Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: good morning. This is Senate Natural Resources Energy, and this is Friday, February 6. Yeah, happy Friday. We're going to start with a new draft of S212, which I think is pretty close to being done, maybe not totally done. Sent our legislative council some edits and then remembered like, maybe there's actually one. But let's, we'll at least start with what we've got. To House Regretti.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: Good

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. Morning. Good morning. This is Michael Gray. You should have all have a draft in front of you with a draft number of 221, eight of two six twenty six and eight forty five they have in. And I'm just gonna go to the change language. You may recall that your last review of this bill, you discussed I don't know. You discussed The general permits and whether or not those fees need to

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: be

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: adhered based on the size and scope of So that is on the end of of your draft. The care sense of language or sense, the tiers that that would be set based on design flow and using language that's already built into the p section for for for the water spinae as far as such. I've created what's on page 11 lines nine through 17. So original applications are major amendments for coverage under a portable water supplier wastewater system connection general permit. Should have a volume p according to the highest proposed design low wastewater or water for the connection. Design flows below 2,000 gallons per day. It's $350 per hour. Design flows between two thousand and six thousand five hundred gallons per day. It's $2,500 per application when the side flows greater than $6,500 day, it's 5,000 per application.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think there's one change in that. I think

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: that $3.50 is supposed to be $2.50. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Which the only reason I am remembering that now is because it was less than the 306.25 that single family homes have now or something.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry to help,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: ma'am. No worries. Sorry, didn't catch that too. Other comments on students? I just have a question on page nine, the municipal fee. So the municipalities may charge a fee for the technical reviews and may charge fee for the cost of municipal services, But they have to pay out $100 to the secretary to the state? The municipality has to pay $100

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: to Yes. Remember, part of the concern about delegation is ensuring that the land records have have documentation of a permit because recall does everybody remember Bianchi versus Lawrence or Hunter Broadcasting versus supper or Linton? Anybody know what that mean? Yes. All right, so Bongartz versus Lawrence was a Vermont Supreme Court case that said failure to get a municipal permit was a blight on your title so that when you went to sell your home or your property that it could affect your ability to get title insurance and therefore affect your ability to transfer property, and it could affect the ability of your attorney's license who failed to note that during the conveyance. Well, the subsequent court decision was Hunter Broadcasting versus Browns. That said, state permits are also a failure to obtain state permits as as a way to. You legislated away, but you didn't legislate away on your broadcast.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: So failure to obtain a state

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: permit is a blade on your title and can affect your ability to convey your property. Now the way that that has been addressed is that there's the ANR permitting database where you can go to get those permits that don't run with the land. Mhmm. But most permits run land, and so they should be in your land records. And that became an issue when you went to university jurisdiction. Knew and said, AMR being the sole entity issuing global water supply and wastewater permits because before then, every clerk did it differently in every municipality and and it was a chore for title attorneys and real estate attorneys to find themselves. Now there's a Right. That's part

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: of what we're

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: trying to preserve.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You can tour that document, go then to the land records, add into the ANR database, have them submit to ANR. ANR is going to have some staff time that will be devoted to that, so $100 per filing is to account for that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So okay, that's very helpful. So the municipality could theoretically charge $300 to get the permit from the municipality for the connection and review, and then the municipality pays a 100 of that to the state. That

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: how it works. Would assume the municipality is going to assume this fee into the fee that they charge.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. The the $100 would be part of that fee. Right. And then they would just okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There there is no limit on the municipal fee as well.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We don't have to set it. We mean the legislature?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I I think you don't set municipal fees. You you said state fees.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So the things that, just as an example, another bill we're working on, the land posting, that $5 fee, that's technically a state fee, but the municipality is collecting it?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So our because the land does the clerk allow $5 for registration form? Yeah. That that is a fee where you have set

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Those municipalities. What what the clerks can charge for for recording documentation. Yeah. That's historically been something that

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And I think dog license fees be actually set too. Well,

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's true. But they can go higher than that. That's that's the that's

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: the minimum.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's the minimum. The dog license fees, there's a range of them. There's just they even have a range of cat license fees. They're a thing. Only sell for

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: cat licenses. Oh, I didn't know that thing.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: I

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: think only Washington towns do that.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: Okay. Really? Alright. The point being is we don't have

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to set the minutes old Phoenix to figure it out, but I want to Yeah. I'm gonna do so many ridiculous.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And and the the could be significant.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We've lost all of that. I

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: just wanna say the municipal fee could be significant because it it could be a tool in their toolbox for directing where development goes in their towns.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And if a town takes this stuff over, we've already established that it's not gonna be that many towns because it's hard stuff, but or we think. But if a town takes this over, does it mean that only the town does it? Like, because somebody living in a town that takes this over can't be like, oh, actually, I'd rather work with the state do it.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It would be the town's jurisdiction. Okay. That would be part of the delegation agreement that ANR and the town may turn into. But remember, you say this condition of this partial delegation that they have to incorporate into their standards the A and R general permit, so those are the same standards, plus they have to give deference to the licensed designer as is being given to the general fund at AR

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This issue, is a has been a concept in this program deference since 2006 or around then. And so that's not really changing, you just want to ensure that the deference that's going to be provided runs through all of these permits even if there's allocations. Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: thanks. So a couple of things that I wanted to ask about. So one in this draft is on page five, lines three and four. The secretary may adopt general permitting programs for other activities. And as we talked about it the other day, I just forgot to add, I don't see you forgot to add, because we had talked about potentially adding language that was like, that clarified that this was specifically for simple, low complexity conditions.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I'm trying to find there's there's language like that in a couple of different programs. I've been trying to think of one that I can easily get to.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: Hold on a second.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okey dokey.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I'm not finding what I'm looking for. But, basically, you're looking for low impact activities. I'm not 95% of online, which

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: Okay. Sounds Is that yes. What are some

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: of the other activities? A couple of examples of other activities that like fall into this. Well, maybe we could oh, I was gonna

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: say we have Mr. Redmond here, but unless you I prefer Brian.

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: For the record, Brian Redmond, director for drinking water and groundwater protection division. The two examples that I provided in the committee last week were subdivision of land, one that legislative council mentioned originally. And then again, we don't have any specific plans, but we are looking at ways to identify low risk, low complexity projects. So another example, and probably a more routine example could be a very small scale in ground wastewater septic system, low design flow, generally no pump stations, no advanced treatment, very simple

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: and straightforward.

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: So that's an area that we would probably evaluate for as low risk. Low back

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: as the on-site one? Correct.

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: And that's part of these regulations is the full scope includes on-site waste water.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: will say, so I do agree with that. Can you say more about the subdivision of land? Because it feels like not a water related thing, but how, can you just say more about that?

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: Yeah. It's a permanent trigger under the statute. And typically where we see, maybe Bennington will contribute to this too, is often when a subdivision of land occurs, there's a requirement to have a replacement area for your wastewater system. And from a technical perspective, that's often what we're looking at to make sure that the subdivision doesn't impact the ability for the existing system to function appropriately, as well as any future replacement area in the event that the system or supply fails.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead. I think I mentioned this last time, but I would feel more comfortable if we actually included the words low risk and low complexity. Yes, that's exactly what you're saying. Oh, is that what you just said? Well, that's the spirit of working on. Yeah, just so it's clear that these can't be other more complicated things. Right. So

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: just on the subdivision, there were instances prior to the permit requirement for it where people were subdividing, creating lots that weren't able to either meet the standards, but weren't able to meet the replacement standards. So in order to ensure that people weren't basically subdividing into what's called the best bets, which is a standard not necessarily that that meets the state standard, there's a requirement that there be review of that subdivision. Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: that's very helpful. We're making that connection between why subdivision would affect the water or wastewater. But I think we add something like low risk and low complexity, but that covers the kinds of examples that you gave. Is that

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Low risk, low impact, Yeah. Low I

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: would recommend as determined by the department because part of our framework for developing a general permit is going through that analysis of what qualifies us at low risk, low complexity, low impact.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I am okay with that if you all are okay. Yeah, I mean, that's fair. How do you determine or define low complexity? And then there's one other thing that we, so we have Mr. Weiss here with us. This morning he provided some testimony written as posted. So I just wanted to highlight another one of his comments, which was related to page four, line 16. The phrase, yeah, line 16, a designer licensed under this chapter. One, the question was that these engineers are not licensed under OPR. And so, I mean, his recommendation is just to say certified by a licensed designer. That's fine. I think accomplishes the same, the goal. That really okay, great. So, and I think that phrase occurs a couple of times.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: It's actually page seven. So you're saying this creates, well, page seven on graph form.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Did you say your name for that?

