Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, we're live. Okay, good morning. This is the Natural Resources Management coming back from break and we are taking a page nine twenty eight but we have some potential new language to look at from Mr. Kevin. Also, we'd love to hear from his friends about fishing tournament stuff. So we'll do that in a minute. Vernell, welcome.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Thank you. Yes. For the record,

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: Matt Chapman, Director of Waste Management Prevention Condition in C. So briefly here to speak about two things. One is an amendment is before you. The other is just to note. So if I understand the other key box issue that is out there on the table are the set of four recommendations that the attorney general's office put forward. I think that they understand the first of those boards is probably controversial, the addition of the change and intentionally added, but the other three are technical and the agencies, so those changes.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And to be clear, were attaching those three, it's meant to attach those three into the nine twenty eight.

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: That is accurate and I would add they are what are probably oversights during the last sort of drafting of Pinterest products law a couple of years ago. So what I am here before you, one of the consumer products that was banned from use in the state were fluorinated containers, and Senator Hardy may have been on health and welfare when this happened.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I was, yeah.

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: And one of the things that I So just sort of backing away from this, part of the reason we got concerned with Brown Florida with the banners were the information is coming about how some of the foreign coatings on those containers could leach ends with commercial chemical products. He set up a ban, I invited industry to provide them with information about why they might be an unavoidable use waiver. They didn't do so at the time. They have done so now. And basically there are certain use cases in the state of Vermont that I think are likely going to need to have a process for the FFFO's group to obtain an unworthily use waiver. I want to say this is a process statute, right? It allows for manufacturers to come to the agency of natural resources to apply for one of these waivers to demonstrate that there are no alternatives to the use of the chlorinated container and then there would be a notice and comment process and an appeals process associated with this. So it's frankly one of the reasons why I am personally comfortable with this number in a jar that it's coming in because it's not, it doesn't actually exclude anyone from the ban. It gives them an escape hatch if they can demonstrate that they can make a clinical problem and have a level of productivity. And I guess I'll say two other things. One is if it's effective, then you can't bring a consumer product slung against us, and I consulted with the Attorney General's office and we're both swimming in

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: the same traffic in all of us. Great.

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: So that's sort of the summary of it

[Unidentified committee member]: and I'm happy to answer your questions.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, and do you have, used a bit of language?

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: It's on your website and I didn't.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great, okay, and so we could potentially be including that as well into a new draft of 1928.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: That was the request, yes? Yes,

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I did.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: This is the movement for language, sure. What's the universe of the number of people that might apply for the state I mean are we talking like dozens hundreds I don't think it's hundreds.

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: Mean I think really what we're looking at is the areas that I'm most concerned about is like precision manufacturing, things like semiconductor manufacturing. Which is more so said. Yeah, I think so. Okay. But I didn't want to cabin us in either because there may be things happening out there that I don't know about and I think

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: it's the door if there's a group. Okay, thank you.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, good question. Two questions, Matt. One, when this type of thing generally happens where you do an unavoidable use waiver, they're not in-depth. No. They're time

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: Thank you for bringing that up, Senator. These are time bound. They cannot be for any more than ten years.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And if you can make them shorter than that. Okay. Okay. Because basically this is supposed to in a lot of ways be a bridge until there's an alternative for that to conclude the task

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: of capital. Correct. I will

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: say in the interim between the time we took testimony in health and welfare to today, there's much better information around the regulatory regime. Mean, there's generally available information on the regulatory regime. Quantity containers basically get used in large part because of an international sort of agreement around shipping containers and what sort of standards they need to meet to make sure that chemical products don't leach through them when they're in transit and don't explode if there's some sort of accident. So there's both a framework internationally for how they get managed and then a very detailed process where it kind of go through and get an alternate type of container approved. So it takes about ten years to do that which is why having a ten year makes sense, so it could be narrower. I know industry is looking for alternatives to chlorinating the inside of containers for commercial chemical products. My understanding is it's difficult to maintain the purity of the product and the stability of the container.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, it's like this web of complex things that we have all created. But then also this language I'm assuming is, because I know this kind of waiver language exists for other products. There

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: are other jurisdictions that are using the

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: same waiver.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so this is

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: It's similar to what Maine and Minnesota are using.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Now, there any other questions for Mr. Chubb? I do want to ask Mr. Burns, if you want to weigh in at all on this, let's give you the opportunity or you could do it as well. I mean, whatever.

