Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Just trying to

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Good morning, guys. This is Senate Natural Resources and Energy. And it is Friday, April 17, and we are starting to marking an H915. And this is not technically a new official This is a mat draft. So Mr. Japanese. So So I'm

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: going to

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: invite you to come to the table.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I know you've done a lot of legwork to come up with some new language, so I'd love

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: to see what you have. Senator Hardy? Okay. So I also sent you and it should be available on break now that put in you my testimony. So there's both two documents we have. One is a memo from me to you basically sort of outlining the changes and trying to describe both what they are and where they're at. The other document is a markup with highlights on where the changes I recommend are. Perhaps I will, for the record, match admin, director of the waste management and prevention division with the department of environmental conservation. So the first sort of set of changes are largely in the definitions and they are largely non substantive. There are two substantive changes and one addition because I made the decision to send

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: this out to all of

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: the stakeholders last night and have already received comments, one of which was a very good comment and I'll include it in my comments this morning. The substantive one is deposit initiator. So this is a term that's actually already used in the Bottle Bill, but it is used in the disputes section. This is moving it up into the general definitions applied to the Baca bill and is making it clear that this is the entity that is responsible for participation within the PRO and is obligated under this chapter. And this is on page two? It is on page two. The definition of bottles. Basically what this is, is it's the person who incorporates the cost of the deposit into their beverage. In many cases it would be the distributor, so when we're talking about soda or beer. It may be the manufacturer, there are some large manufacturers who go ahead and frankly some small manufacturers who initiate the deposit themselves. In some cases it's like a wholesaler, right? But it's clear that the person who initiates that deposit is the one who's responsible and if no one initiates the deposit, then the person who first distributes the container in the state of Vermont is responsible for the participation of the program. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And this, so one of the issues that was raised to was this idea of like, I'm not sure what the right phrase is, but I've heard it called like white labeling.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: So, I've heard a couple different issues in this crisis to solve all of them. Basically there are some concern with manufacturers who use distributors and because the way it was defined, the obligation was on manufacturer or distributor. That was confusing and there was a need for clarity there. There is confusion sometimes when you're talking about, let's just say a hypothetical container that's placed into commerce in, I'll just use in New England. Let me just give you a real example. Say you have Switchel that is produced in Maine, and it's put into a regional wholesaler grocery and sold at grocery stores all throughout New England, Maine, Mass, New Hampshire, and in Vermont. The wholesaler is going to have to make a decision as to whether that producer, the manufacturer, is the deposit initiator, meaning that the cost of the soda coming into Vermont is going to have that 5¢ on it, or they're going to take responsibility over it. If no one does it,

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: then the wholesaler is responsible for it. Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: so this is just clarifying.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: It is responsible, correct. Okay. So that is the first substantive change. The other substantive change is frankly, the absolute wholesaler would be inclined to give it to the distributor. So one of the real challenges, especially when we're dealing with like wholesale distribution networks, is that often the manufacturer doesn't know where their containers are being sold, right? Like I give it to a wholesaler, that wholesaler is probing it to various grocery stores or other places, they know where the containers are being sold, but I as the manufacturer may not. So that's where

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: it's likely to end up?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: That is, it is, and again there are always exceptions to that general rule. But, okay. Ben. All right, other change was frankly an undoing of the change that I made in the addition of a definition of a dealer. So this is one of these antiquated bottom bill terms that was undefined both in our rules and in statutes, but basically a dealer is any person who sells beverages, frankly to anyone, right? So it's broader in its scope than retailer.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is the definition of dealer in is nowhere. It's always nowhere, okay.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: So you will not find it in your proposal. This is a comment that I received overnight. Oh, okay. And I am going to give Michael a definition of dealer, but I basically borrow from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and it's basically any person, including the operator of a vending machine or retailer, who engages in the sale of beverages in beverage containers to consumers at the state. So it picks up frankly everyone across the sales spectrum and you basically need to do that. It gets complicated, the requirements for retailers and dealers are slightly different. There were some concerns written by an individual that were well dated. So

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: we'll look at that in the future.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Yes. But whack again. So that's the easy one. Now moving to the handling fee.

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: There Who knows? Like you described your remark.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: I absolutely will. So the first change of the handling fee is on page four. It's in section 1522B and this is really just clarifying that the handling fee that exists as of today continues and exists since until 03/01/2029 when the stewardship of 2020 is implemented. So it keeps going until the technology is in place, the PRO is in place, so forth. So that's change number one. This is the only time in my presentation where I would be sending you all over the document because how that in lien B is addressed is not addressed in one single spot. So I apologize for that in advance, but basically the long story, and I think I alluded to this in my last testimony, is that we think it's necessary as a part of this bill as we move forward into a more modern EPR program to move away from the handling. We've also heard a number of the concerns and I'll just say the reason for that and you look at just Vermont for example, we have six other EPR programs outside of the Bobbleville. Of those Zoosk programs, none of them have a per container per unit fee associated with the charge of collection. Only two have pay collection facilities. Of those two, one of them requires fair compensation considered an apartments plan. The other is HHW EPR, which has a list of things in the facility that are paid for and it's paid for not specifically, but in a methodology approved by the agency. You've probably heard the state of Oregon is often held up as kind of a model of a model bill. There's not an envelope being in the state of Oregon to assess their model bill, there never has been. So having said, we think it's important to move forward. We've also heard there's a number of concerns from a number of redemption centers that think it's appropriate to put guardrails around what the PRO is doing. So I'm going go over five different things that basically protects tax redemption centers. I'll tell you where they're at, we'll also, when we go just sort of progressing through, but they'll get black again. No, think

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Matt's gonna answer my question. Go ahead. All right,

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: so the first one is what's in the bill that you saw that came over from the house, it's on page 18 of my draft. It basically is a requirement that the plan provide a methodology for what constitutes fair compensation. I will say and I want to make it clear on the record today, my view as the person administering this law is that fair compensation means that your costs are covered and you're receiving some reasonable rate of return on the work that you're doing. Basically the same approach that we take with utilities, I don't want to go through rate making. It is a narrative, it is how I will be looking at the plan when the plan comes into me.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, just to clarify,