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: Oh, I'm sorry, Thomas Weiss, civil engineer, resident entrepreneur. Oh,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: yeah. Yeah, I mean, and you may be on a different a different burden than what we're looking at right now.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No, it's P708. Oh,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: yep, yep. So just by a licensed designer. Yes. On that, back on page four, that paragraph, page one, I had in my notes that we've gotten some, I think Brian Bremman said this, that they would retain the right to review complex projects and do audits. And I asked, should we be explicit to include this authority that they can review complex projects and audit projects? Am I recalling your testimony correctly? Or that's what I had written down here. I mean, can say my recollection was of that too, but do you want, can I go to you Mr? Redmond? Sure.

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: The record, Ronnie Redmond, that is line 15 that may give deference. If legislative council gave the example of certain type of piece connection projects are not uniform, there may be a class of projects that the agency would provide individual review. That was the example that was given. And then I added the example, with any general permitting program, we would like to be able to audit the program periodically and generally randomly. And the best way for us to do that is to perform an individual review of the application.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, and I thought, do we that that we might wanna say that they did not.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: This is

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: They build that language into their general department.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: Oh, it's in the oh, it okay. Okay. So you don't

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: think it's necessary to put any handy? Okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the general department will go out for review, public notice and comment of the opportunity for it. We'll review it. It will it will have our the review is just to ensure it will have language on the ability for them to require an independent review of an application. Okay, okay. Thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thanks. I'm gonna go into here and then from here. What are

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: we doing? So this is flipping the words designer license to license designer. It will be Under yeah. License designer is a term of our under this, and it it means it means a licensed engineer, mister vice, a site designer or people that that get certified to do design of these systems. That's what our licensed designer is.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And I think it also gets rid of the phrase under this chapter. Yes. Okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So you're saying list. Okay. Yeah. Alright.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: When you

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: get rid of under this chapter. Okay. Yeah. Make it nice. Then since we're because I think that is That was all the things that I have on my radar. But I Since we're We've got a little time. This morning, do you want to introduce yourself to

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: the rescue? Thank you. I'm Karen Hornin. I'm working with Green Mountain Water Environment Association. And I believe you received an email from the Carrie Shepherd and Stone this morning regarding the manual that's also in front of the floor, and it says the manual is showing food standards for determining the defining capacity of the public water system and pollution containment facility. But we just need you to be aware that if that were a requirement that municipalities determine capacity, that would be a considerable new expense and work on him for Rutland's Palace. It's not something that's easily determined at this point in just close to a year.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'd have to note that part of the delegation is that on page eight, lines one through three, condition of the delegation is that they will only issue rooms for water service lines and sanitary sewer service lines when there is active capacity in the system.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: No. So what we don't want to end up having to do is an analysis of the capacity of the entire system because that's a very expensive and time consuming proposition.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is there a question? Yes, go ahead. I don't know how all this stuff works. If don't know, if one doesn't know the capacity of the system, how do they know if they can add a line to that system? How do they know where the breaking point is?

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: They know in general, and I'm not the expert.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Neither of us really may help.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: I need better ideas, but they don't know the entire capacity of every system. There are places in towns in Vermont where they come out where the water lines go. Only if it's the age of the water lines would. So it's a balancing act. Since

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: we're taking them, since I've opened a can of pumps. Yeah, well I just wonder if Brian has any comments about that. Sure, and then I would also love to go to Mr. Rutland. Oh, okay.

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: Brian Rutland. So one of the big findings of the Act forty seven stakeholder group was a group of individuals, all the works directors, engineering consultants, environmental organizations. One of the big findings and discussion points of that group when we really analyze this question of municipal water and sewer credentials was around this issue of capacity and the capacity to serve. And as Stuart Brady said, our requirements for net new connection require that there's adequate capacity to serve. But one of the big findings of that report was that capacity to serve means different things to different people. And there's no real unified definition of what it means to have it and what it means to not have it. And as Warren just said, it is generally aware of if there is capacity to serve, but there's a big difference between a water line from 1900 and the documentation that the water supply can serve the flow required, right? So issues around the aged infrastructure and a myriad of issues. So I think part of this requirement that's currently in the bill and what we were planning to do, I spoke about the $50,000 appropriation from last legislative session to contract out to have the standards for connections really documented and brought forward in a more standardized way, more pictures, less words, and to start navigating and putting some definition around the system capacity issue. And so that's what I believe is in the bill here is for the agency to continue that work. It's part of our design.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: Yeah,

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, VNRC)]: thank you. So record John Brodman policy for our program director from BNRC.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I mean, is really

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, VNRC)]: I was on the I was on the study group, and Brian I I agree with what Brian said completely. We talked about this a lot. And to senator Hardy's point, it was like, I get, we're not looking to burden people with expenses, we need to get a handle on this issue of capacity. So at the very least, if we're doing this bill, it just seems we should make some progress and maybe the $50,000 in the study will get us down the road. But I do think we have to get to a point where we know where the pipes are, right? For all the downs and that we your points that are already exactly I I was gonna say at some point you don't know, like at some point, like, when do you not know? Like, we we're fortunate enough, I guess, that I don't think we have such capacity define capacity as enough water Mhmm. To give to people who wanna get drinking water and enough wastewater treatment capacity for people who want to hook up and get treated. I don't think we have systems that are that close, but someday we will be and and as we debated this idea for years now, this always comes up and it's just not a good answer to say,

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: we don't generally know, we

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, VNRC)]: don't specifically know. I certainly support what Brian said, I think if the bill could just recognize that we need to eventually get to the point where we're identifying what the capacity limits are and then we can if we know just basic planning then we can fix them. It's the only way we're going to know what the capital improvements that we need, know what kind of infrastructure money that we need to ask the federal government for, when hopefully one day we have a functional federal government that's providing infrastructure money. Like it just seems like nuffles and suspenders, I don't So we're not looking to burden people, but I would be comfortable with if that's what the agency is going to do, but I just want to note that we have to get to this point where we know what the capacity limits are.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: We're going to hit them one day, and we

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, VNRC)]: have hit them not for, I think, the amount of water or treatment. Have hit them in Harry said this in the group that we had. They're like collection. There are places in stone. I remember very distinctly. He was like, we have enough have enough wastewater treatment capacity, but we can't get the wastewater from here to there. And people don't know that though. So people get very frustrated because they're like, hey. Just wanna hook up. And they're like and then this municipality is like, well, you you really can't because we don't have that kind of that type of capacity. So I just think it serves the public better and it just, it's good planning, you know? So anyway, that's all I'm really advocating for is that we, while we're doing this bill, we craft it. We we really try to make some strides.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Disruggling. So the the manual is guidance. So and that's where the the instruction or the determination or definition of capacity will be set forth. So is guidance. They won't be binding. If there's gonna be anything that's binding, it will be in the general permit, and the general permit is required to go out for notice of comment. So STO or we never will have the ability to provide comment if there's anything that's required in the general permit about determining capacity.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So the fact that it's not binding, think, very helpful. I'm wondering about adding a sentence that would go after that sentence that starts at the bottom line for the manual shall include these standards. Something like these standards shall account for the fact that municipalities, that many municipalities don't know what is, what is under the ground or something like that. I mean, maybe that's too vague. Where are you? Oh, so

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Bottom page four line. Yeah, bottom You're page

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: not looking there. I'm just trying to say like, in a way, like what should you just always do when they don't know what they've got?

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: I would want the opportunity to think a little bit more and provide some recommendations and perhaps work with Fremont water environment. I think in general municipalities do. I think that might be a little overstated. Think the bigger issue is really defining what it means to have it and not to have it and putting these standards around it and exploring the issue of, for example, water pressure, aged infrastructure, that home station that was mentioned earlier, and really kind of sussing out what that capacity and determination, the considerations municipalities, applicants, and consultants should evaluate when determining if they do in fact have capacity to make the connection.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. I'm just thinking of the word standard versus guidance. Standard feels more required and guidance feels more recommended would changing it from standards to guidance be okay, or are you wanting standards?

