Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, good morning. This is Senate National Resources and Energy, and it is Friday, huzzah, January twenty third, and we are starting this morning with S170 about taking a pause on some net metering rates. And I just want to make a note before we get started, I did email folks who are testifying this morning that relative to the draft that we are looking at, that anticipating that we might narrow that to just the adjusted rate for net metering systems below 200, oh sorry, 25 kilowatts. So, keeping it a little bit contained there. Alright, so that is the only premise I wanted to make and we are gonna start with Mr. Merrin from Public Utility Commission. Welcome. Good morning.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Thank you for having me. For the record, my name is Jake Merrin. I am counsel for the Vermont Public Utility Commission.
[Unidentified speaker (committee/staff interjections)]: I wanted
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: to vote most of my testimony today to giving some history and background about why the commission conducts what's called a biennial update to the net metering program and then what we're doing when we conduct that proceeding. To sort of guide my discussion I
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: brought with me a copy of
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: the Commission's 2024 biennial update order. I provided it to the committee assistant so you should be able to get a copy. I know it's a big ask, but if you have time to read a 40 page regulatory decision from the commission, Sounds fun.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I mean, I will try
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: to preface it. As far as decisions go, this one's kind of a breezy read and there's a lot of interesting information in it. I'm going to be focusing mostly on section three of this order which is the background legal framework. And then afterwards we can talk about the rationale for this in this order. But basically, know, metering has been around in Vermont since 1998. And over the years, the net metering statute which used to be section two nineteen A, would get updated. It started out that you could have maybe a five kilowatt system that was net and the cumulative capacity of net metering systems in the state of Vermont was limited to like 1% of the utilities total load. Over the first several years of net metering, there were just a very few number of these systems installed, growth was very slow. As technology matured, costs came down, tax credits were introduced, their pace of deployment increased. The capacity paths that were in the statute would be approached and then on a somewhat annual basis or biannual basis, the legislature would be presented with this question, do we expand the net metering program? Because some utilities would stop offering net metering service to the next territory, they'd say we've met the capacity gap in this machine. And that cycle repeated itself for many years. And in 2014, the legislature adopted Act 99. And Act 99 said public utility commission, conduct a big rulemaking process, and we want you to come up with a new net metering compensation system. We want you to come up with revised citing procedures and we want you to also address whether there should be a cumulative capacity cap for net metering systems. And that statute also gave the commission a pretty significant list of criteria to sort of balance when designing this entire net metering program that would go on to become known as net metering two point zero. And so you know we were basically balancing costs and benefits of net metering, of the jobs that companies that provide net metering systems provide, our greenhouse gas emissions, all those things needed to sort of get thrown into the pot wave and come up with program analysis. Commission was presented with a lot of data and pretty compelling concerns about costs, which was one of the reasons why the capacity cap was there in the first place. Also, it received lots of good information about how many jobs the installers of these systems were providing and how the greenhouse gas emissions reductions, benefits to the system that solar power could provide. And so the Commission decided not to impose a capacity cap, but they did create a system to control the throttle on development. And overall what the commission found in its report that the dates of legislature for CINDA Act 99 was that that metering tends to cost significantly more than other sources of renewable energy that we could be using to meet our renewable energy standard and renewable energy goals. So the Commission said that net metering should play an important but limited role in meeting those goals. And so the Commission didn't want to just shut off net metering. We came up with a process, a biennial process to begin to adjust the rates so that the price of net metering would be more closely aligned with the value the benefits was providing and that could be done in a regular and incremental manner that was less disruptive to the market. So over the last eight years now, we've done four of these proceedings and in each final update for Skip to where I have the criteria. We listed a set of criteria that the commission considers to decide should we adjust what are known as sighting adjusters and rack adjusters and then also to update the sort of base rate that all customers receive for their net metering credits. So there are three things we're tweaking to again, the overall goal of we're looking at how much net metering has come on in the past two years, what are the costs and benefits of those, all that net metering, and what do we need, what do we think we need to do to make sure that the level of net metering is appropriate considering those costs and benefits considering renewable energy standard and goals of the state of Vermont.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: What page is this on? I'm
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: looking right now at page 14, but pages eight through 16, I'm really gonna lay out this whole and the statutory and regulatory basis for all of this decision making of machinists. So the February of every even number year, we asked the utilities to provide us with a ton of data. We asked them for all of the systems they've interconnected. We ask them for how many applications have we received? And we look at all that data and then we have an opportunity for input from all affected stakeholders, from customers, developers, utilities, other state agencies, so y'all get an opportunity to file comments. And then the commission that issues the written decision, which is reflected in what I'm sort of slowly reading to you right now. But in terms of the criteria the Commission's looking at, we're looking at the pace of renewable energy deployment that is necessary to be consistent with the renewable energy standard program, the comprehensive energy plan, any other relevant state program. The total amount of renewable energy capacity commissioned in Vermont over the most recent two years, so not just net metering but other sources of renewable energy. The disposition of renewable energy credits generated by net metering systems in the past two years, and any other information deemed appropriate by the Commission. So an example this year is we anticipate to hear about changes to the tax code that might be relevant to the cost of these systems. We also consider how many CPGs we've issued in the past two years, the extent to which the siting adjusters seem to be affecting siting decisions. So we created these systems of siting adjusters in part to try to smear development to previously developed sites or areas that had fewer environmental or aesthetic impacts. Those were the kinds of things we were trying to promote. And we're also just looking at the overall pace of that metering deployment. Over the like I said we've done four of these now and over the past two years the value of the site even and WAC adjusters has gone down. And if you look on page 15 the report there's a kind of a summary of where the net gearing compensation has been and where it is today. While the value of the citing and adjusters has gone down, the overall cost of net metering compensation continues to rise and that's because in addition to the citing and rep adjusters we also update the value of the blended residential rate. When we set up this program in twenty fourteen-twenty fifteen, I think we had just come through a very long period of utility rates rising at or below the pace of inflation. One issue with net metering is that the cost of net metering power, as the rate goes up, as retail rates go up, the cost of that power goes up. Now when cost of retail rate or when retail rates are rising at or below inflation, that might not be an issue. In the past six to seven years, we've seen retail rates begin to rise faster than inflation, so that's been concerning. For example, in 2024, even though the Commission reduced the citing and rapid adjusters each by a penny, the overall amount of compensation net metering customers receive went up by 7%. And that's because the blended residential rate went up. It's also important to note that when the commission changes the siding and rec adjusters, that is a prospective change. So customers who already have their CPGs, their siding adjusters are set in their CPG, they're not changing. This is only applicable to new customers. So now I'm going to get to what is the Commission being approved about this bill. The Commission's preference is that we let this process play out as it's written in our rule. We think that this process is a very thoughtful process. It's designed to get input from all of the affected stakeholders and consider the most recent data. We're going to be opening this proceeding in the next week just because that's what the schedule requires under our rules. We think we should get that data and take a look at it and see what the correct outcome is. And the rule does provide that the commission can adjust those, and rent adjusters either down or up or keep them neutral. So it's difficult to forecast what any financial impact of this bill would be because you'd have to make a lot of assumptions about what changes the commission may or may not make going forward, and also you'd have to make some big assumptions about how much net metering capacity is going come online in the next two years. That would be subject to change or unchanged rates. But I think it's a matter of precedent. I think the commission would prefer that this process be allowed to continue as is contemplated in the role of not have a sort of a one time intervention, it's a great banking proceeding that we're doing. Sort of last comments on this. I think the commission also recognizes that this system we set up was designed, you know, almost ten years ago now. It's not the only way to make net rates, and there may come a time when it's appropriate to change, our process and standards for setting net metering rates. Section 8,010 allows the Commission to do that by adopting a rule. So we would go through a rulemaking process and maybe we can come up with a different net metering rate or a different procedure for setting net metering rates. We would want to be clear that we hope that this bill doesn't impinge on the commission's authority to revisit its rule over time. Mean one way of reading this statute of Kirk is really that sentence in the beginning about intent that to freeze that metering compensation or something to that effect. We would not want that to be an impediment to the commission's ability at some point to revisit whether this system needs to be updated or modernized or streamlined or changed to better serve the ratepayers' interests. So know, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions about either the binding update process or an FDA renewal. I hope that this has been informative and thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify today.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. This has been very informative, so appreciate that. I'm curious about one of the last things that you said, which one of the things that we have been talking about recently here is different departments authority to change rules, whatnot. So, I'm interested in, let's, I'm not suggesting that, we need a wholly different system right now, but should there come a time when, you know, in PUC's evaluation, oh, this system is not working very well, do you feel, do you know if you all have the authority to change that process yourself, if that's your understanding?
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: That's our interpretation of the rule. 8,010 says the commission may adopt rules to implement the net metering program. Oh, okay. And we would interpret that as saying, if we think a different way of setting rates is appropriate, we can go through the rule making process and do that. Now there are criteria in a competitive we have to guide how that rate system is set up. It's not like we can choose any rate system we want. It's bounded by the considerations that everybody else may be talking
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: There's some guidelines. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. Is twenty ten, are you studying a statutory? Yes. That's an in the Okay, federal and then when you do this biennial process, what is the role for public comment and input from people who are impacted.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I'd like to jump right here to our, in the order there is a procedural dispute, really is not sort of to be scheduled. So on March 1 of any November year, the utilities are required to file all of the data and information that is set out in our rule. It includes things like how much have you interconnected, how much of the one energy have you purchased over the last year, all this sort of it's just the data that's out of the way. One month later on April 1, the Department of Public Service also takes that data, files a recalculated statewide blended residential rate, and then makes recommendations about should we adjust the SIB investors and RAC adjusters. On May 1, so a month after that, oh actually the department's recommendations are due on May 1. And then we get comments a month after that from anyone who's affected. Basically there's
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So the data dump,
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: the department Department recommendation, public input.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Public input, and then
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Commission decision.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Commission decision. So how frequently do you not go with the department's recommendation after you hear from public comment?