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: so when

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you say a reasonable rate of return, I am also hearing that as like some amount of profit margin.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: You've got to cover your costs, it has to be something. And that's I think the gray area that the negotiation takes place at. That's number one, that's on page 18. So wait, I'm sorry the gray area is What constitutes a reasonable rate of return?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Above your costs. Costs. Yep. Okay.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: The second is on page 19. It requires that the PRO maximize the use of the existing collection network as a part of their plan and their infrastructure. And then we added three additional elements to try and again put the guardrails around the process. The first one on page 19 in 10DSA 1532A2F, there's a requirement that there be dispute resolution surrounding fair compensation that is resolved by a neutral third party. We would develop basic guidelines on how that dispute resolution is going to take place and then let the parties go forth.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's like an arbitration?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: It's like an arbitration process. It's similar to what the problems Quebec does with respect to disputes around compensation, so borrowing from that particular element. The next is on page 19, it's 1532A2G. It requires that the PRO provide the agency a report midway through the plan, so the plan's five years, and at two years and six months they provided some plans talking about how things have been fairly compensated and whether they need to make adjustments to their compensation schedule. And if they do, they tell us what they are and if they don't, they justify explain why they didn't make an adjustment.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry, I have more questions.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Please do. You

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: just mentioned five years. Yes. But going back, there was a date that was like March 2029. Yes. Was only three years. So March 2029

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: is the, I would refer to it as the implementation date, right? That is the date where the PRO is going to be up, alive, active, And it used to be that that's a new date. The reason frankly that we need that date is because a lot of things are coming into being and a lot of things are being repealed and we need a fixed time as opposed to ninety days from the day the agency approves your documents. And the five years is? How the term of the approved stewardship. So we can approve it for a term no longer than five years.

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: Thank you. The

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: next change is I guess the larger ones. So it's on page 33 and it's adding a new subdivision 12, it's 6618 B12. And this is a redemption centered transition the ranks. So it's intended to provide a grant to redemption centers that are in existence today who don't receive capital or equipment investments by the PRO. They would be eligible for a grant from the agency or up to 1 half of a cent per container. So that roughly speaking based on the estimates that we run is about $350,000 in the aggregate. We cap it too, but it's like, I leave a cap on it and make it from a first done first served basis. So that is an effort to try and ensure that there is some stability for redemption centers going forward in transitioning to this new model. That's how the agency proposes to address the elimination of the family.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, and again, so it's the total amount of grants would be capped not?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: The total amount of grants would be

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: capped. Okay. And this is a one time?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: It's a four year program. So basically it ties up, so we're giving capital grants to the PRO to basically buy equipment and make upgrades in facilities for four years. We're also basically parallel to that creating a grant program for redemption centers that aren't being invested in to make sure that they frankly have some transition payments to help them manage into the new system.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But a redemption center can only get a grant once?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: No. They don't So get it all four

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: is it 350,000

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: a year? The cap is 350,000

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: a year. Does this Oh, annually. Does this require an appropriation in future years? We can't find a future legislation.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: So what this does is it creates grant program within the agency of natural resources within a special fund that we administer. It authorizes the secretary to make grants out of that special fund.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: What is a special fund?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: A special fund is a fund that's created Which specific fund? Oh, always management assistance fund. Okay. And it would allow transfers between Clean Water Fund and the Solid Waste Management Assistance Fund to allow some of the species. Right, no, I know that that

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: would happen, so it's from that fund. Okay. And then

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: Okay. I'm just thinking about that. And

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: I guess I would say it would still be in our appropriations right? It would be in the agency's budget request and we would need budget authority for it, but it's generally speaking authorized under our special funds. To do this. To do this.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Wasn't the original bill has the, I don't see it in your It is. It has the transfers. It does. From the clean water fund.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: It does.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So this is taking, the $3.50 is taking part of the funds that are transferred from Clean Water to the Solid Waste Management Fund. Let me get there. If it's doing that, weren't those transfers already fully appropriated in the bill as it came to us? So what is this taking the place of?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: It increases the amount.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It increases the transfer from the Plains Water Fund.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: So if you go to page 32, roughly speaking, I apologize, I'm looking at a word version, that note is important. PDF don't always

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh yeah, have definitely 31. Okay. Oh, I see.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: So you'll notice on each one of those, there's been so it was 1,000,000, that's down 1,350,000. So it was basically a $350,000 increase. I guess I'll also say in conversations internally around this, it's an up to and I think that we as an agency have the intention of looking at both the fund balance and needs of the Clean Water Fund and the fund balance and needs of the Solid Waste Management Assistance Fund and manage them sort of holistically. Is it eligible use from the Solid Waste Management Assistance Fund? If there are pressures on the Clean Water Fund, then we would use the Clean Fund balances in the Solid Waste Management Assistance Fund or reprioritize the work we are going to do towards

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: funding these credit partners. Okay. Yes.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So does this discussion suggest that there will be some redemption centers in which the PRO is not interested?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: I think that it is likely that there will be some redemption centers the PRO doesn't make significant capital investments in. If you're a very small, very rural load of throughput redemption center, the best thing may be to maintain the status quo and have you hand sort containers. I think there are two things that are in play with respect to that. One is what are you getting as far as compensation from PRO on per content costs and that is going be negotiated. They're concerned by the redemption centers that they aren't going to get what they think is fair. I guess, I I think we can see either direction. I think their costs are probably marginally higher than some of the other larger facilities and they probably have a better case to be making as far as having an increased stand alone fee that someone who has millions and millions of pork containers per day going through their facility.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So there'd be perhaps a little tension between the VRO and those facilities because the VRO, it sounds like

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: we just assumed they'd run away. I think the PRO is the one who need them in order to meet their obligations under the plan requirements. And they have to, again, they have to make all reasonable efforts to use existing infrastructure for developing their plan. There are situations where there are multiple redemption centers within walking distance of each other and there may be in situations like that where the VRO best does and says, that just doesn't make sense. Often, then we have a conversation around it. But I just want to make sure we're not leaving the world generally, so it's made throughout what they've ever seen. Yeah, so is, how, okay, I mean, I'm

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: just not understanding the whole structure. Without the handling fee, how are the redemption centers reimbursed

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: for their work. They're going to have an agreement with the VRO that says for every container that it could be in multiple different ways. It could be a flat amount, for the year I'm going to give you a flat dollar amount. Yeah. It's gonna be per container, right. It very well could be that there's an individually negotiated agreement that still has a per container. Okay. There.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And how do you, and maybe you're going to get to this. I saw one thing in here about the arbitration, but making sure that they're equal partners in negotiating. It feels like the PRO is gonna have, they're the big guys and the redemption centers are the little guys, and so how do we make sure that the little guys get fair compensation?