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: I have the same question.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm going to defer to you. I think you can, if you really want to be clear that it's not mandatory, go to guidance.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. That seems more is that

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: a big compromise? What do you think, miss? I I do I think that would be helpful. Our real concern was that it not be a confining in the environmental municipalities at this point in time. And I've also heard that the conversation around the slavery is one that needs Praying with Mr. Brokman doesn't happen that often.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, VNRC)]: Well, mean, you're not a deal with the tea anymore. If you're doing a regular degree, you know? We could put all that behind us. I'm willing to.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You go.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: It's water through the pipes, you

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: got Okay. So changing the word.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Each four liner and beam standards, change the guidance.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yep, I think, and that works for you, Mr. Ruth Okay, fantastic, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, yeah, for sure. Looks Okay. Like we're really close on this. We are really close. I'm feeling pretty good on this. And we have you Well,

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: ten thirty.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, 10:30, which is a long time.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So go do that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, theoretically, we do have somebody else coming in at 10:15. As well? Nope. On on the auditor's audit memorandum on energy, being much tedious. Mr. Weiss, maybe you have

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: an opportunity since you're in, go ahead.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: Thank you. Yeah. Thomas Weiss, again civil engineer, Montpelier. I have one more comment that is based more on problems with the language than on any of the other things that I put out. And that's in this proposed manual. The manual is intended to provide now guidance for the general permit. And the purpose of the general permit is for connections to a potable water supply and a waste water system. The text of the report asks for

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: determining

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: the capacity, or starting towards determining the capacity for a public water system, not a polluted water supply, and for a pollution abatement facility, not for a wastewater system. So my suggestion is to change those terms that are in the report sections to match the terms that are in the general permit.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Do you mean the manual? By by report, do you mean the manual?

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: Right. It will be on lines Page four line

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: 20. Connections connect. I mean, I'll defer to Brian, but these connections are to public water systems or solutions or bathing facilities. They're not to a wastewater treatment system?

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: The wastewater system is defined to include the treatment facility of all the pipes and the pump stations and everything else, and so to me, an abatement facility is just a treatment plan.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No, as it's defined, it includes everything. It includes all the connections, it looks like it's a

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: So it's defined elsewhere in a different statute? Yes. Okay, because I did not find definitions for them on this statute. It's So that's okay, I can look it up, but if it's there, I I just wanted to make sure that we weren't leaving things out in report that are required by the general permit. Thank you. Okay, so with that,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think we're going to take a break to allow Mr. Grady to go do some drafting. Mr. Grady, do think it's reasonable to think that you could go draft this and come back to us maybe? Well, how much time do

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: you think you need?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I can do it in my minutes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So come back at 10:05? Sure.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: Okay. Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And then I think we will have ten minutes to go through the changes and have to actually look amazing. It's a great one. That's terrific. Alright. So we've got break till 10:00.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: How many extras do you have?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I have right now seven.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: Seven extras. You don't have any.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, wait. Okay. Never mind. That's good.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: I just wanna put it on the list. Okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's all about time. Just because people will start asking us to Yep. Yep. I think that's fair. Sorry. No. No. Thank you for that. Appreciate that.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: Where is center? Just take a minute.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't know where you guys sit.

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: Saw him outside of the house chamber.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Outside of the house chamber?

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: No, house chamber. Like outside your chamber? In the chair, yeah.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: Oh, I was on my way down. Okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just productive.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Curious. Okay, are you Oh, are we We are unmuted. Okay, amazing. So is Center of Natural Resources and Energy. Yes, since we're coming back from a break, we have a new draft of S212, and I'll turn it over to our legislative council to walk us through the changes.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is Mike DeGrady, just focusing on the changes. You can go to page four at the bottom of the page, line 16 through 17. The first page, line 16, is the change that wife's are pointed out instead of it saying license under this chapter, it says certified by licensed designer. And as you discussed earlier, licensed designers have turned the chapter. On page four, line 19, they address the concerns raised by news form and the town of Stowe about creating standards for determining capacity. It's been changed to the manual guidance for determining or defining capacity of the public. Sorry. Go ahead. And then on page five, with regard to the discretionary authority of the secretary to adopt general permits for other permits under the program, instead of the secretary, they adopt general permitting programs for other activities that in the prior current executive secretary determines our low risk, low impact, or low complexity.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Just wanted to pause there.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: I mean, Senator Bongartz. Just as a, I'm

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: sure you thought about the poor, more pain on the- I did. Did. And I and I I thinking that too. I was I was not sure. I also tried it out in the middle of the sentence, but it just didn't rewrite, and I I don't I I don't know what's the case. I don't know I didn't know the answer. Because you could you know, I'd like to play it. But I thought, you know, it could be low complexity, but high risk. Yeah. We want an and in there or do you

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: want to?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Could you live with an and? I apologize, I was

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: on the previous section. Oh, okay, sorry.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I think we'll actually, before we go on, did you have any thoughts or comments about anything you've talked about so far?

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: We're good? Yes. Okay. Like the line I just gave was a question

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: by the board. Great. And

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: so we're looking at page five, lines two and three.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: It be an and?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's the question. Could you live with an and there? Yes, that is. Okay. That would be fabulous.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, should I move on? Yes, please. Page seven. This is again changing the language about license under this chapter, the license to garnered.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: Mhmm.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And then last, page 11, the fees gave you 350 to $2.50 for the system or connection with a design below $2,000 per day per application. Okay. Any

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: further comments or questions about this before we move on to a vote? Can we vote? Changing that one word?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. If you vote, the parties Contingent. About change.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: Well, I'll make it right. Oh, that's right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We're gonna need a motion. Yes. I move

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: to approve that four of the 12 You mean

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: 6.1?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. 6.1. Yes. It's it's Yeah. Four because I've been marking my.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, I see. You're right. 6.1. Is

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is it's not a committee bill. Okay. Dated dated 02/06 at September and with a singular contingency or of 85 line, bringing you changing the word word to camp.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. We don't need a second. No. Okay. Okay. With that, call roll.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Senator Beck, yes. Senator Bongartz? Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Senator Herty? Yes.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Senator Williams? Yes. Senator Watson?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Super. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, everybody.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Because it has fees, it will go to finance. Is it okay if I refer to the chair?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Absolutely. I think it's gonna be me. Right? Yeah. Alright. Thank you, everybody. Yes. Yes.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: You get the.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, VNRC)]: No.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't think so. Is

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: that good? Yeah. Yeah. Why don't we set people around this afternoon? Oh, you definitely think. I'll I'll try this afternoon.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. I'll I'll finish up for a moment.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: We just wanna hear that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Good for you, mister Grady. Well, do you think this is gonna go to your formulations as well?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I I see the city,

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: know, I don't see my face.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: so we are changing topics, and we, a little while ago, saw a memo from the auditor about energy related to buildings and general services,

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: and we have folks from

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the BGS here with us, so welcome. Thank you for being here. If you'd like to, I don't know if you want to go one at a time, well, if not together, or how you'd like to do this and all of

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: Okay, we'll both sit together. Sure. That's great.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: Are you cold?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm fine.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: Yeah, you have to accept, I'll let you in the meeting, I'll make you co host so you can share the slides. Yeah. Thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Super. Thank you. Thank you for being here.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: Questions,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think this is your first time being here, if I'm not mistaken. So maybe we can take a minute to go around the room and introduce ourselves, and then we'll let you introduce yourselves and then take them.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Great. Hi, I'm Senator Ruth Hardy from the Addison District.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Terry Williams from the Brown District. In Washington District.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Seth Bongartz from the Bennington District. Scott Beck from the Connelly District.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: Hi, I'm Emily Kusicki. I'm Deputy Commissioner of Buildings and General Services.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: Good morning. Brian Stallone, the State Energy Program Manager of Department of Buildings and General Services.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great, go right ahead. Yes. So we

