Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's just a capitalization of all communities.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. You said positive. What draft are we looking at? We're looking at 1.1 and

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You you should have to change point one.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Because I that's okay. Was gonna say. Mine was not capitalized.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I I said that last week.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Did I not send it to No. He said that I just didn't touch his phone. That's okay. Do you wanna, should we take, let's take maybe a minute break or so and we'll- No, you can find it. I should have, when when you were talking about, like, the time stamp, I was, like, not checking. If you got it digitally, then we can also Yeah. I'm trying to find it. You send it to me again in this new year. You wanna show that I've got the right copy? This is did you send it on Thursday?

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can't find it now.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No. I I think it's

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We don't see it in the sign file. Alright.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, just we're taking a break. Okay, this is the Natural Resources and Energy coming back from a rate and we're we're looking at draft 2.1 of 07/1978. Back to. Yeah, back to Ledge Life Council.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're what?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I believe so. Yes, yes.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is Michael Grady with Ledge Council. Got 2.1 with four seventeen date and ten forty eight timestamp. You reviewed most of the changes that were recommended by Eric Warren, the director of emergency management last week. He did ask for a couple of tweets through that language, the first of which is on page two. In the draft, two drafts ago, there was a reference to a list of people that the division would coordinate with. The director asked that it be changed to reference a whole community, which is a concept used in FEMA emergency preparedness planning. And after your lab walked through the draft, there was a request that that whole community term be capitalized so that it is referring to its, it's, kind of term of art, the definition on page two line eight seventeen and eighteen. So you made that change. You you capitalized whole community where it's used in the bill. The next change is on page 15, line four, and what is required for each EOP. It had previously said engage facilities that house vulnerable populations, and there's a question, kind of how does someone engage a facility? So it was changed two engaged managers and administrators of facility. Also, on page three, line 16, the term community was capitalized. Yeah. And then moving on, that's really. There was really nothing else without us changing. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great. We had changed previously all of the EOPs for day ends to EOPs for municipalities, down speed.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was all I was just Yeah. Flashed

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Do you already write a motion?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I believe so, yes. I move that the meeting approving Rapt 2.1, percentage 7.78. Great. Is everybody feeling ready to vote? Okay, go ahead. Senator Barnes Oh, and Senator Williams. There you go. Oh my god. One Senator Williams. Amazing. Thank you. Delightful. Remember to bring

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the bill up to Melissa.

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

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be on to approach because of the appropriations. So Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Very good. Okay, we're gonna, you're moving along to 09:15, for which we also have an impact. Another mic would be special. Yeah, and this is draft 2.2 for nine.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 2.2, four twenty, twenty twenty six, one You 15 time are going to see in this draft that there is gray highlighting and yellow highlighting.

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

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The yellow highlighting are the changes from the ANR proposed changes from April 17 last week. The gray changes are the changes that ANR has proposed since then. Originally, they were sent over in green, which would look really good when you look at it online. But when you print out the green, you can't see the text.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, okay. So that part,

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it got changed to red. Right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So just so if anyone's listening why I changed it

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to red.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Wait. Can you say the yellow is what

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The yellow is language changes you've already seen. They were in our last week, but you still had questions and discussions about them. I don't believe you agreed to everything that was proposed. And then there were questions such as fair compensation that came up last week, and then ANR proposed some additional language, and that is what it is. Got it. Okay. So I will just start walking through do you want me to walk through the whole bill or just the changes or

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I think it would be useful to go through anything that is gray or yellow.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So on page two, there was a definition of dealer added. Dealer is actually used in the underlying model bill and has been premiered, but there's never been a definition of it, and so a definition is being added, any person including any operator of a vending machine or retailer would engage us in the sale of beverages and beverage containers to consumers in the state. You can see that that term used in the definition of distributor on page two line 12, so it seems not underlined, it's been there for a long time, and again on page two, line 13. But now that you have incorporated the term retailer and the term dealer, you don't need retailer there on page 13 as well. So dealer is now any person operating or engaging in the sale of beverages and beverage containers to consumers of the state that incorporates or subsumes the term retailer. Do you have the definition of deposit initiator on line seven? This is not a new definition. It should be moved here, and then its use will be new in referring to those persons that are subject to the redemption requirements for it. And so the deposit initiator is the first distributor or manufacturer to collect a deposit on a beverage container sold to any person within the state. No person initiates the deposit. The first distributor in the state shall be the deposit initiator. Deposit initiator is currently used for the unclaimed deposits and return of them to the state. It's now going to be, a more commonly used term, effectively replacing the term distributor and manufacturer. On page two, line 16 through 19, this is the definition of fair compensation that's being added. Remember, under the plan that the PRO has with the points of redemption, there's going to be a fair compensation agreement. And this is what fair compensation means. It's compensation from the PRO to the point of collection in the amount that covers the point of collection, reasonable cost of operating, redemption services, and a reasonable rate of return.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Can I be asked about reasonable rate of return? Is that

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, think it's reasonable cost and reasonable rate of return to provide some discretion to both the PRO and ANR. Remember, ANR has to approve the fair compensation agreements. And I do think that this is a concept that likely needs to be addressed in some way because do you want the PRO to pay for a redemption center who is incurring unreasonable costs, incurring unnecessary costs, and is that really something that the PRO should be paying for as part of fair compensation? How to address that narratively and language, it has to be reasonable.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. No, I think the reasonable cost is good to include, but rate of return, I'm just trying to think that through, does that mean profit? Does that mean, you know, especially when we're talking about returning things. So I'm trying to make sure that that means, like, you get