[Ethan Hayes, Redemption Center Operator]: Sure, I mean, I think this is

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: the time to talk about that. I mean, I think there are two fundamental sort of elements that are in here. One is that the general methodology and approach that's being used for fair compensation has to be provided to the agency and we have to break with it. So if it's out of whack and sort of out of alignment with what constitutes fair, we won't approve it and we'll send it back to the PRO to do it again. The other is individual cases where the redemption center doesn't believe that they're being fairly compensated, they can bring that to a neutral third party and basically have the neutral third party review the records and make a determination as to whether it's a fair compensation.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so there'll be lots of small negotiations happening, like you're going to have to negotiate, you're going to have to negotiate. Is there Does the bill contain principles about what is fair compensation?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: It is a narrative. It is a general narrative right now. There's nothing that says this is what fair compensation is.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Could we add something?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Let me work through everything else. Okay. Then we only have a half hour, less than half an hour and then I'll go back to that.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: All

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: right, going back to my testimony. So on page five, amend section 15.23, I refer to this as universal redemption, but basically this is a requirement upon retailers of when they have to accept containers and what containers they're accepting. So you'll see that this whole section is highlighted and the reason that it is, it's reverting to the existing language. As we get deeper into the bill, there will be a set of amendments that basically remove the existing requirement that says you only have to collect what you sell and says you have to collect everything if you're basically under being used as a collection facility under the plan. We're moving away from this sort of like historic retail redemption obligation that you only have to collect, open, sell and anyone can bring any container that is a beverage container subject with auto bill into a collection. Does that keep up? In the office. So next up is liquor and moderate. This it's on page eight in section fifteen twenty seven and it removes retailer and adds going to redemption to be consistent with the rest of the bill as more cleanup. The next change is in section 10, it is in, on page 10, I added in section fifteen thirty, which is the unclaimed deposit section and added it and basically deleted the definition of deposit initiator because we moved it up to the general definitions. All right, the next change starts sort of, it's in section fifteen thirty one, I'm changing throughout the section removing distributor or manufacturer and inserting a deposit initiator. And then on page 14, there is a change that makes it clear that the PRO can both charge fees for the implementation of the program. So they can charge, the PRO can both charge Coke, Pepsi, Budweiser, the cost of running the program. And the other thing is they didn't demand data from anyone who's asked to participate in the program, how many containers, etcetera.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So deposit initiators are essentially Coke, Pepsi, they're the beverage producers. So it depends, right?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: So Coke and Pepsi, actually all of their obligations are met by distributors in the state. Okay. Right, so the distributors are deposit initiators. Polar Seltzer, they initiate their own deposits. So their manufacturer does their own deposit initiation. And so they would, this is one of those like vaccinating little areas of the bottle bill that makes my head hurt. So I need to understand completely, Senator. So this is one of those little, we've played around with a lot of different ways to try and get the right terminology, frankly, to make sure that all the right people are participating in the PRO and deposit initiator is the right definition from the agency and the three and others perspective. All right, moving on into the plan itself. And again there's, so on page 17 in 1532A1B, this goes back to the removal or addition of retail locations from a plan, but this makes it very clear that if the PRO wants to remove a retail location from a plan, they've got to demonstrate to the agency that the area is adequately served as part of the plan. So again, this is really intended to capture things like, you know, going up Route 7 into Burlington, you know, probably some retail areas in Rutland, right, where you have a high density of retail locations that might have to do collection. You don't necessarily want to have RVMs put in in 15 retail locations or within walking distance of each other, right? So this allows a little planning and the agencies of discretion in this space. The next change is on page 18. This basically requires, it basically makes sure that the places that are administering the law have the capacity from training, equipment operation perspective, and also make sure, and we hear this complaint from redemption centers a lot, I want to make sure that it's addressed, that there's pickups on a regular basis. And we've heard complaints about equipment in an error status like the RPMs and jaws is the dominant one that comes up, that there's a line and a person on the other end of that line of the hall if there's an error issue with the machinery. Next up on page 19 changes to 1532A to F. This is a fair compensation requirement that I discussed just a minute ago. 1532A to G, that's the plan review portion that basically tells the PRO to go through and take a look at fair compensation midway through the PRO plan. The next change comes on page 20. So this is amending section 1532A3C. This is putting in minimum hours of operation. So a comment was raised, I think it's a good one, that we have minimum hours of operation on redemption centers. This basically requires thirty five hours a week, six hours on Saturday, and at least until 7PM one day a week, and then if there's anything like, I'm going to call it a back crash or denting center, if it's a part of this we decide to have mobile collection or more points using different things, it sets up a standard for those as well. And just to note, is monolithic language that's being considered in the bill right now in New York. The next change is in section 1532c, it's on pages twenty two and twenty three. This addresses some of the comments that were made to the agencies with new and approval process. So it makes it very clear now that the, I think it was implied, but the secretary can deny the plan and that what the PRO needs to resubmit in sixty days, addressing the basis of the denial, it makes it clear that the agency can amend the plan and approve it with those amendments or alternatively place conditions on the approval of the plan. And then it also makes it clear that a renewal plan needs to be submitted six months for the of sort of the plan that's in term, and then we need to act on that plan ninety days prior to its expiration. So I think more process up, but I think good. The next change is, what happens if during those ninety days, you cannot reach the agreement? The then one of two things happens. Either we deny the plan and the then there's a series of we have The denial is active. Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is there, in this case time period, a process for others to give input on the plan? You'd say, we like this plan or we don't like this plan or change this plan.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Yes, so there are two common processes, right? One is there's an informal advisory board that the RO needs to set up to basically have them review the plan before it ever reaches the agency of natural resources.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is that created in your It was

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: actually in the underlying bill. I think we've talked about it. It's Sorry. I don't think about that a lot. Understood, Senator. Is again, I apologize for my page. It's on about page 21. It's subdivision five consultation with stakeholders. Oh, yeah. Yeah. This needs to be. I was gonna say, believe some have referred to it perhaps with tea,

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

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: You know, I guess I would say that the intention of this is to make sure that the agency is getting a diversity of individuals commenting on the plan to wherever it's my desk so that I have the benefit of both seeing what their comments were and if they're not resolved, it gives me a heads up that this scenario needs put additional scrutiny into when we get back to our review process. So I mean, that's how I envision using this section. I mean, there are lots of different models. We've used this one in the past. I actually think it's very effective. It gives the agency a lot of advance notice as to where the disagreement's deployed stable are, but whatever hits the agency staff, we need to try to go in and work to resolve them. Though I'm certainly open to other options. And I guess the other element that you don't see, but it says that we follow type three processes because we have sort of our uniform process, so there's a notice comment process attached to this as well. So once the agency's completed its review and is basically approving the plan, it goes out for a general public notice and comment period where people can comment on the point and if they have concerns or things that they think need to change those comments space of those dominance as well. Then obviously it's an accurate position of the secretary if people really have an issue with it, they can appeal it to the environmental division of the sphere of the world. Spirit

