Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Good morning. This is Natural Resources and Energy and it is Friday, April 3. We are starting the morning hearing from the professional loggers, contractors of the Northeast and joined by Mr. Duran. Welcome.

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Good morning, Senator Watson and members of the committee. Appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, albeit not in person today.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: All good. So, and

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you're gonna be telling us

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: about this program's known as LOCAM.

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Yes. And I just wanna be respectful of your time this morning. I know there's a lot going on. I have a presentation on PowerPoint that I can run through. I also provided to Judy my testimony along with a report that the Department of Forest Parks and Recreation submitted to the committee last December that details the results of Slow Camp. So you let me know how much time I have, and I can either just read my testimony, and we'll leave it at that, or I can run through the presentation.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. We have thirty minutes. I mean, do you think you can run through your presentation in thirty minutes?

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Without a doubt.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: go for it.

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: All right, sounds good. Let me share my screen for you. All right, let's put it in presentation mode. Everybody can see that okay?

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Yep. Yep. We can see that.

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Okay. Fantastic. So what I thought I would do so I appreciate, again, the opportunity to speak today. I'm gonna give you an update on the supporting loggers to comply with acceptable management practices pilot program that was actually authorized in the FY twenty five big budget bill and has been operating as a program of the Department of Forest Parks and Rec since July, basically of 2025. But I thought I would just give you a brief brief background on our our organization. And the reason I'm here to speak on that program is a couple reasons. So one, we are the contractor for the Department of Forest Parks and Rec that's running the program. We've been under contract with FBR since January 2025. So we are the administrator on on their behalf. And the second reason is that this program, the funding for this program will will run out in 2026. And so it was not included in the FY twenty seven budget request of the Scott administration. And so I've submitted a letter to the committee requesting funding that I hope that you'll you're willing to support when you send your budget priorities onto the senate appropriations committee. So that's that's the reason why I'm here today. So let me just give you some background on our organization. So our organization was founded in the state of Maine in 1995 to represent timber harvesting and hauling companies, and to give them a voice in the forest products industry. Generally, they're at the bottom of the supply chain. And so a group of folks in Maine back in 1995 wanted to have their own representation. So that's why our organization started. Our mission is to educate and promote logging as a profession to the public and advocate on on behalf of logging professionals. We also, in addition to that work, we have started the master logger certification program in 2001 as the world's only third party certification program for logging contractors. And then we also have two FSC certificates of forest management certificate and a chain of custody certificate for landowners and mills that wanna participate in the Forest Stewardship Council FSC system. So who are we today? So in 2023, our organization expanded. You can see on that map where our members are. We have about two sixty members across the Northeast now. Majority are still in the state of Maine, but we now have 35 members in the state of Vermont, and we also have 10 members now in the state of New York. And so we're truly a regional organization that does advocacy on behalf of the logging community. So, again, let me just jump to slow camp. So as I mentioned, we are the contractor. A there was an RFP in 2024. We bid on the project, and so we have been implementing it on behalf of FPR. And attached to my testimony, as I mentioned, is the the full report from December on Slow Camp. So I'll run down through the highlights for you. So the project team, I mentioned PLC's role where the primary manager of the program. We handle marketing promotion, the application intake, and eligibility determination. We have a team of foresters in Vermont that schedule site inspections. They review applications with us. They go out and they look at in the field on the face of the earth on many of the projects beforehand, before they're installed, what the the contractor has applied for, and then they go back and they do site inspections at the conclusion to determine that the the applications were put in place. And I'll, again, go over what these are for specifically in just a moment. And then we work very closely with with FPR staff, Dave Wilcox and Oliver Pearson at FPR on the implementation of this program. So, again, what, you know, what is slow camp and what's it for? So back in 2024, there was, as a result of the floods of twenty three, the flood again of '24, very, very warm winters in '22, '23, and again in '24, and high amounts of precipitation. It was very challenging for contractors to get in the woods and not only go to work, but also implement the AMPs, the acceptable management practices in Vermont that are effectively required by law. And so, you know, contractors were or being kind of faced and forced to deal with unfunded mandates, so to speak, that they were really struggling to comply with for resiliency purposes, you know, hardening of truck landings, bridges, culverts, stream crossings, etcetera. And so the the legislature responded, this committee, as well as the house ag committee responded and requested funding to expand the water quality assistance program, and in turn created Slow Camp. And so a million dollars was appropriated in the FY '25 budget to fund this program. About 750,000 of that is reserved for contractors for implementation of practices. I'll go into those practices in just a moment. But that's effectively what this grant program has been and and continues to be. So we conducted a digital awareness campaigns, created statewide awareness, created the application. If you go on the website, plcloggers.org, you can find the Slow Camp Landing site. It's a one stop hub. As of the report that was submitted to this committee in December, 54% of the funds had been awarded and were going through implementation. At that point in time, there was about 323,000 in slow camp grant funding remaining. I can tell you as of today, there's about $200,000 remaining in funding. And so I expect that all of that funding will be awarded probably by startup again. We're moving into mud season right now. So contractors are now preparing for summertime operations, and we expect those applications will probably take up all that funding most likely by June at this point. That's image of the website where you can find information on the program. So application process for contractors. Step one, they can explore the website. They submit the application for review and approval. We review that. And then once there's a signed contract in place, 75% of the funds for the project is then distributed to the contractor upon a signed agreement, and then they get to work. And so they can then move forward with these with these practices. Again, I'll get to the the specific practices in more detail in just a moment. And then once the project is completed, we have a field forester go out and review the work that was done in the field, make sure that it was done to the AMP standards and requirements, and then we will release the final 25 to the contractor once the project has been completed and that project sign off has been done. So it's a standards based reimbursement quality first, we pay for installed practices that meet the standards, rather than requiring contractors to track their expenses by individual receipt. Again, rewards based. We we want high quality work rather than just administrative minutiae. Environmental alignment, the reimbursement structure ensures the actual outcome in the forest matches the water quality goals. So real outcomes, that's a photograph of road that was prepared and hardened as a result of funds from this program. You can see that it's about water management. And that's really what this program is about is to ensure that water is diverted from roads, from logging jobs, make sure that contractors can go to work, and to make sure that we take care of the water resources in Vermont, but also allow forest management concurrently at the same time. So it builds resilience, so that contractors can continue to work on wet weather days and without shutdown. It reduces sediment in streams and rivers and water crossings, and it provides long term stability, especially with landings and roads. And that's a huge benefit for the landowner at the end of the day. There's a tremendous amount of accountability with this program. As I mentioned, 75% upfront, but we hold 25% of the funds. There's Forrester oversight with pre award site visits, as well as post with the verified results before payments are released.