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think it necessarily means profit because if they're not paying for the unreasonable cost, the redemption center may not make profit. Yeah. So it's it's about having a reasonable rate of a reasonable rate of payment on what they redeem the services they provide. It doesn't necessarily guarantee profit.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Who says that? The PRO will set it in the agreement with the vendor, with the redemption center. Then it gets reviewed by ANR to make sure that it's fair compensation.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And there's a dispute resolution provision that's added as well. So if there is dispute between the PRO and the point of collection, point of redemption, there is a opportunity for a third party if the party never do that dispute.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I was a little confused by what you had said about it that it doesn't guarantee profits. Can you because I had I had also been hearing this as, like, there's going to be some reasonable profit, but that's on just this portion of whatever the operation is. But can you, so can you either say that again or?

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure, I just think that you can't necessarily guarantee profit because you can't predict what their costs are going to be. And so if their costs are unreasonable and are excessive in relation to the what they get as their rate of return, they may not make a profit.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, see what you're saying. So if if what they're being paid shrinks their costs to what would be reasonable and there's something on top of that because maybe they were spending more, it might not all flesh out for them.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Maybe they took a lease on a building that's way too big for what they need, and so they're paying much more per square foot and space than is necessary or reasonable for what they're providing in services. Does the PRO have to pay for that excessive space that's leased?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I see.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or do they pay for what is necessary for the services that are provided? And I think that that's part of what that conversation will have

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to be. Figure out what is an appropriate cost level. Right. Yeah, mean, I've just, you know, we heard the story about the one redemption center that's gotten the, already gotten the sorting mechanism Yeah. We're he said that it didn't really reduce his labor costs. And so, But all the testimony we've gotten from the industry is like, oh, these machines reduce labor costs. So I'm wondering how that would be considered.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I think that's part of the conversation. It will be, if you're the PRO award and you know that the state has just provided a grant to the point of redemption, redemption center to provide a certain type of kind of either backdrop or electronic reverse spending that's always available. It doesn't require employees to defend it. I do think you will discuss whether or not you have to pay labor for that or for what cost. And now the redemption center, think she's saying, I still see it needs someone there to to have, ensure my redemption center is operated appropriately, that it's not misused, that if something breaks down, that it's fixed. Yeah. So, yes, I still have labor, and I still might need labor to do some sorting because maybe the machine's done to it all. Like, maybe it'll reject certain containers, and then I have to sort those. Mhmm. So I I think I don't know how you address that right now.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's through the negotiation process. So I did have a suggestion that came from Mr. Rice about the reasonable costs of operation or operating redemption service, it was appropriately allocated costs, recognizing that there might be some shared staff. So if you have one person who's both tending the redemption side of things, but then also is in front of house, as we heard, that they're not also paying for them to be part of the front of house, just the portion that is for the redemption operation, which made sense. That it's got to be, you're paying for the cost of the redemption. This is supposed to like think that the term reasonable has a legal There's like a reasonable limit.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's the reasonable person's standard, but I don't know if it's a one to one translation for what you're looking at. Yeah. You will I think whether it's appropriately allocated or reasonable cost of operation, do think there is some ambiguity in what will be calculated under either currency. Mr. Mhmm. Chapman?

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT ANR/DEC)]: Sure, for the record Matt Chapman, Director of the Waste Management Prevention Division. I think whether it's Chris's language or the language that the agency proposed, both of us are intending to accomplish the same thing which is that we're paying for the cost of basically sorting bottles and cans, not running a retail store at the front of the house. There's like a lot of mixed services that take place and that there would be a need for the redemption center to separate the costs and present them as a part of whatever conversation they're having if they're not comfortable with the negotiation.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Feel open to either path for the costs. I'm sure I've found some opinions about that. Would be reasonable and appropriately. We could, yes, yeah, we could. Well, they intercepted. And I guess I'm not feeling like the need to change the reasonable rate of return unless folks have objections. Because what I'm hearing is that while it may not strictly speaking be a profit, it is some amount above what the costs are. Yeah, above the reasonable costs.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry, thank you. That's above, I'm above the reasonable, or I'm gonna guess, the appropriately allocate. Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You know, I think about this as, if I were to order one of these, I'd be worried Mhmm. About because this gets negotiated. Mhmm. I'm eagerly to make investments. I appreciate that. And I I know that everything is gonna sort of tend to rotate over sentence of operation, but, you know, I I don't think it a good way to just get the plants or. Very modern. My people make the decision whether they can operate it well or not. But I I I understand that's more complicated than sit downs. I mean, it's you know, this is gonna work, but there's something I'm not sure I'd make a big investment. Mhmm. Like, right now, the government's insuring what my rate of return is. No way I can get through that business. No. Not not a chance. Or stand in this. So, Matt, is there some way we have people in here also sort of suggesting the same thing, would be the floor or something? Is there

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT ANR/DEC)]: So I think the challenge with a floor or some sort of definitive number is that you're not looking at the same, you're looking at very different redemption centers with very different operations that are going to be taking place that are going to require different compensation models under something like this. I mean, I think basically if we were to do something like a floor, the whole system doesn't either probably from either side of the porch.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, hasn't the system kinda operated like that for us?

