Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, good morning. This is Senate Natural Resources and Energy. And it is Friday, February 27. We've got number of bills on the agenda today. We're going to start with S-one 138, the commercial pay spell. I'm joined by Mr. Huett from the Bennington Association. Welcome. Good morning. Good morning.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: So I'm on my phone just working off of the document that we received earlier this week from Mr. Yaffe, which had some blue lines on it. And the three of you asked me to look at the documents. So I'm more than happy to have done that. And I will try and go through this quickly because I know you've got a very, very busy schedule for the day. So and if you're looking at it, I'm gonna start on page one, lines 13 through 21. And this talks about legislative body, town city, etcetera, by ordinance versus by vote. This is obviously a policy discussion for you folks and whether it's your draft person or somebody like Tucker Anderson who knows the local weapon statutes really well, and probably help you navigate what is the appropriate approach for this. I could see where the town, if they were voting to take out a bond, if you will, that I think should go to the voters probably has to go to the vote. But if you're only authorizing a district and the use of your taxing mechanism, your counsel can answer the question once more appropriate, but either way, I think it's good discussion. Page two on three, no comment there as far as relating to energy efficiency. Again, I think that's completely up to you folks, whether you want that level of specificity in here or not. Page two on seven, this is the issue of four units or less. So clearly there's been constant discussion on commercial and industrial buildings, but also consideration that a commercial project can be a large scale residential project. And this sets out a standard, if you will, or a floor that you would not go below, we've got to stand here in the residential category and New Hampshire does something similar. So I don't, if it is the policy intent to provide this to large scale housing projects, then I would add the language that's being proposed because I think that makes sense, can be false. The nature of reference

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: is I on this think that, if I remember, that Joan Goldstein recommended a tweak to this that would make it eligible for a house. And she recommended to frame it in the positive that it could include five units or more.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Instead of the negative of four units. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. Either way. Yeah. Either way. On page two on 13, the language of stock energy savings analysis. Really have any comment there. I think that's a question of whether you see it's appropriate to have those words in there or not. Page two, line 20, it seems like it is removing what could be considered a limit in scope in that first sentence on page bottom of page two line three. And it is you want to have that in the winning language or you just want to note it as considered in the other paragraphs below. I think either way you've been overachieved or achieved the point too. Page three, lines thirteen and fourteen. So these are just my observations. This is my opinion, a bigger policy question. Are we looking at for local state or nationally recognized buildings? We don't have a residential building code per se in Vermont. We have our media standards, I'm sure we have other standards. So I don't know how important it is or the linkages between in accordance with state, local, nationally recognized, but like statements. Again, I'm following this, I think this is much bigger discussion than CBASE.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, fully agreed. At some point in this committee, should have a long conversation about building standards and enforcement energy standards.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: On page four lines, four through 13. I know you spoke about this is something that is important for the credit rating agencies and capital markets. I'm not familiar with why they would need this language in there. Pays programs by their nature are a first lien priority. We saw that in residential, we see that in other commercial PACE programs. So I don't know how important it is, the signaling that you're sending to the marketplace, but I don't see the harm in having a signal here. If the capital markets and rating agencies feel that's important. When I think our rating agencies, who are we rating here? If the municipalities and taking on the liabilities financing, it's not impacting their rating and you're going to the market to get capital. So, and you're not, I don't think you're impacting the slave screening.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I apologize, where are you?

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: I'm on page four, lines four through 13. Okay, okay. Thank you. On page five, line three. Wait, can I

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: stop you? Sure, is this? Yeah, so, I want to make sure I'm understanding the difference between the prioritization for the lean versus the prioritization for the lending? Was a whole discussion about that you were really adamant about.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yes, yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: About making sure that the bank approved the ability to do this. Yes, correct. Because they are the, the lender is the first, what is the rate?

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: We are the first priority. We are the second priority of the only property.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, currently for the For

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: the lead?

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yes. Okay. Property taxes covered, they need mortgage debt with the other property.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so it's usually property taxes, the bank, primary lender, and then a secondary lender like the

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: lender. Correct.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So this would put, if approved by the bank, the bank has to go and say yes. Yes. We added that language. Correct, you did. Then it would be property taxes, C PACE. Correct. If the bank approved, then the bank, then VITA. Correct.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Which So. Is why that consent is so important.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, and the consent is really to, the bank can look at whether or not they feel like the risk is too high to lend this.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: To allow that priority lien to sit in front of their mortgage.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, and if their finances are not in order, it might be too risky for the bank Correct. To say Okay.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: But the whole premise of CBASE is that you're using that priority lien mechanism in order to recapture above funding that's been put So out

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: this is- This for Yaki might feel like a sort of

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: belts and suspenders thing, but- That's a fair statement.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: From your perspective, it's not necessary because the whole point of the program is to allow.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yeah, this language here would in no way impact the language that we put in the bill regarding lender consent. This isn't triggered unless lender consent is given. Okay, okay. Okay. Page five, line three, I would agree that it makes sense for whoever is the contractor to provide the information regarding the program access to capital, etcetera. It shouldn't be the municipality who I think, and you're only asking the municipality to agree to allow their meeting priority in the case of Sorry, so

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you're page five thirteen. Page five thirteen. You're agreeing

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: with striking I would agree with striking municipality to say, and maybe it's not the capital provider, maybe it's the administrator of the program who's providing capital, but I agree it's not municipality. Because I think you expressed enough hesitation about the ability municipalities to do this on their own page. Page five, lines 10 through 18, I would agree with striking the language based on the comments that Mr. Yapke provided. There could be some proprietary information that is contained in those documents from a business modeling perspective, an investment perspective that you really want in that a business would not want in the public records. I also agreed with his comment that anybody who's looking at buying that property, future purchase should be doing a level of due diligence to understand what those improvements were, how those improvements are providing a lower cost to running that property, etcetera. So I see it more on that side than reporting it in the public records. The lien has to be recorded for sure in the records, but I'm not sure you want to get into detail analysis or agreeing or the, unless there's a general framework in the agreement that makes sense, but I think it does run the risk of proprietary information.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So the agreement would be still, there would still be an agreement, Correct. Just that it wouldn't be part of the municipal records? Yeah,

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: I was focusing more on the analysis performed, etcetera, application of municipality, disclosure, that's fine. Again, I think that's where you start, if you get the more detailed information you're getting in the line records, the more the risk is of opening it up to proprietary information or investment strategies that business would not want. So the agreement's fine. It may be all of the addendums to the trade that might not K. And then on page seven, line 13, However you choose to call it, whether it's a program administrator, whether it's an entity, I would absolutely agree, I would take agency out because I think that has a connotation of a governmental agency or quasi governmental agency. It may be just a for profit entity that decides to do this. So I would agree with this language referring to entity and taking and using program administrator.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: On