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: figure out a way to soak the tea bag a little.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: All right, let me move on. I think the next change is on page 23. It's 1532D. This is the implementation date, right? This says the implementation date at 03/01/2029. Again, to give a clear sort of target for when things need to be given. There are a number of additional changes that were made, I believe that we were looking at things in isolation in the other body, not necessarily lining all the dates up so that they made sense. And so if you look at the financial audit, it was moved to 2030 because it's only effective in March 29, you're not going to actually even have a full year before when the audit was previously proposed. Moves the first performance goal, again to 07/01/2030, and then the second to 07/01/2033, and again that's to give some time for the plan to actually be implemented and take effect so we can see whether we're actually seeing changes in the collection rates. It moves the report with recommendations off of July 1 and onto December 1. I don't think I would give you a very effective report if I was giving it to you from the same day that I'm getting the data from the PRO. Again, it still gives you a little bit of time before the start of the legislative session. So, but if you need to take legislative action, you have to go to proceed to that. Next set of changes is on pages 26 through 28 amending section 15.3. This is that universal redemption section, so it basically removes the provision that allows retailers to only redeem what they sell, so they all have to basically sell everything or excuse me, everything. It clarifies the PRO is required to collect all labeled containers from a location included in the plan. In other words, they got it and you're taking it it doesn't matter. Again, I've heard this complaint, I don't think it's a significant one, I've talked to the distributors, they don't either, but if it's crushed, if it's cullet, you know, because of the machinery that the PRO has basically put in, they put the machinery in, they're taking the big Sprite, like there's not going to be any exceptions for the Sprite Lab. Generally changing the definitions from retail and redemption to points of redemption and manufacturer distributor to PROs, general editorial changes out. And then basically adding a requirement not to redeem if you know that it was purchased out of state, container was already redeemed, or if it's not a registered vendor. So if you see, show my age, if you see Kramer and Newman showing up from New York with all of their containers in the back of the mail truck, you know.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's a great episode.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So,

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: all right. So next set of changes on page 31. This is the water bun. Do know what the reference is?

[Ethan Hayes, Redemption Center Operator]: I do. I know.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Basically one, this increases all of the transfer authorities by 350,000. Let's see, the next set of changes is on page 33 and I'm not seeing Sorry, before we go on, on

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: page 31, where it's got these transfers. Can you just, so the first two years are 1,350,000 and then coast 1.1, can you just tell me why those are different?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Sure, it really is, if if you you go go to, to section sixty six eighteen, so if you go down to in the bill to around page 33, you'll see two sections, page 11 and section 11 and section 12. I actually, and this is a change that I need to make, right? In section 11, I need to make it clear that in the first two fiscal years, the amount, the implementation grants under this section are only a million, they can get up to a million dollars and in the second two fiscal years, can get up to $750,000 That was the previous transfer authority. Now it needs to be embedded in here because there's more money moving around. Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: so I see. This is the implementation grants for the PRO- Correct. Two for a collection. Five. So it's a million for the first two years. And then $7.50. Which is why, okay,

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: let me add. That is the difference. Yeah, that's 50.

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

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: You're welcome. Okay, and then the next set of changes are the redemption center grant that you see right below that. So on page Rutland District 35, you can see the redemption center grant. Actually, should probably note on page 36, if not, it's in my testimony, I deleted the file oversight committee materials reporting section. This was a section that was added, I think it was in page 158, it got carried over into this bill. We basically used authority the agency already has to work. This was intended to require bottle bill MRFs, so basically the top right facility in that section to do the same level of reporting that our recycling facility, MRFs, were doing. So we had comparable data and we could see what was going on in each of those facilities. We made a decision in terms of within the agency to re examine a historic process, a historic decision that bottle bill Murphy's exempt and basically told it's not, that it needed permit they needed to they needed to break it apart. So that's a long story, that's actually not necessary anymore. Section six, the repeals. So this, there are a few more things that are brought in the repeals act. One is product registration. The agency is not going to be doing product registration and board of the RO is going be doing product registration. So we're going to repeal the agency's product registration authority and both the product registration authority and the redemption certification authority are revealed on mark 01/2009 which is the implementation date. The next set of changes are basically repealing both the PRO implementation grants and the retention center transition grants after the four year period with a jurisprudence force. In the effective dates, there are a couple changes. One is I've worked with the parties, so the first effective date makes the prohibition on selling beverage containers in the state effective, and basically needs to be, we're basically making it effective six months after the PRO comes into existence. So PRO is little bit of form, you basically have a six month grace period to register with the PRO and become a member. After that it's a violation and the agency can get it removed or out for after novels.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Wait, that's still a little bit. I don't want to see your ruler. 07/01/2027.

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. But I thought that the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: PRO would take place 03/01/2020 Okay,

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: different set of requirements. So the difference between the formation of the PRO, right, so the actual forming of the nonprofit corporation that manufacturers need to join and pay into so that the plan can get executed and implemented. PRO is sell, it gets formed on, there, on 01/01/2027. And then so we have six months for people to basically guide us through that internal. Okay. And then the next set of effective dates are just again making, the next effective date is making that change to universal retention effective. Then the last one is to deal with capital grants getting on that 07/01/2029. Yeah, it's a couple of months after the general implementation, just to align it with fiscal years, it makes a lot more sense to apply. Okay, do you have thoughts? I have thoughts,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: but do you want to go first? Sure. Well, I want to go back to fair the compensation. I bet our sponsors. Yeah. So, it sounded like you had more to

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: say about that and- No. I was trying to push it off.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No. Like, actually, think I wanna I I mean, I guess I would say that

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: That's fine.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: My my view is that you want to leave something very flexible in the discretion. Direction that I said, I think it put in it to that. Okay. Right, which is to say that a fair compensation is covering fewer costs plus a reasonable rate of return.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm interested in Verily's putting that in, making that clear. Yeah. I agree. I think we need to have some kind of standard about what fair compensation is so that PRO doesn't bulldoze the small, the redemption centers. Well, wonder if we were to put in language that fair compensation means cover your costs plus a reasonable rate of return. I'm looking at redemption center folks in the room to see their reactions. So we can have more conversation about that. I don't know if you would like to comment now. Don't want to put you on the spot if you don't want to be put on the spot. I

[Ethan Hayes, Redemption Center Operator]: would love

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: to comment.

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: Okay. I I have a few things to say about, related to what he said.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I reserve a limbo or a few things?

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

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: would you choose Jean Booker?