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: have put together a brief presentation. We saw we were slotted for fifteen minutes, so we're trying to keep it concise for you. And we're happy to come back or stay longer, at your pleasure. Just to start with a very brief overview of our program for those who might not be familiar. BGS houses an energy office, which I would like to call small but mighty. So it was established after ACT-one 178 in 2014, which set up the program. We refer to it as STEM, State Energy Management Program, which really started out with two revolving funds that were put into place to facilitate energy efficiency measures and increase the use of renewable energy in state facilities. There's some legislative history that I won't run through on here, but some of the highlights really are that the program envisions a partnership with Efficiency Vermont for this work. There are requirements in statute for the savings that we are required to achieve in energy savings annually. The program consists of four main staff. There are two administrative staff, which is Brian and a coordinator, and then there are two for program implementation. These are project managers that are, right now, they're housed in our design construction division. There's cross collaboration between the energy office folks and those construction focused project managers. There are also three other staff that recently joined the energy office to implement the Merck Municipal Energy Resiliency Program. I wanted to highlight there's hyperlinks in our presentation to annual reports. That's in the left side blue column. We do do annual reporting on the program. That's a joint report with Efficiency Vermont, as well as performance of those revolving funds. So walk through those, send copies if the hyperlinks aren't working for you, We'll talk about them in detail. We also have some other responsibilities associated with this small and mighty energy office, which includes EVs, deployment throughout the state, and then again, Mark, which I highlighted, and it's a big, huge program for us that we're very proud of.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: you, Amy. So for our process, this slide just highlights a really quick run through of the three main steps. The first one is data tracking and analysis. We use Energy Star Portfolio Manager as our tool to collect all the utility bills, so electricity, fuel, and so forth. That information kind of helps us determine which buildings are considered poor performers. They're leaky, right? They have a high energy use per square foot. So step two is to go out and conduct an energy audit of that facility. And so that can be anywhere from two hours to a full day or multi day, depending on the size of the facility. Recently we've been trying to tackle some of the correctional facilities because they are some of the biggest energy users that are also very difficult to work in. About 3,000,000 square feet of state owned, another million in lease space. I know the audit talked about lease space and we will go into some details on that a little bit later. And then really the last step is implementing projects. So deputy commissioner mentioned those two project managers under design construction. They are the staff that work to implement what the audit recommends as measures. So new lights, new insulation, new heating system, etcetera.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: Moving into the audit report. So the auditor's office announced an audit of the program last February. Just wanted to say at the top, we really appreciated working with our office. We felt like it was a collaborative and productive process. They requested data from 2016 to 2025 and some really detailed, like, level data that Brian worked with them to provide. They issued their report back in the January. There's a hyperlink to the report, but I imagine you might have a copy already. To very briefly summarize, it made several findings about deficiencies in the program and recommendations on how to improve. We provided a response to those findings. It's included in the report as appendix five. As just like a high level overview, we generally agreed with their findings and recommendations, and we responded with our plan steps and timelines to address those deficiencies that they highlighted. Some of those key areas of deficiency that they covered in the report dealt with how we track and address energy use for facilities that aren't owned by VGS. So VGS does not own all state facilities. The other major property owners include AOT and ANR, and that we weren't tracking addressing energy use for fuel use by vehicles. There were some findings around how we verify energy savings data. The number of energy efficiency projects that we've completed, particularly in recent years, and we'll go into why it's been low over the last few years, and then how we establish our baselines and report on progress towards the state agency energy programs.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: So as the deputy commissioner highlighted, one of the key items included data tracking as far as portfolio manager is concerned, we are able to go in and edit accounts that we have control over, but we rely on our partner agency staff and department staff to update their accounts as well. We know that that takes time. There's a burden to adding all this information every month. And so part of this is we're committed to looking at other ways that we can improve our data collection process. Currently Portfolio Manager is free. We have been looking into options that would include a software as a service license that would need to also include it in contamination of what budget resources are available. That would give us extra capabilities that would come at the cost. And then there are measurement and verification scopes of work that can go beyond what is currently used right now. So we do a spot check after the projects are completed. Yes, we install these measures, but as we all know, install and then over time set points can change. They're comfortable in a building and so they'll have maintenance change to temperature and we don't always know and so then measures aren't necessarily performing the way they were installed. So to go to the next level of measurement and verification would also require additional resources which we can look into what that would, impact the program to hire out for additional contractors that go in and do that specific verification work. So the SAEP is the report that the auditors mentioned needing to get back on track, totally agree. We want to submit that on the biannual schedule. We also want to look at opportunities to update the reporting requirements and the program requirements because 2014 is a while back now, right? We know a lot has changed.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Before we go on, so for that SAEP, first of all, SAEP is an acronym, state.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: Agency energy plan. Okay. Yes, thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yep, and then have a '26 report current release by the '27, and then that would get you back on track for at least the most recent biennium?

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: That's

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: correct. Okay, great, thank you.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: So on the next slide, one of

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: the other

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: areas was we sort of teed up with the SAP, the State Agency Energy Plan is updating program statute and baselines. So one of the things that the audit mentioned is that baselines don't exist in some cases and in some statutes they don't line up with the same goal. I think there are a number of things that have changed over the years about the state's emissions reduction targets, savings targets. And so what we want to do is work with our partner agencies like AOT and ANR to find out, okay, where can we improve our measures of success? Is saving $150,000 a year, which is the current target, does that really line up with getting us on track to our overall state goals? Does that need to shift? Because that hasn't been changed since 2014. They also mentioned project bundling and meeting overall savings requirements. We agree that there was an example that they mentioned of combining two buildings under one project, which we typically don't do. That was a one off and we acknowledge that's not in keeping with best practices. So part of our reevaluation is going to look at talking with our design and construction team, how can we update our standard operating procedures? I will mention that that one off hasn't happened before or since. So we do generally try not to do that.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: Just to add though, currently the statute requires every single measure meet those savings requirements. At times we have tried to bundle projects to reduce disruption from construction projects and then have some greater efficiencies gains through multiple measures. And so that was one of the findings was that when we bundles and the example that they gave, every single measure didn't meet that individual savings requirement. And so that is inconsistent with statute. And so that's an area where now we'll address that by revising our procedures, but then also look at and evaluate whether there are any recommendations to be made around allowing for bundling where it can provide some efficiencies?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Apologize. Can you describe what it is that you're bundling? Is it the accountability for different types of measures? If you could go into

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: that just a little bit.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: Yeah. Things like changing out lights to LEDs, right? That has a pretty quick payback on that investment. Replacing a boiler or facility heating system or facility wide cooling system, that takes a little bit more time. And so what we would do is look at the audit recommendation, is sort of the, you know, doctor's report for the building, suits and us, yep, you need more insulation here, change out of your lights all the way through, you've got to replace this heating system, it's on its last couple years, that's really expensive. These will pay back faster by bundling measures together. One, as the deputy commissioner mentioned, we save on construction costs because we're not going back doing the lights this year, doing the installation next year. You try and bundle it together and some of the measures that pay back faster help make the overall loan package for that project more attractive. So it helps ensure that we're also getting done some of the critical infrastructure upgrades that are more expensive.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's good. So just to continue then, and the problem is?

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: It's inconsistent, statute, that individual measures must make yearly savings pressures under our revolving fund programs.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So how do you ever do, I understand

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: what

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: you're saying, how do you ever do something like a boiler event?

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: It becomes very difficult and we don't want to leave those items on the table because they also come with a lot of emissions reduction targets if we're able to fuel switch from oil to biomass or to those.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: And that's exactly what Brian was sort of reviewing when he said we want to look at the program and make sure that the language that was put in place back in 2014 is still consistent with our goals. So certainly cost savings goals, and that is a stated goal of the program, energy cost savings goals, that's important. But then there are those larger projects that can drive efficiencies and energy reductions that might not necessarily meet those requirements for cost savings, at least in those early years. So it might be more of a life cycle savings than that first year savings, and that's where we're seeing some challenges.

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: I just wanted to leave

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: an asterisk. I have a high interest in that. So would love to collaborate if that's useful.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: So anyway, for the future.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: So on the next slide, there are three other areas. The first one was staffing. So the deputy commissioner mentioned that the audit talked about the reduction in number of projects completed, especially in recent years. There have been significant staffing challenges regarding specifically those two project manager consortions. We are really pleased to announce that we have both of those positions filled as of January 2026. So we did a lot of energy audits during COVID, kind of a nice time because the buildings are empty to even move a lot faster, but those haven't translated into completed projects yet. So there's a pipeline of projects that we want to get moving with these two new staff on board. But there were almost two years where we didn't have project managers.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: So it's the dedicated project managers and then other BGS staff too. Not trying to make excuses, just noting the design and construction division has been focused on flood response and other priorities. And so unfortunately, again, this is an area where with staffing constraints and then just capacity constraints, frankly, we're not doing the level of projects that is described as all

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: of vote, we're really not just in case we get the chance to build, that we'll be able to move forward.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: Probably also not a surprise, costs of projects went way up after COVID.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Did she? Have I get ARPA money for some of these projects though or not? I remember putting ARPA money to something like this. It's for the Merck program.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: It's for the Merck program. Yeah, okay. Which is? The municipal Does

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: that still have money in it or is it all extended?