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: page eight, lines 12 through 19, I did not see any problems with what was being recommended there as far as the removal of some the language and the addition of the language, I think that's all fine to do in there. Page nine, lines three- So

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: lines five through 17, that was from his paragraph two. Why would it be one or more third parties? Why would it be more than one third party? I understand.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yeah, that's a good problem. Do really focus in on that. You, again, opinion, you want one contractor. You don't want multiple parties that are involved. So you got to miss validate the business and the contract within the program. Yeah. Unless he's referring to something else here, but yeah, I think that would be very complicated and not easy. At the end. Page nine, lines three through nine. My suggestion is not putting that in there unless you have clearance so to be that they do so. I think that as you alluded to, madam chair, side conversation, when I added and I also spoke with Vida, I think they're kind of walking into this lately and seeing from their perspective as a lender, is there a role for them? And then as that develops, does it make sense for them to throw their hat in the ring as a program administrator? That does mean the municipalities to get this off the ground may need to look for another administrator and maybe those are done on a yearly contract, which is for two years and it's reopened for other bidders to come in, but I would suspect that Vina will not walk this light in the air. You are right, It's okay. And then page nine, and this is my lesson on lines 12 through 15. Oh, okay. Yeah. So I don't envision Jason Parties being thrown, but I think that it is a legitimate question as to the reasonable fees or costs associated with operating a program, whether it's on the municipal side working with that independent contractor. I'm not sure how to structure that in the mill, whether it needs a little bit more in the way of guardrails, but I just, I didn't see the piece of carding component to it, but there shouldn't be outrageous fees that are covering unrelated costs or expenses to the program.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So you are okay with his suggested changes? Sorry. Yeah.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I probably didn't answer

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: the question.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You've been very ambitious. Brilliant check.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: I mean, I'd be I would be fine with his language, not withstanding. It's a little of the church fees to cover the operating costs under perception. I think that's fine.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Mhmm. Mhmm.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Okay. Hopefully that gets you slightly closer.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And wait, that thing we just talked about. Oh yeah, so I'm sure, I think you've heard

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: from two parties that are in this field that provide services to municipalities for developing a program and financing, etcetera. And my guess is there's probably more. And how do municipalities, some will, some will not, in their capacity, are they able to vet those different providers out there and determine who's the right one and maybe use? And we were just talking of whether it was DBS or Senator Hardy said, the CFR, Department of Financial Regulation. If there's somebody who can help with that vetting process the board general review, because that is a significant task for a municipality to look at. And I'll give you an example, in the world of land records, couple of years ago, the SARA who has the responsibility for public records, historic documents, etcetera, at the state levels through secretary of state's office, went through a similar process for digital recording of documents, land records. And they did the RFP and had a bunch of vendors apply. And they went through the vetting process on behalf of the municipalities. And then they went out to the municipalities and said, this is who we contract with. It doesn't mean you have to, but we've done all of that due diligence. And that was a motivator for some municipalities to say, oh, okay, I now don't have to go through all that. You guys have put your stamp of approval. That's the only analogy I can think of that may be worth exploring here.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm hopeful that they'd be up to doing that. That seems like a good solution to to the oversight question. Yeah.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: And just for the record, I'm not volunteering either one of those identifying likely

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: people to talk to. Super.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. No problem, anytime.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Thank you. Good luck.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. Well, hey, we're moving on to S213. We a new draft similar, we're go through the changes and we're ready to vote. Happy Friday. Happy Friday to Corporates. Should I begin? Yes. Go for it.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So the only change here is on page three. It's in that language about the cybersecurity advisory council. You wanted the upon the request of the secretary, that the council shall develop an unbinding guidance for the public water systems regarding the deadly excessive cybersecurity practices, including information to open up to meet your existing customer data. But then on its own motion, the council may at any time issue guidance for public water systems regarding generally accepted cybersecurity practices. And then because of the senate structure, the council may issue guidance which is under the subsection as part of the tactical report.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is not something that I want to change right now. It's just because I think it's fine. So page three, line 18, just that census structure. So the council may issue guidance that issues seems a little redundant. But that is not a big enough deal that I

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You're say council may issue guidance under the subsection as part of its actuary. But Two words.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't think it

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, we can do it

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: plus we have two words.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Issue Yeah.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You should dispose contingent on those.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Issue guidance under the subsection. Yeah. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Superb. I move that's approved. Or favorably on five. Point on one, page three twenty six, ten forty nine with that credit change crossing out to the board's plate issues on page three, line 19.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Super. Any further discussion? Okay, with that, the clerk can call the roll.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Okay, Senator Beck, yes. Senator Bongartz? Yes. Senator Hardy? Yes.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Senator Williams? Yes. Senator Watson?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Senator Super. And reporting this, Senator Hardy, thank you so much.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: You're welcome.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So it's the third one. It's the third one. It's the gap. Right. It's the down here. In there. Okay.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: The log out of the way.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Very stupid. We are gonna move right along. That was fast.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: You might have time to count it on.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: To 02/24.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Again, I'm like a gray list counsel. You should have a new draft number 07/21 with a few point six date. Any difference as time stamps? Should I just focus on the?

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yes. Yes. Yes. So you

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: can go to page 17.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: And

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: that is in that reference to the implementation requirements is actually working with and more, but it is also the need to have proper to still solve a cloud based. Basically, we're on page 21. Again, referencing on on the of fourteen fifty four for five pieces leasing. And then should we launch? Yes. We we informed. This is we're in the kitchen departments now. This is the first change. It's just really a clarification page 24 line 16 of an application for a permanent pension funds amendment. Then page 24 line 19, this is the provisions about notice. So the department shall require an applicant for a permit for a permission from a post to be held in fewer than 5,000,000 links to return on the application form with the legislative body of the municipality or municipalities have been notified of the tournament of the twenty twenty one. Notice may be provided to the legislative body by a regular mail for electronic Department's authorized to verify that an applicant

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: per per person per per per per Now if an applicant prohibition per permanent opposes

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: per to hold the permanent deposit be more than five, then thanks. The department shall post a notice of the Department of Public Private's website.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Gonna pause here because on page 24, line 20, there's this rule for fewer than five legs, which means four or less. Then when we get

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: to page

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: 25, line five, oh no, wait.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Is your two AB, should you say five or fewer in the legs? Was getting done that for me.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Five or fewer.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We went from that to five. I don't know.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Where are you?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: The line nine Anne is where you're

