Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, we are live. Okay, it's very good. Good morning. This is Southern Natural Resources and Energy. It is Friday, January 9, and we some we'll have some schedule changes. Do hope to have people who were on the schedule in another time. So, we are reading a little bit later, but today is just a bill introduction day. That's the name of the game today. We're going to start with a couple of bills by Senza Cardy. Then, that's, that's it. I think we're going to, we're going to roll with that. Legis Council, you want to come up, great. Otherwise, I'm going to turn it over to Senator Hardy, you're ready. Okay.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone. So S-one 134 is the first bill that we're going to talk about, and it's related to municipal regulation of private airstrips. I introduced this last year and we didn't get to it last year, so this is our first crack at it. And I also didn't know we were going to go over it until this morning or late last night, so I'm winging it here. Very

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: great opening.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: No pun intended. I

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: actually realized it after I said it, to be fair.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So this has come about because of a number of concerns from constituents of mine. As the aviation industry has expanded, more and more people are putting into private air scripts that they're on their own land, and municipalities aren't necessarily prepared to deal with what happens when somebody wants to put a landing strip on their land. And there's a lot of sort of gray area about whether municipalities have any role in zoning for airstrips. So it's created a lot of tension in some communities and across the state, in Addison County, in Grand Isle County, and Wyndham County are areas that I know, but I'm assuming it's in Rutland County, sort of like what happens when somebody who has a lot of land wants to start landing planes on their land. So what this would do is first make it clear that towns can include in their zoning bylaws, the location, construction, repair, maintenance, and alteration of restricted landing areas, which are defined in state law. Because once a landing area is put in there, there is less opportunity for state oversight or local oversight, because then it sort of becomes the jurisdiction of FAA. The So once it's there, it's hard to change anything. So making sure that it's done well to begin with, and that it is in a location that's appropriate, and it's taking into consideration other things that are in the town and the neighbors is helpful. It also would make it part of the Act two fifty process. That would be, it's always been a little, Ellen knows a lot more about this than me, but it's always been vague about whether they should be part of Act two fifty, and in some cases they've been required to go under Act two fifty review, and in some cases they haven't been. So this would make it clear that they would have to be. Obviously, we'll get testimony on all of this, but then this bill would create an Aviation Advisory Council that would have appointments from various people in the industry, and also people who are experts about the impact of aviation on the environment and on public health, and also people who are neighbors of airports and airstrips. And full disclosure, there is an airport, a state airport, right near where I live. The planes fly over my house, and a lot of my neighbors are very concerned about it. And so I've been to a lot of

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: meetings at our local

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: airport, and communication with local airports and people who use those local airports can be challenging for local communities, because a lot of times the pilots who come in and fly there don't actually live there, and they come in and are not present physically to talk to. So this advisory council would talk about communication and making sure that there are open lines of communication between the residents who live near an airport and the people who utilize the airport. In some cases, they're one of the same, but in a lot of cases, they're not. And there would be membership of the Secretary of Transportation, the Adjutant General, or designee. Obviously, the National Guard has a lot of, a lot of the planes in the state are National Guard planes, members of the industry, local planning agencies, pilots association, the Vermont Aviators Association, and then people who live near airports or air strips. So that's creating that council. And then the final part of the bill is about data and the state air navigation facilities data tracking. One of the things I've learned from going to a lot of these meetings about state airport is they create plans about the state airports in Vermont, and there are, I can't remember how many at this point, 10 maybe?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I was gonna say 11,

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: but there's one less now because the one in your area was sold, I believe, or is in the process. It's in the process because it's sold. So I think there might be 10 now, I don't remember. But they create plans for the airport, which is great, but they don't use actual data from that airport. They use aggregate data, because they don't collect data about the number of planes that land and take off. And that data is actually really easy to collect electronically, but they're not doing that on a regular basis. And obviously this is more transportation related. I'm assuming if we move visibility at any place, it would go across the hall, but it would be to create and track data on a quarterly basis about the use of the state airports. And this would also give us data on, that would be helpful for budgeting purposes and how much are we investing in these airports and are they being used sufficiently? And then there is an appropriation in the bill because it would ask the agency of transportation to do more work. So it would give them some funding to do that work. And I know that will not go anywhere, but this bill was introduced a year ago. And so it is in there. And that is the bill. I'm happy to answer questions, just turn it to Ellen.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Knowing that we are gonna get a walk through for Melanie, do you have

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: a question for senator Hardy? Yes. Okay.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So you didn't you didn't mention an iron. Obviously, if you're gonna put a, like, a little landing strip, then you're gonna have an impermeable surface. Yeah. So that's gonna have to get listed in there. We'll have to anything more half an acre or more of a permanent surface than the rest of the acre.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. They do have to get permits for for for that That needs to go to something about that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. I didn't actually think about

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: that when I was drafting the bill. So I'm not sure how that would work, but probably you're right. You're right. That's definitely relevant. Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Probably it's not it's not brass.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Right? No. Well, it could be a grass manuscript, but it's gotta be brown if it to be in birth. Sorry. Yeah.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, that something I the brass is a name strip. Curious. Okay. Well, let's turn it over to Ledge Council.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll let you guys go to the Legislative Council here on S-one Hundred 34. I don't know how much of a walk through you need, because I've already heard most of it. Sorry. That's okay too. To give a little bit more context, so section one is adding the specific reference to limited, wait, what do we call them, restricted landing areas specifically. So for both Act two fifty and municipal zoning permits, there are private ownerships that have received permits from both programs. That's because both zoning and I-three 50 use the generic term, generic but all encompassing term of land development. And often construction of any kind, whether it's for a landing strip or a building, falls into the land development. However, not all airstrips are paved, and some have required very little alteration to a site in order for it to be used, especially sometimes in like fields. Yeah, as you just talked about, like there may require little to no actual construction to be done, and so sometimes that's why they may not require a permit. But there are a number of examples where primary trips have been required to get permits either from the municipality and or also Act two fifty. But so section one is specifically requiring and clearing up any gray area that yes, location, construction, repair, maintenance, alterations of a restricted landing area requires a municipal permit if they so choose. With zoning, zoning is always optional, largely

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: the

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: way that they set it up. So towns don't ever have to have zoning, and then as long as they're operating within the confines of what the statutes allow, they have the ability to be less restrictive than what the statute says. So if the town didn't want to require a permit, they wouldn't have to, but this is making very clear that they are allowed to require a permit. And so just to read you the definition of restricted landing area, the transportation statutes do not use the term airstrip or private airstrip, but when the agency of transportation issues permits for airstrips, they do it under the permitting program for restricted landing areas. And so that is defined as an area of land or water or both that is used or is made available for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, the use of which, except in the case of emergency, shall be only as provided from time to time by the board, the transportation board. So the transportation board issues permit for restricting landing areas. I am not the transportation attorney, so when I wrote this originally, I worked