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: Yeah, I'm Shane Switzer from Lindbergh Dungeon. I'm I'm going to read from this here, just some notes that I made. So the first piece about fair compensation, I think that that is a, if we're gonna talk at all about on having a a raise in the the or a floor of some sort in this bill, then it has to be rock solid in there that that we have something that's fair. I'm gonna give a quick example and just I know we're limited on time, but if if I were to say to Coke and Pepsi, hey, you guys are really inefficient making your deliveries, so what we're gonna do is we're gonna form this organization. We're gonna buy you a really fast truck, and and and you're gonna make delivery. This is gonna make it way more efficient. They say, okay. Great. We charge this much. I'm like, well, actually, no. We're gonna negotiate that later. That doesn't work, like, that doesn't work for anybody in this firm. There's no way that that, like, that that they've applying that works. And that's what what we're asking to do here unless we have real clear definitions on what what this fair compensation piece. And so there's a couple of things that I'd like to just fair compensation is a must for us. This we have to have it. There's regarding that, if the PRO stands up in 2029, can we survive until then with null rays? I don't know. The other thing is is two and a half years to review it for the first time. I like that idea, that's great, but should we can we do something that does it sooner for the first time, maybe maybe a year after it stands up to make sure that everybody is in? And I don't want to make it too close, but because there's a lot to figure out, but at the end of the day, is two and a half years too much? Possibly. The Oregon comment is I just want to say on the record that that's mostly irrelevant because Oregon redeemed billions of bottles and they're unclaimed they dropped their system up with unclaimed bottle receipts Yeah. To the food of hundreds of millions. So so we can't really compare Oregon's system to ours. Yes. They don't have a handling fee, but their system is run

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: a 100 and 360 degrees than ours is. It's way,

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: way different. So so we we shouldn't shouldn't try to compare to them a 100%. I you know, my last comment would be or one more thing on the 7PM that it that you're asking for about about requiring that we're open one day until 7PM. I'd love to not have that specific time in this bill. The reason why, because right now our ball redemption is open from 6AM to 6PM, and after 6PM we see a real drop off. This in our particular case, see a real drop off. I would hate to be made by law and say over another hour that we're just wasting labor, and so I would love to see that. I I don't mind, by the way, the the the time, you know, we have to be open thirty five hours a week or whatever. So I'm I'm part of that. The the last comment that I'll make is there's a willingness to move some money from the clean water fund. Let's I don't know. Let's do it. Do it, you know, this half a cent doesn't really do bunch for most of the redemption centers in the state. I don't know what the numbers are. I don't know if Matt, I would pose a question to Matt, like what how many redemption centers would stand that came from that? And what you're doing there is throwing a bone, if you will, to the smaller ones, and I appreciate that because, you know, they're not gonna be have the benefit of the equipment, but that is somewhat leaving the rest of us in a situation where we we really have to wait until 2029 in this in in this gray area. We don't like gray. The the word gray area in our conversation is is not doesn't work for us.

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Can I ask a question? So I

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: think Matt's proposal still includes the going from 4 to 5¢ in the interim period for the handling fee.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Exactly. For the those are included

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: in the agreement. Yeah. So so as far as that goes, so we most I don't know what percentage, but most of the stuff goes in the. And then there's, like, there's some other things that it's really it's a matter of putting it in a bin right here for and a

[Ethan Hayes, Redemption Center Operator]: bin over here for. Uh-huh.

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: Is it a tiny bit more work? A tiny bit. It's not really anything that's gonna move the needle here.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So what do you want? The the 3 and 1 half cents for containers that are part of a co mingling program is what you need increased. Is that what I'm hearing?

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: That's, because the bill calls for everything to be co mingled after the PRO is set up, Correct? Yes. Yes. So everything after will be commingled automatically and, right now there's commingled, non commingled. Yes, the bill says force or raises it, but it doesn't really move the view because it's a way smaller amount. Okay, so if the 3.5¢

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: were to be increased for the interim period until March '29, That's what you're asking for?

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: Well, so if it's gonna take that long to stand up the PRO, which I understand why it would

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: Then, you know, we have to really ask ourselves if we're gonna survive until Right. Okay. Like, is there more of my doctor says they're gonna go out of business? I don't know. I Mhmm. You know? So we need to we I I don't wanna say that that's the the well, I mean, I'm yes. That's an awesome part.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, you're still I saw your eyes on my throat. Yeah.

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: Yep. Yep.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I appreciate it. I I appreciate it.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I wanna make sure that I am understanding a thing Yep. About this, which is that so you're, because there's the transition grants, which is like on a per container basis. And so your thought is that people who receive like equipment basically from the PRO are not, they're not eligible to receive that grant. I guess I'm wondering about the timing of all of that because that's for the next four years, but how likely is it that, and maybe this is maybe showing a little bit of evidence here, but how likely is it that PRO would be giving out equipment in the next four years? So I guess what I was hearing was like, we're going to be left out or some people are going to be left out. But if nobody is giving equipment in the next four years, because the PRO is getting stood up and, or maybe towards the end that might be true. But if, you know, next year, for example, like there's no PROs still getting form, they're still figuring out their plan, everyone would still be eligible for that basically. Is my, how I'm hearing it, is that accurate?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: So the way the bill is drafted, concurrent and the lending fee, it's been use with a 5¢ or non bill made hold since 03/01/2029. And the grants basically began on 07/01/2029 and run for four years.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, sorry. So the grants run, okay, because the grants are not starting right, okay, thank you. There was a timing thing and now I think that's resolved it because the grants start in one. Got you, okay, yes.

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: I just want to be clear about my comment on that. Think that that is, that makes sense because though people are going be left out of the of the being more fitted out of the equipment. But what I my comment is more around, although, yes, that throws them a ball, don't let that be, you know, in you know, don't let that mask the fact that we aren't getting anything in the in the thought process. And what

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I want to come back to too is that the what I I don't want to put words in your mouth, I want you to check me if this is accurate. I was hearing too that something that's important to you is that the fair compensation is truly fair and would that Do you want to comment at all about how we were Well, before I move on, would it be fair to say that the structure

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: of

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: a fair compensation is more important to you than say the transition grants. Maybe that's not

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: So something the transition grant doesn't affect me at all. Yeah, okay. And so I think that that's great. I like to think that I'm here speaking for, you know, the possibly the larger group, but before we have the senate as a whole, I think that's a great piece to the bill. It's a great add on, but let don't let that be that's not a concession to on for the most of the system. Okay. That's just adding something, a piece to it that is is is welcome, but it's not let's just say it's not doing us the most of the system any favors. It's doing the small doors good which is great I think it's an important piece but as far as the you know. Okay so in terms of fair well

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't think there's anything you would like to add?