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: do it. Because this was even more than five and on AGI scheme should be five. Yes.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I thought you wanted when it was five or more to be on the Department of Health side. Mean, now you're saying it's

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: More than five. Yeah, that's what I think. Five is the limit for

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: having to do- Make yourself

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: some case where we're not

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: clear. I don't have strong opinions about whether it's five or six. Just want to make sure that we have not left out a number. Right. Exactly.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Yes. So I was telling her, but the original one started talking about inland wakes and farms were made up of a large increase. Are we still talking about that? No. Mean This is all fishing.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right? Yes. Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But if it's just, right.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So you still need a permit for any fishing tournament regardless of whether it's in the leak or No, there's no news, But we originally started talking about those lakes and promising instead of that were municipal water systems. That that's right. And and there's a subsequent section that is focused on that as well.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Okay. In this bill. Mhmm. In this bill. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, tonight, I had written, and now I'm having a hard time finding the new draft, but in relation to the permit, the source water, source protection area permit.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's on the language on page 25.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, we haven't gotten there yet?

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: No, we haven't. Okay, sorry. Okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So that, here's the language for that. If an application for a fishing tournament permit under the section proposed insufficient tournament on an end of the lake, the department shall not issue a permit for the tournament at the end of lake on which the tournament is proposed, serves as a source for a public water system permitted under section sixteen seventy five of the style. This is a condition of a public water system that should be prohibited within the source protection area of the public water system. So this is the surface water source protection areas. There are three zones. The first zone is within 20 feet of the intake. The second zone is within 200 feet of the water and is limited to a maximum of thousand acres. And the third zone is pretty much the entire watershed. You will see conditions per zone, I wanted you to know that in case someone says, hey, you're saying that there's no fishing in the entire watershed of this lake, it's like no, it's the condition that's in the permit for this zone. So

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the fishing could essentially be prohibited in one of those zones, not

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's likely never going to be prohibited.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And so for eight. And can you just say it again? So the first zone is how many sheets?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: First zone is in an area immediately around the drinking water withdrawal site. This area is generally 200 feet around the intake. I think I said 20 before, but

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: it's two in the barrel.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And then zone two consists of areas within the wash that are located within 200 feet of the surface water. So that that's that's the surrounding land. The first is the intake. Mhmm. And the next is the surrounding land, 200 feet. And then the third is the remaining watershed area outside. So one and two, where the land uses have a potential impact drinking water quantity.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Can I ask you a question? So with this language, is that if fishing is only prohibited within in Zone 1, We

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You're only, you still have potential for allowing fishing on Zone 2.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. So this, I don't think covers that.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know, that's why

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm Yeah, exactly. Because if it's if it's only Zone 1 and there's a fishing derby that uses just zone two Mhmm. Then shouldn't it be based on whatever the conditions are in the permit? So if they if the permit conditions are, you can't switch to zone one, but zone two is okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. Well, that's basically what this is. If if if there's a condition of a public water system permit that that she is prohibited, that they have to they have to

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: they can't permit. Right. So it just says shall not issue a permit for the tournament. What if they issued a permit saying, you can have the tournament, you just can't go into zone one?

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Going over zone ones. Yes, a good point. Marking for zone? The municipality, mark market?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, to me, that I would not be following in language of the session because it says shall not issue permanent predetermined with foot in the leg.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. So that's go ahead, sorry.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: As a condition, but that she is prohibited.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. So I I think we need to decide. Is that what we mean?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it doesn't say we'll shall not issue a permit from the source protection area where there is a condition. That says to show no issue of permanent relief the Inland Lake.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. But didn't you just say the Inland Lake could have a source protection permit that says you can't fish in Zone 1, but you can fish in Zone 2.

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

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And this would just say if it has any part of That's what

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: it's conditioned, it's gonna be critical.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: On all of the lake. Yeah. So that's my question, It is that what we seems to me that we're aiming for it to just be in compliance with the

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: drinking process.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is it, the drinking source water protection? I know. So. I mean, we all know that water moves, but. Right. Well, and if it's not marked, how would anybody know? Right. If there's no big way to tell, then maybe it makes sense for it to be the whole lake. But it's more narrow if we say that the fishing permit must reflect the conditions of the source protection. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: So I don't have a map in front of me, but I'm thinking about the original issue in the body of water that brought this all up. Did not know where Zone 2 is on this on this particular body of water. Does that mean you can't fish on that body of water?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it does. Because if it goes, I mean If there's a prohibition in Zone 2, then, yeah, you you are more than likely not gonna be able to fish in the.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: But we're not changing that one way or the other.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. That's our current model.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: We're not touching that. So just to say that we we don't wanna we don't want wanna make it harder for you to in terms of content here. It's just

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: to protect. So so what you are changing is the department's interpretation that they can they can restrict fishing on public trust waters. And so what you're saying is, yes, you can because there is a restriction elsewhere in your Yeah. So we just we just have scope of that. I I that's why I brought

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: this. Guess.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I thought Jim understood what the scope was. So what we're trying

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: to get to is the permit is reflecting The conditions. Right? Conditions, which is really not change per se, just making sure that can do that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Making sure that there's, in a way, is about communication. Is the Fish and Wildlife Department been checking to see if there's a source protection plan? What's, what are the conditions, like, you know, are they looking at the conditions? Certainly want them to be checking those conditions.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So just to clarify, you want the, it's not that the permit would be necessarily prohibited. It's that if they issue the permit, well, then why prohibited. I'm going to have to think through it all the time because

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Sorry.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, that's okay. Because I think that I'm agreeing with what you're saying is that I think it's that we want to prohibit phishing on the areas that where it's prohibited. We want to prohibit a derby on the areas where phishing is prohibited in the source protection plan. But if there's a way to have the derby in the areas where it's not prohibited, then that would be okay. Okay. I mean, to the, it's hard to tell where that line is and what, but I think that that would be something that, Mr. Wildlife would have to be there to enforce it and say, no, you can't go on this part of the lake. Mhmm.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There's usually an intake structure that on the lakes. You don't see that on, like, Champaign or nothing, but, there's usually an intake structure.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Sounds like we're not gonna be voting this one out today, mate. And we should just I don't know. Which is okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Can't make that change. I can't guarantee I can make that cheese.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You have to think about it. So Yeah. Yes.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Do it. When I remember the map, the parking for for the actual because it's the park Mhmm. Against those areas, that that's around Zone 3. 12. So they they have they can park there. They have to take a bus for where they can fish. Mhmm.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Well, that's not.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think I'm not following your No.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: No. I'm saying that, you know, the role the role around that body water is what people park for the fishing group. There's not much parking into that with the access. Yeah.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Are you talking specifically about Dix Pond? Yeah. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, the source protection area for source protection plan for Dick's Bond, do you just did I does anything know what it says on there? And then would you happen to look that up for

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Dick's Reservoir?