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I would have to go back and look at all four. I can say that with certainty that the commission has not always adopted the department's recommendation, but I don't know whether it's one time out of four
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: or three times out four. I don't know what the numbers. Okay. Because I'm still processing all of this. This has been helpful. I will actually at least skim this report. And do you take into consideration not just the net metering customers, but also the businesses that deploy solar? Because those are the people that I've heard from that frankly have been the most compelling to me, that there's just been, because of the lack of the federal tax credits, there's just been an enormous drop in their business, and it's really impacting them, and literally the only people who can afford to put solar up are wealthy people, which is not what we want. So how do you, I mean, can
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: start feeding
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you how you weigh it, but that's the most concerning thing to me right now, The the impact on
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: two changes to the tax credit are obviously something that's happened in the last two years. You won't find a discussion of that specific issue in previous. And I can't say speak to what the commission, how the commission would weigh that in this coming, that metering biennial that we're going to conduct. But I will say that the commission considers the economic benefits of that metering, job creation and things like that. When we're looking at it, the thing that is being weighed against that is
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the cost to all other consumers. Yeah, I hear you.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So that's balancing job that the commission's doing.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But taking into account the federal changes, that would be definitely something.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: That seems like a relevant thing to have.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Fair enough. Okay, any other questions at this point? Wonderful, thank you so much. Okay, so we're gonna just go right down the list. Next, Mr. Porter, welcome. Good morning. Thank
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: you for having me. For the record, Lewis Porter, general manager of Washington Electric Co op. Let me just see if I can technically
[Unidentified speaker (committee/staff interjections)]: get enough to share my screen.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Here we go.
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: Knowing your time is tight here, I'll try to go quickly. And I normally don't do written testimony, it's mostly just out of native laziness, but today I did knowing we're going to be tight. So I'll try to go through this pretty quickly and leave it with you to
[Unidentified speaker (committee/staff interjections)]: read as you have time.
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: Quicker, juxtaposition of Washington District Co op is a utility that is extremely supportive of renewable power with supportive of net metering when it was created, but also feels like it's very important to balance the benefit net metering provides to those members that do it, versus the cost to the rest of the membership. We're the most rural territory in Vermont, we have highly residential territory and quite a high penetration of net metering among our membership. We also have a higher than average share of low income members in our territory, and we've provided for many years 100% renewable power. Net metering does increase rates in our territory, and the way it does that is the cost of providing electrical service is largely embedded in the cost of the power itself and
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: not in the customer charge.
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: We have a relatively high customer charge and part to try to equal the playing field here somewhat, but our customer charge is still about a third of what it actually costs just to provide the electricity. So you can imagine when somebody's not
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: paying for the electricity, they're
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: also not paying for the line crews, the trucks, the rest of the things we do. That's how it results in a cost shift from those who net meter onto those who don't net meter, and it's quite an aggressive cost shift as well because we see the wealthiest towns in our territory are where the high net metering penetration is, and the lower income towns in our territory have very little net metering, even less net metering. The public utilities in Vermont, the cooperatives and the municipals are very highly regulated, perhaps the most highly regulated public utilities in the country. I won't go through this long list, but the short version is we are virtually everything we do is regulated at least twice and often more than that. I'm not an advocate of deregulation, think Vermont took the right path in not deregulating its utilities, but I just want to show that in some states they assume that our members will rise up, elect a board of directors and throw the person in my job out if we do badly. Here we have that very local democratic level of regulation, but we also are regulated by the rural utility service, by FERC, by the PUC with input from DPS, oversight in some ways by ISO New England,
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I wouldn't call it
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: regulation exactly, but participation in Velco, we're very, very highly regulated. Net metering in contrast is relatively has a relatively low level of regulation in Vermont. Certificates of public good must be applied for which basically primarily deal with whether the system can handle the input. And then the P2C has rate making authority for net metering, part of which is the subject of this bill you have before you hear. And then there's a limited ability to protect consumers through the DPS PC consumer protection. But all the financial transactions are private, the contracts are all private, the terms are private, and it's typically unlike Washington Electric and
[Ken Nolan (General Manager, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)]: Vermont Electric Co op and
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: munis, typically these are for profit companies that operate like most for profits do in an opaque manner, that's their right to do, but it's much less transparent, much less open, much much less less able to be seen into, particularly on the financial end than in the public utilities. This bill will basically do three things in our view, which is why we oppose it. It will very significantly limit the ability of regulators to manage net metering rates, it will keep those rates higher than they would be otherwise in all likelihood, of course we can't predict what the PUC would do, I wish I could, And it will also limit the adjuster which help incentivize net metering to go in the best places. So those are the three impacts that we think it will have and why we are opposed to.
[Unidentified speaker (committee/staff interjections)]: Can I ask a
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: question in the middle, sorry? Sure. What do you mean by the adjusters? Can you explain that more?
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: Yeah, so there are adjusters that incentivize putting that metering close to load on the system in places where the system can handle that generation and in places like previously disturbed areas.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, this is the adjusters on the rates? Yeah. Or, okay.
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: Yeah, the site of interest.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So when does that come into play? Does that come into play when somebody wants to build a system or does it come into play after they've done it and the rate they get for having built the system?
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: No, it happens when they do the biannual review of the rates that Attorney Meron was just talking about. They also adjust these siting adjusters at the same time.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, so how did, I'm sorry, I don't think So I quite understand how does it impact, like if I were in your district, your territory, and I wanted to put solar on my roof, and I'm really far away from New York border.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Sorry. Yeah, substation.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Substation, thank you. My net metering rate be lower than my neighbor who's right next to the substation?
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: The rates of the adjusters are made prospectively, so you know what they're going be, but they may be different in different places.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Does that make sense?
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, so if I'm really far away, I might get it
[Unidentified speaker (committee/staff interjections)]: to greater
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: than the person who's store.
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: Yes, it's generally broader than specific examples like that, so it needs general guidelines on the site.
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think I appreciate that, thank you.
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: So why this matters is that net metering can have a significant impact on the grid and on utility finances in the aggregate, not a single project, but in the aggregate. The regressive cost shift that I mentioned, and it's relatively inefficient and expensive way to get renewable power out there. And I think something we don't talk about often is the effect that higher electric bills, including electric bills increased by net metering have on the adoption of beneficial electrification. We hear from members in our territory that they are choosing whether to purchase an electric vehicle or not, they look at the rates and they look at what the cost of their electricity will, how that will compare to
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: the cost of gas or other beneficial factors from buying an EV for lower maintenance.
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: They factor all that into their decision, including electric. Attorney Marin offered you the decision in the biennial case, I put out some of my favorite sections from that here, and you can I won't read through all of these, but you can see that the P2C's view is that it is important that they have the ability to control net metering rates in order to prevent the negative impacts that I just listed out? And so I won't read through all these, but these are pulled from the decision that the trainee Mary referenced. Last, we hear a lot of talk about declines in net metering, and we're not seeing that at WEC. Here's our deployment of net metering in our territory, And as you can see, it's been quite a steep and quite a significant and quite a successful
[Unidentified speaker (committee/staff interjections)]: program for deploying it in our territory.
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: Now, be fair, part of that is WEC has relatively high residential electric rates, in part because we are such a rural and such a residential territory, in part because we have almost no commercial and industrial load, for some other reasons like that. So we provide a lot of incentive for people that have metering in our territory. Although I will say as Attorney Meriden mentioned, increase in electric rates in other parts of the state are closing that. Happy to answer any questions about this or anything else, Jen.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Could you speak a little bit more to that last thing that you just said in other parts of the state, the gap is closing. Can you just explain all the things?
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: Yeah, well, we through, know,
[Ken Nolan (General Manager, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)]: I'd like to
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: tell you through brilliant management, good luck, we had an extraordinarily good year 2025 at Washington Electric. We had record production in our Coventry landfill gas to energy plan, we had no major storms. And so we are not doing a rate case this year. Exactly. So we're not having a rate case this year, we're able to defer some revenue from 2025 into 2026 to reduce future rate cases. But as you heard from attorney mayor, other utilities are being forced into the position of having rate cases due to a combination of power supply, materials and supply costs, labor costs, all of those things that have increased significantly during and since the pandemic. We face those increases as well. Just have some other circumstances that have enabled us to avoid a rate case this year.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Makes sense. Okay. Great. Any other questions? Thank you so much. Thanks. Okay, and we're going move to Mr. Nolan, who I think is with us virtually, welcome.
[Ken Nolan (General Manager, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)]: Good morning, Madam Chair, committee. For the record, Ken Nolan, general manager of Vermont Public Power Supply Authority. Given the testimony previously, my comments are going to be pretty short. I would start by saying we would agree with attorney Meron that the PUC process is very thorough and thoughtful. The data dump we give them to start the process is not a light lift. Requires a lot of of effort to make sure that we have accurate data. We don't always agree with what comes out of the PUC process. I would say we, over the history of this program, we believe the rates have been too high. They have actually caused cost shifting amongst customers in the VEPSA member utilities. But it is nevertheless a process that takes all parties' comments and concerns into consideration. And we think land's in a good place usually.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I
[Ken Nolan (General Manager, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority)]: would agree that Vermont utilities are some of the most regulated in the country. I was in communication with our national association last week for some other testimony, and they pointed out that Vermont is one of six states in the country that regulates municipal utilities at all. And we have significant regulation here. In addition to that, our net metering program is already one of the most complex in the country. We essentially have to calculate a separate net metered credit rate for every individual net meter customer. That adds complexity and complexity adds cost. When we were trying to get the customer billing systems to reflect the net metering credits, paying tens of thousands of dollars every time a change is made because the calculations have to be modified to reflect the new numbers. While this bill on its surface, it's two sentences, it seems very simple. And actually, what you're doing is creating another tier of net metering because now you're putting a cutoff at 25 k w for compensation when as as mister Marron pointed out, the existing tier break is at 15 kw. So so that's gonna require reprogramming. It's gonna require additional expenses for the utility. We would actually question whether changing the treatment of these adders is going to affect a low income customer's decision. In fact, based on the rate cases that we know VEPSA members have submitted this year, I believe the change in the blended rate is going to dwarf any change that you would see in the adders through the PUC process. So to Senator Hardy's comment, I don't think passing this bill is actually going to affect low income customers. I think it would continue the program with the mix of customers participating that you're already seeing. And also, we the PUC has not been through this process since the federal tax policy changed. So I think when they factor that in, there is an equal chance that the the adders go up versus going down, which seems to be the premise for this bill is the presumption that the rates are gonna go down. I don't think that's a foregone conclusion here. And to that effect, it may be counterproductive to what you're trying to do and encouraging more people to self supply. So we would also encourage you to just let the process of PUC has play out, see what happens on the back end of that, how the new tax policy is put in place, how the new blended rate is calculated given the inflationary pressure the utilities are seeing. And then if you need, feel a need to change the policy to promote in the future, take that up once you know how the PUC is going to react to what's going on today. I'll stop there and I'm happy to answer questions.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great, thank you. Any questions from Mr. Rome? Okay, all right, well thank you so much.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Thank you.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, and so we're gonna move to Ms. Cohen, who is also with us virtually, welcome.