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: It is all obligated.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I assume there's more demand. One of you could imagine trying to recapitalize that at some point, but if it came from ARPA, that's

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: The audit also mentioned working to improve efficiency in lease space. That has been part of the program since 2014, but it's been really difficult to get private property owners to standardize lease agreements. That's something that I think our Director of Planning and Property Management would also agree that it's been a challenge, last year we did start working with our property management team and leasing agents to at least begin the data collection process so we can understand a little bit more how these leases vary. They do vary from the mom and pop property owner all the way up to major companies that we are trying to standardize practices of collecting energy data and how do we implement projects and buildings that we don't own. It does get complicated, but we are committed to working with our leasing

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: team to figure that out.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Are you encountering any resistance to being able to access that data from the inwards? I'm not aware of any resistance.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: I don't think it's probably just, again, a challenge getting data in a form that is easy to standardize. And then I'll say too, again, we've had procedures in place since 2014, but have fallen short really on implementing those and making sure that there really is a focus on the least space. And just in terms of prioritization, have been focusing again, those dollars for projects on state owned infrastructure. But in response to the audit, we're committed to looking at those procedures again, making sure that they're updated as needed, and then ways that we can better implement them.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: Then the last one on this slide is regarding vehicle emissions. So we've had updates at AGS Fleet management. We know that there are probably some coordination items that we can improve upon in terms of collecting vehicle emission data and fuel use. So part of the commitment as responsive to audit is to work with our fleet team to do a better job collecting and understanding the vehicle emission data, as well as continuing to deploy the life of people supply equipment charging stations at state facilities as part of the state's overall goal of reducing transportation emissions. Good.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: The $150,000

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: energy savings, was that just for BGS buildings or was that supposed to be for all state buildings?

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: For any project that we implement through the program in a state only?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. 150 was I thought it was an annual number. It is. It is an annual number. Okay. So it would include AOT? We wouldn't do AOT particular project there. Okay. But I understand it's important when you're not overseeing those properties.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: And same thing with vehicles. BBS oversees the passenger fleet, but we don't have jurisdiction over all state vehicles, and so as noted, we will work to coordinate with AOT and other agencies, departments that manage vehicles directly to try

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to better capture fuel use data. The statute that you are trying to meet with the energy savings, that just applies to BGS and not to AMT, let's say?

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: The program is under BGS, so we administer the program and those two revolving funds.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So at this point, AOT is under no obligation to find energy savings to meet, well, I I know we have perhaps other statutes that might apply, but yeah, sorry, go ahead.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: So if I can offer an example, so in the earlier years of SEM, the State Energy Management Program, we had fish factories with ANR take advantage of our revolving loan to do efficiency upgrades. There are some AOT projects that we've worked with them on their facilities. We stopped getting applications I noticed in the files from ANR and we asked and they said, Oh, we just, we ended up getting our own budget line item to do some of this work. So they stopped needing to rely on the loan fund that we have, but they were still working on their own projects. These funds are available to work with other state agencies, but they might also be, I'm sure they are working on projects on their own

[Karen Horn (Green Mountain Water Environment Association)]: facilities as Okay, and the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: number of applications to use those, I assume the revolving loan fund monies has slowed down.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: We do have a project pipeline that has slowed for a couple of reasons, even within the buildings that we own and manage because of staffing, but also the project costs exceeding what the savings rate. If the savings are what they are and the fuel price isn't really changing when you're lining up that loan, but the contractor comes back with 2x, 3x labor costs and other things, design fees, we build a contingency, but sometimes that's not meeting their new labor rates. It's very difficult to get a project approved within the required payback. So we want items to pay back within the life of the equipment. And then with regards to the fund under the treasurer's office, they have a maximum amount that we can can borrow. That's helpful.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: Thank you. I think it's fair

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to say, right, a large squeeze for others. Okay.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: So we just had a few closing thoughts that are sort of outside the scope of the audit that we just wanted to share updates about our program, if that's okay, but we're happy to stay on audit findings if you have more questions.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Let's do this and then we can So go to

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: we wanted to highlight again some of the other work that Seth just done. I'll let you go.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: In 2019, we launched a pilot program for flexible load management. This is the first of its kind. It's really trying to match our energy use at facilities with the time on the grid where renewables like solar are really peaking. So we know that the way energy use works is we've got that curb and a lot of things come on towards the end of the day. That's the most expensive energy you're gonna buy from the grid. And so if we can shift the energy use earlier in the day by preheating or precooling buildings and then turning motors off, can post the comfort level where it needs to be, but that's a primary concern for the folks in the building, but you're really reducing your energy use by a significant amount and you can get paid credits back for participating. Green Mountain Power worked with us on peak notifications, so with really an investment of $38,005 to upgrade some software, allow the existing building technology to communicate with the peak notification alerts that utility sends out, we can start saving thousands of dollars every year and that's for as long as we participate in the program and it's already paid itself back, which is a really good example of something new it wasn't probably envisioned in 2014 when they were designing the program. It's not quite the same as changing out lights, but there are real savings there. And there are emission reductions with that as well, because the peaking hours are some of the dirtiest hours on the grid. So that was an example we wanted to highlight. We're continuing to enroll in new buildings. We started with Waterbury, we've enrolled Brattleboro, Bennington, one hundred thirty three State, and we're continuing to look at other opportunities to bring buildings into that project. Fuel switching. So when we look at the Middlesex Central Services Building in 2016, our audit indicated that the oil system was at end of life. And even though it really leveraged a lot of the SMRF fund, the goal here was also to get the facility off of oil and transition to biomass as part of the state's emissions reduction target. So we wanted to be able to have the flexibility to work towards both goals, get savings, the project does pay for itself over the life of the equipment, but also has some carbon reduction involved as well. And then last on transportation emissions, we're working with Fleet. We've gotten, I two or three rounds of one time money for the implementation of charging stations. We are continuing to roll those out. So when I joined BGS in 2019, we had about eight stations. We're up to 35 and counting. And we know from the internet connected capabilities we can monitor charging sessions and how they're being used and recover costs with adjustments to our cost recovery rate. So there's a lot of things that have changed in the energy space since 2014 and the program I think can be flexible enough to try and meet some of those changes, but perhaps there's also an opportunity to update some of

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: the statutory requirements. Some examples of those charging stations. Brian was talking about a rate here on owner eight now that we put in. Lastly, we just wanted to highlight the Merck program. Again, this is a new significant program that was put under the energy office. I think Brian has copies of where the projects are located. If you're interested in a listing, you have the maps that show where the projects were located. What was

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the total funding through ARPA funds?

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: So we had $35,900,000 dedicated to projects. We got plenty of applications in and we awarded 126 municipalities for a total of two forty six buildings. That's every dollar obligated across the state. And with the applications we received, there's another £90 and $33,000,000 in unfunded efficiency projects from the auditing process that we went through. So we did conduct assessments at five thirty one municipal buildings in a year, which was a pretty significant amount of work, but it's what allowed us to look at all of the need across these towns.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: And there is again, a hyperlink on here to the annual report, and it's also filed on the legislative website. The report section, but we're happy to provide it broadly to which is hard to locate. So just a parting thought. Again, the audit, we view it as a learning opportunity. We welcome feedback and it's time for a good conversation about this program and how can help to be better both internally and whether there are any guidelines that we should update.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is this just

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: They are individualized. So we

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: divided them up by your

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think I have your list. Well, that's amazing. Thank you. Wow, it's personalized.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: When both see the map, usually the first question is my question too, is okay what about my pen?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, wow this is great. So

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: you can take a snapshot in time right now to do all the buildings, but for the subjects you have do you have any kind of physical medicine, see what you just need?

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: First day, so it makes

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: Rather than throwing out a guess, I would probably come back with more Just curious.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Because the longer we wait, the more expensive it's gonna be.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't have any questions. I guess I want to express my gratitude for your participation with the editor, accepting the feedback, for identifying, all right, so these are ways that things can change. I think that's fabulous. And also, I am hearing you that there's a need to relook at the statute to make some adjustments. I'm here next year, which is like I would love to collaborate on.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Were these awards granted?

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: Award obligations were signed December 2024, and then they have until the end of this year. The state has until the end of this year to extend all funds, so we have been doing quarterly project check ins by town with the RPCs to make sure they stay on track.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: What do

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: you mean '25?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: They were issued in December 25

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: or '25?

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: No. Obligated '24. December 2024 is when we signed all the agreements. And then last year, had historic review, took the first six months to get through get every project through that process. So that brought us to June 25, which is when we really

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: started this eighteen months. And

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: this is all ARPA money?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's correct. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And then to Senator Watson's point about the changes in the statute, you're still working on that. You don't have anything for us right now to

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: We don't have any proposals ready at this time. That was one of our commitments in the audit response, it was something we were already starting to talk about. What needs updating and sort of the conversation is now being pushed. We're really taking a deep look at the program. And so again, we don't have any formal recommendations ready at this time, but think that it's a good time

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: for conversation about updates. Super. Any further comments or questions? Okay. Thank you so much. Really delightful to see the projects that are happening.