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Because I

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: I can see the power of having to do the bad drive and hopefully, here's the bad. This is all. Well,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you're what your comment is making me think about is how my assumption is that the permit is like, it's either a yes or no. Right. It's not, it doesn't necessarily work. This is a question. It doesn't necessarily bake in conditions like, you can have this permit so long as you stay over a year. Like, it doesn't say something.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Would That that's what you're kind of saying in Zone 1. Right. Yeah. So I get I get They can have the permit, but they have to stay outside of that that Southern Bloom area.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And can they specify that in the permit? Or is that

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yeah. Okay. Oh, okay. So alright. Condition.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: They don't know the term a permit is. It's like you have to pay Yeah. So

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

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: be allowed

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to do this.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's why I have to I have I don't even know how. Sorry to write

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: this. But

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you understand what we're talking about. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Having that continued, Anything else?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Or just The Did you see the definition of in the link before?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We did.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I think that's that was the last thing you wanted to know. And that that's it.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, and that's the made to a shell. I'm not gonna date.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Hey. We're getting close. How are we are you Good.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Oh, tell me more. Getting up on the fishing the fishing part.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Which part specifically? Well, I just don't know how it's gonna work. Which which part's that's Just the part about zones. And we just talked about. Oh, so you have to be told. So we'll see some new language. We'll see. Seeing how you feel about it. Is there a way to find out how many of these lights, fast, flush protection items Carmen? Sure. So I can I'm sure, Ben Montrose would know that information. Yeah. I

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: can reach out to Diane.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. That'd be great. But it's just be interesting to see how much that how many lights this can pass, if it's only a few or if it's a Hans, whatever.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: How many in lakes have restriction on phishing and there's looking phishing?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, and you're wondering about just how many have source protection plans in general? Right. Just, I mean, specifically with the prohibition of fishing.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Well, we don't, they don't put a fishing there now. They'll come to those gold acids or no.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, that's no. We're not changing the source protection plan, that's current law. So what I think the intent is, is that if there is a prohibition in the source protection plan that already exists, they can't have a derby there. And the municipality doesn't get to make that choice of their own, they're not the ones who get to decide their own source protection plan.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, ANR has to approve, there's a possibility that in the future the permit expires and then it's renewed and the municipality petitions for restriction for the future, but that will be part of the public process.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So we're not saying the municipality has decided, we're not changing whether you can fish on a lake.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: We're trying to know the trunk, correct, how many source protection, service source protection units have a limitation on the issues.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And the other stuff about fishing is mostly just notification. Sure. Just like you're having a jerk, you gotta tell people. Okay. The other factor there for me is not just a provision on fishing, but vessels and types of vessels, because if derby proposes to have, let's, say that they're anticipating that there would be vessels, that's prohibited on the source protection plan in say zone one, then it's not necessarily the prohibition on fishing because maybe you just have a pier, but it's about the mechanisms as well. I realize that makes it more complicated. Yeah. It hasn't passed, but that's Do

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: to reflected in the language? Sorry, say again?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want that reflected in the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I'm hoping that we could capture it just in a general sense to be like, these are the conditions, like whatever you issue for the permit must match or use the word reflect, I'm sure it's a better word than that, but it has to take into account the conversions and sort of the textual.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yeah. Actually, really like that. Yeah. I totally like that. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Because if then if they allow fishing from the side,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Then that's fine.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Then that's fine. Yeah. It's just that it's, we're sort of mostly gasoline and drinking water.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Or you know, if there's no ice shanties, you know, there's no structures allowed on the ice, then

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Then Yeah.

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

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Do you get that, Michael?

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

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And not with the current language.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's why I asked about it. Hard We're all gonna Yes. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: It's the slow. There's And ATBs.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Right. They they have to work together. Yeah.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So so just off of the top of my head, just putting this out, I think it's changing from a prohibition. It says, when the secretary reviews an application for a fishing tournament on an inland lake, the commissioner shall determine whether or not there are conditions in the source for the public water system has a source protection area Right. With conditions on use. If there are conditions on use, the commissioner shall reflect those conditions in the permit And she's been informed, including potentially denial of an Internet if the conditions period of inflation.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Mhmm. Right. This is Dave. Watch this tape because you just said

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: it on.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, last sentence, though, because it's in my mind, it's not just the fish, like the act of fishing. Right. It's it's that there's no like, there's a prohibition on vessels.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's like, you know, that's shins above the to inhibit the use of the water for the proposed use.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Right. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: And then we talked about marking those areas. I mean, wintertime, you could do it with dates of zoning or there's no don't go here, but it's applies not only to

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Where? Not somebody can put something up that identifies zones. Well,

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: that's.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Okay. Thank

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you. Great. So our next, well, essentially just to prove on that, anticipating that we'll get another new draft of this. We're closing in, which is encouraging. And we'll schedule that for early next week when we're back. Ideally, oh, sorry, right, right, after break. Ideally, June, we'll see if we can try to figure that out for Tuesday. But you know, we'll, the sooner we can get that.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I understand.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. There are not fees or corporations in fill or were there at the beginning? Think we talked about this going to finance.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I can't remember. Probably gonna go to finance. Okay. It it depends on what the senate secretary thinks of the signage and outreach requirements. It's gonna go to approvals. And then I wouldn't I wouldn't bring it up.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: He's watching right now. Well, okay. Just wanna think about August, they have an extra week. So Yeah. We yeah. That'll be fine. As long as the other factor is that I mean, did present a transportation. Did you present a transportation yet?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm supposed to go, but I think it just got canceled.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: All of transportation's fine? Oh, your testimony.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Interesting. Okay. Well, there's one possibility that they might want to look at it. Don't know if that means possession or not, but if that was going to be the case, then We'll avoid that. Yes, but I'm still able to. And actually, gonna to the chair about that today, see, like, but I do think it's going to go finance. Okay, so I saw an iron there, more fishing. Yeah.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Okay, thank you. Transportation.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay, so our witness is not until 10:30, so we have some time. So we're going take a break. Okay. Yeah. Here we go. Okay. But yes, if you have suggestions for the language, please let us know. Okay, all right. This is something that's resources and energy coming back from a quick, relatively quick break, suppose. And we are taking up S219 and we're joined by Ale Ganchek. Did I say your name? Yeah. Okay, great. Yes. Can we just get the new copy You while we're can, but she has I know, but I think he don't think wanted to talk to us. To it, and so have Stan would be him. Yeah. Like Can you guys see him? I just gave He's I seen earlier drafts, so he just hasn't seen this latest one. Hey. Super. I actually don't have it because I gave one. Yeah. I don't have another one. Oh, okay. We're It's posted now. Oh, it's a post diagnosis. Super. You're welcome. Take a minute.