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It You all get the same amount of money, Matthew. Well, I I guess I

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT ANR/DEC)]: would say yes. And it's operated fairly poorly for a long period

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: of time. And a lot of places are trying to change

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it. Right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And that's why the places have closed.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And why is it operating poorly?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, because it's not enough. It's not enough. Right. The number. Well, and if we want to give them more and then it gets, let's say, meat owed or let's, you know, suppose it, you know, doesn't work for the, for the beverage industry, that sort of, this is like, we're trying to thread a needle here. But I hear you about the interest in, if we could have a set amount, that would be helpful, but they're so buried in size that there's not one amount that would be sufficient. Is there something we could add about ensuring that the compensation level is sufficient to ensure that enough redemption centers stay in business to meet the goals of the bill? I mean, maybe that's indirectly implied, but we could make it more explicit because if negotiating a rate of bear compensation and a bunch of redemption centers are like, well, that's maybe what you are willing to give, but that's not enough for me to stay in business. I don't know. Is there a connection to it, Michael? Well,

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in part, yes. On page 19, you'll see as part of the plan, the plan has to move their operation and compensation to protection centers, and it has to satisfy certain requirements. It describes how all locations are fairly compensated for their participation. There can't be barriers to participation except for restrictions offered by ANR. They describe how the management and sorting redemption centers is minimized, I. E, how the costs are minimized, and describe how materials will be picked up from redemption centers on a timely basis, again, cost, And then the plan shall maximize the use of existing infrastructure. This will maximize it. It doesn't mandate it. And it's consistent with guidelines from ANR, so you find a dispute resolution to resolve any dispute. And then after the plan is effective for two and a half years, the PRO submits a report on fair compensation describing how the PRO has adjusted compensation for points of redemption or document why such an adjustment is not necessary. The winner starts in 2029, right, they're going to need the agreement with the compensation with the reduction centers prior to that. They should need to be operating under a plan prior to that, but then everything goes into effect in 2029.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So I wonder if there's, and I'm just thinking out loud through this, right? Like, because we, if we go down this path and the contracts are negotiated before '29, that there should be, I guess I'm wondering about that interim time between when the contracts are negotiated and when it all takes effect to see if there is a gap in time, if any of the redemption centers raise their hand to say, this didn't go well, this isn't going to work out for me, and we're going to have to close as a result. Do you know what I mean? Like, what is kind of a backstop in case it doesn't go well?

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, in the interim, they're still getting the current model, the handling fee per container depending on whether it's commingled or not. If there is an issue with the negotiation of their fair compensation, they can go to dispute resolution. And as part of the plan and approval, ANR has to approve the fair compensation structure. Now when ANR does that, that's going to be a question for them, in my opinion. Like, do they because the plan goes into effect twenty ninth, but ANR has ninety days to review or deny. If they deny, then the PRO has sixty days to resubmit their plan. So when and how ANR might dispute the fair compensation agreements, I can't really say it right now.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, so on this, so when does the can you remind me when the plan is submitted?

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The plan. So they applied to be a PRO 01/01/2027, and on or before 04/01/2028, they submit a plan to the secretary, and then on 03/01/2029, the PRO implements you to come into play.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm just, I'm gonna wonder it out loud here for a minute. If the plan is submitted in 2028 and then and we think that that's the fastest, because they're applying, they're applying to be part of the year of '20, January 27. '28, they submit the plan. What I'm thinking about is when does the fair compensation plan get assigned during that plan? Like, let's say that takes six months to figure out. So if that's April 28, then that's like October '28, by the time we have a fair compensation. And so I assume the soonest that the negotiations would start would be October '28. Yeah. Because that's what a fair compensation would be established. I'm making it up to this a little bit, but. Sure.

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT ANR/DEC)]: So I guess I would just say that I think that the stewardship organization is going to have to provide us the methodology or approach that they're planning to take with respect to payer compensation. I am assuming, and I think it's right for me to assume in this case that there will be a lot of conversations with both the agency and various interested persons within this before we ever see the plans, so that it's not going to be something that's either a surprise to us or un discussed within the community. I think to the extent that there are retention centers who are facing a present need, that those conversations inevitably are going to occur between the PRO and the redemption center. And this is the thing I think somehow maybe like the PRO needs these redemption centers just as bad if not worse than the redemption centers need of the PRO, right? Without those redemption centers, they don't have the necessary collection points to collect these materials, so they have an interest under this to keep those redemption centers going in the process. There is actually, there's a mutuality here that hasn't really been discussed a lot amongst the committee, but I do think that the PRO has an interest in keeping these redemption centers up and functioning and working.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, here's my thought with this train here, is that the whole thing is supposed to go in, is supposed to be implemented March 1. That's in the middle of the legislative session. I'm wondering if we could push that out to January 1, not January, I'm sorry, 07/01/2009, So that, you know, as a stop gap, if in that 'twenty nine legislative session, we're like, this is not gone according to like how we all hoped or whatever. I mean, have faith that it will, but if it didn't, there's that legislative session to pull some kind of emergency break or actually put an extension, you know, to say, turns out arbitration is going to take a little bit more time and we need an extension. I'm trying to I'm trying to think of, like, how do we how do we navigate the concerns that that you all are raising. Does this make sense?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. I'm trying to figure it out. Yes. And the redemption service don't have a representative on the if they don't have a maybe he was involved in this. Not not necessarily. They'll have some representations prior to what's reasonable for them.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I don't know that we put them on

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, there's a stakeholder process that has to be engaged in in the development of the plan. It doesn't specifically say there's a member on in front of them, it's just that they have to be involved in that stakeholder process. Now each I think, you know, will the PRO negotiate individually with redemption centers, or will they negotiate with an association? I don't know the answer to that. That's that's a question for the PRO. I think they're probably gonna have to do to extend both. So I do think there will be individual involvement by redemption redemption centers. They also have the opportunity in some association. Because they do have a representative.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: They did. They They were done. Those those were individual redemption center owners, but I don't know if they have. Is there an organization that they're all part of?