[Unidentified committee member]: Let me go back

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: to my screen. So a little bit on the results that vectors. Just moving my screen around a little bit so that I can see this. So we've we do conduct evaluations that are required before those final payments go out. Every participant has stated a 100% satisfaction with the program, and they would do it again if provided with the opportunity, or if the project requires it. Financial feasibility, the contractors have reported that without this funding, this work may not have happened, or would have been significantly reduced, and the highest ratings and evaluations were given to the responsiveness and practical guidance provided by the field foresters. So this is just kind of a good graph to show you where the funding has gone, where it's been allocated. Basically, you know, that $366,376,000, as I mentioned in the December report, provided to 29 eligible logging projects in the first four and a half months. There were 113 individual practices that were funded. Breakdown by practice type, 75% of the funds were spent on hardening truck roads and landings, either for entrance purposes to logging operations or for processing of forest products. We had 8% go to temporary stream crossings, 13% go to skid trail improvements, and then permanent stream crossings at that time for practices installed in about 4% of the funds went to permanent stream crossing. So you can see the majority of the funds are really going towards those hardening of truck roads and landings, and frankly, that's where most of the work is actually taking place when it comes to a logging job. You've got logging equipment, you've got processing of fourth products, and then you've got trucks. And so providing that access to that point of entry and access and departure is critical, but it's also the place where you have the most runoff, the most disturbance, and it really is is making a difference in terms of the quality, but also the long term performance of the forest and and protecting that water resource. So finally, kind of lessons learned along the way, managing variability, logging is highly sensitive to weather. It's why this program is created, and many of the factors that impact operations are beyond the contractors control, provides increased flexibility. This has been a one off, this was a pilot program to start. And as I mentioned previously, I think requesting further funding to continue this is vital, but there are some changes that we've noticed along the way that would be very beneficial to contractors, including moving to a two year horizon for planning, but also trying to provide more flexibility for contractors if, you know, let's say there is an extremely wet period of time and you can't enter, but you already have an agreement in place trying to provide that flexibility of of an entrance point at a time in the future, which we we can't do now. You know, we've had hard deadlines. The program was supposed to be completed by June 30. June 30, FPR has provided an extension to get the practices done by November 30. But that's just an example of kind of the the limitations of a pilot. Operational sequencing, a multi year window enables better sequencing, as I mentioned. So looking ahead in the letter that I provided to you today, I think it would be important to move this from a pilot to ongoing funding. You know, clearly, since the Scott administration didn't put it into the budget, you know, we can't request annual funding at this point. It would continue to be a a one off, but an expansion. So this is not a one and done. Will be it is, I think, vital to the community, especially with respect to what's happening with markets, with tariffs. Now with diesel prices that are 20% higher than they were just a month ago. There's a tremendous amount of volatility in the market right now with a lot of moving parts, so to speak. And I think having this program in place would be a vital lifeline for the logging community. So let me stop there. Again, just being respectful of time. It's 09:18. I wanna provide an opportunity for questions, but hopefully that that was, beneficial in terms of the approach, the practices, the implementation, and why it's necessary to move forward.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, thank you so much. Is there two

[Unidentified committee member]: questions, Yeah, both. That was a great presentation, clear. And did any money come through in the house budget?

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: So good, great question, Senator. So the house ag committee did request funding in their letter to the house appropriations committee. They requested $750,000 to continue the program. As far as I know, the House Appropriations Committee did not put it into their budget that passed two weeks ago. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I have another question for you. Also, first of all, thank you. It sounds like this was a hugely beneficial and successful program, which is great. I am wondering about the money that was appropriated for it in 2025. Was that from general fund or was that like from clean water fund monies or what was the source of that?

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Good question, Senator. So that came from general fund.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I hear you.

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Yep, yep. Okay. And I think just a follow-up to that, you know, there was a million dollars that was appropriated at that point in time, but this was a a new program. The water quality assistance program had already been approved in statute, so it had existed, but there was no programming to date. So that was an initial, you know, tranche of money that got this program up and running work. You know, we're kinda recommending 750,000 because the startup, the administration, the application, the process that has already been funded and that is, you know, proven to be successful. So I don't think there's any reason to request any type of you know, it would be a very small amount of admin for FPR to continue this. They could move it forward if they wanted to on their own. So I think the funding that we're talking about now is really for practices. That's what it's for. It's not for administration.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. That's great. Yes, go ahead, Senator Lewis.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Thanks for your presentation and for what you do. Is there any federal funding that could be leveraged to help support what you do?

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Yeah, valid question as well. There really is not. Across the country, USDA has never provided funding for any type of work like this. It's always been at the state level. I think that's probably a a conversation we need to continue to have with the delegation in Vermont as well as the other states that we represent. Know, logging in is considered forestry. Forestry is considered agriculture at the federal level. But I would say it probably is the redheaded stepchild when it becomes, an agricultural product. We've seen success with these programs at the state level. The state of New York, the Watershed Ag Council for the for New York City actually has a program that does this, and that really was the impetus for the program in Vermont. And that is funded directly by the city of New York. And so that's another example of whether it's state or local. Vermont has been a leader in taking the approach that this has to be funded by state because there is no federal funding available.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: The reason I asked is 2010, I know somebody that worked with NCRS and got money to repair a truckload

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Yeah.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: From cleaning. And it was significant amount of money. Then Irene came and it washed it all out. But

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Yeah. So good question, senator. You know, that NRCS funding is only for landowners, and so it has to go to a landowner on a case by case basis. And, yes, that's federal funding for a landowner. But for the contractor, you know, the contractor at the end of the day is the one that actually does the work. And they're the ones that, in most parts, even with NRCS federally funded projects, they're the ones that still kinda get left holding the bag. Not a lot of that money gets transferred onto the contractor. And that frankly has been the struggle, I think, contractors is they have the expectation in Vermont's case with AMPs, they have the responsibility to implement them, but that funding never kinda flows downhill. So they have to take it out of stumpage or not. If they're gonna remain competitive, they have to make those stumpage payments to landowners. And so a lot of the time they end up eating the cost. And I think that's the struggle that they've been up against. And that's why I think SLO Camp has become such a model of success.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Bennington. Yes, sir.

[Unidentified committee member]: So without additional funding, this whole program will have been stood up, lasted for two years and then go away? Yes. Yeah, okay. So another question I have is, how do you, a lot of times unlocking jobs I think when in the end the roads are trying to be reclaimed and in the case that you're talking about they're made permanent having determined which happens when under the program. It makes sense under some circumstances to make the permanent.

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: Yeah, it's a case by case basis. There are landings as well as roads. So there are I would say most of this funding has been put towards that landing establishment and the hardening of a of a landing. If you need to put in a small whether it's a culvert for a crossing or a or a road, you know, the the roads have been very minimal. We're talking about, you know, not even a quarter of a mile. I don't think we've had any roads that are more than probably a quarter of a mile. Most of them are in a tenth of a mile, an eighth of a mile. And so the contractors have to close those out. As I mentioned earlier, the landowners are the ones who are benefiting. So in the long run, the contractor is not gonna close out the road. They're not gonna take this material out. They're going to leave it. And for the landowner, that's great for them because they have long term access, long term benefit, but also long term water management. And, you know, the contractors part of this funding is also used for closeout. So that's sediment control, that is hay bales, that's seed, etcetera, because they also with AMPs, they have an obligation to then close out those jobs correctly, and and the roads are gonna stay no matter what.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, thanks. Yes, another question.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: When it comes to federal funding for the landlords, there's usually a ten year maintenance requirement to Yes, maintain that road as

[Dana Doran (Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast)]: correct, Yeah. Yep.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: One other question I have, actually this may be a question for FBR actually. So we have Kate Eberly. I think Oliver is going jump on. Oh,

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Okay. Do you want me

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to pop out? I'm not sure if Oliver is popping on right now. Oh, we got Oliver here. Great. Okay. Because I think I have another funding related question. Hello. Hi,

[Oliver Pearson (Director of Forests, Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation)]: good morning. Can you hear me?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, we can hear you. Thank you for joining us.