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: on it

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: with Anthea and we agreed that restricted area is the thing you are talking about when you talk about private airships. So that's why we're using this. And if you want to hear more about what the permitting process is that the Transportation Board uses, you would need to hear from either Damian from Legis Council or maybe the Agency of Transportation. You want to know more about what that is, but it's using the term that the transportation agency unit is so that it's consistent with also municipal and Act two fifty as well. And so then section two, as Senator already mentioned, adds it again specifically to a new car constructing or operating a reshaping landing area that would require an Act two fifty permit. And again, I did find that there are a number of existing Act two fifty permits for private airstrips, again, Act 50 for commercial enterprises, or for commercial development, is always based on the parcel size, usually. So there have been times when if it's a small parcel, they may not have triggered and may not have gotten an Act two fifty permit. So this has made it very clear that any of these restricted areas would need an Act two fifty permit. So those are the two land use parts of the bill. The other sections I did work on with Ampia originally, so I am familiar with them, but you're going to ask transportation questions again. So what about section three is that there is an existing Aviation Advisory Council, but it is a council that was created by the governor via executive order. And so when we were discussing this with Senator Hardy, the legislature can't necessarily impact the governor's executive order or change their guidelines or parameters or membership unless you put it in statute. And so that's what this is doing. There is an existing council equity lading meet, and this would just be moving largely the same. It's largely similar to what already exists, but putting it in statute so that the legislature can weigh in on it if you want to change any of their directives or membership. Did you want me to read through the whole membership of the council and I this point, we it's okay, but if there's

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: a way that you could highlight like the differences between what is here and what exists on the council as it exists now.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Is that a fair question?

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Well, yeah, well, can tell you. The council as it exists now is mostly people, pilots and people from the aviation industry who are talking about, from their perspective, what needs to be done for aviation industry in Vermont. And this is broader, this includes those people for sure, but also members of the public. And I think part of the goal is that as the aviation industry expands in Vermont, which is great that it's expanding and we have more people flying planes, but it's also creating more impact on local communities. And so this is a sort of more balanced advisory council that has perspective on both sides.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, with that context, maybe we should go through it.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Does that sound interesting? Blind hers.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: We're electric helicopters, sorry. Sure, so on page three, section three, Aviation Advisory Council, and this would go into title five where the other aviation regulations are. So aviation and purpose, they're screening the Aviation Advisory Council to act as a forum to discuss and recommend aviation policy that is in the best interest of the residents of Vermont, state owned air navigation facility use or infrastructure changes to ensure efficient use of public resources and access to the members of the public. Air navigation facilities use infrastructure changes to ensure minimal impact on neighborhoods and natural resources surrounding air navigation facilities. State owned air navigation facility use fees and hangar rental rates that support the maintenance and operation of state owned air navigation facilities. Practices to reduce the environmental and public health and safety impacts of air traffic and airport operations and infrastructure. Onto page four. Needs to support a responsible and healthy aviation community and industry in Vermont, including protocols to ensure that state owned air navigation facilities are available for emergency response and preparedness. Public safety standards and policies for reducing the impact and for proliferation of private restricted landing areas, policies to monitor, prevent, and deter aerial harassment, as used in the section of aerial harassment means using an aircraft to harass someone by buzzing, flying low, or circling them or their property with the intent of intimidating or creating distress. The council shall encourage and facilitate open communication between aviators, air navigation facility users, state and local officials, and members of the public, and shall seek to balance the priority of aviators with the health and well-being of the general public. Membership. The capital shall be composed of the following: The Secretary of Transportation or designee, who shall serve as Chair, the Admiral of the Vermont National Guard designee, one member representing the aviation industry, appointed by the Governor, Two members appointed by the Vermont Association of Planning Development Agencies, who shall be the members of different regional planning commissions. In general, BAFTA is the overarching, it's like the group of RBCs are all in that group. On to page five, new members representing independent pilots appointed by the Vermont Aviation Association. One member from a community or neighborhood association representing the interests and concerns of community or neighborhood adjacent to a state owned air navigation facility appointed by a speaker of the house. One member from a community or neighborhood association representing the interests and concerns of a community or neighborhood adjacent to a municipal owned air navigation facility appointed by the committee on committees. One member with expertise on the environmental impacts of aviation who shall not be a member of the aviation industry or Vermont Aviators Association appointed by the House. And one member with expertise on the public health impacts of aviation who shall not be a member of the aviation industry or Vermont Aviators Association, appointed by the Committee on Committees. Assistance, the council shall have the administrative, technical, and legal assistance of the agency of the transportation. The members who are not employees of the state of Vermont and were not otherwise compensated or reimbursed shall be entitled to per DS maintenance. On page six, and that's for no more than four meetings per year. The terms, other than the Secretary of Transportation and in general, the terms shall be as follows. They'll just standard for the rest of the membership, with half of them being applied, appointed for one year to start and the other half of the membership for two years. And then all subsequent appointments are for the unexpired portion of that term, and they're two year terms overall. Okay. So that brings us to section four. And so again, this is a transportation issue. So I'll read you through the language, I don't know a ton

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: about I'm just conscious of Yeah. The

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So the agency, this is section four at the bottom of page six, state air navigation facilities data tracking. The agency, which here would be the transportation agency, shall track the date, time, aircraft category, or class as defined in 14 CFR 1.1, elevation of aircraft, and takeoff or landing for every aircraft operation at a state owned Air Now Asian facility. On page seven, the agency shall maintain a web accessible and web searchable data source dedicated to flight data at state owned air navigation facilities that includes the data from Section A. The web accessible and web central data source required under this subsection shall be updated at least quarterly basis, and be provided to the municipality where the state owned air navigation facility is located at least a quarterly basis to be maintained at the municipality's municipal offices and posted on the municipal website if there is one, and include how the data was reported. And then section five at the bottom of page seven is an appropriation. So $100,000 is appropriated to the transportation fund for the purpose of acquiring the technology necessary to perform the data tracking. And they will consult with the Federal Aviation Administration about that. And then on tape means, I know this is not a possibility.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I will say that technology, like you literally can get an app on your phone that It's gives you really easy to do and they just don't track it. And so I don't even, these numbers, it may not be even necessary. It's so electronic. You can say, oh, well that's Terry Williams' plane and he's flying at this elevation. Could do an accident on my boat. And honestly, as I said, this was drafted over a year ago. So things have changed. No, hear

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: you.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: There's another appropriation for $91,000 as well.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Hang tights. That's one

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: very important.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, thinking about time, because it's just about ten. Senator Hardy, would it be okay if we skip to nineteen and come back to it another day? Since we have Michael Creation. Sure. You guys will need it. Okay, so, Allen, you're on the other. So does that, what about that? No, fine. I don't know if we can circle back to it like later today if there's time. It's probably not feasible.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, that's not really a question for me. I'm here. Okay.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm going to leave.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But if

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: you want me to come back, please let