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't believe there is one right now, but

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Maybe they'll create one. I don't know about pushing it off because it feels like you want to get young.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, much, Pretty much cost and pretty much cost.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's true.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. But it would just complete that. Before I section.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I mean, if that helps, then that's yeah. That's my wondering is does that It's

[Unidentified Committee Member]: an opportunity. Yeah. No. It does. It it does. Yeah. It help. Yeah. I'm just trying to get my arms around. That's what actually play out. It's got one set of this is the one that we've done for some of the good start. Agree. They're pretty hungry right now.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, okay. I mean so, Matt, tell me again why wouldn't Borg just have a fixed amount, the redemption center, but again, they have different costs, but they have different costs now, and they're making decisions based on that if we just raise the amount.

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT ANR/DEC)]: So I think there's a couple reasons. One is that, especially with the deployment of additional technology, if you're going to give an incentive, you're telling the PRO that they're the ones who are responsible functionally for investing in and deploying new technology. If you're basically saying there's no benefit in what you pay the people who are your agents out in the field collecting, then there's no incentive for them to actually do anything with respect to the technology, right? They might as well just pay and let people sort containers at a facility not really making an improvement. That's really the largest reason why. I mean, I think then you look at sort of across the landscape. When we actually see some of that technology, I mean, should the less than optimal single sort RBM that's down at Shaw's, which everyone likes to point out as the example, get 3.5¢ per container because they get the same rate as the redemptions that were sued. So again, starts getting into you can't, even though the law treats everyone similarly, people aren't in fact sober and the citizens.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You did have some information about other states who've revamped their bottle bills. Do any of them use it for a handling fee kind of system or? Well, so

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT ANR/DEC)]: think it's important for me to say that if you look at one state's bottle bill, you've looked at one I state's bottle bill,

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: mean,

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT ANR/DEC)]: they're all different. They all have different elements to them. I think it's generally fair to say that most of the more modern bottle bills are trending away from a Perkins and her mom's. That's not universal, right? But you know and you look at states that we generally define as being high performing like the Canadian provinces and they generally speaking don't use any metallurgy and again there's lots of different elements so I don't you know you can yeah yeah

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: okay okay Well, let's go forward. Okay. Well, actually we are running out of time for this particular part of our agenda. And there's a lot to get through. So let's just, let's see, where are we at? We're at

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're on page two. Two.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Together. We're doing a great. Perhaps we could get through the definitions and then we'll just schedule you again. But one of the reasons I wanted to have this on the agenda today was because I wanted to get this out here, and I know that other people will be looking at this, and so I wanted to give people time to react to what's in here. So we'll see this again on the agenda later, but yeah. Okay, yeah, let's finish the definition, so then we'll move on.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So page three, line one, mixed wine drink, that's an existing definition, it's just being reordered, re alphabetized to be in order, in alphabetical So I'm not gonna go through that. Point of redemption is a new definition. It's a location included in the the PRO's plan that redeems beverage containers under the chapter. A point of redemption includes manually sorting containers, mechanically sorting containers, bag drops. And then a point of redemption with immediate return means a point of redemption that immediately provides a person with the deposit when a beverage container presents a free redemption. Moving on from there on page four, redemption rate, This is effectively the number of beverage containers that are redeemed for deposit divided by the number of beverage containers sold. It does not include in the calculation any unredeemed beverage containers collected or processed by a municipal or other recycling program. This is the redemption rate, not the collection rate. So what is collected but not redeemed is not part of the calculation.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So like if someone were to just straight recycle a bottle, that's They

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: take their seltzer right off to the blue bin, that's collected but it's not redeemed.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And this is when the the denominator here, the number of beverage containers sold, like, in total in the state. Yeah.