[Oliver Pearson (Director of Forests, Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation)]: My pleasure. Just for the record, I'm Oliver Pearson, Director for Forest within Vermont Department of Forest Parks and Rec.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Super. Well, first of all, I would love to, give you an opportunity to like, if there's anything you want to add or weigh in on about this program, you're absolutely welcome if you want to add. But I also have another question for you about, I guess I'm thinking about, because it sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the great benefits of this program is in terms of like water quality coming out of logging projects. And that to me is very reminiscent of our, like the conversations we had around three acre storm water, which I realize is not for forested lands, there is a whole, like it's a different part of the phosphorus TMDL. And so we haven't really talked very much about the forested land part of the TMDL, and so wondering about how that is, if there are

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: other programs that go into

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the forested land TMDL management, or if there are, and if there's like money set aside within FPR to do that. Anyway, curious for all of those things.

[Oliver Pearson (Director of Forests, Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation)]: Sure. I will admit that I was in another meeting until about five minutes ago, so I missed most of Mr. Duran's presentation. But to your first point, Senator Watson, I think I'll start briefly just by saying over the last year, year and a half since the legislature made funding available for SLO Camp, we've stood up what we believe to have been a very successful, well thought out, and really in high demand program to support loggers to comply with AMPs on logging jobs. And I think there's so many great benefits of it. There's hopefully the reduction of a particular phosphorus runoff into downstream receiving waters, and as you said, to support the Lake Champlain TMDL and that huge watershed meant for MAGOG TMDL in that part of the state and just overall water quality benefits statewide. And when you go out on a logging job where the AMPs are implemented, many cases in the last year with support from Slow Camp, you're seeing that the respect to the AMPs, good skid road practices, temporary and permanent stream crossings in place, culverts, hardening of skid trails and landings, and not seeing the discharges that were really set up, that this program was really set up to address. So that's great. And so there's that very clear water quality benefit from helping loggers comply with these AMPs. Second is just helping offset the costs, which can be expensive on many logging jobs in a period when the market is tough, when a lot of loggers and mills are getting out of the industry, and we need a vibrant forest product sector to keep our forests healthy and well managed and provide Vermonters with different forms of energy. So it's heartening to see that this program has really helped loggers keep up with increasing costs and maintain their commitment to to good stewardship and and water quality, which we see pretty, pretty widespread. There's always a couple of bad actors, but we see very widespread in the logging community in Vermont. And FPR is really proud of the work we did to stand the program up and the professional logging contractors of the Northeast, the organization that Mr. Duran represents, just frankly has done a fantastic job implementing this project. And I can say that my colleague, Wilcox, who's our watershed forester, will say that. But I think more important is the feedback we've gotten from loggers who have participated directly in the program and highlighted it's quick responsive time, it's fair approach to assessing costs, and its ability to help them complete logging jobs without discharge, and also do some forest management projects. I hope I'm not repeating what Mr. Durian said, some forest management projects that really benefited the forest but because of other factors may not have been possible without the the slow camp funding just due to the high costs of all of the water quality practices that need to be put into for that particular logging job to be in compliance with the AMPs. So that makes me realize that, geez, this slow camp is helping us do forest management, improve forest health, improve resiliency through different types of management projects that wouldn't really have been possible otherwise. And it's a great analog to support that the state has has provided to farmers to comply with the required agriculture practices. We're, you know, finally over the last year providing similar support directly to loggers. So I'll stop there. I have a whole PowerPoint presentation and a legislative report, as you know, about slow camps. I can go into a lot more detail if the committee's interested. But and, Senator Watson, I'll pivot to your your second question. Let me just gather my thoughts for a second. You're correct to say that the Lake Champlain TMDL considers all the different sources of phosphorus to the lake and including sources that emanate from forested lands. With Vermont being over 75% forested, phosphorus coming off forested lands definitely one of the contributors to phosphorus loading to the lake. Think it's somewhere in the, you know, 10 around ten, fifteen, 20% of the overall load. I I if I had time, I'd look at the latest state of the lake report and give you the exact figure. But that happens through natural channelization and steeper areas, intense precipitation events. And I think pre AMPs, there was certainly I'm sorry, AMPs, you probably all know, is the acronym for the acceptable management practices to protect water quality and logging jobs in Vermont. Probably pre AMPs, there is, you know, a good amount of particulate, phosphorus flowing into tributaries, streams, rivers, and eventually Lake Champlain, from from logging jobs, which is essentially what the AMPs were set up to to correct. So to your question, we're we're we're we have a we have a we have some support from the Clean Water Fund to help reduce the phosphorus loading from, you know, forest management work writ large statewide. And that's different from slow camp because it targets principally two things. First of all, the overall amount on aggregate from the entire clean water budget has increased a bit over the past couple of years, but it's it's around or just less than $1,000,000 right now. A large chunk goes to performing upgrades on logging roads and forest roads, many of which are used for recreation access and for local residents living near state forests and state parks to transit from one side of the forest to another. So a large chunk of the clean water funds goes to upgrades to existing forest roads so that they comply with the AMPs, have a sufficient drainage, are hardened, and aren't contributing sediment phosphorus into downstream waters during storm events. The other piece is our sort of temporary bridge, Skidder Bridge rental cost share program that my colleague Dave Wilcox at Watershed Forest Terrace has been implementing for years, and that makes wooden and steel bridges available, know, often for a very small rental fee, often in partnership with the conservation districts, to loggers. There's small wooden bridges which can be moved around easily, and there's larger steel bridges to cross larger stream crossings, which we can rent to a logger during a logging job that they pay us for the number of months that they need to use them or pay the conservation districts and return them and they're they're back into the program. So some of the clean water support covers that piece as well. One other piece of Clean Water Support that's really exciting, getting going, is the Vermont Economic Development Authority with their own resources has a forestry loan program for all actors in the forest economy, be it secondary processing, mills, loggers, to do a 2% interest rate buy down for eligible equipment. That's helpful and they were getting applications more on the processing side but getting from 7%, 7% interest, which I think is prime these days, down 2% wasn't enough of an incentive or wasn't enough of a financial support for loggers to take advantage of that loan reduction program. And so what we did, modeled after a similar program in Maine, was worked with the Clean Water Fund and the Clean Water Board to get half $1,000,000 to sort of add to that VIDA forestry loan program for logging equipment that specifically has a clean water benefit that has larger what are called flotation wheels to reduce impact on soil or mechanized equipment like forwarders and cut to length harvesters that reduce the number of trips and the amount of soil compaction doing a logging job. And we've helped buy interest rates with that $05,000,000 from the Clean Water Fund down another two, two point five percentage points for a very well defined set of equipment that we know will have a clean water benefit. And we've also required applicants to be either master logger certified or LEAP certified so that the equipment is being used in good hands by trained loggers who understand how to use it to achieve those water quality benefits. Because even the best equipment in the wrong hands can cause soil compaction erosion, etc. So that program is getting going. It's being implemented by VIDA and they've had I think it started this year and I think they've had three or four applications already. That $500,000 won't go too far, but if we can demonstrate that there's interest and demand there, we'll see if the Clean Water Board is interested in continuing that support. So, you know, I think also your question, Senator Watson, every, you know, logging job that's done on state lands, which is part of a long range management plan, and then is is laid out specifically, you know, by our state lands foresters with input from biologists, ecologists, and recreation specialists, and and hydrologists, etcetera, complies with the AMPs. So that work is done through our state lands operations budget by FPR staff. We contract out the actual logging work to loggers who have signed up to do business with the state when we board those contracts on a competitive basis. So that's another piece of our work. There's no direct funding for that. That just sort of comes off the top, if you will, and that's an important part of our forest management work because most of those logging jobs these days, or what we call timber sales, are oriented around forest resilience, wildlife habitat restoration, addressing forest health issues, etc. So it's both sort of meeting our statutory mandate to get forest products out to market and support the forest economy but also achieving forest health goals at the same time. So those are the other pieces. None of those pieces that I mentioned, just to wrap up, are really providing support to loggers to comply with the AMPs in the way that SLO Camp does. So SLO Camp is sort of filling a unique gap. We were really pleased a year and a half or two years ago, and I think it was '23, maybe it was '24 funding perhaps when the legislature made a million dollars available for to kick off SLOCAMP. It's been stood up with the manual with the practices with the implementer in place with the public outreach and awareness done. And now the demand coming in from loggers. And as as Mr Duran probably shared with you that that initial million dollars will probably be fully utilized at some point this calendar year. At that point, without additional support from the legislature, we'll sort of put Slow Camp on ice until we can figure out some other funding source perhaps to continue it. So I'll stop there. Sorry for the long winded answer to your two questions.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, that's very helpful. Thank you. I appreciate that. It's good to know that, you know, terms of that, you know, picture of solutions that Slow Thamp was filling a specific gap in the, you know, in the needs. So, any other thoughts or questions or concerns or anything?