[Ms. Cohen (virtual witness, name not fully stated)]: Good morning from Bongartz Johnson. Can you hear me okay? Yes. All right, I do have a few slides. Do you have time today for me or does it feel like you'd rather have me next week? I'm flexible.
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, is a good question.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We are running a little bit behind.
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I also suspect that our whole agenda may not take all of our, it
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: might actually take all of our allotted time.
[Ms. Cohen (virtual witness, name not fully stated)]: Scott. I'd rather make sure I get through them and you can ask me questions
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: if
[Ms. Cohen (virtual witness, name not fully stated)]: you
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: prefer, Let's, but whatever in
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: that case, if you don't mind waiting until next week, then let's do that.
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. Maybe flexibility.
[Ms. Cohen (virtual witness, name not fully stated)]: Of course, thanks.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, amazing. Okay, and my apologies as well. Okay. So we're going to shift gears to going through a new draft of S202. Welcome.
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ellen Jakowski, Office of Legislative Council. I'm here on S-two zero two looking at draft number 3.1 dated 01/2226. The changes from yesterday's draft are highlighted in yellow, and there's only a couple. So the first change is on page two.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: In
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sections you can see six, it now reads, the customer may install one or more portable solar energy generating devices per electric meter.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Wait, wait, I'm sorry.
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm on page two, line three. Oh, so are you. But there are changes are highlighted. Yes, I left her Peter.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, thank you, Alan. Now we know it's not a unit of nature. It's really sweet. Or some other kind of thing. Or Canadian, because they use meters. This is true. Oh, we're not a match on this back. Water There
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are a few other statutes in Title 30 that refer to the meters, including one statute that does refer to both gas and electric meters. So otherwise, would just says meter because
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think because we're in not going to ask you
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to go change all those. Well, I mean, great. But next is having draft there. That's hard. And also there's a whole section on smart meters that don't refer to
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: them as electric. Just refer to them as smart meters. Yeah, right. One smart. How do we define smart?
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Another time, discuss that. So the next page is still on page two in subsection C. So down on line 14, here is where you had the language regarding the utility requiring a customer to pay a fee or charge related to the device, and the language you had yesterday but had been struck, it's accepted the customer's responsible for damage to the electric grid. That has been removed. And then at the bottom of page two in subsection D, this is about the compensation. So very last line, Access generation fed back seems to be agreed by a portable solar energy generation device, shall not be compensated by an electric distribution.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you for that as well.
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then there are two other pages. So on the bottom of page three, this is in section four. This is the property title. So I've rewritten it slightly to be more clear. So Mode V restrictions, covenants or similar binding agreements running with the land, shall prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting solar collectors, clotheslines, or other energy devices based on renewable resources from being installed, or for affordable solar energy generation device as defined in 30 BSA two zero one, pertinent to buildings erected on the lots or parcels covered by
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the D Restriction Covenant or Finding Agreement.
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is an existing statute that says deed restriction covenants or other similar binding agreements. So this can include HOAs and condos, but it also included whatever an individual property owner, what kind of restrictions they attach to the property itself. And so currently there's a prohibition on, including in those restrictions, a prohibition on solar collectors or other devices on the building. But here, solar is not always going to be attached to the building itself. It may be on the balcony or the patio or the fence or in the yard. So I've left in fact that they can't prohibit solar on the building and then also for portable solar or pertinent to the building as well. So within the area immediately around the building. What does that call, Scott?
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Oh, that's the yard. The yard.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That was a big word. C U T C U R T I L A G E? Yes. Yes. You can get so much joy out of these words. Yeah.
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the clarification here is that the prohibition is that portable cannot be prohibited not just from on the building, but also in the yard. So it's leaving intact the existing language that other solar panels cannot be prohibited from being on the building. But I've had been cleaning this car up for also in the yard for just, just folder soldered. And then at the bottom, this was, I was not explaining this clearly yet, but still in the same section. This section at the bottom, page four, line 18, this section shall not apply to patio railings in condos, locker rooms, or apartments, except for portable solar energy devices. So, others leaving intact that condos, cooperatives, and apartments still have some authority over the patio railings or other solar panels except for Porto solar panels. Although we're going change those.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Now, just checking in with everybody. There have been a couple of, just to revisit them, one of the comments that had been suggested was about where disputes ought to go. And we've left that out on purpose because of, you know, we're treating this as an appliance disputes, therefore related to the nature of it should go either to the AG's office or to the Public Service Department, depending on the nature of the dispute.
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't entirely know what disputes you guys are talking about. So if you have more specific concern, think, but I don't know what the
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: dispute you're to think it's obvious as sponge. Far as Well, I'm meant to add, but yes. Oh, Oh, I don't know what you're going say, but maybe you're going say it. Ahead, you say it.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: It's towards the dispute. The dispute is
[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: if there's some damage to
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: the goods and so forth. Okay. That was a different.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Oh, that's not what I was missing. Because I was gonna say if it's a dispute about rates or anything about that, it would go to the PUC because that's what they have authority. If it's a dispute about the actual appliance, the device, that would be like a consumer, like,
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's kind potentially. Yeah. So it seems like
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: we already have the systems in place to deal with disputes if you don't want, I don't know why we would create a separate thing for disputes. That's where I am with this. I don't know if there's any other things that we need to discuss at this point. Any other thoughts or questions? Yes.
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: There's the fire safety question or answer. There must be I was out of here for my
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, that's possible. That's possible. So what was the fire safety? So Michael, brochures. The brochures, thank you. Was here, a couple of times, I mean it was just the ones, but, so he said largely the same thing that everybody else was saying, that the adherence to UL solutions guidelines mattered. And also recommended that we hear from the fellow who chairs the Electricians Licensing Board works for him. We did hear from him as well. And
[Beth Torpey (Seymour Lake Association/FOVLAP board; AIS committee chair)]: correct me if I'm
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: wrong, my impression otherwise was that he didn't have any huge red flags to objects. So, yes. I don't know if anyone else cared about this besides me, but the whole question of using these in dorms, I checked in with the Middlebury College facilities people, and they were gonna write a letter, but I don't think they've sent it yet. But basically they said they would treat them just like they treat any other appliance, like they regulate, you know, whether you have a mini fridge or a microwave and all that, it would be the same type of thing. Like, you couldn't just have one. You would have to follow the rules of the door. So they didn't have concerns about it. Were like, we do this all the time. You know, you have to regulate what 18 to 23 year olds do generally.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: All the kids enjoy the they're laid though.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Exactly. They were like, The boot shoot was like a fidget, more or less. So think they didn't have concerns about that. He was, like I said,
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just gonna write a letter down.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I haven't seen one yet, but if when it does-
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Post it. We'll post it. Appreciate it.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so with that, it seems that we are ready for a vote. And so I'd like to move forward with that. Should we take a couple minute break? That's fine, let's take two minutes and we'll be back. Okay. It's okay, no worries. Okay, Right,
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: so this is, Center
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: of Natural Resources and Energy coming back from the break and I think we're ready to vote on S202. So with that, the clarity to call the roll.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Alright. Let's write the opinions yes.
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay. Senator Beck, yes. Senator Bongartz? Yes. Senator Harvey? Yes. Senator Williams? Senator Watson?
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. I think it's gonna be me. I mean, unless one of you Okay. Would like And just to say it out loud here, in considering is this going to finance or appropriations, my guess is that it's going to neither. There's no fee. There's nothing to do with insurance. There's nothing to do with
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Should be on the road strip credit. Oh
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: my gosh. So notice Tuesday
[Ellen Jakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: up for Wednesday.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. You. Okay. Alright. Alright. So, we are switching gears to S224. And we have Pat Swazy with us from the Federation of Lakes and Ponds. Welcome. Thank
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: you. Thank you. Can you hear me okay?
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, yes, we can hear you.
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: Am I able to share my screen? Oh, there we go. Let me just get this set up if I can.
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay.