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And you will see in the PRO plan, there's there's provisions for confidentiality because it it's it may be a confidential secret, trade secret. It may not have been confidential business information. Generally, the plans make some make some accounting for that. And then page four, retailer. Remember, we talked about how retailers is the the terms included in what's a distributor, but it's now being moved up to what's a dealer, a retailer, is a store, or otherwise, insensitively, including vending machines, or containers that are sold out of retail for off premise consumption. And those are the new ones. Definition of secretary is reordered. The definition of flicker is reordered. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. So we'll continue to walk through this later in the week. Thank you so much. Should we continue? How are we doing? Should we bring up the second break before we move on to the next topic? You're okay? Okay, great. Okay, so we are moving to H740 about the greenhouse gas inventory and registry, and we're joined remotely by a couple of folks. So we're going just go in the order that it's on the agenda. So first, we've got Ms. Jandas from the Chisholm County Regional Planning Commission. Welcome.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Thank you. Good morning, senators. I am I'm suffering from a head cold, so I'll I'll do the best I can this morning. I would like to give you a little bit of background on me relative to the topic, if that's all right. Yeah. So again, my name is Anne Janda. I have been a senior energy project manager at Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission since 2021. I help with energy and climate planning and implementation. And all RPCs in Vermont develop regional enhanced energy plans and assist with and approve municipal enhanced energy plans. We've done this in alignment with the Public Service Department's comprehensive energy plan and its enhanced energy planning standards since 2017, about a decade. This is per '24 VSA 4,352, which stresses that these plans must be in alignment with the state's greenhouse gas reductions goals. In 2022, CCRPC was hired by the city of South Burlington to help develop a climate action plan. I worked with longtime CCRPC energy planner Melanie Needle to develop this plan. The plan included an emissions inventory, which was possible using accurate data because South Burlington buildings are almost exclusively heated with utility gas provided by Vermont Gas Systems, VGS, and VGS shared that data with us. To develop the inventory and determine high impact actions, we used ClearPath by Iqly, which is an emissions management platform that utilizes global emissions accounting protocols. This tool is used widely by cities and regions in The US and internationally, and they're gonna be and they may have already expanded to states as well. In order to effectively track transportation emissions going forward, CCRPC requested that the UVM Transportation Research Center develop the Transportation Sustainability Tracking Tool, and we paid for that work for Chittenden County. This tool utilizes Department of Motor Vehicle data to track vehicle miles traveled in Chittenden County. In 2025, CCRPC was hired again by the city of South Burlington to provide an updated emissions inventory so they could see their progress since the base base year. And the VGS data and the data from the Transportation Sustainability Tracking Tool were invaluable in providing the most accurate building and transportation emissions data that then the ClearPath tool, you know, calculated for us to do the inventory. So that's my that's the background I wanted to share. We as as RPCs, we have been, putting together these enhanced energy plans, which include heating information, the source of heating. And if a municipality is outside of VGS territory, we just have to guess. We've used the American Community Survey to get sort of national trend information. But we have found in putting together, South Burlington's plan that national trends can be very different than actual data. With the transportation data that we put into the ClearPath system, it was quite the difference between the, you know, fairly accurate information we were able to use from from the Transportation Sustainability Tracking Tool and ClearPath's spreadsheet that helps you calculate your emissions based on national data was very different.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. Anything else that you want to add to that?

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: As you look at potential edits to this legislation or think about this topic, I just want to encourage you to think about the work that's already been being done by RPCs to support municipalities, to put together their energy plans in their town plans, because we're already working to collect a lot of this data and provide it for municipalities and then help them set targets to help them, formulate actions to decrease emissions, decrease energy use. And I would really encourage that this new program that the state is going to embark in, that it be done in coordination with the work that's already being done so that there aren't parallel processes that aren't speaking to each other.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, Bennington. Thank you for your testimony. So are you confident with the data that you're getting in order to calculate emissions? Sounds like you're getting some data from the state, and then you're getting data from national data that you think is not as relevant, but you're getting some data from the state, and where are you getting the rest of

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the data?

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: So the transportation data is we're pretty confident with it because it comes from registration information from the Department of Motor Vehicles, and we're able to use that information to calculate vehicle miles traveled for light duty vehicles. And then we have to use a formula to estimate for heavy duty commercial vehicles. So that, I think, is pretty good, and it's better than, you know, using the the the sort of national average data For heating for delivered fuels for heating buildings, if a municipality is in VGS territory, we can calculate it very accurately because VGS shares that information. If it's a combination of VGS and other delivered fuels or it's just other delivered fuels, then we are, again, just guessing.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So for the VGS and you're Chittenden County, so much of your territory is in VGS territory, correct?

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: That's correct. We do have several municipalities that are like a portion has VGS, but not all.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So if they're delivered fuel, that's where it's harder for you to get the data?

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Yes. Okay. In fact, we don't get the data.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Count that data.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Other than VGS. Right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And if I can ask further questions there. So VGS is voluntarily giving you this data at this point. Is that accurate?

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: That's accurate.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So if they had some kind, like they're not, they're under no obligation to share that data with you.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: That's correct.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And so they could, at some point, just say, sorry, that's proprietary or that's, you know, something that we no longer, it's working against our own interests, let's say. So that they might pull back on that.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: I suppose if their management changed, that could occur.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. And so, and at that point, so are you, you're not relying on national data at this point? No. You are, you mentioned the American Community Survey, which is quite, there's a lot of estimates.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: It's a large margin for error. So, like, in a municipality like Huntington, which is in Chittenden County, they don't have any natural gas service. So that's a complete estimate using the American Community Survey data.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, Huntington's kind of a black box for you.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Exactly.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, okay. And so are you also suggesting that this, so I want to back up. If the state were to collect this data, would you all be apt to use that data instead.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Most definitely. Yeah, in the next round of regional planning, we would incorporate it then use it for each municipality that's updating their enhanced energy plan.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And so is it also fair to say then that like this, if this bill goes through, that would make that aspect of your work easier?

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Yes, and just a whole lot more accurate. We get a lot of confusion by municipalities when we give them the data, and they see these wide margins of error, they're like, why did you even give this to us? So there's a, like, why are we spending money on having you do something that isn't really having a result?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Got you. Okay. So you feel like the data collection from this bill would be more accurate and would be clearer to communities and would be it sounds like more helpful, I don't want to put words in your

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Oh, it would be a lot more helpful. I mean, for example, because we had the VGS data for South Burlington and we did their baseline emissions inventory in 2019, and then we did the update in 2023, we were able to see specifically that commercial building, emissions had gone down and that building emissions overall had gone down by 11%. So that tells us that, the incentives that the VGS efficiency utility work or other factors are coming into play in reducing building emissions. The thing about South Burlington is they're they're definitely increasing their development. So even as development increases, their building emissions have gone down.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Not even on like a per building basis, straight totals. Straight totals. Wow.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: But that helps you to really understand where to put your policy efforts. So for transportation, it actually went up by 1%. And there are more vehicle miles traveled in South Burlington in 2023 than there were in 2019. So it really should have gone up a lot more. But what we determined was that it's the amount of EVs and the higher efficiency of gas vehicles that caused the muted increase in emissions, because we were able to put those factors into the ClearPath tool, the the efficiency standards. So those the federal government had I don't know if they have or they've been talking about rolling back those efficiency standards.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: That tells you something that you can actually start to formulate policy around.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, have one more question, I think there's another question in the room. But what is the margin of error for the transportation sustainability tool that you were using?