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Thank you. Excuse me. I apologize. I was traveling all day yesterday. It's my voice. So please don't hesitate to ask me to repeat things if I'm unclear. So I'm here to talk about energy navigators in the context of the the 02/19, but also just in sort of a some more general context around what the department has experienced and what some other state agencies have experienced with. Navigators or they go by many, I guess I shouldn't just call them navigators, but sort of solution providers within the retail program space. So to begin with, I think I I I don't have much to say. I think I mean, look through the draft. I think the language looks consistent with what we spoke about earlier. So I I think from a logistics standpoint, this all makes sense. And I guess it's important in that point to bring into context where the department is. So I guess at the beginning of 2025 pursuant to act 01/1942, PUC was engaged to develop report on affordability and various strategies among them. Low income rates were looked at very closely and then also sort of programmatic approaches that might be appropriate to address energy affordability. And so the department testified, provided a number of recommendations and of which one of them was some type of navigator program would help

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: sort of bridge

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: the gaps and leverage the synergies that exist between the myriad programs that are available to address energy affordability. I think there's a list we compiled for that report that's approximately 100 programs that touch affordability in some way and that runs the gamut from the traditional energy efficiency programs that the EUs run, the tier three programs that the distribution utilities run, as well as the sort of more social programs that cap agencies run, the economic opportunities for otherization for low income boats. There's, as I said, a lot of workers. So, you know, there's a there's the the the navigator models that have been tried have been targeted at various sort of niche applications in various places where needs are risen and it's sort of flowed kind of organically that way. But I think one thing that one of the major experiences that the current iteration of Navigators, which I think is funded, has just been recently stopped, but was being funded through grants that were administered by the Davis Mental Research Institute. So they I I don't wanna speak for them. They may have more to say about this. Generally speaking, I think the the feeling was that these Navigator programs are administered by the cap agencies. They were targeted mostly at low income folks and their feeling was there just wasn't enough money available to make it worthwhile to try to connect the dots. There just, you know, there wasn't enough resource to point people towards to make this work. And so part of our recommendation was to maybe expand the scope of what navigators actually looked at. And I think we agree with that assessment that the, you know, the low income population has a lot of comprehensive, dedicated, focused offerings. You obviously could always use more money, that's never not going to be a thing. But in terms of the process and how folks are moved through those programs, it's very turnkey, There's lots of support. There's, relative to the project, there's a lot of funding available. And so we felt the best place to actually focus these would be on the next tier of folks who don't have those same opportunities.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Someone who

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: made a little bit too much money last year and doesn't qualify for the low income program, and then it's sort of forced into this next tier of low to moderate income, which has far less guardrails and far less guidance. And it's not that there are no resources, but they're just, you know, they're much more siloed and there isn't this sort of overarching approach that would help someone say they may be aware of a program and they're interested in participating, so they want to get heat pump or something like that. There are resources to help them navigate the heat pump program, but there is no one to help them sit down and say, well, have you thought about weatherization or have you looked at some other things that someone done in assessment of your own? All of those pieces are sort of missing at this point on board. They exist, but again, they're in other silos. And so that that program you know, the person who's interested in participating would then have to go seek out each one of those silos in the ground. And similarly, could you income requirements would necessitate them possibly putting up some of their money. And there's other barriers that would make it difficult or potentially prohibitive for them to participate in a way that would be more comprehensive from something more addicting to as well as customers are offering. And so in that context, our recommendation was let's do an assessment first of all of the programs. So let's take stock of where we are so that we understand really where the gaps and overlaps and we know the key opportunities are. Because I think we, a lot of these programs are not really under the purview of the department. And so we don't have, we understand efficiency programs, we understand the purview of the very well, but we don't have as good of a view as some of the cap agency programs. We do work with offices for Economic Opportunity, but again, are some differences in how the programs are administered. So our assessment was navigator seems like a good tool and it definitely has worked. There's ample evidence from around the region, other jurisdictions across The United States that employ similar models to varying degrees of success, but generally they're pretty successful. And so we thought this this could be a good tool, but first, let's take stock of what the full picture is and figure out where best to deploy these in a sort of a set phase. So that's basically what the language of the dosing desks. I think the department is very supportive of that group.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great. That's great. Yes. Well, thanks for being keen to take this on and add it to what your report that you're doing.

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. I guess I should have mentioned.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, you want to talk about that?

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah, we are actually well on our way into this process of doing this assessment, pumping out an RFP that will be in the street next week. So we've got some grant funding and some other sources of funding. We've kinda called them together to do this. We expect the process to run anywhere from maybe eight to ten months. So we're looking at something probably towards the end of the year. And I think that the the date change for the vision of the navigator program design, I think works well with that. Was a little concerned. Yeah.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: A little bit impressed.

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think we maybe could have done it, but I just want to make sure that we don't, you know, move the shortcut to the development of our program design. I think again, it's something that is needed, but exactly where and how and what that looks like, I think it could

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: do over the March time. I just wanted to follow-up and ask about the funding and whether you have sufficient funding to do.

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think at this point, department can't support any additional funding that's not in the current budget. I think that's sort of a hard stop there. I take your point, I think denoting an unfunded study or program design can be challenging. I would say that as part of our program review process, navigators will be something that's looked at. It's it's not gonna be a fully fledged program design that comes out of this program review, but it certainly will be key among the recommendations of of sort of these two approaches. Then dipping other things too, don't know, just sometimes navigators and any other areas for development of additional programs or tools. And

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: I

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: think, yes, I share your concern of a lack of funding for this, but I also think that given the department's priority for this and given the fact that we were able to get money from three grants and other state agencies that were also niche in this, think over the next eight to ten months we can explore how much needs are funding.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Okay.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yes. Do

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: you have a sense of how much

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: you might have to raise to do? It's a good question. This The short answer is no. I think, you know, program review is far exceeds the scope of any traditional process or impact evaluations that we typically do on a portfolio of programs. There are additional questions. It's going well outside of bounds into sort of the traditional cost effectiveness metrics and impact metrics, you know, minimal performance requirements and things like that that we would expect of the EEU programs. And so I think there's a bit of an unknown in terms of how we're gonna normalize all of that into sort of a consistent rubric or stack everything up. And so in that vein, it's hard for me to say exactly how much I think this would cost. I think a typical program design for a single program, you know, I've spoken with a couple of consultants as part of our process for this RFP, anywhere

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: from,

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: you know, 20 to $50,000 depending on complexity. If this is gonna be something that has to be across a 100 programs, for example, not that I think that may not be the case, but that would be something considerably more complicated than if it was just gonna try to stitch together two channels.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So something that I think I heard you say was that, so the Energy Navigator, as an idea, is sort of in the scope of what you're already doing, but that this bill would expand that and perhaps make it a more full fledged, with details and how it could really work. Is that

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes, a fair way to that's break break that that So

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: if

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: we're interested in having a more detailed or developed plan for what an energy navigator program could look like, this is a good tool, a good vehicle to get that Yes,

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I would agree with that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, great. Separate from that, I'm very interested in this chart, this list that you're compiling. I'm wondering about Is the whole thing I mean, is a question I can ask our legislative council as well, but for this report that you're doing, is it due on March 20? In March 20?