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: Yeah, sure. Thank you, madam chair. For the record, Paul Burns, executive director of Beanford. So a couple of comments on this. One, it is May 7, and I saw the language in the last twenty four hours, and I know Mr. Chapman described that there has now been a request for this, a request that wasn't made earlier on. Mr. Chapman, to his credit, did a lot to provide opportunity as this legislation was being considered. So it strikes me it's very late, obviously in the session and we, while there's a suggestion that there's a lot more information out there, we haven't been looking at that. We haven't had an opportunity to talk to some national experts that we would prefer, I mean, for wanting to make this exemption, we would prefer to have an opportunity to really

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: do it the right way,

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: to investigate and try to make contact with people who frankly have greater expertise in this than I

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: do. So

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: that's one thing, the reason why I think perhaps you could wait is, unless I'm mistaken, I think this chapter, this section doesn't take effect until 2032.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: 'thirty two, back in the day.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: 'thirty and 'thirty two,

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: is that right? That's right. In either case, it would seem that there might be time in the next biennium to consider a change like this before it takes effect. So that's my suggestion really more on process and on substance. With respect to substance, I'm not suggesting that we would never go along with a proposal in Bennington. This may make sense, maybe a reasonable thing. We wouldn't have necessarily opposed it if it came up initially, as part of the conversation, it is justified. Question of justification is a little bit uncertain to me right now, because we really haven't had a chance to dig in

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: as I move the firm.

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: And if you were to go forward with it, I think I would say ten years is a long, it's quite a long period of time. There's a challenge to address that, but it strikes me that five, particularly for a section that takes effect either in 2030 or 2032, another five year extension is really looking 20 ways out into the future and that that might be sufficient if she felt that you needed to move something quickly. No, I think that's the extent

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: of the comments right now. Appreciate that.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm sorry, can you see that

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: last part again? The section of the law, are two frictions. Again, if I'm remembering correctly, 2030 and 2032, it takes effect. That is the prohibition of PFAS in these exhortated containers. If you're granting this waiver or extension, that's another ten years.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: If I'm understanding up to

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: ten years, the agency has discretion to make it a shorter period of time, but perhaps up to 2040 or 2042, again, if I'm understanding this correctly, that seems like a very long time in the future to be doing it on the fly right now.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I'm wondering, I guess I wasn't seeing the 2032 in here, is that?

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: You wouldn't, it's in the underlying band itself. So it's entitled nine and the session is referenced. Nice. Let's see. I will just note part of the challenge is, So all of the consumer products bands are housed within the Consumer Protection Act, is administered by the Compare and General's Office. We're now in the science part of things, is really the agency of natural resources. So the AG's office and I collaborated on an approach that's basically what want to see before you where we're doing the science and it can give someone

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: a safer route. Yes, madam. I like this language and I hear Mr. Byrd's point but I think industry also needs some certainty too of where they're going to you know grow their companies, put

[Unidentified committee member]: in new machinery, in new

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: equipment and I think you know by putting this decision off I think we invoke a lot of uncertainty into those types of decisions that would really be good for Vermont church and Vermont's economy so I'm not a supporter of food and some certainty right now. Thoughts?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm fine with this. I think it's narrow and this is a It's only after they determine that there's no alternative and I think they are trying to find an alternative. So maybe by the time this is relevant, there will be an alternative, then you won't have to issue them. But

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: I'm okay with this.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: One thought is that, because I'm also valuing what you're saying and thinking about how the clock could potentially deal both ways, strictly like what we want as default. Like if you vet this with folks and comes up at like this is, this process has changed or this is a bad idea, then we could also revisit it. So what I'm hearing from you all is that we ought to include this in the next draft. And by the way, we were never intending to vote this out today. So it's probably gonna be tomorrow. So we're expecting the survey soon. So we'll see. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, We're going to go now to Ms. Lentz. Yay. Welcome. Thank you for having us. The record, Maggie Lentz here on behalf of the City of Mary today.

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: So we do appreciate, excuse me, we do appreciate to come to the table and try to find a path forward on this language. As a reminder, oh, fishy turn. So fishy turn, that was a chance.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Yes.

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: It's

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: in the latest draft of ninetwenty eight.

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: It is, but it's a little unrecognizable as what we first did. Okay. This

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: is not on our website. It should be Sorry, Maggie. I was on it. It should be That's 3.1 of the

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: 9.835?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Yes. The official number goes so. We ended up, I don't know if you remember, we had Mr. Rutland in, in the drinking water division, he was like, we have suggested language. I only have, wait. Are you putting one? Yes. Oh, yes. Yes. I didn't have a sighly face. I don't know why.