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Well, for the, what, what you would call like a residential vehicle miles traveled or light duty, emissions, I think that it's a very low margin of error. The UVM Transportation Research Center really goes through the data and cleans it up and ensures it's as accurate as possible. With the heavy duty commercial vehicles, it's probably a much larger margin for error. We had to make a lot of assumptions, we got as technical as we could between diesel and non diesel and medium to heavy duty figuring out vehicle miles traveled, but it was a bit more of an estimate.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Sarah Hardy, good. Yeah, thanks, Anna. I'm sorry that we're making you talk obviously.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: I'm having a cold, so

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm sorry about that. What are these energy plans used for besides calculating emissions? Is there a financial cost savings analysis about if we reduce the use of natural gas in buildings in South Burlington, it saves the community this much money. Is there some aspect to the plan for that?

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: The primary purpose for enhanced energy planning is to calculate how much energy use and municipality, this is a big overview, how much energy they're utilizing and then, figure out their portion of renewable energy generation that should be cited in that municipality. That's the main purpose. But there's a full picture that comes with the enhanced energy planning that includes heating and transportation. Then what it enables municipalities to do is to to do better planning, you know, number one, and to think about policies that they themselves could put together at the municipal level, to work on helping to meet the state's climate and energy goals.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, I totally get that. I'm just wondering if there's a financial component to it. Do you do the calculation of if you're reducing your use of fossil fuels, you're also reducing the cost of heating your buildings or running your city? I mean,

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: That isn't a guaranteed part of an enhanced energy plan, but often it's mentioned that certain energy costs are burdensome

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: certain populations and that it's important as municipalities are working on actions to consider those populations and how to ease their pain.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony, Ms. Janda. I hope you feel better. You're welcome.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Thank you for having me.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, all right. We'll move over to Mr. Faulkner from the Two Rivers Onukuiuchi Regional Commission. Welcome. And if you guys Good your role is also.

[Harry Falconer (Shared Energy Coordinator, Two Rivers–Ottauquechee Regional Commission)]: Yes. Thank you very much for for having me and inviting Two Rivers to, testify as well. So, yes, my name is Harry Falconer. I serve in a role called the shared energy coordinator program here at Two Rivers. It's kind of a unique shared services program that we offer here where a consortium of seven of our member towns contract with us for my services and really helping them, you know, with a broad mandate of anything related to energy efficiency, electrification, or, you know, greenhouse gas reduction projects. And what that usually manifests as in practice is grant writing and and project management. But I also worked very closely with the municipal energy resilience program outside of my work as the shared energy coordinator. And over the past year and a half, two years, working very closely with my colleagues, Brian and Kevin Geiger here at Two Rivers to work on our update to our enhanced energy plan, which was approved by PSD back in June. So my experience is less, I suppose, in in direct planning rather than branch management and grant writing, as I said. But the desire to have more hard data and to closely track emissions and energy use at the local level is definitely something that I hear frequently from town energy committees and often select boards as well. Obviously, we have these state level goals, but some of our municipalities also have, you know, resolutions that they've adopted through town meeting or select boards to reduce emissions at the local level as well and to increase energy efficiency. And they would like to be able to measure progress towards that in a more concrete way that I think this bill would potentially provide. And I would echo everything that Anne said really. Obviously, in our region, which is, you know, sort of the Upper Valley Of Vermont, our largest town being Hartford, we do not have utility gas service. So our data is pretty much entirely derived for our enhanced energy planning from PSD's analysis tools, are you know, they they provide modeled numbers based on some concrete data, some American community survey data, as Anne mentioned, and some, you know, vehicle registrations from the state DMV and things like that. But they are ultimately modeled figures based on assumptions and and educated guesses in some cases. So we would certainly welcome if the bill passes having regional and local level hard data to work with in these planning processes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's very helpful, thank you. Thinking about the benefits that we've heard from Ms. Janda about being able to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and see what's happening. Right now, I mean, you all are going off of modeled data. So it seems like there's a sort of, I'm not sure what the right word is, an evaluation of policies that's not able, I'm guessing that it's not effectively able to happen because you don't have hard data to work.

[Harry Falconer (Shared Energy Coordinator, Two Rivers–Ottauquechee Regional Commission)]: Yes, at the local level, it's very difficult to track progress over time and and at the regional level as well because that is essentially not what the model is providing. The model is providing a a snapshot in time based on, you know, today's assumptions and today's data. And there are obviously statutory requirements for how often we update our enhanced energy plan and how often the state revisits the comprehensive energy plan and the climate action plan as well. So there are periodic updates of this. As Anne mentioned, our towns are kind of confused and frustrated sometimes why we are not tracking hard numbers over time due to this lack of underlying good data in that sector. And it's difficult to explain that to them, that the model is not really able to provide, like, a a a longitudinal sense of, their improvement, and their their progress towards the goals that are set that were set in the previous plan. Yeah. If that makes sense.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Absolutely. And that that's true for both the the thermal and transportation sectors?