[Ethan Hayes, Redemption Center Operator]: Just to reiterate. And if you could introduce yourself Ethan Hayes, the gentleman here particle beverage, you know, just make a brief change point about the bear compensation and the word gray does not work for our bottom line investment. It's got the black and white. So that's really non negotiable for us in order for us to run our business and to be profitable, that fair compensation needs to be rock solid so that we know what it's going to be and that there's going to be some adequate base there because we are in this for a profit at the January.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Yes. It has to be.

[Ethan Hayes, Redemption Center Operator]: Then somebody else can certainly make a crack at it, it won't be us. But we don't want to go that. Don't want to take what's already existing as a bottle bill and put a reduction out of business. Same thing, we've already invested in this technology. We're the only ones in the state that have done it. When we're talking about transition grants and putting equipment into redemption centers, we

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: did that. We spent over $80,000 to do that.

[Ethan Hayes, Redemption Center Operator]: And it has been successful in a lot of ways, and in some ways it hasn't. So there's a lot of moving parts, but we want to be probably happy and proud of

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Can I ask the follow-up?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Absolutely. So the definition of fair compensation that was floated around, do you feel like that's sufficient or would you have a different, would you add anything to it?

[Ethan Hayes, Redemption Center Operator]: I don't think it would add anything to it.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: It just needs to be there. It needs to be solid, it needs

[Ethan Hayes, Redemption Center Operator]: to be something that everybody agrees on.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. And I mean, your story about how you invested in the equipment it still didn't really reduce your labor costs is, I think, really important to remember that you're still going to have, people are, redemption centers are still going have labor costs that they have to carry they have to be compensated for those labor even if there is an investment in the technology equipment.

[Ethan Hayes, Redemption Center Operator]: That's right, and in 2029, those labor costs will not be any lower than they are today. So even maintaining the handling fee at 3.5¢ for the next three years until the PRO gets stood up still makes our business questionable as she has reiterated. I understand that's a tough one, but then, again, that goes back to our profit. So

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So what I am thinking about from here is what would be useful, I think, is to have language. If that is sort of the crux of the whole thing, is it would be useful to have language to look at, to start from, right? And I realize that there is a delicate balance to be struck there. So want to, well, before we get to that, I'm thinking about asking for a new draft. And with that, I don't want to go too fast if the committee is not ready to do this, but going through what I heard from Mr. Chapman, I feel comfortable with the changes he was proposing. And I think it's also fair to say, we heard a lot of things. One place to start would be to start with Mr. Chapman's recommendations. And then if there's other things that you've heard that are of interest, then we can talk about those as well. Then, but together with that, let's take a crack at some language about fair compensation as we've discussed. Yes. I'm open to- Yeah, know. That sounds good. I would like the definition of fair compensation. And I also, the consultation with stakeholders, the leaf tea, is there a way that we can make that tea a little stronger and make sure that there is more ability to have input on the plan, but also how the plan is working after a plan is. So as we're coming up with a second plan, like, okay, this plan didn't work as well as we thought it was going to, so let's make these changes to the second plan. So just, yeah, the consultation with stakeholders, definition of fair compensation, and is there, I mean, I think I heard you, Matt, earlier saying that there's not the agency would support an increase in the fee, the handling fee. Correct. But you did, you were okay going from 4 to 5 for the non-

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: For the non medical, yes. I mean, you know, again, generally speaking, I mean, I'll let the demonstrators define how much work it is on them. What we have always heard is that, you know, if we can drive non domain goal into the domain only agreement, it reduces the amount of sorting that needs to happen. Yeah. And it frankly has the other permit of a variety of these scattered people into a sort of unified system so that they're ready for the VRO and the VRO.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: A yes, Mr. Chair. So I'm not clear on what benefits from the unclaimed deposit? Where does

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: that go? It goes to

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: the clean water fund. Okay.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So, you know, I remember some of the testimony, We're still dealing with a program that originally back in 1972. Never done an increase. I'm I'm in favor of not giving these guys the boost on a a little bit of that for just compensation for inflation and everything else. Is there any way we can do that? No.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Someday in the future. The bill does transfer some of the money from the Clean Water Fund to the Solid Waste Management Fund to help pay for the system.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I'm talking about keeping people in business.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, I understand. I mean, that's why I was hoping that we could move that, the handling fee at least in the interim up a little bit to help them stay in business. It sounds like that's sort of what the trends, it's, I guess the transition period still starts at '29, but yeah, yeah, that's the thing. They're not gonna help it.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Mean, I am willing if the committee wants me to see whether it's feasible to move those transition grants for at least at the same time. I mean, I think that the challenge with that is just the amount of money you're talking about, right? Because you're not gonna have The way they're structured is they're structured off capital investments. So it basically is trying to see who will help people who aren't getting those investments or transitioning into the new file bill system. If we move them forward in time, it would be broader in its application and therefore it would be a whole lot more money.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah. Well, so I think it's just that this interim period, which is essentially three years, we don't want redemption centers to be going out of in the next three years. So they're going to get a little tiny bit more for non co Correct. That are part of the, oh,

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: for co maple, they're going to get Verdando maple.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, they're not part of the, the

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: way it's working is right now. So,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: but that doesn't sound like that's going to be sufficient to carry them through. And If that is something that you can look into, it would be of interest. Okay.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: I will look into it. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't want to cut you off for a reason. No, that's okay. I'm just thinking. That

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is of interest. I'll just

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: say that. I also agree or hear that the 7PM time, putting that into statute seems a little harsh. It's being more flexible. They need to be open hours where people are going to be able to be there, but putting an actual time and statute seems a little high. Okay. And then there were at least a couple of things that you noted, like comments that came in overnight.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: I'll work with my commander there.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I hope you know that we appreciate you. Oh my gosh. My my gosh.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: The whole thing itself.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Yeah. You're working hard to make this organ for like the fifth year in a row or the eighth year or twentieth year.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: It'd just be the last year before I bought a bottle of So

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: great. And Michael too. Yes. Understand. Think names the length times. It feels like we're close. I'll just sit down. Maybe, I don't know if I'm wrong about it, but that's how it feels anyway. So, okay, anything else about this? So, Mr. Rugby, are you gonna make a draft

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: based compensation? I

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: will rely on that for some of the higher compensation language. Yep. And then the other issue too is.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Okay. Be ready. Great. And

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: then, for all the folks that have, like, don't know who all you have talked to, but I would just say to the universe that if you have things that you did not see in here would be helpful to know