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: me know.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. I'm gonna use it. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. And so we're gonna skip 02:19 for now and move on to 02:12. And we have a bunch of greeting here. Welcome. So, just to-

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I picked up the lung file.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: You want to take a quick break?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, can you give me five minutes?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Absolutely, okay. We can take a break for five minutes.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Thank you, Ruth. Sure. I can feel the way I'm doing the bill, which I have similar guidance that we're today. Yeah. Can speak to them.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm sorry, for 2018

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: or for 100 and Well, any of my health and my witnesses, but the air stress one. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Super. He also want to know

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: how to deprecate not get

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: a smuggling iron. But when I talk to water heater, they're like, there's a cost. Yeah.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Then, Right.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So so that's why I added that.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And then also, you know, one of the concerns.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: We're on 04:00. Okay.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: All right. Yeah, it's an announcement from Mr. Bennington. Coming back from break. Okay, so just a little background on this bill.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: One of the things that continues to be

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: the issue that I think about, of course, is how do we make housing faster, cheaper, without compromising the environment? And it came to my attention that there was an opportunity to perhaps do that in the area of wastewater connections. If somebody is making a, has some construction, has a new construction and needs to connect to, let's say, an existing municipal water and sewer system, they need to get a municipal permit for that. And of course, if it's a municipal system, the municipality is very invested in ensuring that that connection is done well and that the municipality has capacity for the loan. So there's a lot of, for places that have municipal connections, there's a degree of rigor that goes into that permit. Meanwhile, at the state level, so they also need to get a state permit. And my understanding was that there was not a lot of value, I'm going to call it value add, to the state permit if what we're talking about is a municipal water or sewer connection. Then if it's septic, that's something else, and that's a whole different question, but could we potentially eliminate the need for a state permit given that there is perhaps a level of rigor to the municipal permit for that connection. And as I digging into this, Legion Council was rebating, let me know that there was a study that had actually been done on this. So Act 147 created a study exactly to this end, and and they so, came up with what seemed like a good solution. And so this bill comes out of that report. And I think, to be fair, I think there may be some good reason to continue to modify this, like to add some levels of specificity for like what we may be looking for in terms of the level of rigor or robustness of that review. That is not included in here, but I think we can take some testimony on that. But the intent anyway is to try to find an efficiency for developers. So that's do you have a question?

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Well, just so I'm just thinking if, you know, the municipality is going to, as far as like TMDL, they're going keep track of that, anything additional. Yeah, absolutely.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: All right, so my follow-up question here.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Didn't a few years ago, we tried to do this and it was in a bill and I think it was Senator Ray's bill and then it got turned into a study, is that how it went? Because I remember this issue coming up.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This issue's been coming up for about ten years and you've tried to address it in multiple different ways. Okay. Initially, the agency was resistant to to addressing this or changing it. Okay. But over the past few years, the groundwater wastewater section has been Alright. Invincible of the fact that this program could be streamed.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. Because I was like,

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: this is stage out of food. I feel

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: like we did this already.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You will literally, in this bill, strike what you tried to do for one type of development connection in order to expand that to all types of locations, at least you said.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. Okay, thank you.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: If I can turn it over to you to walk us through.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is Michael Grady with the Office of Legislative Council. Just to provide some further background, the the state has a portable water supply and wastewater system permit. Total water supply is a well, a wastewater system is a a subjectively accepted system, but included in that program is the additional action of connecting public sewer system or public water system to a new or existing structure. So those connections are treated the same as getting a well permit or a septic. As the chair indicated, there are already municipal permits for some of these connections in addition, as senator Williams noted, if you're doing a wastewater connection and you are in a town municipality with load allocations for your wastewater treatment plan, you need to ensure that any new addition to the system is consistent with all the treatment plans, got a little margin of safety, little bit of ability to to grow, but also so you have to make sure that it's within your allocation under the TMDL. The issue has been both the administrative, the city, the click that this, and also the cost. Because to get a permit, a portable water supply wastewater system permit, today you have to submit your design review and it has to be submitted by a licensed engineer or a licensed site designer. They're not inexpensive And even if you have one on your municipal staff, it means that person is spending their time to do a connection, which the developers will tell you is not rocket science. With that said, ANR believes there are things that need to be done to ensure public health and to ensure that connections are not done in a way that endangers public. And that was initially their resistance to changing this program, but this proposal, I won't speak for the agency, but I have spoken to the head of the division, and he thinks this is a potential way to go forward. He obviously has to consult with his secretary and governor and can't say for sure if they will fully approve, but I do think this is has potential. Could it be more specific? Could it be tweaked? Then yes. And you're also dealing with the engineers here and there's Christina. And so you probably would get comments on the bill.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So that said, on page one, section one, nine, 15, you were amending that portable water supply and resource system permit chapter chapter 64, title 10. You'll see what the purpose of the program is, one of the things that you are amending, revising on page two, line four. There's already a purpose of this program to allow delegation of the permitting program to municipalities for permitting of all photovoltaic supply and wastewater systems, not just connections. And there were two communities that did that. Old Chester and Charlotte actually were delegated and were delegated for years, and they have surrendered their delegation. They do not want to do it anymore, and so changing this purpose is consistent with changing the fact that there's no longer a delegated community. But what you're going to do is to allow delegation to municipalities a technical review of votive water supply and wastewater system connections pursuant to the rules of the agency. So the connection will now be effectively delegated. So you're moving down on page two, you get to the definition of votable water supply, it includes a service connection to the republic's water system vent size does not require a permit pursuant to Chapter 56. Chapter 56 is the indirect discharge permits, those are large community based, not necessarily large, they're generally community based sanitary systems, mound systems that serve multiple connections, and so those are and that their discharge how they operate allows for the wastewater to be basically inundated into the ground that gets into an indirect discharge permit and so that's a different chapter, you're not talking about that. A and R doesn't want to give up permitting of connections to indirect discharge systems.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So that's what we're saying.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: On page three, we see a slide decking between eleven and twelve, the antiquated term were sanitary sewer collection, just sewerage, and the correct term is sanitary sewer collection that's consistent with paying our schools. And then you get to the permanent section, you'll see TAM USA 1973 is where all permits are required for the total water supply wastewater system permit. You'll see on page three nineteen, that making a new or modified connection to a newer existing potable water supply or wastewater system requires a permit. But then on page four, one of the ways that you would try to address the efficiency or improve the efficiency of permitting of connections is you on page four of line eight in the task that the Secretary felt issue a permit for a newer modified connection to a water main sewer main or indirect discharge system for a building or structure in a designated downtown development district. So just in those limited areas that consists solely of the certificated consultants designer. So this bill strikes that focused authority for a licensed designer to improve the connection. And instead, on page five, line two and three five, the secretary shall adopt a general permit for municipal water supply and wastewater system connections that are reviewed with municipalities with authority delegated to that pursuant to 1977. Alright. Why are you just not saying that a licensed designer can do the general permit, and why does it have to be a municipality that's been delegated authority? Because ANR wants somebody, wants capacity at the municipal level to review. They want to know that somebody in the municipality can go and improve the connection and has the skill and expertise to approve that connection. So they're not fully giving municipalities authority, they're saying this general permit and municipality that effectively has the ability. And one of the things that they're going to look at is not just the ability of the staff, it's the capacity of the system. So we're going to get to that on this subject.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: We have a question.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Didn't you start off by saying there were two towns that had this designation and they just gave