[Harry Falconer (Shared Energy Coordinator, Two Rivers–Ottauquechee Regional Commission)]: Correct. Yep. Yeah. I should also mention that just for the sake of clarity that in our enhanced energy plans, we're actually not providing numbers in terms of greenhouse gas emissions or or kilograms of c o two or anything like that. In the datasets that we provide to the towns and that we include in the in in our regional enhanced energy plan, everything is in terms of energy. So it's in gallons of fuel. It's in kilowatt hours or megawatt hours of electricity or millions of BTUs. It's not actually provided in in terms of emissions. So it sounds like this bill would actually be providing that in in terms of emissions and gallons of fuel as well, which would be nice to have.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Faulkner? Okay, super. All right, well, you so much. Really appreciate you both being able to come testify today.

[Harry Falconer (Shared Energy Coordinator, Two Rivers–Ottauquechee Regional Commission)]: Thank you very much.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay, and so we actually have a little bit of time before our next person arrives. We're going to be taking up H928, the Fish and Wildlife Technical Corrections Miscellaneous Bill. So we're waiting for Bradley Shalman at this point. So we'll take a five minute break.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Don't worry. Haven't missed a thing. All right, this is an update for this related letter. Coming back from a rate and we are looking at H928, Fish and Wildlife, technical corrections. Welcome to our legislative council. Thanks. Walking through the bill.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Bradley Schoneman, Office of Legislative Council, and today I'll be walking through H-twenty eight or nine twenty eight. An act related to technical corrections to the eviction mildest statute. So this bill does four things. In brief, it updates the points violation on a person's hunting license if they violate the laws. Section two updates the timing of when licenses will be active or updates the timing of license when it will be active. Section three updates, gives the Department of Fish and Wildlife authority to set fees for big change permits that are not authorized in the statute. And then section four repeals a session law provision from 1999 related to planning for champion land. So I'll go over these sections in detail, but I want to give just a little bit of framework for the point violations. So the Title X, and if you already know this, just feel free to stop me, but Title X is structured in a way such that there's Title X and then there's Title 10 Appendix, and Title 10A, the Appendix, is updated by the Department of Tuition by rule making. Title 10A, both Cloud 10 and Title 10A contain violations or regulations for hunting, fishing, trapping, or security. And in Title 10A, as the department updates these items, the penalty provisions are entitled 10. And so Department of Visual Modeling is updating title 10A, it's changing the numbering, it's changing the content in some ways of certain hunting violations. So it needs to come back to the legislature and ask the legislature, A, can we update these citations for one? And then two, it's also updating how the number of points and the severity of violations for some items. Now I only have thirteen minutes and this changes a lot of those violations. I won't go over those violations in detail. The department should be able to do that and then I can also do that for you. I would just need at least to have an hour to do so the actual violations of sellers.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I would like you to go over that one too. Yes, I also would. So let's, we can have you in again.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, that'd be great.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Let's just take your time, tell us all

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: about it. Okay, so how the points violations work is that there are 10 violations and 20 violations. And so if a hunter incurs a certain number of points violations within five years, then their license could be suspended. If you get 20 If you get 20 points points in the five year period, that's a three year suspension of your hunting license. So some of these violations in statute here are 20 violations, and so when you make a 20 violation, that's a big deal because you lose your hunting license

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for three years. And then

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so basically it's 10 to 14 points in a five year period, you neutralize it for one year, 15 to 19 in a five year period, use it for two, and then 20 plus you use it for three.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Can you say that one more time?

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. So in terms of the number of points versus the number of years that a license is suspended, so 10 to 14 points is a one year suspension.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And that's eighty five years?

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, yeah, cumulative within five years. 15 to 19 points within five years is a two year suspension. And then 20 points or more within five years is a three year suspension.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So I do have questions about that. So like, let's say you got 19 points in four years, so now you'll get a two year suspension from that moment. And then I guess I'm wondering if like if it's possible to end up like accruing more years, do you know what I mean?

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Potentially, potentially depending on how the points take out, how the points shake out in terms of timing. And so if you got like a two year suspension, you know, that two years would go and then you got another points violation and those points were ripped in five years, it looks bad so you could potentially kind of get punished potentially again for the same point violations.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Got you. And then in that year five, let's say you've got some more bigger violations, you're looking at another three years after that.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, potentially.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And you're not saying like, oh we've already done two of those

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: repairs. Okay.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And you might hear testimony from the Department of Fish and Wildlife about how strictly these are forced to things if other people get into the ranks or what have you. They might talk to you about the practical realities of enforcing some of these points violations and things of that sort, and that might be helpful context and then you'll have a GERLIN I think tomorrow to talk about that in 30%. And so that's kind of the context, when you're looking at this bill let's just start walking through it. And so we can start the notes here. So at the very bottom of page one, we're looking at 10 points shall we assess for, and then so we go on to the next page and we're looking at, we're going to look at the violations. And so each of these sections you'll see it's a section 4,704, and it's been structured this way for a long time. It is a little odd how these are listed out in statute, but it's been structured this way since, I think when the last time I looked at it, they gave them this far back in the seventies. Section 4,704 that will refer to title 10. And then also get line six as an example, six, section GG, appendix section 44. So that's looking at the title 10A section 44. So if you look up Vermont Statutes online, you'll click one of our blogs, you'll scroll down and see a 10A section. And then so whenever, if you're looking these up yourself, just look, it says appendix 44, you're looking at 1010A. If it just says section four thousand eight twenty seven, like it does on line nine, you're looking at file 10. And then these particular changes, like I