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: So, thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So we're gonna change it. We're a little bit behind schedule, still got forty five minutes, which is not hand terrible.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: And we talked about this for forty five minutes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You want less, that's okay too. We have deputy commissioner with us. Welcome.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: Good morning, everybody. It's very nice to see you all. I would love to plug in. Can someone plug me into where it's such a thing that exists?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, great.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: You know, I'll just jump in on this one when need be. I will log in for you. Okay. So, all right. Good morning everybody and for the record. So my name is Neil Hammond. I'm the deputy commissioner of DEC. We've done that before. I really appreciate my first visit with you all, although I've spoken to a number of you kind of over the course of the fall and so forth, and really appreciate that. I think nominally my task today is to report back to you based on a letter you received from auditor Poffer having to do with Dan Sachin. So I'm fully prepared to do that. And I think on the schedule also is some remarks around s two thirteen, which senator Hardy is your bill on metering. So I invited mister Redmond to join me on that as well. I'm somewhat read in and he's more read in, so a lot of dialogue. So happy to do that. And then if there's time the chair wishes, we can talk about any other topics that you might want to ask me about that I have going to propose having to do with the Sydney Parliament.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Okay, so I'll take you when?

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: Great, okay. So let's talk about the dam audit. Dieloff received a letter from author Hoffer a few days ago. The department wasn't copied on the letter, so we had no idea until June reached out and asked us to come on down and provide testimony. Of course, we're happy to do that at any time. It kind of took us a little by surprise, so I see a couple of you reading Secretary Moore's response to the auditor, because we have done, the auditor is right, we have not promulgated the phase two rules that are required. The phase two rules for dam safety are going to be the rules that essentially say that if you own a dam and you need to maintain the dam, there are certain specifications that you will need to adhere to, how a dam is built, how it is maintained. So the phase one rules went into effect back in 2022, right at the same time as the audit subject to this letter was completed for us. And we had successfully promulgated the phase one rules, and what those do is they refine exactly how we determine how safe or unsafe a dam is, or how much risk that dam does or does not pose, and understand those are two different things. A dam could be in exquisitely perfect condition, but still be a very bihazard facility were it to fit, right? Which is why we're doing a lot of work on our big dams like Brightsville and Waterbury, we'll talk a little bit more about that. So those dam safety rules define, you know, how we determine risk, how we determine condition, how often an owner is required to go over and confirm the condition of the dam, and how often the owner is required to assess the quality of the dam. Phase two rules will dictate exactly what the owner needs to do with technical specificity. So actual engineering specifications, think the storm water manual, it's that it's gonna be that kind of rulemaking. So there are big rules and they're complex, and because there are about 900 privately owned dams out there, there are about 900 owners out there that will be affected in one way or the other by these rules. So it's worth doing it right. And it doesn't mean that our program has gone slowly in doing it. So let me talk a little bit before I get to the schedule for implementing these rules, but just to fast forward, we'll be filing ICAR this summer for those rules. So, but I'll be happy to show you the entire schedule, the Gantt chart and everything. But beforehand, I kind of want to go to the defense of the team and what they've worked on

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: and what they've done.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: So we propagated those rules in 2022. At that time, as a result of ARPA funding provided in 2021, the program had just barely grown from two full time staff, I'll let you think about that for a moment, two full time staff to manage 100 state owned dams, our major blood control facilities, and 1,000 regulated dams in the state. We went from two two permanent positions plus three limited service positions that came from ARPA and from a $5,000,000 appropriation of dollars associated with our general fund, but they were freed up by all those ARPA dollars and it was an opportunity to make the investment in the game safety program, which is great. So we got them all on staff, but we got it all started and then July 2023 happened. You will all remember if you live in this area right here, what the news was about the possible overtopping of the Wrightsville Reservoir. The actual precise terminology would be that the water would rise high enough to access the auxiliary emergency spillway, which is purpose built for that reason. But that was big news, And there were a lot of dams, small dams that got damaged out there. And our team during 2023 had to be on-site monitoring Wrightsville, Eastbury, and Waterbury. So three licensed PEs, three major dams to be monitored during the flood rate. So that was a big thing, and then all of the follow-up that happened as a result of 2023 in order to help owners who are seeking assistance from FEMA to recover, right? So damage assessments, specifications for what they would need to do. Anyway, you've heard me talk about, you've heard us talk about 2023 before, and of course then twenty twenty four happened, right? And so wash, raise, repeat, a similar set of circumstances. And in addition to that, throughout my tenure on, so I've had the opportunity to interact with committees in the building back since 2018 when I was asked to serve in the leadership team as a policy advisor, right? And one of the things that Secretary Norfelt really strongly about and that we have forthrightly pursued is to right size the dam safety program to the magnitude of the needs. And the needs are really significant, it's not simply making the rules, there's a lot more that they're doing. So in addition to those ARPA dollars, the tale of projects that need capital investment or maintenance and operation investment is substantial. We provide testimony to the capital committees on that on a regular basis, and the capital committees answer and they provide funding to make safe Vermont's own dams. We have really significant projects going on. The biggest is the Watervary Dam Spillway Project, that's capital investment of $76,000,000 It's a federally run project in partnership with the US Army Corps of Engineers. I was testifying on it in house corrections institutions yesterday. And the news there is really good, Terry. We're building a robust funding staff, we're achieving more advantageous match rates, and we're pursuing the project. And that's a really big demand on some of the engineers. Now at the same time as all that's happening, after 2023, the Flood Safety Act happens, so we do get additional positions. So we're finally up to bench strength in that program. Nine positions in the program, seven filled at this point. One of our project managers just left, which is a real bummer because he was doing a great job doing things like managing Waterbury, again, contract procurement and so forth. It's a really cool job, we'll replace it, I'm not worried about it. Engineering on the other hand is really hard to get. And I think if the GIS folks were gonna talk about procurement of projects, they would talk about the difficulty in engineering capacity out there. It's hard for the state to compete with private sector from a money perspective, but when we do get engineers, they're really like mission driven So people that's in addition to managing the capital funds that come from the capital committees and the Waterbury Dam Spillway Project, the team's also been super active up at Wrightsville, and you're gonna be the first to hear this, on deck for signature by Commissioner Sensigalli or myself is an agreement with the Army Corps to begin the feasibility evaluation of Derrick Wrightsville to figure out how to improve the plumbing so that we can take more water out of it before the next flood. That's a really substantial beneficial win. It took us almost three years to get the corps to be ready to sign an agreement,

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: the Autumn of Engineers.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: No one's with the capacity, they have incredible engineering. And in the midst of all that, you might also have heard of, you know, dams that have risks imposed on them by natural conditions like beavers, building dams on top of state owned dams, and the tensions that that creates. Think Inman Pond in your district is one, Bristol Pond is another in your district where there's these conflicts that the program has to deal with. As a result of acts 121, we were also tasked with a legislative study committee on emergency action planning and emergency operations deployment for when dams might fail. That was a priority of representative Mahali, and it's actually translated itself into a new bill with Mr. Mahali and representative Chapin on implementing pilot projects to help little towns know how to respond when a dam that's upstream of them might fail. And it's an important piece of work. So the dam safety team carried forward, I helped start it, and then that project manager guy finished it for me. That the dam safety emergency operation planning study for Navita happened over the course of the last eighteen months. And you all are aware of Green River Reservoir, which the program received one time funds and was tasked with implementing a feasibility evaluation and an assessment of what it would mean for the state to own Green River Reservoir. And they just put a fine point on it, I'm not, know, because I feel like I need the defendantees a little bit, right? That report would require to be privileged because it contains essentially critical national scale critical energy information, right, that we can't share. The actual report is 800 pages long of highly technical information. It was led by our engineer Andrew Samsell, is his name. He did an amazing, amazing job. This guy is so quiet and confident. And took that and turned it into the 20 page legislative report with options that you all have received. That'll happen during the summer. And in the meantime, the program is also issuing dam orders which are essentially permits for the reconstruction of dams or the construction of new dams, a snowmaking pond or something like that. So those people have a lot going on, and at the same time they have been, you know, advancing the rulemaking. So here's the schedule for the rulemaking. They're being drafted now, internally being reviewed through March. We are planning stakeholder groups. We did stakeholder groups in phase one, really robust stakeholder groups, dam owners, regulated dams, power dams, environmental advocates, all of that. That's planned for April. We're going to do a peer review, we did that with the phase one rules by the National Association of Dam Safety Operators. That's our national dam safety chief engineer organization, right? Will, maybe this is a service they provide and we will subject the phase two rules to their peer review, which is great, it's down suspenders. And we anticipate public meetings for July. And then I said ICOT in summer, so anticipated September, and then that sets the process going. So we would like to get there somewhere between December and March of the coming year. Last year in oh, it's probably up there somewhere. There's a bill that ended up getting stuck to the wall up there and it had some date amendments for this rulemaking. We didn't even we figured there was no point in asking you for any more time. We're just gonna put our foot down on an accelerator pedal and get it done as best we can. So that's what the program has been up to. I can also, if you wish, let you know a little bit about the engagement that the program had with the auditor's office over the past few weeks. I In past few weeks?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Recently. Yes. Okay.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: I'd be happy to let you know about that, but it kinda, I mean, it doesn't really matter, what matters is what the program is doing, so you tell me if you wanna hear about it, I'll tell you about it, if not, no biggie.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Did see some memo, but yeah, that would be helpful, that would be great. Okay. So