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: Let me get it so I can actually see what I'm doing here. There we go. Okay. Good morning. I'm Pat Swazi. I'm the president of the Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds. Thank you for having me here. The Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds is a coalition of over 50 volunteer lake associations and many individual members. From its inception in 1972, the Federation has been dedicated to fostering water quality standards and preserving Vermont lakes, ponds, watersheds, and aquatic ecosystems. I'm going just have to ask you to bear with me. My voice is a little scratchy. I've got a cold, so I'm going try not to cough or anything. Anyway, our members work tirelessly to protect Vermont's lakes and ponds, donating thousands of volunteer hours each year to hard to the hard work of managing greeter programs, reducing phosphorus and pollutants from entering the lakes, educating lake users for lake protection, collecting data, and much, much more, as well as working closely with the Agency of Natural Resources staff who provide scientific and technical support for this work. There are many threats to our state's freshwater resources, and here's a few of them. The changing climate, rising phosphorus levels, and the one I wanna talk about today, which is the pictures that you see, it's the spread of aquatic invasive species. Aquatic invasive species are a serious threat to Vermont's waters. Aquatic invasives disrupt native ecosystems, can impede recreational uses of water bodies, damage fisheries, can reduce property values, and can damage human health by increasing the incidence of toxic cyanobacteria blooms. Most alarming, infestations of zebra mussels can raise mercury levels in the water. Recent research from the University of Minnesota has shown that lakes infested with zebra mussels have higher levels of mercury in walleye and yellow perch than those without zebra mussels. And if that is not enough to worry about, another very scary aquatic invasive plant called hydrilla, and here's a picture of it, has already infested southern parts of the Connecticut River and could well reach us in the not too distant future. Hydrilla forms dense mats on the water surface, shading out all other plant species and making areas where it grows completely unnavigable. So today, I want to talk to you about two parts of S224, that's what we're actually here to talk about, which both aim to help in the fight to prevent the continued risk of aquatic invasives in Vermont's waters. So I'm going to do two parts and I'd like to begin with the section that begins on page five, line 16, wake boats use of waters. The rule described here, and there's a wake boat for you by the way, The home Home lake rule described here aims to limit the movement of wake boats around the state, requiring them to stay on one lake unless properly decontaminated. It has been suggested in this room and elsewhere that wakeboats are just a minor threat for spreading invasives because of the relatively small numbers in the state. However, we don't actually know how many wakeboats are present in the state nor do we know how many may be coming in from out of state. So far, there have been no concerted efforts to collect this data. Some of the guesstimates come from the greeter program data, but this data is not accurate for several reasons. Wake boats are not easy to identify visually. So you can see from this picture,
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: we can
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: tell that it's a wakeboat when it's in the water in wake sport mode. But if it was just came in, you wouldn't necessarily know it was a wakeboat. So if a greeter did not ask a boat if it was a wake boat, if they didn't ask when it came in, it wouldn't be recorded. And of course, greeters had no reason to ask these last two seasons, since the Home Lake rule had not been implemented. So lots of greeters didn't even ask. Finally, many of the programmes are only staffed a few days a week due to inadequate funding. Well, the accesses are always open, so we simply don't know how many wakeboats are moving around the lakes. Many of them come in when the greeters aren't on duty. Without such reliable data, any suggested numbers are really just guesses. However, there are some things that we do know about wake boats and wake sports. We know that interest in wake sports is growing and that the market for wake boats is projected to grow by well over 5% per year over the next ten years. We know that industry is manufacturing and marketing more powerful boats with more and larger ballast tanks. We know that the typical wake boat has multiple closed ballast tanks. Even on a smaller boat, there can be five or more. And most importantly, we know that those ballast tanks cannot be fully emptied and therefore can carry residual water in their tanks when moving between water bodies. And we know that currently Vermont has only a few decontamination stations on some of the Lake Champlain accesses, which are run by Lake Champlain Basin programme that have the capability to effectively decontaminate wakeboats. Finally, we also know that zebra mussel larvae, felligers, and fragments of milfoil can survive in small amounts of that residual water in those ballast tanks for weeks. So even if the wake boat numbers are small now, wake boat use is likely to increase. And because each wakeboat carries multiple tanks that cannot be inspected or cleaned by the inland lake greeter programs, every wakeboat multiplies by many times the threat of carrying invasives over a regular ski or fishing boat. Just a reminder, the greeters can actually see and clean ski boats and fishing boats for the most part, so that's the problem. By limiting the movement of lake boats, the home lake rule will help to reduce this risk. The home lake rule is particularly important to protect our most pristine lakes. Lakes like Caspian, Seymour, Echo, the Avril Lakes, Maidstone, lakes with no aquatic invasives and low phosphorus levels. These are the kinds of lakes that are becoming rarer and rarer in other parts of the country and that we're very fortunate to still have many of. However, the home lake rule is just as important for the other lakes that are eligible to host lake sports. While some of these lakes may already have milfoil, they certainly don't want zebra mussels or any other aquatic invasive. The lake associations at lakes such as Lake St. Catherine and Lake Dunmore have worked long and hard for decades, have written grants, raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, and devoted thousands of hours of volunteer time to controlling the millful infestations in those lakes in order to maintain healthy aquatic habitats. These lakes and other lakes like them, along with our pristine lakes, need and deserve the protection that the Home Lake rule would provide. The Home Lake rule is not a perfect rule, no rule ever is, but it is a necessary and decisive step that affirms the state of Vermont's commitment to protecting its public waters. The rule is workable and enforceable, and with limited targeted refinements, it can be implemented effectively. Those speaking after me are going to address wake boats in greater detail. So they're they're gonna explain in more detail how the ballast tanks work and how how decontamination works. And they're also going to explain how this rule can provide a practical framework for safeguarding our lakes. Are there any questions so far? I can't really see you, so I'm happy to answer questions.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No questions so far.
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: So I'll keep going and maybe some questions at the end. So I wanna move on.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: If I can interrupt you, I think we do have one question. Thank you, Pat, for your testimony. This is Senator Hardy. We had testimony the other day from the department about Deaf HomeLink rule, and they had some concerns about enforcement and also at citing of cleaning decontamination stations. So I'm wondering, you just testified that you think it is easily enforceable. So I'm wondering how to reconcile those two different opinions when the enforcers say it's difficult to enforce. So what are your thoughts?
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: Excuse me, pardon me. What we would like to see is while they while the original rule and and the rule that's currently in place includes a decal system that would have to be on a boat, we think that that could probably be dispensed with. We think that relatively simple use of computer technology, a database, would resolve some of that problem. Greeter programs could have access to that, would be able to tell when a boat came in, and by emailing each wake boater a letter that just says this is your home lake, and they would show that. We think it would be a fairly simple process, or certainly simpler than the complexity that decals might involve.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: What about out of state folks that are just coming up for a week or something to stay at their uncle's camp or whatever?
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: Since I think using modern technology, this could all be done online, I think an out of state boater could simply go online, register, I've rented a camp on such and such a lake, that's going to be the home the lake I'm going to use. The decontamination need is a much more complicated issue. If wakeboats want to move around, the decontamination need is much greater because of those ballast tanks, which hold multiple gallons of water, and they have to be flushed out and it requires a specialised piece of equipment and a large amount of water. So even a small boat might have five ballast tanks, have to be flushed. That's why they need big decontamination units with a big water source and we just don't have that right now. So that's a bigger problem.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, is your solution that just wave boats wouldn't be able to move between lakes or how would you solve that issue?
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: That would probably is going to definitely limit wakeboats moving around. Now we have big lakes. We have Lake Champlain, we have Lake Memphremagog, that wakeboats could be on all the time. It's just if they want to move in between other lakes. It's going to be limiting. It is potentially limiting. But right now, they're not limited and they have this capacity to carry multiple times more aquatic invasives than other boats. And they can't be inspected because you can't see inside those tanks. It's really a dilemma. It's definitely a dilemma. One's coming after me are going to talk more about this and provide a lot more detail as well. So they'll come back they'll come back to it. Okay. Go right ahead. Okay. So I'm gonna move on to the other part of the bill that I wanna talk about, and that is the part that begins on page eight, line nine, and it's about the fish and wildlife access areas. The changes addressed in this section also will help with reducing the risk of aquatic invasives by adding lake protection as a priority in the Fish and Wildlife Rules for the use of public accesses. As you heard last week, the current Fish and Wildlife Public Access Rules do not include lake protection as a priority. These rules were developed in 2006. Well, a lot has changed in the last twenty years. For one, greeter programs were just getting started as aquatic invasive infestations were rising, and you can see right where that curve starts to go up. Since then, the threat of aquatic invasives has become more critical. And while the number of breeder programs has also grown, use of the lakes has grown and therefore the need for more and greater efforts to stop the spread of invasives has grown. A few years ago, to strengthen the requirement for boats to be inspected and cleaned before entering the waters of the state, the legislature added to statute the requirement that all boats must be inspected and washed if a washer is available and if a greeter deems it necessary, or the boater will be in violation and subject to a fine of up to $1,000 This is in DSA fourteen fifty four, if you want the detail. Yet, the Fish and Wildlife Rules still treat boat inspection as merely voluntary rather than a necessary priority for using the state's waters. Work that is essential to helping to reduce the threat of aquatic invasives is treated in the rules as a special use, put that in quotes, in the same category as an occasional social event. Despite claims to the contrary, this bill does not give greater programs unlimited authority. Instead, it provides long needed clarity that protecting our lakes and preventing the spread of these invasives are core state priorities, moving beyond lip service to meaningful action. And just as an aside, breeder programs generally take up very little space that the public accesses. Most of the greeter programs, this is the setup. One or two greeters, maybe maybe a table, sometimes a table, lawn chair, and then, of course, the sign, which is the sign that DEC provides to notify boaters that greeters are on duty and they have to stop and be inspected, which the law requires that they stop and be inspected before entering the water. Of the 35 breeder programs, only five have boat washers, and I'm gonna show you a picture of what those look like. These are not decontamination units that are suitable for wake boat decontamination. These are boat washers, and you can see on the left, you can see about the size of it, they're relatively small units. They're usually set up, most of them, of the five of them that exist out of 35 programs, they're usually set up off to the side often, several of them, I think the majority of them are actually on private land that adjoins the access. So you can see on the right hand picture, the Shadow Lake setup, they have a trailer to store the unit in when it's not being in use. And you can see it's pulled over, it's actually on the grass, it's not even in where the cars park and the boat
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: has pulled in and they're going to
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: be inspected and washed down. So that's actually what that looks like. So they don't really take up very much space. And as I said, there's only five of the 35 programmes that even have this kind of boat washer. I just want to show you, just for your information, this is the data from 2025, from the 2025 season that shows the number of boats that the greeters have counted. Remember, the greeters aren't on duty all the time that the accesses are open, over 33,700 boats that they counted coming through the accesses in 2025. And you can see the variation in numbers on various lakes. Anyway, we'll move on from that. So I wanted to move on and mention that we do have some suggestions for modifying the language. On page 10, lines 17 to 19, remove reference to wake groups, since these programs are intended to inspect and clean all vessels in aquatic gear entering or leaving the waters of the state. And as noted above, and as you will hear more later, wake loads are a special case that cannot currently be cleaned even by those greeter programs that do have boat washers. So We do have some suggested language for there, and here it is. I'll just read a fishing access areas may be used by approved aquatic nuisance inspection stations under section 1424B of this title for the inspection and cleaning of vessels, trailers and aquatic gear entering or exiting the lakes as required under section fourteen fifty four of this title. Essentially the same language, but just remove because it's not just wakeboats, it's all the aquatic gear. The greeters look over the trailers, they look over whatever else is in the boat, just to make sure they're not carrying particularly milk oil, it's very obvious if they're carrying that. Just moving on, some concern was also expressed about potential conflicts, and we feel strongly that any potential conflicts among uses of the accesses should be resolved by working together in a good faith effort to balance priorities. To that end, in order to ensure that any conflicts or perceived conflicts that might arise from this change can be resolved through discussion and compromise, we suggest that the language regarding conflict resolution in this bill be strengthened by changing page 11, lines 11 to 12, to read the Aquatic Nuisance Control Station shall work with the Fish and Wildlife Department to resolve any conflict so that lake protection activity and the other authorised uses can be accommodated. Just emphasising the need to really balance and work together, work together and have conversations together. These changes in language, we hope, should clarify that there is no expectation that large decontamination stations could just be set up by a greeter programme without reference to fish and wildlife or other uses of the access area. Certainly, that would never be intended. Rather, we hope that this would allow for a more nuanced discussion of priorities and that all of us, lake associations who do the work of lake protection, the various divisions within the agency of natural resources would work together to accommodate both the access needs for the public and the health and cleanliness of the waters they access. These changes to the public access rules were not prompted by the recent Joe's Pond request, as has been implied. In fact, the changes contemplated in this bill have been in discussion for well over a year. However, since it was mentioned last week, I'll use it as an example, and here's a picture of Joe's Pond. The request by Joe's Pond Association to set up a boat washer was refused outright by fish and wildlife because it might take up two parking spaces. That immediately raised the question, why do parking spaces take priority over lake protection and aquatic invasive prevention? The answer is that lake protection is not a priority in the current fish and wildlife rules, whereas parking is. This bill would change that and would show in practice that lake protection is a priority, at least enough of a priority to merit some discussion about how to balance the needs to have a certain number of parking spaces and the needs of the public to be able to access waters that are healthy. We would hope that such discussions and decisions arising from them would be based on a scientific understanding of a healthy aquatic ecosystem and reliable data. The protection of the state's public waters and the reduction of the risk of aquatic invasive species spread are priorities of the state as clearly stated in Title 10, Chapter 50. I quote in part, It is the policy of the state of Vermont that the water resources of the State shall be protected. And just below that, it says that it is the policy of the State of Vermont to prevent the infestation and proliferation of invasive species. Management
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: of
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: the public access areas and of the public waters of the state is delegated to the Agency of Natural Resources for the benefit of the citizens of Vermont. This includes the responsibility of the agency to manage the public waters to protect and ensure a healthy aquatic ecosystem. It follows then that the agency in all of its rules, both the use of public water rules that the Department of Environmental Conservation oversees and the use of public accesses that the Department of Fish and Wildlife oversees, should clearly align with the policies of the state. Sometimes priorities may conflict, but if the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the lake associations, and lake and access users work together and have those sometimes complicated conversations and use science and reliable and valid data as the foundation for decisions, I believe we can do much better to balance the ability of the public to access the waters of the state with the necessity of protecting these precious freshwater resources for us now and for future generations. For these reasons, I urge you to pass S224 with the suggested changes. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer further questions.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Super, thank you. We have a couple of questions. We're gonna start.