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: said, I will go over them.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let me get through the rest of the bill, and I might be able to start us off if I have some time, but I'm happy to come back. Because there are a lot of different changes. Some, most of the point changes are just clarification, but some are going from a 20 to a 10 violation and then some are going from a 10 to a 20 violation. It's helpful to have that context and having to get that once you have more time. So we're moving to section two on page four. And so this is after the violations. And so this section deals with how long a license is active. So under current law, all licenses expire on December 31, and this amendment to the 10 BSA 40 two-eighty three would give the department discretion to say that a license to be issued could be valid for three sixty five days after this issue. So the department under this bill has discretion to say all licenses expire December 31 or they're good for three sixty five days, excuse me, after they are issued as determined by the admission.

[Anne Janda (Senior Energy Project Manager, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: It's like deja vu.

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

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it gives the department authority to define what that is.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is that by class of license or by individual? Your phishing license is good for three sixty five days a year, but mine is only good until December 31.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It should be by class. Should by the license. Should not be by individual.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: They like you better.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so let's move on to page five, section three. Okay, so this provision will give the Department of Fish and Wildlife discretion to add some tags. So this section starts out with on page five, it just shows you what current law is. There's no changes here.

[Harry Falconer (Shared Energy Coordinator, Two Rivers–Ottauquechee Regional Commission)]: It just shows you

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what current law is about how much a fishing license costs, how much a hunting license costs, how much big game license costs. You see moose bear, any additional deer, artery tags on lines fourteen, fifteen, 16. A moose license cost moose license cost $100 bear tag costs $5 deer artery tag costs $23 You can see the cost of the bees there that I could read that in turn off. We'll move on to page six, so I explained that, wanted to give both as examples because page six section O adds to this bill or the statute if the board determines that it's necessary to issue or require additional big game tags or big game permits that are not otherwise identified in this section, the department may issue such tax and permits and may assess a provisional fee for such tax and permits at an amount equal or similar to the fee for the same big game. So if they want to issue a second big tag bear tag, they can issue a second bear tag to individuals. Right now they're only authorized to issue one bear tag, they can issue a second bear tag and it should be similar to or equal to the $5 fee for the bear tag that's in statute right now. And I think this is an issue that came up with turkeys. It's been a few weeks ago, so I'm pretty sure it was turkeys that it came up and they issued second tags for the turkeys, but could not charge for it because they weren't permitted to charge for the fee by statute. And then this provision goes on to say the department shall seek legislative approval of the fee within one year of the department's assessment of the fee. And if the department fails to obtain the fee, legislative approval of the provisional fee, the fee is void and the department cannot or shall not assess a new provisional fee by saying they get tagged or they get burnt. So essentially if they want to issue a second turkey tag for $23 they have to within a year come to legislature and say we would like this in statute and if the legislature says no, they wouldn't be able to do another provisional tag the next year.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So they would be able to charge that fee Yes. Ahead of approval by the legislature, but if it doesn't get approved then they don't get to

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: do it again. That's correct. That's correct.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And that's on into the future.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that would be on into the future. Right,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: it's not like, okay, in two years, we're going to try again. Have another provisional baby interested. Weird construct. And we're talking about the tags per person.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This would be per species. Per species. Right, right. So it wouldn't necessarily be discretionary. The department has some discretion in terms of how many tags issues in total, but it wouldn't necessarily be, okay, if we're going to give a tag to this person because we like them, it's not discretionary, it's like a category of abuse. And then the last piece that this bill does is this is a session law provision from 1999, and the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board had a land acquisition for the Champion Land Acquisition, and there is either inquiries in that session law to involve Vermont cities and municipalities in developing and updating every ten years of the long term comprehensive plan for management of portions of land which are transferred to it. So the departments have managed the champion land, they had to develop and update every ten years the long term plan for managing that land and the portions of those lands, And the department asserted when this is on the house side that they do it every twenty years, end up doing it every ten years and asked to take this requirement out as a matter of administrative efficiency because they're doing it during twenty years instead of ten. And the last section here is this act shall take effect on 07/01/2026.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So they made the decision to do it every twenty years. Now they're asked to take out the requirement, but they do it every 10. Yeah, have questions.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I'm sure they'll be able to give you some more background about how that came to be and things of that sort. I relay that message to you as the policy impetus for the change here.

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

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Why don't you put

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: it back or maybe they can just, I would like a little bit more information about what the Champion lands are. I don't know what that is. And then in the little sections on page seven that you included just for reference sake, I think the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board and the Agency of Natural Resources should be capitalized. So you might want to just take the opportunity to clean it up, but I would defer to you, but that seems like those should be capitalized. That's interesting. You're talking like, what you said in line one? It's line one and line five and champion lands. I don't know. Champion's capitalized, but lands isn't. Don't know what that is. So I'm not sure if land should be cast on too, but

[Michael Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You know you're big circle.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, they're not your editor,

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you know? It has been.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm surprised. I would assume those should be capitalized. So that's interesting.

[Bradley Schoneman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll talk to editors about that because they have looked through that. I have those. But now that is a good point and I will take that up.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. I have many other questions, but why don't you suggest? So we're out of time, plan to be back. I have more questions particularly about section one. So to be continued, thank you. Any other thoughts or comments for the committee?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay.