again, to try to point the future me in the right direction, I I think it's fine. We just want to point out that we're we're working towards that as we speak. Sure. Language access, we're working on that one. The one section that I wanted to check on was there a section on the REMCs. I think that's still in there, adding disability led organizations as a voting member. And if we recall last year, we were having issues getting to form just at the EMD of the town and the largest and service person from the town in that area. So two from each town in the jurisdiction, which is roughly the county. We were having trouble getting those people there to quorum. So then if we added another organization as a voting member, it throws the quorum off again. So one, that's problems. But two, they're not really voting on anything that's super relevant anyway. They're voting on Vince and the next president and their ability to incorporate. So nothing earth shattering that a different organization may have a different opinion on at that point. But also the ability of those organizations to actually provide people. Like, they have resource constraints too. Adding another meeting to them, we spoke to them, they didn't really think they had the capacity. Alright.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So I just wanna see them.

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: Yeah. They're already a nonvoting member as everyone is, so just not adding on language.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yeah. Think that was I'm gonna give this to Tim and suggest because I don't know whether you've seen this is the written testimony that Eric has. And also the amendment about the federal rulemaking versus state rulemaking. I think, yeah, my

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: only chance when I'm written is if we don't have the funding for the use of microgrants. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I have another get together before, actually. Think at some point, but I'd be glad to visit for a little bit longer if anybody has anything else.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm gonna just come. You all right?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I always got to scratch it. I scratch it. Okay. Are you okay?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: My contacts are really bothering me.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Oh, I'm sorry.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: It's okay. No, but I keep blinking and looking like I'm maybe a little wild eyed, and I suppose my contacts are annoying me.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Sorry. Okay, with that in mind, we

[Eric Forand, Vermont Emergency Management (DPS)]: will adjourn

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: for

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: the