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Guess we'll call the phase one sort of before the review. That is we're anticipating that to come in probably the second, that would be

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: either first or second week of our time.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Of this year? Yes. Great. And so as a part of, I mean, I'm envisioning it as

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: a chart. Can't remember if you actually said that, but the chart.

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think that is one of the deliverables we have on, but as soon as you, there would be sort of a qualitative a qualitative story, make sure

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: it's not

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: a qualitative component with

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: sort of

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: best practices. Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: because I mean the chart that I am envisioning, I'm sure it's already well underway and that my hopes and dreams for that chart is not something that you can necessarily just pivot to do. But, I mean, front thing I would love is like, program. How much could it save somebody? Like, so like the dollars, the value of that program to either an individual or to the state, right? And then greenhouse gas reduction and then energy, suppose just straight up energy savings. Does that make sense? That sort of, are

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: those columns that are going be

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: in that chart?

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That will be included. Think it also include things like, what are the performance metrics associated with this program? How well does it hit those metrics? Have you seen them? Does it fail to, you know, from a a sort of cost effectiveness standpoint.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Oh my gosh. As a Ruth Hardy.

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. And then

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: we do not only for like for the state,

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: sort of the Vermont perspective or in some cases might be great or sort of whatever the particular industry you're looking at, but also for the participant. I think that's going be a key metric as well. So there'll be, you might have, there's a list of something like, I don't know, 15 or 16 different key performance indicators associated with all the various programs. Mhmm.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So Great.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: They'll all

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: be there, and then they'll be the challenge will be to figure out the way to sort of make that all out of this house.

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

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's great. Looking forward to seeing that chart. It's gonna be awesome.

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: It is. I think it's gonna be a key input for a lot of future development. I think it's probably talking about some integrated with the energy plan and set baselines and some of the BRT discussions.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Any other questions? Thank you. Excellent. Allen's going to go through the bill with us if you want to stick around.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Yes, she does.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. Thank Thank you. All right, so we'll invite our Commissioner Council to walk us through the bill.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Ellen Jeff has the Addison Legislative Council. So S219, you have today, actual 23, which is the first graph you are seeing. The changes from the underlying bill is introduced are highlighted in yellow. I suspect you just heard what the exchanges entailed, but bill is fairly short, I'll read it to you. So Energy Navigator Program Report, the Department of Public Service shall contract a third party consultant to design a Vermont community based home energy navigator and coaching program in consultation, in collaboration with the Fire Action Center for Addison County and other existing community based energy navigator programs in Vermont that will provide in person and remote energy coaching services to residential consumers and communities statewide. The department's consultants shall build on findings from the department's comprehensive process and performance evaluation of more than 100 publicly funded energy programs focused on affordability, including electric and thermal efficiency, weatherization for customers with low income, and beneficial electrification initiatives to inform the design of a Vermont community based home energy navigator and coaching program. The department's consultants shall consult with Efficiency Vermont, Vermont State Energy Office, the Vermont Climate Action Office, Vermont's Community Action Agency, Vermont Energy and Climate Action Network, Vermont's electric utilities, community based home energy navigator and coaching programs, and other states, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, that have experience with community based home energy programs. For purposes of this section, residential consumers includes homeowners, landlords, and renters. The rest of the program design hasn't changed. Do you want me to read through that?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't think we need to. Well, it's short. Sure.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Let's do it. Yeah, okay. So on page two subsection b, the program shall provide guidance to residential consumers, particularly those with low and moderate incomes, to better understand and navigate energy efficiency and clean energy and bathroom options to affordably meet their home energy needs. Advise residential consumers on accessing available grants, rebates, financing, and other assistance programs and incentives to meet their home energy needs. Assist residential consumers with prioritizing identified energy saving opportunities, including through the integration of weatherization strategies to reduce heating and cooling loads that could minimize the need for installation of new equipment and lower future electric demands on the grid Help residential consumers connect to local contractors, and review and analyze contractor recommendations regarding cost, payment, and other relative factors. On to page three. The program shall advise whether that's the consumer to in person as necessary and over time, recognizing that hands on coaching may help the need, the needed, may help be needed. Recognizing that hands on coaching help may be needed at a consumer's home and over several years provide ongoing state funding to support the operation of community based energy coaching programs, and use available grant funds and private partnerships to support program implementation. On 04/01/1927, the department shall submit a report on the program designed to the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. The report shall include a description of the design of the program, which could include the creation of a pilot program for expansion in support of existing community based programs, a description of the technical assistance and educational materials to be developed as part of the program, an estimate of program costs, funding sources to provide ongoing support to community based energy coaching programs, a target number of residential consumers to be served by the program, energy and emission savings that will result from the program, and a proposed timeline for the implementation of the program. On page four, as introduced, the bill did have two appropriations, but this version changes what the appropriations are. So in fiscal year twenty twenty seven, the sale of $25,000 is appropriated from the general fund to the Department of Public Service to hire the third party consultant for the Energy Navigator Report. In fiscal year 2027, the sum of $10,000 is appropriated to the general fund for the Climate Economy Action Centre to collaborate with the Department of Public Service on the Energy Navigator program design. It takes effect on July 2027. They did

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: want to

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: check about how the appropriations were phrased.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. I think the appropriations are phrased fine. Okay. Just picked these numbers, so I don't know if they're the right numbers. I do have one question, something, and I think it's actually a question you've come up with, I'm wondering, actually at the very beginning, so talking about it as contractor with a third party consultant, can you just elaborate on that? Because this is in line with what you're doing. So you're hiring a consultant. It's not you, it's not someone from within the park that's already doing this work. You're asking, and does that contract already exist?