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Oh, okay. Senator Ruth. Thanks for that testimony. We're like you said, you know, maybe that ANRDC Fish and Wildlife now has a responsibility for enforcing and it comes down I think to money that you know, they're one of the poorest departments in the agency and it comes down to real estate. You know, technically, if you're going to properly decontaminate a wake up, you almost have to have a pond, you know, some place that all that debris is going to get caught. You know, what are we going to do with it after we after we will flush it out?
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: Yeah.
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So II think maybe this may be a money issue and we don't have, we definitely don't have enough room to park vehicles at the access point. So, maybe we're going to have to come up with some additional property to to set these sites up. What is the what's the average cost of decontamination device for the wakeboards? Do you know?
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: So for the wakeboards, I've been told that it can be upwards of a $150,000. I think that's a lot. You know, it's more than I expected to hear, but that's what I've been told, the big decon units would cost. I don't anticipate any of those being set up at the accesses. I just don't see how that could be. On the other hand, I do think that the greeter programs, and as you can see, most of the greeter programs are one or two greeters and a lawn chair and the sign that says stop here to have your boat inspected. To me, that should be a priority use of the accesses where you have the inspector there. And as I said, a few of them have the small unit boat washers, are hot water washers, but they're small. But you're right. For decontamination of wake boats, it takes a lot of water, it takes a much bigger unit, it has to be more specialized because it has to be a certain temperature. It can't be as hot as you might use just on the outside of a boat, a regular boat, because apparently there's mechanisms inside the ballast tanks that could melt or be damaged. So I think you're right. The decon units are gonna have to go somewhere else, not at the accesses. But at the same time, I do think that leaders being one of the priority uses of the accesses does make sense in terms of, you know, regular boat inspection. Also, you know, the greeters do more than just inspect boats. They educate lake users, including out of state lake users. So they remind lake users of what what the rules are, and, you know, different lakes have different rules. And so that's, you know, part of the job of the of the greeters is to explain if somebody comes with a jet ski to a lake that doesn't allow jet skis, they tell them they have to go somewhere else. You know, if they come with a boat that's got milfoil hanging off of it, they tell them that, you know, they have to be inspected. It has to be removed before they can go on the water. So the greeters do those kinds of jobs, but whiteboard problem.
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: It's a wonderful program, but it's all volunteer. Does the federation have any idea or recommendation of how many of these washing sites we should have based on the ways and that are allowed to have weight rolls on them now?
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, if
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: the current proposed revisions for the use of public water rules go through, it will reduce the number of lakes inland lakes that allow wake boats to 18. So we think so that's gonna be there's concentration of the big pristine lakes in the Northeast Kingdom, like Seymour, Caspian, Echo, Avril, Willoughby, those lakes. And then there's the group, like Saint Catherine, Dunmore, Bomazeen, sort of in the South and the Southwest, so those two areas. So the thought is that placing some decon units strategically in those areas would probably make the most sense, assuming that this proposed revision goes through and it limits it down to the 18 lakes. Right now, there's 30 lakes in the state that allow wake sports, and they're more scattered and spread out, that's more difficult to think about how many units you would need. The assumption is, of course, if someone's gonna trailer a wake boat, if it's you know, if they know in advance that they have to take this particular route because they have to go past the decon unit and get decontaminated, as long as there's a few of them strategically located, it it could probably work. We you know, again, we're we're working with we're working with guesses. It's very frustrating to know numbers. Would most would wanna be on Champlain because it's big. But
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: do you think affordable, a mobile you know, people notifying the department that they wanna move their boat and that they could go, they could have a portable econ unit that goes around to different sites that are prepared to accept that would be a good thing.
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: Could be a possibility. You know, another possibility is working with boat dealers. We do know the one boat dealer down near Bomazeen has the capacity to decontaminate wake boats. So I know that I've discussed it, and I know some of the DEC staff are gonna be looking into whether there's other boat dealers around the state who have that capacity, and that could be part of the network. Like, you know, someone could be directed to a boat dealer to do the decontamination. There might be a fee involved, but, that would be another option, and that's that's something that I think they're researching. The staff is researching right now. Do you know one in Bahamas
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: and can do it?
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: Pardon me? I'm sorry.
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Private partnership. I mean, that's probably the best economical way to do it. Right. 18 sites at $250,000. That's top of boat.
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: No. No. It'd be impossible to do 18. Yeah. No. They'd have to be. So the boat dealers, you know, could be a really if if they have the capacity might and there's enough of them that have the capacity. And, you know, the nice thing is they could charge a fee, hopefully not a high fee, excuse me, a fee, and give a receipt to the boater who would then carry that with them. And if they go in the next lake, they could show the receipt and show that they'd be decontaminated. And that would really resolve that movement of boats around, and proving that they'd been decontaminated. So it's an idea, I've talked with the staff about it at DEC and I think they're looking into it.
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Thank you. Very good. Appreciate it.
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: Sure. Happy to Any other questions?
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I do have one question, but we are, can move on to other witnesses, so just very briefly, I'm very interested in your suggestion about removing the specification for the parking spaces or the decon units are specifically for wake boats, that this should be an allowable use or a permitted, no, prioritized use of the access points, not just for wake boats, but for decontamination of all boats. And I'm wondering if that was to show up in statute, do you think that would end up having the effect of encouraging more lake associations to have, boat washing stations?
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: I it may encourage a few, but here's the thing. Those boat washers cost money, and there's not much money from the state for them. So I know most of them have been acquired by lake associations through, grant writing, and through raising private money. It also takes a lot of volunteer time because after all, remember these lake associations, all of us, including me, we're all volunteers. And to manage a boat washer because you need you need the trailer, it has to be locked up when greeters aren't aren't around because of liability. You have to get insurance. You have to register the trailer. You have to have volunteers. You gotta get the trailer, which means you have to have somebody donate or you gotta build it or you gotta buy it. You've gotta have volunteers who will trailer it to the location, get it set up for the season, trailer it back, store it for the winter. It's a heavy lift for volunteer associations. So I think some lake associations may be encouraged to start on that path, but I will say that over Shadow Lake that I showed you the picture of, their boat washer was set up early two thousands, around 2003 or so. Between 2003 and now, there have only been five. So that's over twenty three years because of the heavy lift of doing it. It's not an ideal situation, but it is the situation. The money just isn't there. Volunteer Lake associations are raising money for lots of different lake protection activities, and even their own greeter programs aren't fully supported by state money. So they only get a percentage of their costs. So I'm sorry, that's not as short an answer as you wanted.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, that's so helpful. Thank you so much. Any other questions for Ms. Baldy? Okay. Thank you so much.
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: Thank you so much.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And have you sent that to our committee?
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: Oh, I did send it, the written testimony and the presentation.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you so much.
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: Thank you.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So we have a number of groups who are up to testify now. I just wanna put out a general reminder that you have about ten minutes to testify. But looking forward to hearing what you have to say. We're going just go right down the list. We're going to start with mister Mitchell who I think is with us virtually. Hello, welcome.