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: every year as a follow-up to an audit, the auditor's office, and they have, I forget the gentleman's name, they have two auditors doing the audit. They're excellent, super professional people, like really fair, really clear, I need this to prove that, it's good. I've been through five or six audits with the auditors, so I really appreciate it. The team does a very nice job there. And every year they send out a letter and they say, well, is what your management letter said, this is what our recommendations are, how you doing on these? So every year we respond to that. In September, on the September 26 of this year, we provided the three year follow-up. I have all these documents, if you would like them, I'm happy to file them, but I have them all. We received a number of questions based on that, which were answered upon November 4. On the November 25, they were asking more about the phase two rules, so we sent the rule making schedule, the complete rule making schedule to them, a Gantt chart, again they can show it to you if you want, but I can walk through it thoroughly. On New Year's Day, the chief data safety engineer Ben Green had a call with the auditor's staff to address a number of really specific questions. I have them, I'm not gonna guess them all to you, but we had a call on the news, Eve, with the other's office. And on the fifth, we sent two further documents to them, an updated rule schedule and also a dam safety program staffing assessment, which they had asked about. So that NASDO organization kind of has model, know, model staffing models for how a dam safety program should be structured based on the portfolio of dams, the amount of money and all that. And so we provided that. So I lost contact with the auditor's office, was the January 5. I appreciate their engagement very much. They do good things, they look at the law, you're supposed to do this, they ask questions about how you do it, we answer the best we can. You all, especially those of you who live downstream of flood control facilities, do sleep better because Mr Green is doing his job, he is incredible. He really is. But, you know, as I said, we were a little surprised by the letter. That's why secretary Moore felt compelled to respond, but this is all the work we've been doing in the interim. So that's that's that's what I'd like to offer you about about that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Kind of commissions, but I'm sorry. Senator Williams? No. No. You go.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Senator Williams. Basically, text everything downstream. Think of them, you know, the private landowners. The idea is when they're gonna know what they have to do or do they already know it. Well, so that's

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: part of that's part of the outreach and why it's like why it's important to actually take a little bit of time to do that outreach. One of the things the program was really good about in phase one was not only working with stakeholders, but sending notification to every owner of every dam. They're required to register with us, they actually have fees that they pay every year. They're nominal unless you have a high hazard day, in which case it's a thousand dollars a year. And in exchange for that, they receive services from the program in terms of inspections. So we know all the owners, so we know where they are, we know who they are, and we can contact them directly. So when Ben says public meeting in July, he means is we're going to send letters to everybody, we're going to let people know and make ourselves available so that folks understand These are consequential to owners of dams. It is not cheap to own a piece of infrastructure like that, especially one that poses risk to downstream landowners.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Is there any, because I know I've been, I've had a couple of landlords reach out and you know, public private partnership, funding grants that are available. Yep. Is that gonna be you know, I know they're all of them are looking right now for for grants

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: to do the work. Yeah. So as part of act 121, one of the provisions of act 121 was the passage of a revision to what had been the emergency unsafe DANS loan fund, which had a nominal amount of money, think $800,000 sat in there for many years. On the tail end of 2023, we used some of it to help an owner in Williams to have very low income La Mancha with the dam on their property. To get it dewatered, we basically issued a forgivable loan to them to get that work done. Act 121 revised the authority around that to give us the authority to make loans to either remove or restore damage. And as part of that policy, there's some requirements around, you know, if you're going to restore a dam, there's some requirements around the assessment of alternatives, including whether it would be safer and less expensive for that dam not to be there versus be there. So that fund is capitalized with $4,500,000 Part of this rulemaking package is the rules for accessing the fund for either removal actions or restoration actions that are non emergency. If there's an emergency, if your constituent has a ban and it's failing like the Tenney Grove in Downtown Rutland when the fire chief dealt with that, we can put those dollars to work immediately for

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: that. So

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: that fund has $4,500,000 in it. When was it capitalized with that?

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: The 2023 session, so fiscal twenty twenty

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And you haven't spent any of it yet? No. Because you're waiting on the rules.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: Yeah, and there has been an emergency situation that required us to follow.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I thought it was for non emergency situations, I thought you just said non emergency.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: It's for both. So in order to use it for non emergency situations, the Act 121 requires that we incorporate into rule provisions for access. For emergency, we could access it at any time.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so I think I recall last session testimony about your role situation and timeline. And didn't we extend some of the deadlines for these things? And it was an extension, maybe it was last session. Yeah, last session, we did it. And I think it was till September.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: I should have looked to see what the current due date is. We're obviously passive. Yeah. For the reasons I just articulated.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, I mean, think it does feel a little deja vu y here and concerning. I mean, the whole communication stuff aside, if I, I mean, session you told us you don't have enough staff, can't do this because you don't have enough staff. This session I'm hearing, you've been fully staffed for a while, but you're still not on track to do the rules, even in the extended rulemaking timeline. And so I find that pretty concerning. And there's $4,500,000 sitting in the fund that we could have been using that we can't use until you have the rules. So while I appreciate that you have been doing something, but you're not on track. And I guess with all this stuff you said, I didn't hear enough to convince me that there's not enough of an excuse. You should be on more on track. You have the staff, you have the money, you had an extended deadline, and you're still coming back to us a year later and saying, Oh, sorry, we're not doing it. We haven't done it.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: I would like to invite you to visit Waterbury Dam with Easter Green and have a tour of the facility to understand the magnitude of infrastructure that he manages on our behalf.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I hear that, but this is about the rules you need to make in order to run the entire program for the state.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: And it's about prioritization of resources to protect the public safety of Vermonters. If, you know, you are right and I'm not disagreeing, but that team has a very wide portfolio of work and is finally at capacity now. We have the schedule in front of you, that's the best that the program can do and we're going to do it. But I'm, and I will take any hit that you'd like in terms of disappointment over pace. That said, I can't speak highly enough of what they do to when they respond to something that's failing.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I hear that.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: Or an

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: owner that needs help.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I hear that, but I recall a conversation, multiple conversations in this room and conversations with you out in the hall last year. Do you need staff? Do you need more things in order to stay on track for this? We extended the deadline. If you needed more time last year and more staff and more resources, we were game for that conversation. We had that conversation last year, and it's still not done, or still not on track. So maybe the answers you provided last year were not adequate, I don't know, but

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: There's a bill on the wall behind you that had a data extension that didn't end up happening, And I did not ask to revisit those as part of bill age six thirty two, which is on municipal amendments, because I would prefer to put the energy into the team just moving these rules forward. So you're right, we haven't gotten one done and we will. And at the same time, that team is also going to do amazing work protecting public safety.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I totally hear that. I just wanted to be able to, when you come in here and say, we're going to get this done by this time, we don't need more staff, we

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: don't need more money, which is what

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you said last year, that was my recollection. And then you're coming back this year and saying, actually,

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: we couldn't get them done in the amount

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: of time. I want to have trust in canoeing in your department and the agency. And that's I'm, it feels like you told us one thing last year, now you're like, well, actually.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: I'd like to look at, I'd love to, I can't remember the bill number, but look up the date, because it's a number and see what it was

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: asking for, because we may have nobody did extend it.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: He didn't? The bill got There were other things that caused that remaining piece of the bill to stay on the wall. And instead of asking for more time, I just figured I'd come in here and tell you what we've been

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: doing. Okay, we didn't extend. Remember having that conversation, so if we

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: did Two not to three years ago, the day was Okay, so

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: last session we did not.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: Last year we did.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, that's what I recall that we did, but that bill never got over the finish line, so I apologize, cause that's what I was recalling. I wasn't here two to three years ago. I wasn't in this room two to three years ago, but the conversation I remember having was about extending those dates. And I remember asking you, do you need more staff? Do you need more money? And your answer was no. So if we didn't actually end up extending the dates, I stand corrected.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: We're gonna get it done.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, well, I just wanna make, I hear you that you're trying to prioritize more dangerous situations, more priority situations, but to have it be this long without the rules is not acceptable. So I can offer that. So I'm looking at an email from the auditor with the dates. So the legislature initially required D. C. To adopt these rules by July 2022, but granted extensions first to July 24 and then to July 25, and last year, ANR testified that they would adopt rules in '26. Now, from the timeline you're describing it, realistically we're looking at '27.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: The right now they're going to ICARB this summer.