[Unidentified committee member]: Right here.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's page three, subdivision three.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Line seven.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, line seven. So

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: it's best management practices language. And so this is a significant departure from what the city of Barrie was looking for initially. That's probably no surprise to you. What Barrie really wanted because of past circumstances surrounding permitting the fishing tournaments on Dix Reservoir, which they own all the land around, they really wanted the municipal governing body to have the authority, not a blank check to say no, but the authority to vote on these permits. Because they were being issued, the city was finding out about them after the fact, and they were trespassing people at great cost to the city. They were told at one point by Fish and Wildlife that the permits were going to continue to be issued because theoretically someone could parachute onto the water and not go over it. So this is the genesis of what we want. What we have here, and I know Ben, I think it really is a good thing to have her in finding the path forward because I know this has been difficult, but this is best management practices and it really doesn't get to where we needed it to go. There's a couple of concerns. So it seems to, in my estimation, it makes me a little worried because the best management practices, there's language that says best management practices shall be designed to mitigate any potential impact of a fishing tournament on public water systems. And I know I've spoken with Mr. Covey, we read this differently, but very cautious about this. This makes me concerned that mitigation practices may be defined after a permit's issued, and then this would go on to municipality. Or the best management practices will be defined. This will include steps to mitigate that will go onto the municipality, onto the city, onto the water treatment plant. And then that's gonna be a condition of a permit, would be the city's, so to mitigate further. So in the spirit of compromise, I think we can support a similar framework. We would really feel strongly that if this is going move forward, that it be coupled with the build back provision that was in an earlier draft, which would give the municipality authority to move costs associated with trespassing mitigation over to the attorney ordinance.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: You don't have language to suggest, to outline that?

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: Well, we like the build out language. Oh, that was a thing. And

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think I'm going to jump to either Mr. Batchelor or Ms. Smith about that. I don't know if you have comments about the build out language that was in the original draft. If I recall, there was some concerns about that, but do you, if you

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: I'm happy to speak

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department)]: to that, ma'am. Jason Bashold, our

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Fish and Wildlife Commissioner for the record.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department)]: I feel the original language put too much undue burden on a tournament organizer who might be just a gal or just a guy off the street trying to do well by their community and issue a trophy to a 10 year old. I really can't get past the fact that we're in 2026 and have had zero incidences problems with anglers being on lakes, to point at a group of individuals as special simply because they hold a term permit from the department, I think is unreasonable. I think if, and I've used this example in the past, if a handful of folks want to have a tournament they're subject to this rule, if a 100 people wanted to go fishing and didn't have a tournament permit they would not be subject to this rule. I don't see this as a reasonable place to land. When we work so closely with BEC to try to mitigate, well, the proposed language says we will, and I am here to say we will, we are quite chummy, and I am very excited to work on this permit, you know, in a way that pleases the committee and the city of Barrie. I hope that sounds sincere, it is sincere, and I don't want folks to worry about something that in this day and age, it simply is something not to worry about. I don't know how else to put it.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. One, just to put it out there, what was a part of the best management practices that we're not expecting people to parachute into waters.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: We're not.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So one possibility is that we leave this in here. Another possibility is that we take the whole thing out and just try to address it in a future year. Mean, I'm curious for the thoughts from the committee around the build back language. Maybe we should start there. Any thoughts about this one? Like adding you back in? Rare is back again? Oh gosh.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: But

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: we had

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: the most,

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: yeah, it's had draft 10.1.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: That tells you, not quite in '17. It's online, 10.1. Under archenary. Yeah, it is from March 13. And it looks like there's the provision is on page 24. At the bottom subdivision two.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Commissioner Okay. I'm fine. But I we need the page number.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, page 24.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Since the five reasons of walking. No, Yeah. It's

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: We're trying to kind of blend 18. If the commissioner approves the fishing tournament on Inland Lake, serves both the drinking water source municipality, the commission shall reimburse the municipality if the cost occurred.

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: Here's my hat, if the land is owned by the municipality, that's not Oh,

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: if the land is owned

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: I mean, by the way, that's right, but just imagine the interest of the hour we depend.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Before we go, Senator Palmer, is there anything you needed from us?

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: We're just making sure Senator leaves.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Yes, yes. Very good. Thank you. Hey. Thoughts about adding in this provision about charging?