[Jim Mitchell (Seymour Lake resident; retired state trooper)]: Hi, thank you very much. I'm here from Seymour Lake in Morgan. And I am a retired state trooper. And that's one of the reasons why how I found Seymour Lake is my first barracks was out of the Derby Barracks. One of the things I like to do is is read a letter that I drafted on behalf of several wakeboat owners on Seymour Lake. My name is Jim Mitchell and I have a place on Seymour Lake in Morgan, Vermont. I am writing on behalf of several wake boat owners on Seymour Lake to express our concerns and support regarding the preservation of our lakes pristine condition. Please find a list of owners names below for your reference and I'll list those at the end. Seamoor Lake is renowned for being one of the cleanest lakes in Vermont and maintaining its exceptional water quality remains our top priority. Wake boats, which are popular on our lake, use ballast tanks to fill that are filled via pumps and valves to displace water and add weight. The additional weight helps to create larger wakes for wakeboarding and wakesurfing. Those same pumps and valves are used to drain the ballast tanks. In recent years, there has been ongoing discussion about how to properly decontaminate the ballast tanks in wake boats to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species. Proper decontamination requires specialized training and equipment, neither of which have been made available to the employees involved in the boat launch greeter programs. Without appropriate tools and training is extremely challenging to fully drain clean and decontaminate the ballast tanks. This gap increases the risk of cross contamination and the transfer of aquatic invasive species when boats travel between lakes. In addition, these ballast tanks are not easily accessible for internal inspection by the boat reader. For these reasons, wake boats should be treated differently regarding drying time. If a hot water decontamination is not available, then a drying time must be required to kill any possible aquatic invasive species within the ballast tanks. Perhaps a protective and scientifically based quarantine policy could be adopted. The specific number of days for a quarantine period should be based on scientific research. A quick and simple Google search indicated that drying times vary based on the type of watercraft. However, for wake boats with ballast tanks, the recommended drying time is thirty days. It is our understanding that other affected lake associations in Vermont support the home lake rule provisions. We strongly support the implementation of the home lake rule for wake boat owners. This would require wake boat owners to declare a single home lake for the calendar year. This means the boat can only you only be used in that specific lake unless it undergoes a decontamination at a state approved facility when moved from one body of water to another. This measure is an effective way to safeguard Seymour Lake as well as other lakes from the threat of aquatic invasive species. If the state of Vermont does not have the resources to handle this requirement, we could allow the local greeter programs to implement and execute the home lake rule. I know most of the employees at our local boat reader program and their work ethic in keeping our lake pristine and free from aquatic invasive species is exceptional. They are very familiar with the people on Seymour Lake and know who the wakeboat owners are. I have no doubt they would be a great fit for this task providing wake boat owners with information regarding the rules, safety and a home lake decal to display on their boat signifying Seymour Lake as their home lake. I just want to say thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to share our concerns and for your efforts to protect the health and clarity of our beautiful lake. And then I'll just list the names of the people, that I shared this letter with and were on board and and and wanted me to add their names. So you got myself, Eric Schmidt, Paul Friscoia, Josh Poolin, Greg Simoneau, and Les Samuels.
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Thank you
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: so much. And I we've got a question from center back. Go ahead.
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Hey, John. From a wakeboat owner perspective, would it be impractical to just have a rule that said that if you can only bring water on board wake boat when it's in the water and you can't discharge in the water? Would that be impractical? I
[Jim Mitchell (Seymour Lake resident; retired state trooper)]: think so only so you're thinking to when you take the boat out of the water, you would put it on the trailer with the ballast tanks full and then displace the water after that
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: away from the water. Yeah,
[Jim Mitchell (Seymour Lake resident; retired state trooper)]: correct. I think it would depend completely on the capacity of the trailer. It adds a significant amount of weight. I know some some boats can use what they call sacks and you can add say seven fifty pounds of water. Other like my boat is on the smaller side and it holds 1,100 pounds of water and some of them can get up to 6,100 pounds of water in the ballast tanks.
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay, thank you.
[Jim Mitchell (Seymour Lake resident; retired state trooper)]: You're welcome. Thank you.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I have questions and we have another question. Go ahead. Thanks so much for your testimony. I my understanding is most of the greeter programs are staffed by volunteers. Is is the one at your life volunteers?
[Jim Mitchell (Seymour Lake resident; retired state trooper)]: Yes, it is. Okay.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So my your suggestion that the greeters enforce the home link rule as a former law enforcement officer, I do not have concerns that that puts volunteers into a potentially at least awkward, if not maybe dangerous. I don't want to presume anything, but just an awkward position for volunteers trying to enforce state laws.
[Jim Mitchell (Seymour Lake resident; retired state trooper)]: Yes, I agree with you 100%. I think it would be more educational for the greeters. And possibly I don't know if we would continue with the Home Lake sticker anymore, as Pat was saying. But I do think the education and inspection of the boats, they can handle those tasks for sure. As far as the enforcement, was listening on the sixteenth and the Department of Fish and Wildlife were there and I believe they said that the wardens would would be willing to enforce that.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, yeah, I just would not want to put volunteers into a position where they're telling people, you can't bring this vote on or you're going to get fined or whatever, and then have some kind of skirmish that, so I want to be clear that readers are not enforcement, they're education and that the warden's are enforcement.
[Jim Mitchell (Seymour Lake resident; retired state trooper)]: Yes, and thank you very much for clarifying that.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, great, thank you. Great, any other questions? I just want to thank you. Really appreciate your testimony and the good faith of wake boat owners that you listed. So thank you so much.
[Jim Mitchell (Seymour Lake resident; retired state trooper)]: Thank you.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, absolutely. All right, so we're going move on to this letter. Apologize if I am mispronouncing your last name. Welcome.
[Diane Leader (Willoughby Lake resident; Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes member)]: Thank you. It's Leader. Leader. Right. And thank you for inviting me here today to speak about S224. My name is Diane Leader. I've got eighty years on Willoughby Lake. I've been actively involved there and with Responsible Lakes for Vermont Lakes in a statewide capacity for several years. I'm speaking today not on behalf of Responsible Lakes, but as a private citizen on a lake which will remain wake sports eligible. While the bill has been drafted to deal with several water quality and lake management issues, my comments are focused solely on the proposed Home Lake rule, which begins on page five of the bill. We believe it can be a simple, relatively inexpensive strategy for preventing the spread of aquatic invasives. And I'd like to say that S224 is a crucially important piece of environmental legislation to protect our inland lakes from further spread of aquatic invasives. We are desperate for your help before the end of this biennium. We've talked about the ballast that these wake folks contain. We're talking about thousands of pounds of water. And as I expect you all know, Vermont lakes are currently infested with a wide, a huge variety of aquatic invasives. Whoever said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure certainly had it right because once invasives get a foothold, eradication is generally impossible. Management and control become a significant expense and effort. The expense is largely borne by lake associations, and the effort is largely staffed by community volunteers. Pat Swazi spoke about the thousands of volunteer hours every year that are spent at these lakes. She covered what we do pretty well. Just a couple of additional things. We test lake water on a regular basis, print and distribute newsletters, run seminars, and support fish stocking programs to improve fishing. We also work with loon nesting platforms and putting up signs to protect the loons. I think somebody mentioned that Governor Scott refers to this activity as a private public partnership, one that depends on private dollars to significantly leverage state tax dollars. And there has a big concern in these discussions about funding. So, that's an important thing to remember. The DEC would have you believe that implementing a homeland rule is a complex challenge that they can neither staff nor fund. The rules that were adopted in 2024 included a Home Lake rule, which the commissioner during the LCAR hearings assured the public would be implemented for the 2024 voting season. The Home Lake rule was never implemented and the DEC now proposes eliminating it completely. Well, staffing and funding for any program can often be a challenge. There's nothing complex about the Home Lake rule that we're discussing. The DEC always seems to focus on the challenge of stickers when it talks about problems with the Home Lake rule. There are other much easier ways to implement this. Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes proposed on several occasions a simplified almost free alternative. As far as we know, we're unaware of the DEC ever having given that proposal any serious consideration. And the Seymour Lake breeder program successfully operated a trial Home Lake program during both the twenty four and twenty five boating seasons. Assuming that the rewrite of the wake boat rules is adopted at the end of the current rulemaking process, the number of wake sports eligible lakes will drop from 30 to 17 or 18. 11 of the remaining lakes are located in Vermont's fabled Northeast Kingdom. Of the 17 or 18 that will likely remain, eight are currently AIS free and five are eligible for A1 water reclassification. With zebra mussels now found in the American waters of Lake Mount Sinai Gog and in a number of Canadian lakes close to The U. S. Border. It's only a matter of time before they find their way south. Of all the aquatic invasives, Zebra Mussels are among the worst. A 2023 article in Science Magazine referred to them as, quote, one of the most catastrophic aquatic invasive species in North America. Though they're fairly new to The US, they're already responsible for billions, and that is billions with a B, billions of dollars of damage. And a recent peer reviewed study found mercury concentrations in some fish from waters that are infested with Zebra Mussels. We have some very specific language that we are recommending. I'm going to give that to you in my written testimony and just talk about the rationale for what we're suggesting. The DEC would have you believe that because the number of wakeboats in Vermont is relatively small, that the threat of spreading AIS is overblown. This is simply not the case. There is a Minnesota study published in 2018 that called wakeboats zebra mussels best friend. The study concluded The best way for invasive zebra mussels larvae to get from one Minnesota lake to another is aboard wakeboard boats. Zebra mussels are a virus like risk that could spread as quickly as COVID did. You've already heard from a wake boat owner on this topic. It is clearly something that we can all agree on. Anglers, boaters, swimmers, paddlers, and wake boat owners. We are recommending page six at line one to remove the reference to decontamination. This would do so by limiting wake folks to their single declared home lake each year. This is absolutely critical because of the lack of adequate decontamination facilities in Vermont and the lack of a clear plan, timeline, and funding to make them available. Senator Williams, I think you asked a question about mobile decontamination for wakeboats. These stations, this decontamination uses a huge volume of water, so you can't transport that amount of water easily. They also need electricity to do their work. Beth Torpey, who will speak next, I believe, Pat Swazi and I, were all part of the stakeholders group that contributed to the DEC decontamination plan that was discussed yesterday. We talked about only two or three stations that are staffed part time at Lake Champlain now. These are far from the wake sports eligible lakes that will need them. We need protection now. We need it this boating season, not years from now when funding may become available. Thank you. Think several of you now have asked about the cost of setting up a station capable of decontaminating a wake boat. Clearly, it's a function that our wash stations can't provide, will never be able to provide. And if funding were available, would we ever set up a network of facilities for what the DEC clearly considers a minimal threat? On page six, at line seven, we're suggesting a person who owns or controls the wake vote shall have available evidence of a home life declaration provided by ANR to present to a greeter or enforcement person when requested. The DEC has stated that they're unable to develop a Homelike sticker or DeCal program. This gives them flexibility to develop something very workable for them. We feel a brief application to the agency and a letter of HomeLake registration issued by the agency would be a very simple workable solution, not an administrative burden. The DEC keeps saying that the number of wakeboats is small. Clearly, what we are proposing is not a gargantuan lift. Page six, we're recommending eliminating the reference to decontamination. On page seven, We are recommending that the breeders or other local programs be authorized to alert in violation that entry is prohibited. This is nothing more than we are already doing with respect to someone trying to launch a jet ski on a lake where they're not permitted. So this precedent has already been established.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mrs. Leader, can I Oh, sorry? You broke up there a little bit. Can you just make that recommendation again? It was just a little hard to hear you for a second.