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: For the affordability study? For the work that

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: you have.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Not yet. Okay.

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: The RFP will be issued next week. Okay. You should get a contracting number within a month or so. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And so this is something that could be added on to that contract,

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: should this go through?

[Alex Ganchek (Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah, that was not trying to presuppose what the committee was envisioning, but I thought it would sort of be like a phase two kind

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: of thing.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great. That's helpful. Thoughts? Yes. Go ahead. I don't

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: make a lot of sense to me. And the question I think the other question is whether we so it's no emergency what we do with that. Mhmm. Because we'll just send out with the. Mhmm. So I guess, let's just start with this, take out all this, I'll figure out words, leave these letters in, different, I don't know.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, it's all, so if I was gonna say the bill will go to appropriations regardless because the original bill had appropriations in it. So even if we take them out, it will have to stop there. And no doubt the appropriations committee will just take out that section anyway. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Oh, right. Okay.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: And cede it for the budget. Yeah.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: We'll probably have contingency language. If it for once we get out of contingency language that

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: says this program, report is due contingent on the funding being passed in a big budget. We've been doing some of Well, one thing I would say about that is since Alex said that the department would find a way to do it. Okay. Anyway, maybe raising funds through grants or other sources. Would make that contingent language so contingent. Okay. You know what I mean? Like, yeah, I would just say that if they can get money through the budget, that would be the best option. If they can't, and they think they can still move forward with it, I wouldn't want to say, No, But they don't have to do there's no appropriations. Does that make sense? Yeah. So I would love to vote this out today, if possible. You know, was thinking about the contingency language, because I agree, I don't think we should add, I don't think we need to add anything, but I guess I'm making a note for the future for when we have a bill that we know has appropriation that is going to have to come out. Either we should remember to add that at this stage, or it could be a thing that just gets added in appropriations.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: That is awful when

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: it happens. When something passes out of appropriations, usually one

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: of the amendments we might make is

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: we take money up at it. Yeah. But you just remember to I get exactly it all. Agenda. Yes. Yes. So

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: this is now the case we don't.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Right. Right. Right. Yes. So I'll I'll make the machine. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Okay. All right, we're ready. Thank you for this, Debbie. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Go ahead. Okay.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Senator Beck, yes. Senator Bongartz? Yes. Senator Hardy? Yes. Senator Williams?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Senator Watson? Yes. Thank you all. That was great. Thank you, Alex. I really appreciate it. Thanks, Anne.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Would you me to be a reporter?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You're if if yeah. That is great. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Your dog.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It'll be a. Over on the let me see this. There's not a lot of space for the check, but okay. Huzzah.

[Mr. Huett (Bennington Association)]: Thank

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you. Thank you. Okay. Now, now, I will do that right now. Perfect. Thank you. You do have a little bit of time, I believe. We do have, we did add a last minute witness for today on S-two 47, Bell Platisix, and it is just for educational So, so we can learn a little bit more. That is, and I don't think that is going to happen until, oh, thank you. Yep, you're good. Okay. Thank you so much. So she's not joining us until So eleven we have a break until 11:15.

[Unidentified committee member (Senate Natural Resources & Energy)]: Great.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Super. Okay.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Anne Watson, can I take a closer to work? Thank

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you so much. Of course. All right. So this is Center for Natural Resources and Energy coming back great. And we are joined today by Renee Sharp from Energy C. Talking about S-two 47, just to remind ourselves about plastics as three aspects of plastics, and would welcome any thoughts you would like to share with us, and if you could go ahead and introduce yourself. Wonderful,

[Renee Sharp (Natural Resources Defense Council)]: well good morning. It's still morning there where you are.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: It is. Yes. Technically. Great.