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: I would rather not. You'd rather

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I want it out.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Well, it's

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: still for that, senator ladies. I'd like you to take that out. Oh, to not include that? Okay. Other thoughts? Wondering Yeah. I wonder if Chief of Lightwood show the best management practices shall be designed something about to ensure that the permit mitigates any potential impact on the drinking water system. And then there is no cost to a municipality or something like that. It's just not, the sort of making it clear that the municipality is not gonna have more financial burden and that the permitting has to do things to make sure they're not leaving their lead with orders in the water or whatever. Although I think those are not allowed anymore. I was just trying to comment So on

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: the language in 3.1 says, designed to mitigate any potential impact.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, and I think the concern that I'm hearing from Ms. Lens is that that would shift the burden and the costs onto the municipality and they would have to mitigate the impact. We're going to come back, I don't know. If there's like fuel left in the water from boats, from a fishing tournament that the city, the municipality would have to pay to clean it up in order to mitigate the impact of drinking water. And so I think that's a legit concern to say, okay, well the mitigation needs to be on the permittee, not the

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Yeah. Agree with that. Municipality. When we say any potential impact

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. That's

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: And then we start listing, we're kind of almost like, you know, if we say any and then we say, one, do we have to say all the potential appendix?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, no, I wasn't suggesting list anything.

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: But I I'm just looking at the language 3.1. I was kinda

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And and also we have to remember that this is language to create guidelines and the guidelines will have specifics. So this is just trying to get direction to the two departments. To protect

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: the use of that.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, and the water that people are drinking. And then we could add a sentence about intent, that it's the intent to preserve the quality of water and to insulate municipalities from additional costs.

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: Yeah, okay. Yeah, it's all holds up for sure. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Just trying to read that.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Just looking at everything. Yes. I think that would be, this would be a Bradley, can I put a smile on faces? I'm going to just write a note here that we're going to add an intent section and just checking in with Fish and Wildlife folks. Intent is okay? Yes. Yeah. And for the record, this is Hannah Smith of Fish and Wildlife and that's fine. But the current team that comes to the fishing and trying to organize is responsible for complying with the and I don't think that this would be interpreted to, I mean, we would never hold a municipality responsible for not be finding from commission term that would permit our fire. That's great. But yeah, that's fine. That's our intent. Agrees. That's just a little bit super clear. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So with that, I will pass that along to Mr. Schulman. We'll get a new draft for tomorrow about that. Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. So we're going to move now to Mr. O'Grady and we're still on nine school Wednesday because I think we need to look at some new language and we have to Well, I'll just say we have to cook. Is that not what you have? Do we have the language we need?

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Did Friday send you the new draft, the 09/28? I'm not

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: sure what PFAS units.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Yeah, four twenty four, twenty twenty six. Three hours. Is it three point one? No. It'd be four. We 4.1 that I have.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Let me just check to see. Jude, I'm going to forward this to you. Thank you. Yep. And actually, I'm going to just forward it to everybody. Okay. Judy Floor. Okay, so Judy, you have it. And I've just forwarded it to everybody. Okay, if we look at it digitally. Okay. That's the question. It might take a few seconds here. Okay, do you folks have, okay. Mr. Agree, go ahead. Okay,

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: let me just clear, you're looking at what? Draft 3.14. That's on your meeting about data?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm just putting it on that because

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: on right, draft 4.1, page two, in the sixth instance of amendment, we're talking about the regulation of PFAS. You probably all recall over the past several years you've started to regulate PFAS in certain consumer products, and you've gone in relatively specific to the type of product, cosmetic or menstrual products, food packaging, fire coating, etc. And in so doing, when you have done it, and it's been several drafters that have been drafting that by religion, there hasn't been total uniformity including some of the chatter. And so the Attorney General is looking for more uniformity across some of those chapters and making sure that they have all of the, either the city standards or the city enforcement authority across all those chapters, so that they can effectively implement follow-up with the FAST policy for the FAST and Congress. And so that's what these three instances of amendment do. In the sixth instance of amendment, you are basically adding a new section five, which is amending or adding nine BSA twenty four ninety four D. This is one of the tools that the Attorney General uses to ensure compliance by industry with PFAS laws, so that the Attorney General can ask the person that's subject to the law for a certificate of compliance that they are compliant with the law. That person can provide that certificate within sixty days, or they can notify the persons that are selling the product of the manufacturers that it is prohibited and that that product needs to be removed from sale. And then the manufacturer can submit, or when they submit a certificate of compliance, they can rely on a certificate of compliance from a subcontractor or someone, a supplier, supplying them so that say, AG says, hey cosmetic manufacturer, are you combined cosmetic manufacturer goes to your supplier, supplier, give me a certificate of compliance that what you're providing me is PFAS burning, supplier provides it, cosmetic manufacturer provides the AT, but certificate of compliance including the supplier's certificate of compliance. And that is a tool that is used in firefighting, food packaging, it's in most of the other chapter where PFAS is being regulated consumer, PFAS is being consumer product, it's not the in cosmetic industrial products chapter, and that's what the attorney general is looking for, and that's what that section five on page two to three do. Similarly, section six, page nine nineteen, and line 19, page three, line 19, you're now in the food packaging chapter PFAS in food packaging. Most PFAS chapters and the requirements for them apply to the manufacturer of the product. This chapter does not have a definition of manufacturer, and so the PAG is asking for the definition of manufacturer to be added. This is the same definition of manufacturer that's used in the other PFAS chapters, so it will be consistent for purposes of the attorney general's implementation. And then last, on page five, line 10, section seven, This is about the selling of used products. The PFAS regulations do not apply to the selling of used products because frankly they're the streaming commerce already to determine whether or not they have PFAS and how to regulate that as practically possible. So this page five, nine eleven, this is in the food packaging chapter. It's conforming the used packaging or used product exception to the used product exception in the other chapter. This section shall not apply to the sale offered for sale, distribution for sale, distribution for use of food packaging previously used by a consumer for the intended purpose of the dollar. So all your Tupperware out there that you got from your grandmother, don't need to throw out one. Sure. And you can stop. You can stop to