[Unidentified committee member]: I answered the question.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, super. All right. Well, thank you both. Thanks for joining us. This was very helpful.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: All right.

[Oliver Pearson (Director of Forests, Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation)]: Thanks for the opportunity.

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

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So at this point, we have listed in our agenda returning to budget conversation, but I want to say that we're going to be hearing from more folks next week. So I don't know if anybody has anything to add at this point. I actually don't know if there's anything that we need to do unless folks have thoughts on additions, changes.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. So, I guess this is what we heard from Mike down here.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, so we'll hear from folks representing Working Lands and I think we're going get a letter from CIRM, we could have them in as well. Then there was, oh, and then someone else from the Farm Security Fund.

[Unidentified committee member]: Haven't really looked at the agency's budget.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We have not looked at the agency budgets.

[Unidentified committee member]: May not be.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We could have ANR. I think it's relative to our jurisdiction, could have ANR, could also have DPS in They gave their budget presentation in appropriations yesterday. So that's something I'm trying think there's a way to do that very briefly, you know, like in a short way. I'm not trying to do that.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yes. Right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. And if I recall, was one part that was interesting. Most of it was pretty run of the mill. I will just note that the Fish and Wildlife Department was planning on putting together a type of license for folks that were not fishing or hunting to access public. Should let them describe this, but

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: short

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: version, I did check with our legislative council and yes, they have the authority to do this, but the house removed that authority And then I think it said in another deal, removed that authority and specifically said, but you can't make this. You can't do this. So that seems to be a bit controversial.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Access what? Oh, I'm

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: sorry, accessing the ramps for public fishing accidents.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah, access to the online fishing license right now?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think it was a way to generate more revenue because people are allowed A

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: rent fee.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's basically a rent. I think that would be a fair way to call it. But folks from the department speak to that because that was of interest. So maybe that's something we can try to fit in. That's why bought a boat license and a trailer license. Yeah. It's a good question with how this fits into the universe of licenses.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Federal funding.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. Yeah, it does sort of relate to things that we were talking about in 02/24. But anyways, that is a different issue. So that's one of the only things I can think of that was somewhat controversial. The other thing to know is that Public Utility Commission is using a substantial amount of their reserves this year And that is not safe. So I think we, there's not necessarily something that we need to do this year, but something structurally needs to change for next year to ensure that they can continue to operate. What's their revenue stream? They're entirely funded during the gross expense. Oh, okay. Yeah. So it important and yes. So that

[Unidentified committee member]: light feels going down. Right. That's the thing. Oh, should you see that electricity?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. And well, I'm not it's at least on electricity.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Must be something more to it because people are using more electricity. It

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We must be something more to can also get pre health briefing from that as well. But it's, yeah, they're, it's, yeah, something's got to change.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, with that we're running a little bit ahead of schedule. So we are going to take a break until 10:00. Why? Okay, this is International Resources and Energy coming back from a break and we are looking at H932, which is on our wall. And we're gonna