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: about this.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Okay, thank you. So with that, we're going to take five Oh, Yep. I'm sorry. Yep. I totally support that. I was thinking that myself actually. We're going take five minutes break. Sorry, Jude. So ten, actually, let's do seven minutes. 10:20. 10:20. 10:20. Oh, my will do. I will. You gotta do what you gotta do. Are you gonna go? I'm going that way. Thanks. This drawer is broken. Different topic. Yeah. This is International Resources and Energy coming back from a break. And we are looking at the new drafts of H778, the DAM Safety Bill.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: We have Mr. Rutland with us, welcome.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Good morning. This is Mike Rutland with Budget Council. You just want me to walk through the changes. Okay. On on page two, line 10, in the what they will generate as part of the pilot project, It had previously said the set of EOPs for each day of show include an EOP for each municipality, and director for an asset of each change to the actions for each municipality because there might be some EOPs that are basically the same for similar municipalities and so it's that's why he requested actions instead of an EOP for each municipality. And then on page two, time fourteen and fifteen, you may remember in comparing the EOP, there was a requirement for the division to coordinate the list of people. The director asked that that be changed to whole community and that there be a reference to what whole community means. Unfortunately, there isn't a definition in the theme of rules of what a whole community is, but they have multiple guidance documents about how to do a whole community approach to emergency preparedness, and this document has a definition of whole community in it. It's very narrative. It's kind of a holistic concept and not, you know, like, the specific makeup of the whole community. And so this is what is used as the standard, and this is the document that is referred to on page two lines seventeen and twenty one. This morning, Foran said he would prefer that the term whole community be capitalized. So it's it's referred so it's it's read as a term of art and not meaning the whole municipality. And and I I didn't get that correspondence with us until I was here in committee, but

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Can I ask you question? Think

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: that the capitalization makes sense, but is it okay, I mean, from your perspective, as a drafting attorney to be referring to a document that is fifteen years old that is not actually in rule or statute. It's just a guidance Remember,

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this is a pilot project.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: It's

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: temporary in nature. This is when you go to FEMA's website about whole community planning. This is the doctor. That's the thing. Okay. And so I believe this is what you would need going forward if you were going to want to have something more codified, you might want to come up with your own definition of whole community. That's more tentative and not less narrative. But I think for purposes of this and what director Florence says to how how they do whole community planning, that this is the appropriate document. Okay. Okay. Thank you. On page three, there is a replacement of the list again with a whole community on lines fifteen and sixteen, engaging in facilities that house vulnerable populations. On page four, Again, there had been a specific list, and the director has asked us to be replaced with a summary of who in the area of potential inundations for each dam of the division are contracted coordinated with through the development of the EOP. So not specifically having a list where people might be left out, but just having a comprehensive statement of who they were they didn't trust. Going on to page five, there are the next six changes really to clarifying that an EOP is for municipalities downstream. It's not for the dam. They had previously set an EOP for the dam, so it now says recommend how EOP should be completed for municipalities downstream of all state or federal dams. And that is the change that's made page five, line eight, nine, page five, line 11 through 12, page five for fifteen, nineteen, and then on page six, line one and two. And then next page, page six, line four, Previously, the division was supposed to recommend funding sources, and they said that that's not their expertise. So you asked them to recommend organizations that may assist municipalities in accessing potential funding in the completion or compliance with an EOP. And then on page six, line, eleven, and twelve, instead of it saying how often exercises should be conducted by the division, by our regional planning commissioners, by municipalities to practice an EOP, the director said it should be conducted. How often exercises should be conducted to validate the EOPs, which is their terminology in emergency preparedness. So I would have to capitalize on the community where it is in the bill, but other than that, do you want to encourage it?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Do want put the notes that Mike took on this. This has been great. Any other comments, concerns, questions? Okay.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: So, today's Friday. Can I just ask one question? Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Page three, it's off the center. Engage facilities that house vulnerable populations within the whole community in the plan development. Given that definition of whole community is more narrative, does this still make sense?

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It does, because when you look at that definition, it has Whole community planning means engagement with different groups in all hazardous environments, individuals and institutions with different vulnerabilities. The neglected capacity of the private and nonprofit sectors, including businesses, state based, and disability organizations. In there, okay. It's all in I

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: just wanted to make sure

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: because it's used as a noun, but it sounds like this is more of a concept. But if that covers it, then I'm fine with that. And this would be another place that we would capitalize on And this is just grammatical question here, but in the line, engage facilities,

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: I assume we're talking about the people. Sure. Engage.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is I I realize it's

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I understand what you're saying.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: It doesn't matter, really. I think we

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: have mean the same thing.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'll say something like engage administrators or managers of facilities at the house.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. That's great. Okay. So I think we've aimed for a new draft of this early next week, like Tuesday. Sure. And I'm gonna put on the agenda, you know, committee discussion, possible vote. Yep. Be done. Yep.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So the new draft I'll provide is clean with no highlighting. Okay. Is that okay?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: She is. Yep.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And I mean, you just wanna probably check out the capitalization and the the, you know, engaging facilities part, but I think otherwise we're good.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Thank you very much.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Have a good weekend.

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Too. And

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: she's here. I can't stand you.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: That's the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: trade off, I suppose. Okay, welcome. Hello.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: 09:40. Yes. Sorry, your question. Yes,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: thank you, Jamie. Okay. So my thoughts, sorry, processing, see how many days I've seen this lately, to start walking through 09:40 and see if there's changes that they want to make, if they want to close their meetings, don't,

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: in preparation for a potential close. Okay. Yeah. We have it. And there

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: is no new draft at the moment, but that's I'll see if it's as we want. Okay. For this part, I'm imagining just walking through it, sort of one more time and like checking off, I mean, in the cold weeks. Welcome.

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mel J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Council. So H. 40 has passed the house. This is miscellaneous public utility subjects. It has three subjects in it. Session one is on use of thermal funds by a retail electricity provider that's also an efficiency utility, which is code for Burlington Electric Department. So,

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: do you want me to go line by line or just talk through this? I don't know that we need to.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think conceptually, I just want to check-in both. Unless you'd like to go line by line. Conceptually, was okay with it. I'm happy to just check-in, see if anybody had questions or concerns, and then move on. So we're mostly interested in sections two through four.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Yeah. Okay. Yes.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I'll go back to the original issue I have. I think I understand this is the litigation. It's fine and so

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Oh, not this part. Not this part? Nope. You're talking about single plaintiff? That's on this? Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's a different bill. Wall bill. Yeah, no. Okay. So we're going to move on to section two then.