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: decide. Okay, great. Questions, concerns, thoughts? Okay, that is it for 09/28. I think everybody has agreed on that language. So I think we can move on, which is great. And actually, I'd like to move to H727, not 09/15, because I think that's actually going to be more compact conversation. Bottle bill maybe slightly less compact. So just to get it out of the way. So we are still looking at,

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll get back to

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Same draft. Same draft from earlier. Hey guys, on the list. Yep.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So we were finding this this morning,

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department)]: and I

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: left without having to use recent version. It's it's about This

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: was starting on page 11. At least that's when the section starts.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Section three, page 11. This is the section related to water use, cooling Yep. Confirming the following. Do you want me to just look at the changes? Yep. Where we did not change the closed loop cooling system, did not change the definition of PFAS and the the requirement to use closed loop on page 12, line 19, if water is used to cool a data center under data center, shows a closed loop cooling system or an alternative cooling system approved by the District Commission to minimize impacts to quality and quantity of surface water and gravity. Before approving that alternative system, the Commission shall find that the alternative cooling system will minimize groundwater use or surface water use and not have a not unreasonably burden on public water supply, surface water, or groundwater use. That work? Yes. And then there's reference to the alternative cooling system. If water is used to pool data center through a closed loop cooling system, through an alternative cooling system, data center shall identify where it will obtain water to take silt and where the fluid flow will be.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And just to be clear, we're still trying to minimize the impacts of, to the quality of quantity of surface water.

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

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, because the other, the phrase that we've been talking about was like using a de minimis amount of water or like, but that's, you feel like that is captured.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I went and I looked at a couple of different standards in current state law and other data centers, and the unreadable burden on is really the, that's kind of consistent with the Vermont groundwater strategy, and it's consistent with how our data centers are regulating.

[Unidentified committee member]: I don't have

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: it. Oh, excellent. No. I just didn't. I

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yep. Yep. It's we're now on page 12.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And instead of de minimis, it says that they have to minimize groundwater or surface water use. That would be something the district commission will evaluate for purposes of approving that alternative.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Are you finding that solution?

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, we found it. One thing I have been thinking about is if instead of wouldn't reach more than it was, it's So just that would say, alternatives back against

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, think you could add that phrase on line 13, before approving an alternative cooling system, District Commission shall find that the alternative system shall not use more water than the same scale for the opposing system because it would be required for it. I'll have to work normally after this. And make an advantage. Right. And and don't anyone crime or use their service provider use. And it will not only need to be burned in public plots, lots of.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. I like it. That sounds good to me. So we'll look at that for a new draft. Okay. Okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Then you can move to the bottom of that section, and it's again the p plus, which