[Diane Leader (Willoughby Lake resident; Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes member)]: Yes. This is on page seven at line three, inserting language that we have for you that would permit the established greeter or other local program to alert that the watercraft owner their entry is prohibited because of violations on the Home Lake or the 1454. That is already being done for jet skis, which have set a precedent for how that sort of thing is handled. On page seven, we particularly like the requirement that vessels be drained after leaving water of the state. This is another incentive for keeping these boats on a single lake. We would like to see added on page eight at line 18 something like within sixty days of passage of this bill, ANR shall prepare, shall have prepared
[Beth Torpey (Seymour Lake Association/FOVLAP board; AIS committee chair)]: a
[Diane Leader (Willoughby Lake resident; Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes member)]: homeland registration form, a homeland confirmation designation letter to be sent to owner operators, and have made appropriate information about the rule available on the Lakes and Ponds website. We recommend adding this language because ANR has a history of ignoring regulatory directives if they find them to be inconvenient. So, this would be a legislative directive, not a request. I would like to conclude my testimony by emphasizing again that aquatic invasives are a forever curse. Once they take hold in a lake, eradication is virtually impossible. Managing them becomes an ongoing community funded and staffed effort with little support from the state and a timeline that has no end. The legislative and regulatory processes are often about balance. Here the challenge is balancing the desire to provide public access against the need to protect our water resources. Vermont faced a similar challenge years ago when it established legislation, regulations that allowed many lakes to prohibit the use of jet skis. With this legislation, we ask you to consider that balance again and to support more protection of our water resources. If other portions of this bill is currently drafted or found to be controversial, we respectfully request that you move a narrowly focused Homelake bill forward to a vote. It would be a tragedy if this Homelake portion of the bill fails to pass because of disagreement over control and management of our boat launch sites. Vermont's lakes are at risk. You can help reduce that risk by supporting this bill. A Home Lake rule is a simple, cost effective strategy to prevent the further spread of aquatic invasives. And it won't solve all the problems, but it would be an important and really significant step for protecting our lakes. Please make passing this bill a priority this year. We know it has bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. Thank you.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. And I think we have a question.
[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah, quick question. This is Senator Bongartz from Bennington County. I understand all the logic of the home late rule, in fact, supported, but the question I have is what do we do with folks that come in from out of state during the season because they can, so controlling it with Invermont is great, but maybe that's only half the issue and the other half is other boats coming in carrying other wing boats coming in and carrying the zebra mussels or whatever. Would it be unreasonable to simply say you can't put an out of state wake boat in Vermont unless you can prove it's been decontaminated?
[Diane Leader (Willoughby Lake resident; Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes member)]: Yeah, the problem is proof of decontamination. That's huge. There are a number of ways you could get at this. I mean, you could, in the registration form, simply ask, has this vote been in any other bodies of water since January 1 of the calendar year? If so, where? Hopefully, people would be honest. You could have a date for registration of the Home Lake so that someone couldn't come in on August 1 with an August 5 cottage rental and say, well, I want to register this as my home. There's no perfect system, but we can't let the perfect get in the way of the good or the better. Keeping as many of these boats on a single lake really helps the problem.
[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Okay, so my point wasn't either or. I'm just really wondering if you can help us think about what we do with out of state boats coming in that contaminated and coming in for two weeks and contaminating a lake. That worries me as much as does a boat moving around from lake to lake in Vermont.
[Diane Leader (Willoughby Lake resident; Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes member)]: Right. It seems that the way statute is currently drafted and with the suggestions that we include that that flexibility would be available for the DEC. And with help consulting with our team, with responsible lakes, with wave boat owners, that we would be able to come up with something to help.
[Unidentified speaker (committee/staff interjections)]: Great.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony.
[Diane Leader (Willoughby Lake resident; Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes member)]: Thank you.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. All right. So we're going to move on to Ms. Torpy, who is also with us digitally. Welcome.
[Beth Torpey (Seymour Lake Association/FOVLAP board; AIS committee chair)]: Good morning, everyone. My name is Beth Torpy. I'm a resident of the town of Morgan, and I'm here to talk about decontamination of motorboats. I'm qualified to speak to you about decontamination due to the fact that I set up one of the first boat wash stations in the state of Vermont at Seymour Lake and have been managing a greeter program there for over ten years. I've also worked as a greeter for fifteen years at both Willoughby and Seymour, and that includes operating the boat wash station. My career has been as a scientist in the environmental field for over forty years, with twenty five of those years working in aspects of aquatic invasive species prevention. Fun fact, the current greeter program and patrol model that ANR recommends is based on the first grant that I submitted in 1999. I've also taught college classes in freshwater ecosystems for the Vermont State College System for over ten years, and I'm also on the board of the Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds with Pat Svazi, who testified earlier. And I am the chair of the statewide Aquatic Invasive Species Committee. And the first thing I wanted to address I think has been well addressed so far is that the boat inspection, the wash stations that are found at the public access areas do not are not sufficient for wakeboat decontamination. Wakeboat decontamination is a much more complicated process. And at the fishing access areas, due to state regulations, we don't have a consistent available water source. We actually have to pay for water to be delivered. Electricity has not been allowed and we're not allowed to construct water containment areas from the wash process. But because Seymour is so large, we've been able to overcome these obstacles, but we're certainly limited in our future use. Wakeboat ballasts are difficult to decontaminate because they are a closed system and impossible to inspect. Each wakeboat manufacturer has a different configuration, and each boat can have three to six internal ballasts with volumes between two hundred and six hundred gallons of water. And Jim Mitchell addressed that a little bit. In-depth training and special equipment are required, which include a reliable water supply, electricity and containment area, none of which are currently allowed by the state at public access areas. And in relation to a mobile unit, as Diane mentioned, that would also be the issue that volume of water is quite a bit that's required. And I'm happy to provide any additional details about wakeboat decontamination if there's any interest. I've done quite a few deep dives on the subject if anyone is interested. It's also important to understand that depending on the ballast system, wakeboat ballasts contain between eight and twenty three gallons of water after the tanks are drained. This is what they are bringing into the next water body. Imagine throwing five five gallon buckets of water containing milfoil and zebra mussels into a lake. One gallon of water can contain up to 1,000 zebra mussel larvae or belligers, and one zebra mussel adult female can produce over a million eggs per season. For a milk whale, it only takes a fragment the size of your thumbnail to start a new infestation. Like the spread of COVID, zebra mussels, the larvae are invisible and can cause impairment before we even know it, and it only takes one wake boat to start a new infestation. While it may appear that the number of wake boats in the state is relatively small, they represent a much greater risk to a very small number of remaining wake boat eligible water bodies, many of which are considered pristine. So because wakeboat decontamination is not possible by the local programs operating on the public access areas, I'm asking for a change in language to this bill. And if the committee could look at page 10, line 17, it states that fishing access areas may be used by approved aquatic nuisance inspection stations in order to allow for decontamination of wake boats. And I recommend adding the following language to this section. Fishing access areas may be used by approved aquatic nuisance inspection stations in order to allow for inspection, AIS removal, and motor flushing of motor boats, but not wake boat decontamination. Along those same lines, I'd like to bring the committee's attention to page six, line 10, if decontamination is kept in the law prior to entering the Vermont lake other than the wakeboat's home lake and prior to reentering a home lake after use of the water of the wakeboat at any other lake or water body, the person who owns or controls the wakeboat shall decontaminate the wakeboat at an agency approved service decontamination service provider. And I recommend changing language to the following. Prior to entering a Vermont lake other than the wakeboats formally declared home lake and prior to reentering said home lake, after use of the wakeboat at any other lake or water body, the person who owns or controls the wakeboat shall decontaminate the wake boat at an agency approved decontamination service provider. Local boat wash stations through breeder programs are not considered to satisfy this requirement. Also, as a person who has been Do
[Unidentified speaker (committee/staff interjections)]: we have that language?
[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Sorry, do we have that language?
[Beth Torpey (Seymour Lake Association/FOVLAP board; AIS committee chair)]: I will send it to you. I will email it to you.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. If you
[Diane Leader (Willoughby Lake resident; Responsible Wakes for Vermont Lakes member)]: don't mind us.
[Beth Torpey (Seymour Lake Association/FOVLAP board; AIS committee chair)]: Also, as a person who's been a consistent part of the ANR wakeboat decontamination stakeholder process, I can attest that there is not currently a plan timeline or budget for wake boats to be decontaminated reliably for the next several years, at least perhaps longer. Well, the statewide decontamination infrastructure for all watercraft that is being proposed by ANR is an admirable goal, and we would absolutely love to see that happen, we are by no means anywhere close to a system that can consistently, completely and efficiently decontaminate water boats or other watercraft at this time. The wakeboat decontamination techniques are not clear and new technological innovations still need to be considered. The costs and personnel resources are prohibitive. Without sufficient decontamination services available for wakeboats, Home Lake rule is the only protection for our pristine water bodies. As Senator Williams has pointed out, wakeboat decontamination can be expensive. As you can see, don't know if I can share this table or not. Let me see if I can find it. I have a table here. Just
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to put it out there, we are running out of time, so
[Beth Torpey (Seymour Lake Association/FOVLAP board; AIS committee chair)]: Okay, I'll move along. The ANR estimates for decontamination range from 72,000 to almost 4,000,000. Clearly decontamination is not ready for prime time. While the legislature is doing their best to fund education, it's not the time to add more to the budget for the decontamination stations. And there are two more things that I want to address, I'll do it quickly. But the first one is that I'd like to see you add language that will protect the greeter programs. In the current use of public waters rule update, greeter communication has been limited and the programs are threatened with losing grant funding and being denied a permit to operate on the public access. In the past, written directors from ANR have stated that a greeter may not even dissuade a voter from entering the water body. This limits the level of information that is necessary to provide adequate education for informed consent. The greeter programs are also now not allowed to develop their own educational material. By the way, almost all the readers are now paid, but they do not want to fulfill a law enforcement role, but should be allowed to communicate and provide education. In order to ensure that reader programs will still be allowed to function, I recommend the following language that could be inserted on page seven after line two. If any watercraft containing ballast attempts to enter any Vermont water body of water without the requisite home lake registration or if any watercraft determined to be in violation of any section of 10 bsa fourteen fifty four attempts to enter any Vermont water body the established breeder or other local program is hereby authorized to alert said watercraft that his or her entry is prohibited. We're not allowed to do this right now, but it would be similar to what breeders can currently say to jet ski owners who attempt to enter water bodies where they are not allowed. And in the case of wake boats, if one was coming from out of state or country, it's very simple to refer them to an unregulated water body. We don't have to make this complicated. One last point is quarantine. In the current use of public water rules update, ANR mentions a fourteen day quarantine time for wake boats between water bodies. While there is no way to ensure this is followed, it's also not scientifically supported. As Jim Mitchell pointed out, the most current protective scientific recommendation is a minimum thirty day quarantine depending on specific conditions or a hot water decontamination. So I have the following language to add to the rule. Quarantine of wake boats does not qualify the wakeboat to enter a lake without a formal homeland rule declaration unless a panel of state agencies and stakeholders agree on scientifically valid protective quarantine policy. This panel should include greeter program personnel, scientific experts, and ANR personnel at a minimum, but may also include other interested stakeholders,
[Pat Suozzi (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: such
[Beth Torpey (Seymour Lake Association/FOVLAP board; AIS committee chair)]: as wakeboat owners and dealers. And I also wanted to point out that at Seymour, we did our own version of Home Lake Rule when it was passed in 2024, and we're able to register all of our wakeboats at no cost to ANR. And we had a registration form that was given to the wakeboat owners. The wakeboat owners helped us to identify the other wakeboat owners. They filled out the registration form. We had a picture of the wake boat in our binder at the greeter station. And when the wake boat came in, we would just check our binder. Really easy.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, thank you so much. Can
[Beth Torpey (Seymour Lake Association/FOVLAP board; AIS committee chair)]: I just give a very quick summary here? In summary, wake boat decontamination at the public access areas is not possible. Statewide wake boat and all boat decontamination will not be available anytime soon. Home like rule can be very easy, cost effective, and a protective option if it's not a really complicated. Stakeholders are willing to help and have great ideas. As a matter of fact, I heard some really good ideas from Senator Williams yesterday who recommended an RFID tagging system as well as interstate agreements. Let's find solutions instead of making excuses. And also, greeter programs need to be able to communicate to educate voters. Current wakeboat quarantine times are not scientifically supported. Vermont has been woefully unsuccessful in preventing AIS spread, as you've seen in graphs, and we need to do something about this. And it's about time. I applaud this committee for considering this bill and can't possibly thank you enough for all of your efforts.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you so much. We're going move on to Mr. Weiselman. Welcome.