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep. Section two is demanding plan for BSA 4,348. So the language starts on page three. This is the section that has the procedure for regional plan adoption and amendment, and it is adding language here to weave into that existing process the optional enhanced energy planning. And so in three parts of this section, language is added so that if the RPC is going to seek energy determination, which I think you've heard all of them have, they need to include this now as part of the process when they have their next plan update, go before the land use review board. Instead of having a separate process, go parallel with the Department of Public Service. The Department of Public Service will still be reviewing it, but just at the same time as the language review board

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: is doing their review. Okay. I was okay with that. What are you thinking?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: The only thing is this paragraph that's also in S-3s 25, and making sure that we're coordinating with that bill. So there

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: are three changes in this bill that are not in S-three 25. House environment started to mark above it yesterday, and I made a pitch to them. I don't know yet if they're going to accept that, but

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You made the pitch to them to

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: put this in? Yes. Since they have already reviewed it

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: and passed it. Okay. So. Do we also need to put whatever is in S-three 25? I don't remember how we changed this paragraph, but I just remember that it was in 03/25, frankly, because of the 6C that I So wouldn't

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: in S-three 25, you're changing your section to split out regional plan re adoption and the regional plan amendment process. But there actually are quite a few more changes. So I think one of the options here is that if you are seeking to pass this bill right now, you would want to pass it soon,

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: and that way, if there

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: was then the other language added to S-three 25, that bill would potentially pass later into not having this language be in that language. Okay. It's not a great scenario, but that is an option that you have to teach people.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I am a little Can we I don't know why you say that again, just so I'm processing it, because if they're like, almost undoubtedly, 325s in the past later than September, and so this, in a way, whatever we do with this, like we could prove this language and then that would be an indicator to them that they ought to include it in theirs, but it seems to me that either way, this gets overwritten by whatever they do.

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's certain, it very much depends. It's only April 17. Okay. So, sure. If going to concur with this bill today, that would be true.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: it does seem like if we're going to vote to concur and nobody's suggested changes yet, we just vote to concur, and then we leave it up to three twenty five to coordinate this paragraph, because it's probable that they're going to have more changes than 03/25, and we should assume what they're going to do, And that you and Chair Sheldon should be in touch about how you want important new folks to know that, those paragraph. It's three paragraphs. It's three paragraphs. So it is just

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this section, but it's three separate subdivisions.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. But I don't think we should put something for 325 in here because we don't know what they're going to do yet. Yep, I think that's fair, banking on that theirs is gonna go later anyway, always being in touch with Terry Sheldon to say, we have both now agreed on this language. Don't forget to include it so that we don't want anything to get lost. Does this make sense, Terry? No.

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Your other option is not to go to

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the curves, take the language out

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: of here and just have it be in S3.5.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That, on the one hand, would be That's one path. I feel like leaving it in is like an indication that like we have seen it and agree. What do you think, gotten signed up? Maybe

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: it's called.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Just leaving it in and having it all get reconciled on three to twenty five as a move. I mean, that bill will have to come back to us because they're making So we can also do it here. Yeah.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Sure. Okay.

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: That'll give us a little time.

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

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thoughts on our progress?

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: No. Only that. We want to keep ourselves to the option of according to those standards. Oh,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you mean that? Well, it is so

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: hopefully they'll hopefully they'll do what they need to do.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. Yeah. I'm saying this is Yeah. Again, all of the Yeah. Being in coordination and just on the bill, from House Energy, not environmental regressed. Oh, they would have not seen

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: have seen They did have walked

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: through on the Yeah. Okay.

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They didn't take possession of the bill,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: but they are aware of language. Okay. Great. Well, I otherwise don't have any suggested changes for this aspect of it.

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Okay, let's keep going. Section three is amending 24 PSA four thousand three and fifty, which is on the municipal plan process specifically and still on this optional energy compliance. And so at the top of page six, it's adding the list of things to be part of a municipal planning process that if they are going to seek the optional determination of energy compliance, it is

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: part of the process here. Okay.

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then section four is amending 24 BSA four thousand three and fifty two, the statute that establishes the enhanced energy planning process. Amends a couple of the existing pieces of it, which reference old statutes, that it now references greenhouse gas reduction requirements, strikes the old goals, and then references the renewable energy standard.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry, I think I lost where you I'm at the

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: top of page seven. Section four starts on page six, but the first change is

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: at the top of page seven. Got you.

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Subsection D then changes that currently the state energy plan has to have the standards for the enhanced energy planning process. This is changing it so that the Commissioner of Public Service may issue them within one year after adopting the updated comprehensive energy plan. Okay. And then next on page eight, it strikes the specific public hearing for the enhanced energy process that's currently required in the statute to reference that this would be part of the review for the land use review board so that comments are considered by renewal planning commissioner, municipal planning during that process. Subsection G is being struck because that was a temporary language before that expired basically in July 2018. And then new language is being added about exceptions for the timelines on this currently, and it will still be broadly true that an enhanced energy determination is tied to the expiration date of the regional plan, and then there are two exceptions of that, which allow it to last a little bit longer by getting a, what do they call it, a provisional affirmative determination if they're making a change sort of off cycle so that there isn't a gap between when the plan has gotten adopted, it's not yet approved. So that's the first caveat, which is on the bottom, page nine into page 10. And then also, the other caveat is if they amend the regional plan but don't change the enhanced energy element, the department has to determine if they need to do another review or if they can just not go through a full review process because it hasn't changed. And then at the very bottom of page 10, shall replacing

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: it with a may, but

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the commissioner may consult with the other state agencies as part of this process. And then finally on page 11, section five is the third topic in this bill, which is the repeal of the Telecommunications and Connectivity Advisory Board.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: That was something that finances. Okay. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No proposed changes. People are feeling okay about this? Yeah. She voted it. I think we should voted. Is that? Yeah. Thank you, Jude. Fabulous.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is my name right Jude?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think so. I didn't pass it off in my bra twice. It's good. Yeah. Alright. Probing. And you should.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Okay, fine. Senator Bowen.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yes.

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: Senator Williams. Yes. Senator Watson? Yes. Don't think you are? No, this is. So who would you I

[Shane Switzer, Redemption Center Operator (Lyndonville)]: mean, I'm

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: pretty glad to do it. Okay. Thank you. That's fabulous. Okay. Since you've heard about it twice now. Yeah. Basically.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay, gosh, so dang, we are

[Melanie J. Cassidy, Office of Legislative Counsel]: out of things to do.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Just as FYI, I'm still putting together the agenda for next week. So that's, you know, I don't have a preview for you for that, but otherwise, again, just trying to get some more bills out of here. Probably $7.78 will be the first thing we can do. That's great. Okay. Well, any other thoughts, comments, what's what's offered before we enter for the day? What's $7.78? Oh, the data safety. Oh, that's right. Were going to introduce 928 today, but folks were not available to do that. Yeah, so we'll probably do that. Okay,

[Matt Chapman, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division, VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation]: so