[Unidentified committee member]: oh, wait.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is in the previous four zero one language where it said that if you're going to be using water that you're going to have to do a four zero one instead of four zero one. You're sussing out that specific assessments that you want to do, so if the data center proposes to use more than 300 gallons a day of surface water for cooling, the agency is doing the application for a surface water withdrawal permit. If they're not available yet, shall assess the impacts on water quality, product by state in nature and darkness, can see in stream flow habitat, impingement stream back erosion, control habitat, but what do you not see there?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: 401. Shorelands. Oh, Shorelands, okay, yes.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And that's because, as the chair pointed out, when you go to the Shorelands permit section, something that receives an Act two fifty permit doesn't need a Shorelands permit. So this is an Act two fifty permit. So if you get this, you don't need shoreline, so you don't need to do a shoreline. Don't need a reference here. You've been opening that out. Great call. Page 14, line nine. The issuance of a surface water withdrawal permit by the agency after completion of the assessments required under 2A shall create a rebuttable presumption that the data centers will not result in undue water pollution due to the requirements of Subdivision 686 A 1, that's criterion one. So if they get those permits, the probable presumption that they're not going to have any water leakage. And then the agency may, by rule, reduce the amount of surface water proposed for withdrawal by a data center, which the agency will be required to complete the assessment on the self efficiency guidance. Remember surface water withdrawal permits haven't been issued yet, you don't know if 300,000 gallons a day is what ANR is going to come up with as the necessary jurisdictional trigger for anything, let alone a data center. So you want to build in some flexibility that in the future A and R can change that 300,000 trigger depending on the service provider program. And then page 14 going on to page 15, this is the PFAS. So this is new, and I don't think you discussed it in great detail, but a data center that discharges waste, and waste is what you discharge in Vermont that triggers the permit, so that's why it says waste. Shall monitor for the maximum number of PFAS that are detectable under US Environmental Protection Agency standard methods. So there are two standard methods, one that's specific to 45 to 51 that's specific to fluorinated compounds, but they will monitor for the maximum number of chlorophyll and enter an agreement with ANR monitor. And then the data center shall not discharge meats that exceeds the criteria established under the mouthwater quality standard. So if they're discharging and there is going to be a PFAS standard in the water quality standard, hopefully within my lifetime risk, then they will have to meet that. But if no criteria is established under the water quality standards for PFAS, the data center shall not discharge at least above the reporting limit of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency standard method utilized to monitor for PFAS and service FAR. So if you're below the monitoring threshold, you you would be compliant. So because it wouldn't be detectable. Right? But if you're above, then it's detectable, and you are a violation. Yes.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: What about the thing the issue that I brought on the board about if the EPA water standards are obliterated. Do we need to put a little marker and timestamp?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So these aren't the standards, these are the monitoring assessments, they're just tools, and I could just say the monitoring, the standard methods available as of 01/01/2026. Yeah.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry for the paranoia, but that seems it's not fair fair. Someday there are two significant points, I think.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So, yeah, I see what you're saying.

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: Yeah.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, we're gonna get a new draft anyway. Okay. Sure.

[Unidentified committee member]: Depending on the screen from the thousand gallons of that block, don't we? Yeah, the sources.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So So we'll flag that for the draft month. And just,

[Unidentified committee member]: I mean, could probably pick this up, but just remind me, what are we doing about groundwater?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Groundwater already has a permit for the reading. You are saying on page 13 line nine, if the DAS are proposed to use groundwater, they have to get a groundwater withdrawal permit regardless of whether or not they're withdrawing more than 57 sets a day or not. And so then there's a whole rule and a strategy, and there's a public trust analysis that needs to be done to ensure that there's no damage underneath the groundwater strategy to other other use dependent on groundwater.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: K. Center Williams? What if it's river water?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's surface water. That's that's that's the one that we're talking about where I have to go and look at what the appropriate volume is for closed loop systems. They haven't issued that surface water withdrawal permit yet, that's probably not going to be available until 2027. But once they do, they can adjust that, and that's the flexibility for them to adjust that is on page 14, line 14. They may reduce the amount that triggers that analysis at a future date, but they would have to do it by roommate.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, thank you, guys. Appreciate the thumbs up. Super. Okay. I think that is

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: One last thing.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Oh, okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So I wasn't sure, page 15, line six and seven. The language in F, in my opinion, kind of consumes the language that was in your previous sub G, where data center is prohibited from adding PFAS to any discharge. You're basically saying that what the standard is going to be for the discharge in F, and I just wanted to run that by you, you're aware that's going to change.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think that is practical. Great. Thank you so much. So we'll look for a new draft on that with a few changes. So seven twenty seven for now. Now we're going to move on into, yeah, H915, bottle bill. Okay, so this is I think, so because we got four point three yesterday, but we ended up not walking through it.

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: Sure.

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh,

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: wait, oh, this is, this is times we had five.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Yeah, I mean, it changed this morning based on some input that came in overnight.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, okay. So I'm going to not, okay. We're going to go with this draft that just got past it.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Okay.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Will turn it over to you to walk us and then love to have some conversation. Mr. Driscoll, do you have something on seventwenty seven or on the following?