[David Weiselman (Seymour Lake VIP coordinator; resident)]: Welcome everyone. Thank you, Beth. Thank you, John on the Lake for being cooperative with us. My name is David Weiselman. I am a coordinator of the Vermont Invasive Patrol Program that we have on the Lake. I want to thank you for letting me speak today about Section two twenty four and the important issue of the Home Lake Rule. I particularly want to thank you Senator Beck who serves on the committee. My family lives in Caledonia County and has for over one hundred years. Initially, my grandfather in the 40s built cottages on Seymour Lake. Our family's been in that area since the late 1880s. So, what I do on the lake, thanks to Beth Torpy is I manage a group. I coordinate, excuse me, a group of volunteer patrollers. We have 16 to 18 in any any given year of loyal and dedicated caring patrollers. They each have about a one mile stretch on the lake. But every time we go out, we always keep our eyes open. We have three dedicated patrols every summer, two to three. And as we've mentioned, we have zebra mussels and milfoil within basically 10 miles of Seymour Lake. I go out personally thanks to my neighbors. Initially it was 10 with them. I'm paralyzed from a mountain biking accident at Burke in 2010. Initially my neighbors at the lake would pick me up every day, put me in my kayak, drag me out in the lake, tell me do my patrols and just get out of the lake for my extra exercise we are one of the last large lakes in Vermont to not have these aquatic species, these invasives. As the committee has already heard, way boats can't fully empty their ballasts, which is particularly dangerous to Vermont's pristine lakes. I've literally had to drink out of this lake. It is literally the cleanest lake in Vermont. I've run out of water. I'm out there sometimes four or five hours kayaking. And we are truly blessed to live on Seymour Lake. But I I'd like to I'd like to briefly talk about what it's like to be a kayaker as maybe I consider myself pretty strong and advanced but I'm disabled. I'm a quadriplegic from the chest down and for me, wake boats to be quite challenging, particularly the ones that are from other lakes that don't know who I am. I have a really bright kayak and I use a bright white chest strap. So, the wake boat drivers on our lake know who I am and they're really respectful of me. But yet I still, wakes come from these boats, I have to stop whatever I'm doing, turn massive waves, and and take them head on. They're all like mini ocean waves. We have six wake boats on our lake but like I said they're very respectful and I'm glad to thank you John or Jim once again for coming over. So I've kayaked over one hundred days last year and my neighbors some years back donated money. We a really smart guy in our lake, Eric Lessing built a lift system where I can roll out onto the dock with a harness and go kayaking. So, last summer I caked about twice a day for over one hundred days. I wear a light preserver and I and I'm very safe. But in the later months of September and October, being capsized in the lake, being paralyzed or even for an elderly person could be quite dangerous. So I would really hope that the committee will support this relating to the Home Lake Rule. Our Pristine Lakes need this immediate protection as well as kayakers like myself. And I'm hoping that you'll support this to keep Seymour Lakes safe as well as all the other lakes.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Grace. Okay, well thank you so much.
[David Weiselman (Seymour Lake VIP coordinator; resident)]: I see kits there kit. Thank you. She's one of our patrollers. Our next guy up is gonna is a patrol or Candy Moose Patroller as well as that. Every one of our neighbors keeps their eyes open for this and we caught as Beth said, we've we caught milfoil. One time, I believe it was literally in a little scratch in a kayak that was about to go on the lake. But we have no control if if we're a lot if people from other lakes with giant ballast boats are allowed to come into our lake. I mean,
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: super, it
[David Weiselman (Seymour Lake VIP coordinator; resident)]: could be the end of our lake.
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. Well, we're hoping we prevent that. So, thank you so much for your testimony and any questions from the room? Okay, super. Thank you. All right, and so we're going to move to Mr. Hoffman, who is joining us from Ronne Verde. Welcome.
[Rob Hoffman (Volunteer, Waterbury; Seymour/Willoughby lake advocate)]: Hey, good morning, Thank you for the opportunity. For the record, Rob Hoffman, I'm from Waterbury, volunteer as David mentioned along with my wife, a pro on the lake, a greeter in the early years, not a greeter and pulling invasive plants from the edge
[Jake Merrin (Counsel, Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: of
[Rob Hoffman (Volunteer, Waterbury; Seymour/Willoughby lake advocate)]: the lake. I'm here to advocate for the home lake role. I really think it is well handling food for you. It entails little to no cost and it disrupts very few people. I mean if you think of it, all the people in our state, how many of them use the lakes? With the small subset that have boats and of those, the 1% that have weight loss and of those people, the very few by ANR's admission that want to move from one leg to the other, that's what we're talking about. Compared to like the issues of school governance and other things that you're talking about that are going to disrupt people one way or another, this affects so few people and it still could have a material positive impact on protecting our legs. I spent most of my career in private sector, but I served all eight years with Governor Douglas in his administration. First as a finance commissioner, then as corrections commissioner, and lastly as secretary of union services. As a result, I think I have some appreciation of the enormous challenges that you and the department and the administration as a whole face. We've discussed introduction to pristine lakes. One of the eye openers for me as I prepare to speak with you was how many, the lakes that are infested with AIS, how much more infested they could become. Apparently Lake Champlain, I was told there's 53 in Mesos, the Great Lakes I was told about 180. So a place like Bongartz, that's near and dear to my heart and the happiest memories from my childhood, that lake could get so much worse than it is right now, as well as the other lakes and ponds in your districts. I'm not a fan of wake bullets, but I do have to say, and agree with David, experience is they are very responsible and respectful of operators. And the lakes, given that the lakes are a shared resource for many different stakeholders, there's got to be some give and take. And I think limiting the movement of a very few boat owners is a reasonable step to take. And Michael O'Brady mentioned, and I didn't know this beforehand, that you are the stewards of the lakes, and you may delegate that authority to the agency. But I would just ask you to prioritize the environment and the overwhelming majority of Vermonters who are completely unaware of our discussions here. Regular people aren't going to be calling you about this. But at the same time they just want to swim and boat and fish in our lakes and ponds without zebra mussels, without milfoil, without spiny water fleas, and all the other creepy things that are lurking and waiting to spread among our legs. From my perspective as former finance commissioner, we can't wait for the capital funding and the ongoing budget funding for the decontamination network to be set up. We fully support it, it makes total sense. But as finance commissioner, I came from the private sector assuming there'd be a lot of waste. There wasn't. Most of the things you spend money on, you appropriate, are good and valuable programs. Waiting in the wings are scores, probably hundreds of other ideas that to me and come to the present finance commissioner and come to the approach committees of people wanting to spend money on worthy things. We don't do that and we say no 95% of the time because our current budget already strains the capacity of Vermont to pay for it. If we're going to add something in, something else is probably going to get cut and if passes prologue, what have we spent on this in the past? We haven't spent a lot of money. Do we really think in the coming years you're going to appropriate the substantial amount of money it would take to set up a decontamination network? I really don't see that happen. So as we said, eradication is difficult, if not impossible. Even the cost of containment is very, very expensive. I would ask you to instruct the ANR and a good earnest people who want the right thing, but we're frankly very discouraged about their stance on this issue. We'd ask you to instruct them to adhere to the current rule and approach this together in spirit of making this work successfully versus finding reasons why we should postpone action. This could be done very simply. Let's throw the vote sticker idea overboard. I mean, it really is that complicated, forget about it. They could have a simple application. They could have a PDF on their website with some sort of truncated boat registration number and the like, no names, not the full number, put that on their website and get people a letter. This is not a heavy lift. Given all the other things that you and we as Vermonters ask other state employees to
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: do,
[Rob Hoffman (Volunteer, Waterbury; Seymour/Willoughby lake advocate)]: where we ask them to face daily, come face to face with some of the most desperate and troubling aspects of Vermont society. By comparison, this is not that difficult. This is a both uniquely growing risk. There are very few people, commentative manager, who asked a few things. The proposal is not going to solve everything, but it's one meaningful, small but meaningful step that you can take to protect Vermont from the severe ecological and economic damage that further spread of agriaspora cause. So by all means, do more, but please, please, please don't do less unless being proposed. I'm done, no more questions?
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, just thank you and appreciate your willingness to be thinking creatively about how that can move. Thank you. Okay, the bell isn't ringing. We'd love to have a conversation about this together,
[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: but
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: we will
[Lewis Porter (General Manager, Washington Electric Co-op)]: do
[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: that