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: hear from Ellen about what this bill does. So welcome. Thank you. Ellen Chakassi, Office of Legislative Council. I'm here at H932, an accolade to the regulation of forestry under Act two fifty. And this is one of native house agriculture's committee bills. And the climate in this bill comes from the recommendations of the Lincoln District Board's Wood Products Manufacturing Report. Although this bill is not directly about Wood Products Manufacturing, it is more about the forestry and logging industry specifically. It is about clarifying the existing exemption for logging and forestry below 2,500 feet in elevation. So in ACLU-ninety one, you directed the LAHU Board to look at ways to support the wood products manufacturing industry and the working lands logging industry more generally. That report had 10 recommendations and the House Agriculture Committee focused on three of them. And this bill has two sections of statutory changes from those recommendations. The other recommendation was that the Williams Review Board create a guidance document for people in the wood products manufacturing industry and logging and forestry industry on what the process is for those industries under Acting 15, what the available options are for them, because there actually are a number of exemptions and carve outs related to that industry. The latest review work has already done that, and so it's already been published. They worked on it with the agency and medical resources. That document is already available and did not need legislation to require it. The other two recommendations in the report are recommendations number nine and ten, and they are captured in here. There There are two sections of law, and I just finished the sentence. So there are two sections of law, section one and two work together for a section, for recommendation nine, and then the recommendations patent is in the middle of section one. So this all kind of blended together, but I will point them out. Okay, Question.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So just, I didn't catch what you said, didn't require regulation.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so they issued guidance document. It's on their website. They did not need anyone to tell them to do that. Did it. And you should hear your phone. Okay. So this bill is doing two things, but mostly what it is doing is codifying existing practice for the exemption for logging and forestry. So under Act two fifty, farming, logging and forestry below 5,500 feet have been exempt from Act two fifty since it was enacted in 1970. Over the years, a few details of that exemption have been added to the statute for tarmac, and even though forestry has also gotten the benefits of that exemption, it was not codified. So that is what people see. So it is largely not changing law, with the exception of one thing I will point out on page two. So section one is amending the definition section of Act two fifty in the area where the jurisdictional triggers are. And so first it's adding language on page one, subdivision six, line 13. Forestry, as referenced in subdivision B, does not include conversion of land for non exempt uses, such as commercial or industrial purpose constituting development assets as defined in this chapter. So first, in South Virgin D, it is referenced that forestry is exempt. However, this is clarifying what is already true. Forestry is exempt, but if you're cutting down trees just for a virtual or industrial purpose, that is not For site preparation on something for construction, that's not forestry. That is If you're intending to do that to allow you to build a building, that does not exist. That has already been true. Again, sort of just clarifying. Farther down, subsection F, when a development is proposed to occur on a parcel or tract of land that is devoted to logging and forestry, Only those portions of the parcel or tract that support the development shall be subject to regulation under this chapter. Permits issued under this chapter shall not impose conditions on other portions of the parcel or tract of land on the beach tooth that do not support the development or necessary mitigation areas and that restrict or conflict with the acceptable management practices for maintaining water polity on logging jobs in Vermont. So this subsection F works with language in section two, and it mirrors language that already exists for farming. So when a parcel does not already have an Act two fifty permit, and a development is proposed to occur on a parcel that has been devoted to logging and forgery so far, and is therefore exempt, therefore doesn't have a permit, But they seek to do a development on that property, only the portions of the tract related to that commercial development will have Act two fifty jurisdiction attached to it. This is true and has been true, and this process has existed in the rules already. It is currently in Act 50 rule 34, but this is making very clear in statute. This is the practice. So if an exempt activity is happening on a parcel that doesn't have an Act two fifty, you want to build something that would trigger Act 50, only that portion of the parcel will have Act two fifty permit and permit conditions on it.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: And yet such as a build development?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Solar, the construction of solar generation is not governed by Act two fifty, and so it is not considered development under this permitting scheme.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So on page two, subdivision 44 is the definition of wood products manufacturer. And so this is recommendation number 10 from the report. It's separate than the other things that are happening here. And the definition of wood products manufacturer was added into statute twenty twenty two when you created some provisions around how wood product manufacturers manufacturers are treated for purposes of Act two fifty. They have a few sort of carve outs for them, and this definition was created and it included that wood product manufacturers include log and full concentration yards. And during the report process, they did an extensive amount of research into the past Act two fifty permits for these types of businesses, and they found a very old Act two fifty decision that stated that log and full concentration yards are actually part of logging, because that is where you store temporarily the logs that have been cut. And so traditionally they had been exempt as part of logging and forestry, but when you created this definition, you swapped them in and made them not exempt. And so, shrinking them here returns them to exempt status as part of logging and forestry.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. Okay. That

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I can see it. So then basically having this language here conflicts with

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that decision where they were like, this should be exempt. Yes. And this definition was created years ago and that was a potential oversight that they added it to this definition. Okay. That makes sense. Okay, and then section two goes back to recommendation nine, which is to treat logging and forestry as farming is treated. And so it's adding an amendment to sixteen eighty one, the exemption section. It's adding language that mirrors language that already exists for farms, and it is the inverse of the language on page one. The language on page one was about when a parcel would have an Act two fifty permit on it and commercial development is proposed, the jurisdiction is only on that part of the parcel. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if something already has an Act two fifty permit, farming, logging, forestry is an exempt activity, and therefore you do not need a permit amendment for that exempt activity. And so this is what has happened, but it's being very clear in statute that no permanent or permanent amendment is required for logging 4th Street below the elevation of 2,500 feet. That will not conflict with or violate any condition of the permit issued pursuant to this charter. So that is one sort of clarifying thing to be aware of, is that if on the site there is a buffer required, like a vested of trees is required for mitigation or a buffer, cutting those trees down and calling it forestry is not exempt. That's in fact not allowed because that would conflict with the permit conditions. But if you're going to do logging with forestry elsewhere on the property that isn't restricted in any way, that is an exempt activity and does not need a permit amendment.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: There's a question. So if you own

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: property that goes beyond point 500 feet, there may be some trees that are you wanna. Yes. Then if it's at if you already have it from that, that that's good for you know, if it says in perpetuity for the time, it's not you could designate that as a time period for that to be or to go. You do that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not I'm not sure.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I'm saying that somebody if somebody gets a active 50 permit because some of the trees that aren't covered above one five hundred feet Mhmm. And nothing changes. They they even though they're cutting if they're gonna cut those trees above 2,500 feet, they have to have a minute. That permit, is there a time period on it?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is a time period on logging above 2,500 feet. So generally speaking, Act two fifty jurisdiction attaches in perpetuity. However, under 10 BSA, 6,090, there's a couple of permit types that only have a set duration. And so, logging above 5,500 feet shall be for a specified period, and then

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: will expire. What

[Unidentified committee member]: if

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: it says, what if originally the permit said imperfectly and it was approved?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. I'm, I, as a Act two fifty jurisdiction, everything very case by case and I'm not attempting to give you any legal advice right now.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: I'm trying to get you

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on spot and so I'll

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: just know somebody has a

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: 50% cut line. So

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the district coordinators are available to take your questions. I'm happy to put your touch on. So there's one last sentence at the bottom of page two and page three. Permit shall include a statement that logging and forestry activities consistent with the sub section F below 9500B are exempt from amendment jurisdiction. That is very clear in the firm that that activity is allowed. Nice.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: This feels like this bill is just very clarifying. I think I remember you saying that there was like one part that's kind

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of a change. Yeah, it's the logging in the definition 44. Oh, I see. Right? So the other parts of this bill are codifying things that are existing practice and are in the rules, putting it in statute, but number 44, the definition is a change to law.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yep, yep, that makes sense.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But restoring something that used to be true. Right,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: right. Okay, great. Okay, I don't think I have any questions about this. Any thoughts, questions, specific that you want?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: What was the vote on coming out of the house committee? Can you know about that? I

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: do not. I suspect it was unanimous, but I think it's for checking.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, also is the kind of thing we get asked Jed, I mean, from some of questions. Yeah. Real of my

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: list of people to ask.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: I asked him wherever he was.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. He has not responded. Okay. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: He was on the floor.

[Unidentified committee member]: His car's near his bed. Me too, that's all. Yeah. Yeah,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: so we'll find out more. This all seems

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: hopefully not controversial. It did, and it did do a drive by in house environment as well. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, well, super, thank you. So our next agenda item wasn't until 10:45. It's another real introduction and it's with James. So one possibility is that we just roll right into that. Another possibility is that we wait, see if Representative James appears. Oh, she's not doing it. So do you all have a preference? Do you care? No, my vibe. You're fine. You're fine to just like jump right in. I'm fine.

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, I see. You'd rolling with the covenants right now.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, because Ellen is the judge counsel for this next bill. So I really admire as well. And then we might pause when Representative James appears. Yeah. And then we'll probably be done early. This is a short bill.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: 8,007 and 40, no inferences from that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Anyway, who knows? This is why I have more than

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: a dozen bills in the bank. Many of

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: them are short.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: H740 is an accolating to greenhouse gas inventory and registry. And on this one, I can also give

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you sort of

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a background of where this came from. This is one of the top recommendations of the 2025 Vermont Climate Action Plan, and it is their recommendation that a comprehensive greenhouse gas reporting system and database be established. And so this bill is updating ANR's existing statutory authority to adopt rules to do that. So section one is amending PennDSA five eighty two, which is the statute on the greenhouse gas inventories and fresh. So for many years, the agency of natural resources has published a annual greenhouse gas inventory and forecast. And then it was largely just a It is a report that indicates the data on where greenhouse gas What the emissions The greenhouse gas emissions in the state are and what sources they come from. And they already have some existing authority under this law in subdivision one to adopt rules for their greenhouse gas program. But they're asking for, the agency has asked for additional specific authority related to the rules on this report. So I'll read the existing language first. The Secretary of Natural Resources may adopt rules to implement the provisions of this section to develop a greenhouse gas inventory and shall review existing and proposed international, federal, and state greenhouse gas emissions reporting programs and make reasonable efforts to promote consistency among the programs established pursuant to this section and other programs and to streamline reporting requirements on greenhouse gas emissions sources. Except as provided in subsection G, nothing in the section should limit that the state agency was adopting any rule within its authority. New language was added that the Secretary has authority to adopt rules that create a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions reporting program that covers all sources of emissions, including fuel suppliers. Suppliers of transportation and heating fuels covered by the rules shall comply with requests from the Secretary for information. The Secretary shall adopt a rule that at a minimum includes the types and volumes of fossil fuels sold by sector, on page two, for the transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, and by zip code, municipality, or the smallest geographic level practicable. So this is at a very precise grant of authority that the agency shall adopt rules that request information from fuel suppliers on the types of fuel sold, the volumes, and this is specific to fossil fuels, and then by sector and by location. So it's much more specific than the existing authority.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I guess I have one question about this section.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So on page one on line 17, now

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the state has authority to adopt rules that create a comprehensive greenhouse gas emission reporting program. I guess I'm interested in the word comprehensive. Adjectives are difficult. Yeah. And there's a part of me that would like to be more specific, like what are we talking about? What constitutes comprehensive? Like, what do we mean there? But I don't know if there's, if you have thoughts or if there was conversation about that word, or

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, this is the first sentence of the paragraph, which I just think serves as sort of thesis, another paragraph, the rest of the paragraph fills in the detail of what is meant by that, by providing specifically that it's for transportation and heating fuels, and then the types of things. So what I can also tell you is that ANR does have existing air pollution authority to adopt wind boots, and those are primarily related to direct emission sources that they have a permanent authority over, but there are also indirect sources of emissions. And so this program would cover both direct and indirect sources, including the fuel supplier sector, which traditionally has not had any It's considered an indirect source and currently having permit requirements under TNR.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. That makes sense. So I'm gonna

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That totally makes sense. I'm gonna let that question go. Yeah. And there is, I think, one other piece of information that I might help you. So in the third paragraph, it does reference other international federal or greenhouse gas data from other sources. And previously, the greenhouse gas inventory in Corpus has relied heavily

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: on the

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: federal data from those sources, and that data is no longer That data has some issues now, and it's less data is being collected at the federal level and they decrease further. And so this is also to address gaps that are coming about in the greenhouse gas work as you change those federal level.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Makes sense.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay, so I have four rules of green areas, trying to figure out how much has been saved. Yes. So again, it was sentenced that begins with the filed with paper and long none of this. That makes sense. If you're doing it by zip code, why do you also have municipality there? And then what does, or the smallest geographic level part actually mean?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So perhaps the semi colon would help somewhere here, but it is, they shall collect it by zip code, municipality, or the smallest level of practical.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So that is a series of oars there. Oh, they don't have to be by a zip code. It could just be by municipality. Yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the house committee was very specifically interested in by zip code. There's some, it's unclear currently if that is practicable.

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, for the smallest geographical passes is actually there to recognize that it might be bigger than by the means for municipalities.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could probably just say that, but the house committee was specifically interested in zip code if possible, or at the very least municipality. And that is because this data will be useful for Caledonia Energy Plans also. Okay. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: wonder if there are I'm trying to think if Burlington has more than one zip code. I mean, the top of the hill is one

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: zip code.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, might be good, mean, there's like, you know, the first five digits and then there's like the additional, but that, when we say zip code, we're set up with the first five digits. Let me just answer. I'm pretty sure it's at least three,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think. Maybe. Yeah. I don't know why. Because I live over there and have a different ZIP code than Yeah. This

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah, fair enough. All right. And then meanwhile, I'm wondering if, there may be some towns that have one zip code for multiple municipalities. Oh, potentially. Yeah. I think it also, right. Because, yeah, they're gonna share, they might share it. Oh, yeah. So, yes. So, I'm just

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: trying to figure out what they're trying to do. Yeah. What problem are trying to start?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is a requirement that the agency and natural resources annually produce a report on the emissions from the state. Currently they get a lot of that data from the federal level that some of it is no longer being collected and it is not as granular as zip code and municipality already. And so that report is directly related to the Global Warming Solutions Act and the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act. So having the data that demonstrates that we have met our requirements under that statute is important. And then also the house energy committee did talk a lot about how energy committees and regional planning commissions would also love to have this data so that they could do further energy planning. And so there are a few reasons why being able to collect this data at the state level will be useful moving forward.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's like we're doing all some modernization, electrification, like is it making a difference?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: for sure. And speaking as a poor member of the Montpelier Energy Advisory Committee, I feel that. I would have loved to have this data and been able to see our progress, if we had been able to leverage some dollars, like how do we direct those dollars, that would have been very helpful information. But this is also thank you, and I think we can also see if Representative James has anything to add about that question. Oh, there's one more section. Oh, there's one more section. Yeah, sorry, it's that much more, but I'll

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be just section two. So, this language was just a rulemaking section, and then the House Appropriations section amended it slightly because they took out the appropriation section that was in here. Rulemaking contingent upon appropriation of funds in fiscal year 2027 for this purpose. On or before 07/01/2026, the Secretary of Natural Resources shall adopt final rules for greenhouse gas reporting as required under the statute. The duty to create a database for the reporting of data is also contingent upon appropriation of funds. So originally, Section two said that the Secretary shall adopt this rule by next July, and then there was a section on an appropriation because the agency has asked that this will be a database that will live on ANR's website so that the data can be collected and then put in the database and then used for the calculation. So they have said that they will need funding to create that database and actually have someone who is the employee that does this work. And so