[Renee Sharp (Natural Resources Defense Council)]: And thank you chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify in support of S two four seven today and thank you Senator Watson also for your leadership in offering this important bill. My name is Renee Sharp and I'm a senior scientist and the director of plastics and petrochemical advocacy at the Natural Resist Defense Council NRDC, a national environmental advocacy organization. As the chair mentioned, this this bill tackles three important issues related to plastics and health. It prohibits chemical conversion in the state. It phases out the toxic chemical DHP from certain medical devices, and it phases out key uses of microbeads in personal care and cleaning products. As such, my testimony will be in three parts. Number one, chemical conversion is a toxic false solution to the plastics crisis and should not be allowed in Vermont. For decades, the plastic industry promised that recycling would solve the problem of plastic waste, yet The US plastic recycling rate continues to hover around 5%. But now the industry is unfortunately doubling down on its receptive recycling claims, promoting incineration and other toxic methods of end of life plastic management under the misleading term chemical recycling. Also, greenwashed by the industry as advanced recycling or molecular recycling, all kinds of different terms and this bill refers to the set of technologies as chemical conversion but the truth is these these approaches largely fail to recycle plastic and their expanded use will only lead to more toxic pollution of our air and water and more waste in landfills and incinerators. And meanwhile, the production of new plastic will only continue to grow unrestricted because the public's concerns could be eased by this new promise of so called chemical recycling. And this term is used by the industry to refer to a number of different technologies that include pyrolysis, gasification, solvolysis, and solid based purification but the industry, however, is really just pushing one of these technologies above all else which is pyrolysis and this single technology accounts for 80% of all operating and proposed facilities in The US and pyrolysis along with gasification is a form of incineration with serious toxic impacts and is regulated as such under the Federal Clean Air Act. Yet, pyrolysis can't recycle much if any plastic. A 2023 study by scientists from Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab, NREL, found that when pyrolysis is used to to process plastic waste, only 0.1 to 6% of this plastic waste can actually become new plastic. And they concluded that quote, the economic and environmental metrics of pyrrolis and gasification are currently 10 to a 100 times higher than virgin polymers. In other words, it would be cheaper and environmentally preferable to just make plastic from virgin fossil fuels than to try to use pyrolysis or gasification to turn plastic waste into new plastic products. And what this process mostly produces is fuels, yet fuel production and use do not constitute recycling. And what's more these fuels can be highly toxic. In 2023, the US EPA approved 18 new chemical mixtures derived from plastic waste for use as fuels. Even though EPA scientists had determined that some of these chemicals post astoundingly high cancer risk. One of the chemical mixtures intended to be used as jet fuel was estimated to pose a one in four cancer risk. Meaning that one in in four people regularly exposed to it throughout their life would develop cancer likely. The EPA lady leader descended the approvals and is reassessing the chemicals. At the same time, the pyrolysis process creates large amounts of hazardous waste. EPA reporting data shows that between 2021 and 2024, just three pyrolysis facilities that were processing plastic waste generated more than 2,000,000 pounds of hazardous waste and shipped it off-site for and if all the 26 facilities that were proposed or under construction a year ago were actually built and put into operation, this could mean between 06/24, zero and ten. 8,000,000 additional pounds of hazardous waste generated and transported through and disposed of in communities across the country. And while there are very few operational chemical conversion facilities in The US, fewer than 10, more than one third of all states have at least one proposed or currently operating facilities. And these facilities tend to be cited in low income communities or can or and or communities of color and even communities without such facilities could still be impacted due to the transportation of hazardous waste Hazardous waste generated by these three pyrolysis facilities I mentioned traveled through 13 states on the way to disposal facilities putting even more communities at risk. And I think that the dangers of accidents, derailments, and other transportation related releases of hazardous materials would be clear to you all given the February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. And while solvent and chemical based methods of chemical recycling are more likely than pyrolysis to actually recycle some amount of plastic as opposed to as opposed to burning it or turning into fuels. These processes also pose serious health and viral concerns. Solid based solvent based purification, salvolsis example, use chemicals linked to neurotoxicity, respiratory toxicity, cancer, developmental harm, and other health hazards. And not only do these technologies often use toxic solvents and chemical agents, but in some cases, they also generate significant quantities of hazardous waste. Chemical processing is a false solution to our plastic problem. It doesn't halt the deluge of plastic waste and it creates new harms and policymakers like yourselves should instead focus on real solutions to the plastic crisis, like reducing plastic production and use, switching to more environmentally sound materials, eliminating the most toxic plastics and chemical additives, and building a robust infrastructure for non toxic reuse return systems. This bill would be an important step forward as it would make sure that no chemical conversion facilities are built or operated in the great state of Vermont. Alright, so that's number one. Number two is that toxic the the second part of my testimony about the second part of the bill is that toxic chemicals do not belong in medical devices and I understand that you've already heard some testimony about DHP in this part of the bill. So I'll keep my comments on this provision relatively brief. But I'm really happy to see this provision in the bill that would ban the intentional addition of DHP to medical solution containers such as IV bags and medical tubing made with this toxic chemical. As you may know, some IV bags contain up to 40% DHP by weight and IV tubing can contain up to 80% DHP by weight. So, we're not talking about a small additive. It's really, it can be actually the bulk of the product and research has found that this chemical can leach from the bags and tubing into the medication other fluids being infused into the bloodstream of patients. And this chemical has been linked to a wide range of health effects including breast, liver, lung, and testicular cancer, decreased testosterone and infertility in men, impaired brain development, and metabolic disorders such as obesity and type two diabetes. And the human health harms have been long recognized. In some instances over thirty five years. DHP has been listened as a carcinogen by California since 1988 and as a reproductive and developmental toxin since 2003 and the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and others have issued policies that encourage hospitals to phase out of PVC medical devices especially those containing DHP And even twenty years ago, the FDA issued a public health notification advising healthcare professionals to switch to non DHP medical devices. And the fact is that safer and cost effective alternatives to DHP exist and already in use. They have been used in medical devices from well over four decades. Kaiser Permanente, the major hospital chain converted its entire hospital system to DHP IV bags and tubing in 2012. The transition took only six months and actually saved them $5,000,000 in actual costs. And across Europe, DHP IV bags have been the standard practice for decades and are now considered a market expectation. And Vermont has the opportunity to join California and the European Union, which have already enacted bans on DHP and IV bags and tubing. And the bill's provisions would take effect in 2030 for IV bags and 2035 for IV tubing, and this aligns with California's law, which also includes the same deadlines. And while most uses of DHP are already prohibited in Europe, the EU's most recent action to ban the use of DHP in medical devices also comes into full effect into 2030. So it's really the time is now. Vermont, we really hope that you're a leader. Alright. So now, the third part of my testimony is time to get plastic micro beads out of consumer products. As you all probably know, microplastics are everywhere in our environment. They're these tiny and sometimes microscopic particles plastic are in our air, our water, our soil, our food, in lakes, and rivers, and oceans, and they're also in our bodies. We find scientists finding them everywhere from the human heart and brain to testes and placentas. There's a growing concern that microplastics could be harming ecological and human health, in particular digestive, reproductive, and respiratory systems. The magnitude of the crisis demands an efficient and effective approach to a phase out unnecessary uses of plastic, especially primary microplastics that are intentionally added to other products. And one such unnecessary use is microbeads in personal care and cleaning products. There are many alternatives to microbeads that can be used in these products, including sea salt and sugar crystals, ground nut shells and seeds, clay minerals, and and even rice bran and ground ground oatmeal. And as further evidence that's possible to phase out the use of microbeads, consider, the microbead free waters act passed by the federal government in 2015 which amends federal law to phase out the use of microbead exfoliants and all rinse off cosmetics and over the counter drugs such as toothpaste and the law has been fully in effect since 2019 And although this law was a really important step in the right direction, it did not address, unfortunately, the microbeads present and leave on cosmetics and personal care products or the use of them in products in these products for purposes other than exfoliation. Hawaii has addressed these issues with the passage of a 2022 law which prohibited the sale and manufacture of of personal care products that contain these microbeads in 2024 and this law covered leave on cosmetics and personal care products and microplastics that have been added for reason beyond just abrasion or exfoliation and this law is important because in the rest of The US, microplastics can still be added the same products for other kinds of uses beyond abrasion and can also be added for any any use in in leave on personal care and cosmetic products such as lotion and lipstick and evidence suggests that even when personal care products are rinsed off, nanoplasties can remain on the skin causing exposure to these particles and the chemicals they contain. Vermont S-two 47 addresses one of these issues for cosmetics and personal care products but fails to take action on the other. So it will address the use of microplastics for abrasion and leave on cosmetics and personal care products. We'll continue to allow microplastics to be added to rinse off or leave on cosmetics personal care products for uses other than abrasion and exfoliation. So we actually hope that the bill can be strengthened. But nevertheless, this bill would really be an important step forward in addressing mycoplasma contamination by eliminating at least some unnecessary use. So in summary, the world has a plastic pollution crisis. Plastic, as you know, is harming our environment, our communities, and our health. And two forty seven works to address this crisis in three distinct ways, and we hope that you support this important bill, and I'm happy to take any questions if you might have them.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. Unfortunately, we have to go, but so grateful for your testimony. I actually do have some questions I'd love to chat with you about. Let me email you. Great. As somebody who's interested in chemicals and whatnot, like I want to know about the byproducts of pyrolysis. But we're going save that for another time. Thank you so much, really appreciate your testimony. Anything quick from you all? No? Okay, thank you so