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: it up, so there are two towns that have this

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No, this is a different designation.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I'm sorry.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So the delegation that Charlotte and Colchester had was to permit every well and every septic system to have every connection and everything that ANR's wastewater system, wastewater, groundwater, and water, water wastewater is energy.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: This is just an

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is just the connection. Got it, got

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: it, okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And now you'll see on page five that authority for the delegation, the first thing that you're doing is you're striking the authority to delegate the whole program like it was to Colchester at Darlagh, and instead on page six, actually page seven, line five, the secretary may delegate to the municipality authority to conduct a technical review of connections provided that the water main sanitary sewer collection line that the service on the sanitary sewer are connected to and are owned and controlled by delegated municipality. There are some lines, say, in I don't know the proper term anymore the constructed home reconstructed home parks mobile home

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: parks

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: where the property owner has ownership over parts of the connection to the overall public water system or wastewater system, and so you're you're not gonna allow for that when it's not the municipality approving that doesn't own that. They they can't approve the connections for that.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Go ahead. So who's who's who's doing that now? Very hard?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Who's physically doing the approval of connections? So right now, it's just like a portal. It's just like you're well and you're septic. You have to have someone come out, apply for a permit. The license designer or site design license engineer or site designer needs to certify that it meets the design requirements, and it's sent to to ANR. Now ANR does have a a kind of a I mean, it's they have a form for this. Mhmm. But you still need to do the certification from the license design. And again, as the chair noted, they can duplicate the municipal permit and the municipal effort and that municipal analysis of whether or not there's capacity in the system. Whether or not it needs your TMBL, you need to figure out if it meets the capacity of your wastewater treatment, or if your water supply, your public water system is gonna be able to pump, it's gonna be insufficient sufficient supply. And so that's that's still going to be part of this program, but it's going to be the municipality doing that tactical review. And you'll see that if the municipality submits a request for delegation, the secretary shall delegate to implement and administer the program provided that the municipality is qualified to perform the technical review, they have the staff or they have somebody on contract to do it, they receive authorizations from the municipal legislative body, you're not going to let your public works department go to lead the road here, you're going to have to have approvals, they have to meet any other requirement for the delegation program adopted by the Secretary in writing, and shall only issue permits for water service line and sanitary sewer service line when there's adequate capacity in the public water system, wastewater treatment facility, or indirect discharge and complies with the requirements for connection and all requirements of the agency's proposal. Now previously I said they're not going to delegate indirect discharge, they're not delegating indirect discharge over 6,500 gallons. Under 6,500 gallons if you're going to use an indirect discharge, they're going to allow for connections.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I've lost where you are.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm on PG. Okay, thank you. Lines one through three.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Perfect, sorry, carry on.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And then the last thing is Steve's, It's on page eight, line 13, section five. Now the fee section for ANR's permits is almost unscrewable, but there is a provision on page 10 that project permitted under a municipal potable water supplier wastewater system connection would have a $500 fee, And that is different from the existing fee structure because the fee structure now is based on your flow, and you your original application will have potentially, if you have a 2,000 gallon and that for between 2,000 and 6,500 gallon per day, you're paying $3,000 per application. And that's pretty high for building or structure, $5.60 and less than or equal to 2,000, that's some businesses, some you know, office buildings having that kind of flow if you're large enough, and so you would be paying $870 per application for that. And so looking at a way to streamline this program and also make it a little more affordable, to give delegations to the municipality that have capacity, have technical review, municipal legislative body has approved. And if only new connections and then we do a connection, it's going to be at a lower permanent fee than the existing.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So that $500 fee, does it go to the municipality or does it go to A and R?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No, that fee goes A and R.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Why, if the municipality is doing

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: the work? That's why I asked the question

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: because the permit is still A and R's permit.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So does the municipality get anything?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: For their permit, there's still going to be potentially

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Still going be two permits, one for ANR?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is a more streamlined version of the permit.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay, I'm sorry.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is what came out of that meeting, that A and R recommendation.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay, so what's the municipal fee

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: or does it vary by town?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's going to depend on municipal ordinance. Okay, because it seems to me if they're doing work then they should be able

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: to cover their work, but then is ANR this is just so that ANR

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so ANR still retains the authority to review the design and the connection. Remember I said that they are there's engineers. The agency has concerns about public health and making sure that these connections are done right. And this program already runs in a way that is different from some other programs, in that most other programs you apply to the agency to get your permit, and they tell you if you met the permit standard or what you need to do. This program, the licensed designer submits the design when they apply, and ANR has discretion to review it or not. So in certain instances, when you're a well known respected engineer designer, you might have very little review of your permanent application before you are issued a permit. Or they will just do effectively, you know, an audit of the different types of furniture different from the different racial offices and so it's not it's not and let me just say why why do they do it that way? Why did you authorize them to do it that way? Because that they

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: are authorized by statute because

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: this is the division that issues the most permits out of any division at ANR by far, and you know you've got the high profile data divisions like stormwater and wastewater and you know solid waste, but these people are the people that issue the most permits.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: There's a

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: natural department called Diva.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yes. So I I brought my question up because of it sounds like there's some redundancy in your Right. FTD. Now who's doing the work? Who's getting paid for it? Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And and, you know, talk to Karen Horn, she's still working, I don't know if she's ill or retired yet, but she was representing the rural water associations and that association has been calling for something like this, calling for a change in the connection permitting standards and maybe they will want even more flexibility. I couldn't tell.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I do have the LCT on my list for more flexibility. Cool, thank you. We are going to keep rolling, so log this one away. We will be revisiting that. And then we're gonna give two more bills for the morning. So next, we're going to go back to Senator Hardy if you're ready. Sure. Okay. Yes. Okay.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: This bill is also about water. It's about public water systems and their use of smart meters. This also, the aviation bill, came out of concerns I heard from constituents. And I was contacted by a constituent who is in a public water system, and the public water system was requiring everybody to get smart meters, and he didn't want to have a smart meter. And then he also didn't want to have to pay to not have a smart meter because sometimes there are fees charged if you opt out of a smart meter. And in 2013 or somewhere around there, there was a law that was passed that allows you to opt out of a smart meter for gas and and the law at that point prohibited those utilities from charging for people to opt out. And that's still on the books. I chose not to deal with that in this bill, but it's something we might wanna think about if people are There was also a study done at that time by the Department of Health about the health impacts

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: of smart meters,

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: and the Department of Health found that there are not health impacts by the use of smart meters. Back before I knew about that, I Googled smart meter public health, and what literally came up was the Vermont study that the state of Minnesota had posted on their Department of Health website. So I was like, oh, how interesting. But anyway, all of that is sort of background to what this bill does, which is it would allow people who are users of public water system to opt out of using a smart meter, but in talking to the Rural Water Association and several local water systems, when people opt out of it, out of a smart meter, the reason why they use smart meters is because they save money. You don't have to pay somebody to come out and read a meter. And so it saves money, it saves driving around, etcetera. And so there's a cost to the water system for people who opt out. So rather than say, you don't have to pay that cost, because if you don't, if the person who wants that doesn't pay everybody else's water rate, so to make up the difference. There's a provision in the bill that would say that the water system had a charge, but they can only charge the cost. They can't put out a fee on top of it. It's just, what is the cost to the water system for the opt out? The other concern I heard from my constituent and others, and that has been in the news recently, and if you didn't see them, I can send you two recent news articles about it, is the cybersecurity of public water systems. So if you're using smart meters, you're obviously collecting data. So that if this bill would require that if you are a public water system using smart meters, you have to meet minimum cyber security standards in order to use those smart meters. What is in the bill is based on the recommendations of the water association, the Vermont Rural Water Association. We should hear from them. They may have something else that they want to recommend, but that was just where we landed before that deadline of drafting the bill to make sure we had something in there. So those are the three things it would do is say you can't be forced to do a smart meter, but that you have to pay the cost if you don't do it, and that water systems have to be put in all the cybersecurity Standards.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So that's about two.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So should I be here?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, please.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Again, this is Mike McGrady, Les Council walking through Desk 213. We were just talking about the division that issues permits for wells and septic systems in connection as well. That same division issues the permits for public water systems, what is the public water system? Public water system is defined largely based on the Safe Drinking Water Act, federal Safe Drinking Water Act, which requires systems that provide drinking water to a certain number of persons or connections to meet health and safety standards. And you will see what that definition is on page two, line 10, any system or combination of systems owned or controlled by a person that provides drinking water provides rather constructive advances to the public and that has at least 15 service connections or serves an average of at least 25 individuals for at least sixty days a year. So for the purposes of this though, you're dealing with the type of public water system that has service connections. You're not dealing with the service of these 25 individual. That's that's like a school or or an office building or that type, that's a public water, they're usually called transient or non transient public water system. You're talking here about effectively community based public water systems, but we're not using that term because on page well, I'll tell you, I'll come back to why we're not using community based water system in a second. The definitions of smart meter, wired smart meter, and wireless smart meter are on page four through 11. They generally follow the law that Senator Hardy referenced, that is the driving smart meter to use for gas and electric. So a wired meter is pretty intuitive, it's an advanced metering infrastructure device using a fixed wire for two way communication between the device and the health water system. A wireless meter is an advanced metering infrastructure device using radio or other wireless, two way communications between the device and the wireless. Now the kind of true meat of the statutory change is going to focus on wireless smart meters. And you will see on page three where that is implemented. You are in 10 USA sixteen seventy five, section two, these are the permits for public water systems, and you are adding a subdivision subsection related to smart meters and customer rights. First of all, now public water systems are not required to have meters. It says that the rule for the public water system says that they should have a metering or other device to measure usage but it's not a requirement, but obviously if you're charging for use you probably and your charging base on a rate or usage then you do need some sort of metering device you mentioned in the slides. So if a public water system requires a user of the system to install a meter to measure use, so it's not just community, if you have a meter or if you're required to have a meter to utilize that public water system, the public water system may install a wireless smart meter on a user's premises. So the systems can still do that, provided that they give written notice to the user indicating that the metering will use radio or other wireless meetings and that the and informing the user of the user's rights in their subdivisions two, three, and three, four lines, etcetera, through 13, and those rights are the system has to allow the user to choose not to have a wireless smart meter installed provided that the public water system may charge the user for the cost of the alternative meter and an additional service charge required for the public water systems operate the alternative meter. And again, user rate allow the user to require removal of a previously installed wireless smart meter for any reason at an agreed upon time without carrying any charge for such removal. And then as Senator Hardy referenced, are cyber security measures as a condition of the public water system issued permit. The secretary shall require a public water system using smart meters to demonstrate that the public water system has implemented and is administering cyber security measures to protect the computer infrastructure and data of the public water system, the unauthorized access that could result in that damage or disruptions. Then there is the development of those cyber security measures. ANR develops those measures that all public water systems permitted shall implement if the public water system is using smart meters. At a minimum, they shall be consistent with the cybersecurity action recommended by the Natural Water Association and the public water system permitted under chapter 56 shall until July 2027 demonstrates ANR compliance with cybersecurity requirement. Now there are some cybersecurity guidance on the agency website, but it's not a condition of the permit. If this is you're gonna be using some wireless, then you have to leave those commission. Question about that.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I guess I'm sorry, Senator Hardy, any thoughts on

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: including ADS in that?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, we're just wondering,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, if already had, if they

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: already has guidance, maybe it's like, we're just going to require that. I don't know. I mean, we should just hear from them to see it. ANR, I mean, be, I checked in with the global water association because they have cyber security measures and asked them, what do you recommend? And they were like, Oh, we should talk to ANR, but then we ran out

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: of time

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: and I

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: had to, so this was what we could do to have it in the bill. ANR probably has some ideas and maybe ADS, I don't know.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: It occurs to me like, oh, I was seen like in consultation with,

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: you know? Yeah, I mean, that's totally fair. And I don't know if they're federal cybersecurity requirements for water systems or not.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Not that I know of. I mean, the state drinking water act does when those rules, EPA change those rules, they do trickle down to the state level, but I'm not aware of any security advising.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Was just going say,

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: can send you guys all those two articles if you didn't see them. Both deal with a rural water system in Vermont. I think it's in Cavendish that is sort of early adopter of trying to help with cybersecurity protocols for rural water systems, because

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: they're literally being

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: targeted by that eight actors. So I think it's important that we have some standards for our systems.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I will say that Brian Rutland, the head of the division is on vacation until the '17, but that mantras is, if you want to talk a lot of times, Ben is probably what person you're gonna get most easily.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, well that is good to know, especially for timing. Okay, any other thoughts or questions about this? Okay, well thank you Senator Rutland for bringing us forward. Sure. And we have one more bill to talk through before know it has to go. Before my time is to go. And then, I mean, got to 11:30 today. My guess is that we could potentially invite Ellen back. Well, we can see it fast. I'll let her give her a heads up. Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Did you get on that?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I did.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Okay. So this the salt pill. It had a long path. So it is still in judiciary. And so we, some of the language that they had talked through ended up in 03/19, which we didn't do. And so we figured that the best path forward to just get this done was to introduce a new bill. So this language should look very familiar. And so my hope is that it actually won't take that long necessarily to go through. But as I understand it, this is language that you think, you know, judiciary, our judiciary has seen and has agreed to, or they had voted on it, or maybe not voted, but they had talked through it. And so with that, I'm going to turn it over to you.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So again, would like to agree as the counsel, the language in front of you is 93% of what you saw previously, I mean two other 2% are changing dates and doing a technical renumbering of the chapter because last year there something else went into the chapter that added the numbers so I had some just read the.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Fair enough.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So those are the major changes. As you vote, as everyone has indicated, s 29 came out of this committee, went to judiciary, discussed, moved away from the presumption of no liability to an affirmative defense. That was reviewed in the house. It was in H319 that was in this committee, passed out of the committee. What passed out of the committee is is, except for those 2% changes, what is in front of So on page two, you'll see that the purpose of the bill is to establish a standard of care for the applied application of salt or salt alternatives. I'm going to just say salt instead of salt or salt alternatives every time, just so we are all on the same page. And it's to provide for safe conditions for travel and pedestrians while also reducing their water quality impacts to soft applications. Then you have that section two creates a new sub chapter in chapter 47 of title 10. Chapter 47 is the water pollution control chapter in title 10, this is going in there. Last year it was sub chapter 3a and it was thirteen fifty one, but you put the CAEPo program in there and so now we would have dealt with that through statutory revision last year, we would have just redone the numbers ourselves, but now that the CAFO program is in place I have I can't I can't just say we're going to put it in the June 13 period. So we've had to change that, applies all the definitions are exactly the same, apply salt or salt alternatives to roadway or parking lots is what applied salt is. It does not include application of salt to transportation infrastructure construction project. Remember, AOT was very sensitive to that and was very clear that that because of the nature of their construction schedules that they couldn't necessarily comply and they have their own standards as well. Commercial office applicators and individuals who for compensation to buy SALT, but it does not include municipal or state employees, the master commercial SALT applicator is that person who can get certified to train individuals within their company, so every individual has to be certified, but the master can train them and they still get the affirmative defense. SALT is pretty much every version of fluoride that you can think of. SALT alternative is every version that's not fluoride that's used for deicing purposes. Secretary is who you think it is, and then infrastructure construction project is a project that involves the construction of roadways, parking from the sidewalks, or other construction activities at transportation facilities or within transportation rights. Then you have the creation of the program, and or after consultation with other states, because remember there are other states of students, New Hampshire, the Adirondacks, Wisconsin, etcetera. Rotation? Bottom of the page three, going on the page four, they will create the chloride contamination reduction program for the voluntary education training, sir, this is not a mandatory program. This is a program for voluntary education training. I will note that there isn't some sort of fluoride contamination reduction. Waters are already impaired for chloride and more and more waters are approaching impairment for chloride, and if that happens there will need to be TMBL for those waters and potentially a TMBL for regional waters for chloride, and that would be mandatory. So this is a step, a voluntary step, to try to avoid pushing commercial salt application into a mandatory program under TMPF just to put that on the table. Which might include, you know, salt and gross. Or you can only use this type of application or you can only apply at a certain distance from the water, and you need to have equipment that monitors your application, because this recognizes that current applicators might have that equipment, but it doesn't require it, and you heard last year that some applicators don't have that and can still comply with certification just by record keeping on on A and R's model form. And so this is this is a cautionary program to avoid I won't say it's inevitable, but it'll avoid the probable impairment of some waters from Florida.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Do have a comment? Yes, ma'am.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So we have we have certain some waters that are already, you know, contaminated. There is some way we can fire on times as we phase this in. You know, some so it's big. I can see it good as a. You know? It's kinda like the my point about the three acres of world. You got you got properties that are definitely contributing to the phosphate phosphorus going to the water. Well, you know, why don't we identify them as being needed fixing and bringing

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I I think if you wanted to, you could do that, but I think for an administrative application, a voluntary program that statewide will reduce, hopefully reduce chloride across the state, but will potentially reduce chloride enough in the already impaired water so that they're not impaired anymore, and you don't have to go to a stringent requirement like the the requirements that we just discussed. If they can get through a voluntary program, the the reduction of the waste load from that program,

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: why not try? Well, we listen to the hamper, Go Green or whatever it wants to Greens no problem. Greens no problem. Mhmm. Basically, they I guess, they've they've got some they've got some a case that's pending right now but because somebody still got hurt because they actually did it. They didn't have if we don't get contractors to buy into this and to take in process, municipalities and state pretty much are exempt from the way they are original.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well well, the state AOT already has its standards, and it already has the state for liability protection. Right? So they're Mhmm. Kind of they don't wanna be involved because they think they're already addressed. Right. This will address municipalities later on, but I will discuss some municipal concerns when I get there. Okay. New Hampshire, there was a case. New Hampshire blocked. But the advocator won, they had the records to show that they were applying according to the best management practices, they also showed that the person who was injured was injured not from stepping on the impervious surface of the pavement, but by walking off the grasscurve at, you know, and they don't have a duty to maintain the snow or ice on their grass or curb next to the internal surgery. So they successful. Should I move on? Yes. So it's a voluntary education training certification program that provides for the effective and efficient application that will maintain safety while also improving the quality of the waters of the state. That's part of the program, monitored for 07/01/2027, so that's a push one year out from last year. The best management practices for the applications solved by commercial applicators, those BMP may be based on what AOT already does, They shall include techniques to increase the efficiency of application while maintaining safe conditions. They shall establish standards for when and how salt are applied in order to prevent salt and green waters that are safe including alternatives that are cost effective and less harmful to water quality equipment including calibration. Bennington, or Harvey, I remember you wanted calibration last year. We had monitoring or metering with your documentation for salt.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Not me.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And when sand is an appropriate alternative for DIC or dust control, particularly with regard to this application of sand will be less harmful to the water quality. The BMPs will have record keeping requirements for the commercial applicators, including records of training, dates of use, weather conditions, and any other factors. AR is going to create a model form for record keeping, so you don't need to have the equipment that does your record keeping in a new form, you can establish requirements for certification, establish requirements for testing and learning on page six, establish other requirements if necessary by the secretary to achieve the purposes of the program. Page six, line three, the program shall offer training for commercial applicators in the implementation of the BMPs on completion of the training. The applicator shall be designated as certified commercial SALT applicator. That has a two year term, commercial SALT applicators have a two year term, talk about municipal applicators in a second. Then page six, line nine, your good team, this is that subdivision that addresses the master commercial SALT applicator and their training of individuals that are within their business. They are allowed to do that, but they shall ensure that all nurses employed by the business by SALT are trained to comply with the best management practices that ANFID dollars. The certified salt applicator, market salt applicator, to report annually to ANR the total winter salt usage and that that I I have a question for you that do you want them to to report salt and salt alternative? Just salt.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: It's a.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So Yeah. What did

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: you say?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's a. So Oh.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I don't know.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: But the

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: application of salt means the salt or the applicable salt or salt alternatives. Well,

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: and it's like bee juice or yeah. Pick juice. That's

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: a good question. Let's put a pin in there.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Oh,

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: it's on.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. My sense is, one thought is to leave it as it is because it's the same and that way people who have reviewed it, they may not care. But a separate question about that is what are we concerned about, and are there salt alternatives that we're less concerned about? If we leave it as it is, would it, where as it is, it would include salt alternatives, and so would they make that differentiation? This is what's happening with chloride, and this is what's happening with the alternatives.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So I don't think it would include you leave it as it is, salt alternatives, because it says, it doesn't say application, it says annual summary of total winter salt usage. It doesn't say application.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: You can just change it

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: to application, and then it would include it. Right?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: If you change the peak of the total winter application of salt. Yeah.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I think it will. Yeah.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Because at the beginning, I actually went throughout. Yeah. Was both, but I don't care that much, unless there's a reason to do it, but that would make it more consistent.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I'm gonna circle it for now and If

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: you're using it to apply it. Yeah. Well yes, but part of it is you it's an uncovered pile. You are gonna lose some of it to

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Well, the uncovered pile is a shame. The covered salt sheds stay.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: We're gonna get that. So moving on to page six, line 17, ANR establishes the methods that estimate and track the amount of salt applied by commercial salt applicators. Secretary may revoke the certification for non compliance with the requirements of the subchapter, any rules adopted under the subchapter or provisions of the certification. Page seven, line three through eight, these are some technical requirements for the program. They shall include requirements for certification of the master commercial assault applicator. They shall specifically clean it up. SAW application related to the implementation infrastructure, construction project, and they may elect to enter the program at CHCSAB or through third party vendor. I think we went after Greensnow grows started with a third party vendor and then went to state staff. Then on page seven, line nine, you have the affirmative defense, the certified commercial sub applicant or the owner occupant or lessee of real property maintained by that certified applicator shall have an affirmative defense against the pain for damages resulting from the hazard caused by snow or ice if the claim damages were caused solely by snow rights, and any failure or delay in removing or mitigating the hazard is the result of a certified commercial sought applicator's implementation of the best matching practices. Do you affirm that the defense provided is not applicable in civil damages or due to gross negligence or reckless disregard of the hazard? Do you affirm that the defense provided under subsection A is not exclusive, but it's in addition to any other defenses or communities provided under state law. In order to assert, page eight by four, in order to assert the affirmative defense, let's certify legal property maintained by a certified applicator, but keep a record driving its road, parking lot, and property maintenance practices consistent with the requirements to turn into a secretary. That record shall include the type and rate of application, the dates of treatment, and weather conditions for each event requiring the ice. Then you get on page eight, line 13, this is a presumption of compliance with water quality because if you need, there are some applications that could technically violate a storm water permit or could for a property or could actually be construed to be a discharge into a water, you are providing that certified salt applicator with a presumption that they are in compliance with the discharge requirements and the stormwater requirements if they are applying according to the best matching practices. So you're not going to you're going to give them an extra regulatory bonus for being a certified applicator. The broader bulk assumptions shall not apply to requirements under a TMBL or under municipal separate system. If there are already federally required provisions for commercial salt applicators, which may occur in some of the chloride impaired waters, you can't legislate away those requirements, unfortunately. I wish you helped. On page nine, line four through seven, the secretary may revoke the certification after opportunity for a hearing or violations of the requirements to your votes for a certification. Page nine, 9b, the secretary through the programs to conduct education and outreach to inform applicators of the program and the affirmative defense option, inform members of the public who purchase salt or salt alternatives of the potential harm to water quality, pets and wildlife from excessive application of salt and how to decrease the potential harm. Page 10 is the covered, uncovered salt and sand storage issue. It is a report that ANR revised to the general assembly regarding the management of state and municipal facilities for the storage of salt, salt and sand mixtures, salt alternatives, sand that is not mixed with salt. It shall move an inventory of facilities in the state used for that storage of those of those substances that is not mixed with salt, an estimate of the number of storage of those facilities that use those substances, An estimate of the number of facilities that are currently covered, an estimate of the number of facilities that are not covered or that are within 100 yards of the surface water or drinking water source, an estimate of the number of facilities that are not covered, more than 100 yards from a certain drinking water source, and an estimate of the total cost to cover or move facilities that store those substances. On page 11, section four, this is where you get the provision for municipal salt applicators. Municipal salt applicators are already required to do Vermont Local Roads curriculum that is administered by the Secretary of Transportation, and this requires that that curriculum shall include provisions about training for best management practices for spreading salt or salt alternatives on roads parking lots and silos. We win on page 11, line 13 through the end of the page 13 through 18. Notwithstanding provisions of 24 BSA 901A, which is the potential liability of the municipalities and municipalities. The municipal employees will have an affirmative defense against claim for damages resulting from a hazard caused by snow or ice If the municipal salt applicator completed the remote local growth curriculum providing best management practices for spreading salt or salt alternatives, the cleaning damages were caused solely by snow or ice, any failure or delay in removing or mitigating the hazard as a result of the Minnesota Salt Applicators implementation of the PMPs. Then again, city standards, you don't get to claim it if harm was due to drugs negligent or reckless of scarred, the affirmative defense is not exclusive, the municipality may provide other defenses in order to assert the affirmative defense, the municipal applicators need to maintain records. I want to stop here and say the municipalities have been asking the judiciary committees to provide basically immunity from tort liability. And this is something that gives them some immunity, but not the full immunity that they're looking for. I do think they had some concerns with this, is that being only a half step measure when they want maybe 10 more steps and just be prepared for the lead to provide testimony looking for full Who's the

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: VOCT. Yeah. Well, and just for context, Steve, because this is largely the same bill, and we've already taken testimony on this, we're gonna have pretty narrow testimony comments.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Because we've, we've heard it.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And there we go. Sorry.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: All right. Section five is a V report. ANR shall solicit interest from third party vendors for training under the program. The secretary shall recommend to the general assembly whether it should be approved by a third party vendor and whether he should be charged by the third party vendor for certification of commercial salt applicators. You might remember at one point you allowed the agency to just hire the commercial vendor and allow the commercial vendor to charge a fee in your appropriations committees for saying, no, we might not know what the fee is. And then you got a contingent implementation. This was in 03/19 last year, the duty of ANR to implement both the chloride contamination reduction program, the municipal salt applicator program and the B report is contingent upon the agency receiving appropriation for that purpose. And then the bill goes into that amount of passage, but the dates are baked into the program required.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, sir.

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Because the EPA have a PMBO a stand for for

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So the T and L are based on state water quality standards. The federal Clean Water Act, GPA administers, requires states to adopt water quality standards. And then to go, the states have to go out every three years to assess those waters to see if those waters are meeting the state water quality standard. If they aren't meeting the water quality standards, they have to determine what is causing them not to meet the water quality standard. And when I say meet the water quality standards, generally they have to support all the designated uses for the water. The water needs to provide public drinking water, It needs to to provide recreation, aesthetics, aquatic habitat, aquatic biota. Mess I'm with two about me. Can't remember the other two. Missing if the water is not supporting one of those uses, it's impaired and then ANR has to determine why it's impaired. Chloride might be what's causing that impairment, and at

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: that

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: point technically ANR is required to develop a plan which is usually a theme of it can sometimes be something else, and now you're in the like let's do something else kind of phase here. You have a couple of impaired waters, let's try something else, if something else doesn't work, ANR is going to probably have to go to full TMBL. Okay,

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: thank you so much. I know you've got a boogie. So, I'm gonna change fax again. Now, just acknowledging that we need to be done by 11:30. Probably the bells can start ringing like 11:20. Do

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: we want to try to take on the energy navigator bill? God Island? Sure.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, that's kind of what I figured,

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I just thought I'd check it.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, all right, let's do that. So we're going to switch to one more bill. Energy navigators. And this is Senator Hardy still going? Whenever you're. Whenever I guess.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: No, you're fine. You're fine. Okay.

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: This is a pretty short bill. Energy navigators, you guys all probably know what they are. They are people that help you assess your home to determine what kinds of things you could do to lower your energy usage, whether it's weather stripping, or more insulation, or switching to heat pump in part of your house, or doing a better wood stove, or more efficient furnace, all those kinds of lovely things. They come in and help you assess that and then help you, in some cases, implement those things, and help you also with navigating the regulations credits and opportunities to lower the cost of all these things. Efficiency Vermont does a lot of this energy navigation, but they do it sort of from a statewide level and they don't often have boots on the ground. A lot of it is remote or just via their website. They do have a few people, but the need out there is far greater. There are some community based programs that do this in person and are much more sort of long term and face to face and do much more sort of management of things for individuals with a particular target of lower income individuals who often need more assistance to access those programs. So one of the recommendations for many years, lots of people have been trying to figure out how do we increase energy navigators in our state? And there was a recent report by the Public Utility Commission about lowering energy burden for lower income Vermonters and funding energy equity. And one of the recommendations was to have a more robust energy navigator program. There are other states, neighboring states that have these more robust energy navigator programs, such as the state of Vermont, or I'm sorry, is the Rutland, the state of Massachusetts. And there are others as well. So this bill is building on a program that's actually in my district. It's the Climate Economy Action Center of Addison County that has one of these really hands on energy navigator programs. And there's interest in seeing how could we bring this to other parts of the state. So this bill would ask the SEAC, as they're known in Asso County, to work with Efficiency Vermont to design a program that could be used statewide. And that would be able to increase energy navigators that are much more sort of hands on and in person. There are some appropriations in the bill. One is to help with the study, both for Efficiency Vermont, and then there's appropriation for the Climate Energy Action Center that would help them work with Efficiency Vermont to do the study, but also expand their programming. Right now they're focused on Addison County, but they've had requests from neighboring counties to help build programs in neighboring counties. They're trying to work in Rutland County, and I also think maybe Orange County, to do this type of program. So the appropriation would be in part to help them expand into other counties while they're also trying to work on a statewide program. So have many eager constituents who would love to come in and talk about this, but that's what the bill is to start. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Ellen Jakuscotti, Office of Legislative Council, S-two nineteen. Do you me to read through a little bit?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's pretty short. It should.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: All right. So second one is the report on the Energy Navigator program. In collaboration with existing community based Energy Navigator programs in Vermont, such as Climate Economy Action Center of Addison County, Efficiency Vermont shall design a Vermont community based home energy navigator and coaching program that will provide in person and remote energy coaching services to residential customers in communities statewide. Efficiency Vermont shall consult with the Vermont State Energy Office, the Vermont Climate Action Office, Vermont's Community Action Agencies, the Vermont Energy and Climate Action Network, Vermont's Electric Utilities, and other states, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, that have experience (on to page two) with community based energy programs. For purposes of this section, residential consumers include homeowners, landlords, and renters. The program shall provide guidance to residential consumers, particularly those with low and moderate incomes, to better understand anatomy energy efficiency and clean energy investment options to affordably meet their home energy needs. Advise residential consumer not accessing available grants, rebates, financing, and other assistance programs and incentives to meet their home energy needs. Assist residential customers in prioritizing identifying energy saving opportunities, including through the integration of weatherization strategies to reduce heating and cooling loads that could minimize the need for installation of new equipment and lower future electric demand on the grid. Help residential consumers connect to local contractors and review and analyze contractor recommendations regarding cost, payment, and other relevant factors. Advise residential consumers in person as necessary and over time, recognizing that hands on coaching may help, that help may be needed at a consumer's home and over several years. On page three, provide ongoing state funding to support the operations of community based energy coaching programs, and use available grants to provide use available grant funds and private partnerships to support program implementation. On 01/15/2027, Efficiency Vermont shall submit a report on the program design to the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. The report shall include a description of the design of the program, which could include the creation of a pilot program or expansion and support of existing community based programs. A description of the technical assistance and educational materials to be developed as part of the program an estimate of program costs funding sources to provide ongoing support to community based energy coaching programs a target number of residential consumers to be served by the program, energy and emissions savings that will result from the programs, and a proposed timeline for implementation of the programs. Section two is the appropriations. So, 15,000 from the general fund to efficiency per month for the development of the report, and then $150,000 from the general fund to the Climate Economy Action Center to collaborate with the agency Vermont on the Energy Navigator program design, to continue to develop, onto page four, its community based Energy Navigator resources, programming expertise, and to support the expansion of its energy navigator program through a neighboring counties. Effective date is 07/01/2026.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Questions, but I'm sure we still have time. So, in the first section, it says to collaborate with an energy navigator program such as CF, but it sounds like it doesn't have to be CF. And then the appropriations. That's a good point. So, one possibility is we make that just match, like, is collaborating. And obviously,

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: we have about my constituents, so

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I would put them down. Right, right, right. And then, there was another thing that caught my attention, was page two, line 14, about lowering future electric demands on the grid. And I appreciate that as a need and also some of the solutions that may be useful may not lower the future of electric demands in Madrid. They may increase it, but while lowering costs for the person. So, I just want to appreciate the tension there. And so just letting that, yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I think that paragraph specifically is alluding to weatherization. Okay. That means that

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Or that gets the spoilings of that here.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: So weatherization as a strategy potentially would reduce.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I see. Oh, I see. But

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: land use could be cleaned up if you'd like.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. Well, and you know,

[Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I mean, I think you could

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: say like weatherization through the end of, you know, low rate

[Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: to be able to do.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Any other thoughts or questions? Okay. Super. Well, thank you. And so we are done for the day. Got through