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: we should hear from the secretary on that point. My understanding was that the amount of money here had been $500,000 Yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Related, and there was also a new position created. They asked for two new environmental analysts to work on this, and so that funding would have covered the development of the database and then the staff to do the work.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, and then I have one other question just about, I think I'm understanding this, I just want to make sure that my mind shedding is correct. Because on page one, with this new language, where the first sentence is like, we're giving them the authority to do this. Yes. But the sentence that starts on line 20 is saying, and you shall do this. Correct. So it's not just like, you have the authority, but then they can just choose not to.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. There's a, the shout. There's a shout.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: There we go. Yeah. It does. Authority is more broad in shouts. Oh, actually.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I think so. And then also originally the rulemaking section here had the session level making provision was the shall by the deadline. And so now it's shall by that deadline if the money had been appropriated. Oh, okay. And so yeah. If if for some reason this fund this contingency funding issue, you can put a shall on line 16 if you'd like.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Instead it has the authority to say shall adoptables, not

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you could probably go with the agency has authority and shall adopt and shall The agency has, there has been litigation recently in other states regarding the precise authority agencies have to do greenhouse capital making. There are states that are. And so clear authority is something that the agency is interested in. So this was

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: an ask of the agency? Yes, they

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have after the word authority. Okay. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. So just to be

[Unidentified committee member]: clear, so if the contingency language doesn't indicate the whole bill, it just indicates the deadline.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: The deadline. Yeah. Oh, okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: Bills that we know the department's gonna be there, but it might be longer. Right. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And if you'd like

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: address that in a different way, can?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: If

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: there's no funding, change Or you can make a decision. Right.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's still yes. This is an awkward thing.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: This contingency funding language. Mhmm. Yeah. Gotcha.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. They're still a requirement if there's no deadline. Mhmm. But it will be They can go Yeah. But it's still a requirement. Yeah. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great. Any other questions at this point?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yes? People are more interest plans.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I have a list. Well, it's next week. Sweet. Let me know. Okay. Okay. Super. Alright. Well, thank you so much. So what my thinking is at this point, because we don't expect Representative James until 11:45. Is it 11:45? Right, that's when we expect to see her.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, yeah, I'm sorry, ten, yeah, that. I'm just

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: gonna ten to twenty five. I would suggest that we take a break until then.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Okay, thank you. Yeah, we are. Oh, are live. Sorry, just went. Okay, no, that's fine,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: okay, great.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, welcome, Chair James. Thank you. Yeah, good to have you, and we are, we're coming back from break, and this is an Natural Resources Energy, and we are looking at H740, and just to let you know, we're looking at another bill prior to this that was Ellen Tchaikowski's, and we had some extra time. So she has walked us through the bill already. So we're somewhat familiar, but I think we have some questions and would love to hear anything

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you would like to tell us about this. Sounds good. So

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: honestly, I just grabbed my floor report and scoot it down here. So, I will definitely skip any kind of a walkthrough thing, because it sounds like you guys have already talked to Ellen about that. So I think maybe I'll just talk a little bit about maybe why I think this bill is so important, and why I was really happy to sponsor it on the House side, and why I'm glad we passed the bill. So, I feel like, you know, we often talk about climate action in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. And it's true that greenhouse gas emissions are how we measure progress. It's a very high level metric. And it's how we can tell how we're doing on the important work of reducing the air pollution that's harming our communities and that's caused by burning fossil fuels. And so we have this high level number, but I think it's a lot more important for all of us to think about what climate actually means in terms of the nitty gritty actual day to day work of bringing that number down, and that really happens one person, one household at a time. So when we weatherize a home, when we install a heat pump, when we help somebody buy a more fuel efficient gas car, or get into an EV, that is what climate action actually needs. And it's important progress, you know, it helps the planet obviously, but mostly what it helps people do is save money on their energy bills. So when you're able to weatherize your home, your energy bill drops. When you can get into an EV, you're no longer paying for gas. Fossil fuels are the most price volatile. They're not only polluting, but they're the most price volatile fuels, and we are all seeing the effects of that with what's happening in The Gulf. So I guess that's why I care about the work, and

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: a lot of times

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: climate action or our efforts to really introduce thoughtful policy, bogs down when we try to get over the hurdle of the upfront investment, right? So, if you can afford to put on solar panels, you if can afford a fancy new EP, if you can afford to weatherize your home, you've got the cash, you make the upfront investment, you start saving big money tomorrow, and you save that money for years to come. But it's really low and moderate income for homeowners who don't have that upfront investment. And so, almost without exception, every important climate policy that we try to advance is trying to focus on how do we help folks who can afford it make that upfront investment. And a lot of the reason that we can't get those policies across the finish line is because we don't have the data we need to build a really thoughtful policy from the get go. So I know that was a long introduction, but I say that this is a really important bill. It seems like nothing, in fact, it's kind of everything. And if we had had the data we need in recent years, we might have avoided a lot of the acrimony that has accompanied some of our conversations around climate policy in the statehouse and around the state. And so right now, I know Ellen already walked me through this, but we do have high level data available. It's not the kind of data that we need to develop thoughtful, nuanced targeting policy. And so this bill really simply gives ANR the clear authority that ANR tells us they need. So ANR is ready to do this work. They believe they need a bill to clearly establish their authority to go out and do this rulemaking, compel fuel dealers to comply, and to get more granular data they need. That's in fact really all this bill does. So it's been interesting to watch some of the objections. You know, I've certainly followed conversations that are happening around the state and the objections shift, shifts weekly from this is data we already have, to well, we already have most of this data, to we already have some of this data, to this is just a Trojan horse for Cabinet Vest, to most recently, and very discouragingly, this bill is somehow going to raise the price of fossil fuels. So, you know, it's discouraging.

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, easy.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Yeah, it's discouraging that we can't even talk about a bill that will give ANR rule making authority to set up a data collection program without already seeing the carbon tax bonfire get lit. So anyway, I would argue that this is how we make progress. Lawmakers like us, policymakers, need good data. That's what we're asking for here. So anyway, this passed the house, you guys have the policy but props stripped out the money. That's obviously disappointing. We do have a fiscal note and you can talk to JFO about that. But really what we mean is the money for ANR to do the work. They had originally asked for $800,000 I had a series of conversations with Secretary Moore, and we were able to bring that down to 500,000. That's not with the three coming later. So it truly is, the ask is 500,000 base in an ongoing appropriation for ANR. It's, the money is to hire staff, they do need a dedicated staff to do this. They want to hire a consultant to get the portal up and running, because the idea is that this is information that fuel dealers do already have readily available. We're asking them to upload it directly to ANR, so we're going to need a simple, easy portal for that. And then down the road, ANR is anticipating that there would be quite a lot of outreach and sort of awareness raising work they have to do and compliance in terms of fuel dealers just, you know, basically like, here's the portal, here's how it works, we've got your data, it's not quite right, you're missing this, you're missing that. And we're not really contemplating, I don't think like enforcement at this time. I think it would be more like, we need to get your monthly number or, so anyway, that's what the money is for. It's AR based, and so obviously we're very hopeful that the Senate will put the money into the budget. The contingency language you see is pretty familiar. If the money, if it isn't funded, either in this year's budget or in BAA, which I hope we don't have to go to that, but then ANR is not obligated to do the work, which would be very disguised. It's not for me.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's not the way that we discussed this with Helen exactly.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, what did Helen-

[Unidentified committee member]: But it would appear the final section here or the only section, the deadline is contingent on the $500,000, but the policy obligation is still there with it without so it's not like the whole bill goes away. Only the deadline goes away without the 500,000.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: I'm not interested. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: Which is, I mean

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Yeah. I have to

[Unidentified committee member]: It's actually, good policy obligation and still be there.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: But just not the deadline.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm not gonna contradict what the judgmental

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: makes that for us, that was a little it it wasn't a floor amendment, obviously, but I mean, that was toward the very end of our work. We took a straw hole, and I don't think Ellen was able to come in. Shop in. Ashley. So

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there's no

[Unidentified committee member]: So talk to us a little bit more about the one name. So because at one level, what you describe as the fuel dealers already have it, they just need to upload it. Doesn't sound too expensive on a building basis.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Yeah. So Where's where's the You guys should definitely hear from ANR. Okay. Because those were there were some conversations between me and Secretary Moore, and then a lot of that testimony happened in a ropes. So I would recommend that you guys have Secretary Moore in. The thing I can tell you confidently is that the secretary is comfortable with the 500,000 base,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and it would

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: be great for you guys to hear directly from her about what that money is going be used for.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: You said there was a physical note on those? There is. You know?

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: And it's the 500.

[Unidentified committee member]: The focus was, I actually think the way he put it might be right, Helen might have been confused on that question. Okay. You find a little. Weird. I was not

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: under the impression that ANR still had to undertake the work. You you know, I mean, as much as I want this to happen, and you can tell that I do, asking ANR to embark on rulemaking for an unfunded program, I don't think that's a great idea. So I really think it's all about the money. But back to your question about the data, and, you know, is this available, is this not available? This is basic sales data that fuel dealers have that they're already uploading to tax, and fuel dealers, their obligation is going to be to upload it to a new and different portal. So the burden there is not significant. So why don't, if fuel dealers have the data, why don't we have the data? And I think that's where we've bogged down in, well, this is available, this is not available. Fuel dealers have it, they're uploading it to tax, they're uploading it to DMV, it is not available for policy makers. So it's published-

[Unidentified committee member]: because it's confidential.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Yes. And so that gets into what is tax less share and not share with ANR. And so we did take a lot of testimony about that. And tax has, you know, have tax in, if tax wants to share the data with ANR, our work here is done. You know, however, I think what you will hear from ANR, and our work here won't actually be done, because ANR is going want slightly different data. They're to want to tailor, you know, tailor the data they're collecting to the database they want to build out. And so I don't think it's just as simple as saying to tax, like, come on, share the data. But I know that tax has, I think, legitimate confidentiality concerns. I think they've, you know, felt in the past that it's slippery slope. So just getting the data from tax, I don't think is probably going to be our answer. A and R continues to explore is what they're calling reverse harmonization, where maybe A and R could share it with tax. And if they can work that out, that could also be a solution as well. It could save money in a different way down the road. But the difference is the granularity of the data. You know, what's available right now is gallons of fuels sold by type of fuel by month. And I think what's so intriguing about what this envisions is by zip code. And if you guys have a chance to hear from the RPCs and the energy committees, they are very excited about the prospect of town energy committees and regional commissions being able to see what fuel sales are happening at their town level. Right now it's happening at a statewide level. It's, in terms of policy making, you know, really thoughtful targeted policy making, it's, next to me.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Have a question about smallest, since you're here, unless, unless, if you got to go back, like if you were, you can Oh, actually don't.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Okay. I mean, we're on the floor, but- Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm fine. Okay, great. I just wanted to see,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: like, I could ask more questions, but like, you're like under, you know, time crunch right now. I'm on

[Unidentified committee member]: I was up before you got a bill. I thought it up there before you got

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a bill. Yeah.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: You made a very long bill. So,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I am thinking about, just like smallest geographic level practical. Yeah. My, well, so, you know, one hypothesis is that that could actually be quite large. Hopefully not. Right. Another hypothesis is that it could be extremely small and wondering

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: about,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you know, protections for individual identities. Do you know? Yeah,

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: I think that's why we zeroed in on zip code.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: There were suggestions that we do it by county and we heard from the fuel dealers, nobody gathers data that way, but they do have the zip code data available. Yeah, we're not trying to get at household by household. It was really just kind of a, you know, it's the type of language you put in when you wanna make sure that AMR

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: do its rulemaking work thoughtfully and not run into some barrier or you know? I I I'd say that would be discussed at the rule making.

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

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: But, you know, the idea here is the idea here is is to be able to to say things like, geez, we've got a town for the smallest practical reason that is really relent heresy. Like what's up with that? That's, you know, that's the dirtiest fuel, that's, how can we help people?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's so expensive.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Yeah, it's so expensive. So, you know, the idea is really just useful policy making tools. And, you know, when we discussed this bill on the floor, there were, you know, questions about to do what with it, you know? And I guess I would say, let's let the data, why don't we let the data tell us? Right? But we don't know what we're gonna, you know, what the answer is. You start with the data and then you build a policy from there. So I think this is such an important bill. If we could get, I didn't even put in all the pitches, but this is one of the top recommendations of this year's climate action plan. It is, you know, one of the top recommendations of treasurer paycheck. Secretary Moore is fully behind it. So this really is about, I think, getting the bill passed so that the work is authorized and then finding the money in

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the budget.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yes. So you took a straw poll, remember where it came from? Six three.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Both in the, both policy in our committee and then on the approves, which wasn't, I mean, so basically six three. Inconvenient person? Inconvenient, yeah. Great. And then I feel like we have a woke up. Okay. So you can look that up as well. Okay. You know, because it's, I mean, it's sad, but it's kind of false.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, right.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. Here we are.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you so much. Any other questions for Chair Jeans? Okay.

[Representative James (Chair, House Environment and Energy Committee)]: Thanks for your time.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: that is our last piece of business, I

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think for today. Any other, before

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: we leave this as a bill, any thoughts folks want to share on this?

[Unidentified committee member]: Take some testimony on.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So this is one

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: of the bills that we're going take a lot of testimony on next week along with the bottle bill. And yeah, so we're going to have to start really like just digging into somebody's bills. We have a lot of bills and not that much time.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know we're not on time. What's that?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Any word on time. No, I have not, I have no word on the time.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel, Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, okay, well, great. So with that, we will journey.

[Unidentified committee member]: Bottle builder, the first time I think is one that has like, supported by getting doctor Ron, maybe not gonna get Peter.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I I hope. I hope that's true.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Right. Yeah. But people are very nice.