[Brian Stallone (State Energy Program Manager, BGS)]: I call that '26.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: Fair

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: enough. As opposed to like, I guess I was thinking like the adoption, like the end of the process being raised in. But if we're filing them in twenty sixth, I have one additional thought to Senator Hardy's comments. Because I'm trying to think of like solutions because one possibilities of that could happen is that we, I mean, very much hoping that we have no major flooding this

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: summer, That

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: would be amazing.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: 07/10/2026.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: If that does happen, and then rightfully your staff is, your attention is drawn to doing these other things, I'm wondering about the usefulness of contracting out the service to get these finalized. I don't know if that's realistic, but just dedicating some, you know, limited service, or contract money, or something to say, this is your only job, so that if or when floods come, that they are not pulled into the massive effort to revisit? Would something like that be useful?

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: The team did look into contracting. Okay. They did? Yep. I don't have not read into why But it's not taken as an

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's close. Okay. I mean, if that's something that, because I will just say that is something that I would push for on appropriations to get it done, if that is something that would ensure that it happens, especially in the light of other work needing to continue, and fully respect that that is important and needs to happen also. So, just want to offer that. Okay.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: I can report back.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, sure, that'd be great. And then another thought, and it sounds like this is not necessary, but I, you know, especially with rules taking a long time. And I hear you that it is a major set of rules to put together. Is that relatively accurate? Yes. It's a big lift to put this together. Wondering, you know, I think I'm like backing away from my own thinking, but just in the spirit of like, I'm just trying to think out loud, you know, does it make sense to say, well we have this chunk of it done and so let's get this part done that we think is complete and we're still working on these other parts.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: That could be a possibility, but you know, let me, I'm going to obviously ask my team, if they're not already listening online right now, my team to you know review this section of our conversation and give you some feedback.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And I hesitate to even bring that up because I want

[Emily Kusicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: the whole rules, you know, I'm not

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: all of it. Oh, I get it. So, but I also want progress.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: So,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: feeling that tension. Yes.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: You mentioned Tenney work. Is that part of their world's global restoration plan?

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: Tenney is not, I don't believe Tenney was stormwater impaired. Not in May, it's kind of been riding on the edge, right, but that project wasn't. Mean that was that was the failure on Tenney Brook was like a damn, an imminent damn failure that your fire chief along with Bennington did an amazing piece of work. Storyline on that, this was Halloween of twenty, oh, nineteen, twenty, twenty one, and big, big rainstorm. The program had been already keeping track of this particular dam. The fire chief noticed movement in one of the abutments called up my, you know, called up Ben, he went down there, they conferred and realized that this thing was sort of an imminent failure, came back, trying to figure out how to get the damn safe, the unsafe loan fund activated to help the owner who had very, very few resources like the CEO of them. Meanwhile, the storm intensified and the thing went and nearly failed. So they got yellow machines out there, the city took care of it. I think we did some reimbursement post hoc. The city went out there with the dam safety program. As they started to knock the thing down, one of the apartments literally swung out and began to fail in real time while they were remediating the sand. So I'm not it was not a high hazard plot stand, means that that wasn't going to cause imminent failure, but there was roads downstream, culverts, all of that stuff that you know.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: That was in the town between the two.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: The dam is actually involved though.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: In town? Okay. Anyway, sorry, just a sidebar, but.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, thank you. Any other thoughts or comments on this aspect? No. Okay, all right, thank you. And we do appreciate the work that that team is doing. So,

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: I appreciate the work the auditor does to hold folks to account, but that's okay. We're all public servants here and that's what we do.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So, we're all working from home. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Now we only have ten minutes.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: My time is yours, whatever

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you Well, was wondering because I would love to have more of an opportunity to talk, because it is worth hearing you on 02:13. The bell's gonna start ringing before 11:30. How fast or short is your

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: I can give you a real high line on 02:13, if you'd like, know, could probably give you five minutes on 02/13 that would be helpful.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, that would be great.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: Can I invite Mr?

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: Redmond to join me? Sure, yes.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: So H213, sorry, he needs both.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer)]: No, no, no.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Sensing, connecting,

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, DEC)]: aspects to it, right? So it's fundamentally, a decision as to whether or not to implement smart metering and when a municipality does implement smart metering, whether a landowner can opt out of smart metering and whether they should incur costs associated with that. DEC has no position one way or another on that. That is a it's sort of a transaction that happens between the water supplier, whether it's municipality or the public water system, and its rate payers. That said, and Brian can tell you why, metering is good. The information is good. The information from smart metering, I think it's slightly better than the information from standard meters because you see a timeliness of flow and when the water needs to be used and things like that. And then the other piece is cyber infrastructure protections for public water suppliers. So here, what I've learned, and I'll turn it over to Brian, is that the state under the agency of digital services has a committee in place right now looking at cyber infrastructure protections or cyber protections for all sectors of infrastructure. DEC does not yet have the capacity, the understanding of cyber to tell large suppliers what kind of cyber protections they need to put in place, nor frankly do we have the technical expertise in house to even like guide that. Furthermore, that EPA is not yet providing its guidance to privacy states, so states that implement the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements, on what states are supposed to tell their regulated public entities to do cyber wise. So we're feeling a little bit, it's important, cyber protection is important. Maybe go talk to the folks in Virginia about their water plants sometime. And I think we need some help from ADS before we would know what to propagate. And I think we're not quite there yet. And let me turn it over to you to add some more flavor to that.

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: For the record, Brian Rutland, Director of Drinking Water, Groundwater Protection and Prevention. I think that pretty well summarizes that. I think my chief recommendation here is to hear from the agency of digital services and the work that the cybersecurity advisory council are engaged in, but again, looking at it across all critical infrastructure sectors with a specific representative for the water sector. I think you all heard from Joe Duncan, who's the general manager for Champlain Water District is the industry rep for the water sector on the advisory council. In my understanding and consultation with ADS, this work is moving forward as we speak and they're working through their strategic plan, holistically, but also sector specific. So I think our chief recommendation is to make sure that they are consulted as part of this. There's some concern about singling out the water sector here, the ability for ANR to really make meaningful cybersecurity guidance and the municipalities to adequately receive that guidance and be able to react to that guidance. They're not all created equal in terms of public water systems. There's four zero two currently public water systems in the state. And we've gone through a process to kind of tier them based on cyber risk. And we've done that in consultation with the advisory council and are rolling out a program to start working with the water systems on their cyber preparedness and their cyber hygiene. So it's not that there's no work happening in this arena, it's very much happening. I think I would just like the opportunity to work with the agency of digital services and cyber advisory council, if these portions of the bill move forward in this form to at least be able to suggest some language.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'll stop there quickly. Yeah, so the most recent version of the bill is draft 1.1, I think. And it's, well, because it should, it's 1.1 with a different name, dated 02/05/1926, There's I only one paragraph that's relevant, I think, And I did send it to the secretary of ADS to get her feedback on it, I haven't heard back from her. I think she was checking with folks and it was mostly just, you know, the desire to keep cybersecurity sort of on the table or like in the hearts and minds of people who are dealing with this without being overly prescriptive. So, I mean, I'm very open to suggestions. I just haven't heard back from her about what her agency wants. And the reason it had ANR as in the driver's seat is because you're all the ones that issue the permits. So that's what our legal counsel suggested. We're very much involved and we have a

[Brian Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection, ANR/DEC)]: role to play. This is a very back of the operations type program, not in front operations. Of And that's helpful intent to know. And I can go back the agency of digital services and consult with Secretary of News and Sean Naylor, who's the head of the CAC. We have a very open line of communication, a lot of engagement happening around this. And if the intent is to keep it on the table in some way, I can consult with them and see if we can offer some language if that's appropriate.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, that'd be great. Yes, I can ask. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other thoughts or questions on this? Okay.