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: Seventwenty seven, so it's twice more that you want me to invest that now or tomorrow.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Let's go tomorrow. Okay. Is that okay? Well, Is it fast? Yeah. It's fast. Think it's fast. Tomorrow is kind of gonna be authentic, so

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: So Yeah. Bill Brisbane Association, she's the model with regard to EPAS. So with regard to the first part of that, I think we're going provide some concerns about the monitoring focus, but certainly central up until page 15 after quality standards, when you go to if no criteria is established or different. So the problem with that planners there is I've talked to ANR about how they interpret this. That would be no detective or EPAS

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: would be allowed at all.

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: So the concern with the previous language was that

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: it would be prohibiting any added EPAS regardless of where it came from, regardless of whether it met any health or safety standards. This language does the same thing, but even worse. So in other words, you can have water coming out of a plant that's lower

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: than the PFAS, then it

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: comes in, but it's still detectable, you have to solve. So that's the policy problem. As

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: a practical, I

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: would hope for your assurance, because it's my also my understanding that despite Mr. O'Grady's inherent pessimism, the agency, I believe, is confident that they should have fairly comprehensive or involved standards for surface discharge within a couple of years. So I think that to the extent there's a gap in Vermont law that should be filling fairly soon, but in the meantime, this would be a very concerning precedent to have on the books. And, also, if if there is a delay in water quality standards, this is this is even less this is even more concerning than the

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: previous language because it could be an issue even

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: if there's less feedbacks in the.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: So it's it's I I think it

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: would be clear and hopefully still get the same place in

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department)]: the end

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: and avoid press sensitive concerns if you simply end up on line one, make sure that you have had to follow the surveillance and focus on the law regulations.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: So ending on 14.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: You're saying strike out the sentence that starts if no criteria has been established. It shall not discharge weights above the reporting limit of the loan. Though to be fair, this is likely only effectual language for the next SIL 27 when the withdrawal permit comes out?

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: Well, we'd hope this would be effectively once Vermont has comprehensive water following standards, which again, but in the meantime, this kind of standard would be, again, very difficult, if not impossible to meet. It's very arbitrary in what it would

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: be prohibiting. Again, as I said,

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: it's regardless whether it was a health concern or whether it's increased or decreased. It's just being bad. It's fair. It's withdrawn.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Yeah. It's not fair.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: It's tied to the water quality standards and they go they go through the triennial overview. Thanks. I I've heard that there may be a EFA standard to address human health in the next triennial review. There won't be a traditional surface water quality standard, but there's potential in the next triennial review. I don't know. Is that what

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: you were gonna say,

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Not exactly. Oh, sorry.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I also don't wanna interrupt You were not done.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: No. I mean, I'm done. I just wanna pause it. It's okay. Gotta try and review sometimes. It's probably

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: dragging it off.

[Unidentified committee member]: You wanna?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's fair. Okay, yes go ahead.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: For the record, I'm John Grohman

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: of Monmouth Rutland with Keppel. So I've actually tried to overheat and go on for like six years or more, so I do not think we could hitch our way into the creation of a standard that has been difficult to create, and I think it would really be a big mistake just to leave this gap in the law during that period of time. I don't know what Mr. Drift was talking about. If you look up the reporting levels, it's not. I don't know what no detectable standard means. They range from like the zero to like 10 I think parts per trillion of PFOS. It depends upon the PFOS compounds. And I would submit that if industry and the agency don't like that, should just motivate them to create a standard. If you do not do this, we will have no standard if a data center comes in and there'll be no motivation to do it. People really don't like this standard which is you know it's something you can actually implement and monitor for which is why this change was made in response to Mr. Driscoll's concern and I would submit there is no paper addressed Mr Driscoll's concern, he doesn't want a standard until the agency proposes one end. I could imagine when that gets proposed there'll be arguments about whether that standard is the right standard or not, whether should have it at that level. So we could just keep arguing about what the standard should be and have no standard or go with what EPA in their pretty conservative methodology has put out there. This is not something that's put out willy nilly, we've developed over a long period of time, and it can be used to determine how much PFAS you have in your wastewater,

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: and then you have to

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: meet that standard. And again, if people aren't comfortable with that, what's motivating, create a Vermont based standard,

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: but just don't leave it.

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: If you leave it blank, it will be blank. We'll have no regulation of PFAS being discharged.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: We want to check-in with the committee for your thoughts. Sorry, yes. I'm comfortable with the language that's in here. I have a question about an S on line four on page 15. The method on line 20 and on the previous page, had methods, and now it's singular, so I don't know if it's supposed to be singular or plural. Or if there's a difference in these two.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Like me, like there you go.

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: Sorry, Michael.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Under title one, the singular, the plural, plural, ascending. Oh, oh, cool. But I I do think for purposes here, you're talking about only two different methods, so I'll change the methods. Okay. I just thought consistency, but

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: I like that. Don't want to drink.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Other thoughts? This is I'm also inclined to keep this for now, but I'd like to keep having a conversation about it. Happy So to connect later because we gotta keep going. So if you continue, let's keep it for now. Okay. So I think we're done. Again, hopefully the seventwenty seven. Bottle Bill. Okay. Okay. Brad. She think of it.

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: Travis. Sign off.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Point three, May seven, 07:26AM. Gonna step through the changes, is that what you would

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: like? Yes.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright, page two, line 17. There are a couple of instances of language where Matt and I kind of default to, like, EPR terminology, and so he'll say stewardship organization or point of collection, and so here it's point of redemption.

[Matt Chapman (Director, Waste Management and Prevention Division, VT DEC)]: Yes.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh. Standard producer responsibility. Probably. Got it. But then So that's that you'll see a couple of genes where our brains kind of intuitively use certain terms, which we should not be using in this system. The page Why don't two, line seventeen, seventeen collections, and then is page six. This relates to something that Senator Beck had raised, and that is an issue that I've heard about in other file bill states. It's the redemption center of the retailer refusing to pay the full value of the deposit for the returned container, which is against the law, but this language would very clearly say page six, and a retailer redemption center shall not refuse to pay a person the refund value of a beverage container established under the section fifteen forty. So there's a Massachusetts redemption center that is not paying the full value.

[Paul Burns (Executive Director, VPIRG)]: Say

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Does this does this also prevent them from paying more than deposit value? That that is the deposit value is the deposit value you That's what you pay. You pay period to the person returned. Okay. Now when you get into the plan and you're talking about their compensation to the reduction center or retailer, that could be subject to negotiation. Remember, the handling fee is going to be That would be the PRO. Right, That would not be considered. All right, I do think there needs to be a technical amendment on page six, line 18, where it says acceptance provided in subsection B. It should be subsection B or C. And that's been in there for a while. The next page is on page nine, and this relates to testimony that Conrad provided you regarding the requirements for liquor redemptions. On page nine ninety seven, it had previously said retail redemption, but liquor bottles are going to be redeemed by redemption centers and retailers. And so you view Conner's point was this has to be informed so that it reads that it applies to both the retailer and the Prudential Center. So a retailer shall not refuse to accept the beverage containers that they well, that's fine. But then DLL shall not refuse to pick up empty beverage containers subject to the section, pay the refund diary, pay the handling fee to the retailer or redemption center. It had previously just said retailer. So this is no longer just about retail redemption, but redemption as on folds. The next sheet is on page 16, and this is the ANR, what I call the AR big or bigger ish. It's page 16 when they issue their own plan and they have that assessment on top of the cost of the plan that had previously been 10%. You wanted that to go up to 25%, and that's the change that's on page 16. Should I move on? Yeah. Next, can see page 18. This is clarifying the language in the convenience requirement for towns of 7,000 or more. It had previously said on page 18, line twelve, thirteen, unless the secretary waives the requirement, it wasn't sure what was waiving, the requirement for the seven thousand election or just the immediate return. And it's the labor of the immediate return unless the secretary waits a requirement for immediate return. Good. Did you make that clear? Moving on, page 19. This is another TOMBA request. You may recall from the prior draft that the PRO was prohibited from using single feed reverse reverse sending machine or mobile points of redemption to meet the convenience requirements in three points of collection per calendar. Congress' point is that it should be may not only use single feed redempts. So maybe if you're at a redemption center and there's single feed there, but there's also manual reduction there. So the way that a tree previously was drafted, you could argue that single feed wouldn't have been allowed to meet that. So you only have three, the redemption center has maybe, you know, does certain numbers of hours of manual collection, but also has single feed there for after hours. Would you want to prohibit the single feed in the meeting with convenience collection environment?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So we want to allow that to

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and that's what that does. It may not use only single beam. And probably should say it may not use only multiple points of redemption. But probably

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Or only on line seven. Yeah. Yes, go ahead.

[Unidentified committee member]: Just thinking, going back to page 18, thinking about the the necessary three ways. If we think it's important that the bee of one of the three have media, We want to put it, I mean, this isn't necessarily a waste of funds.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But this is only in the £7,000, right? So within the three per county, at least one still would have to provide immediate return.

[Unidentified committee member]: In a £7,000, that's where you're going to return. Don't wanna it's not fixed. They don't know about your. It's gonna be pressure on the secretary to do this, and, therefore, it'll be better. But the exception will swallow the rule to decide. Mhmm.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And maybe I I you know, maybe the eye drop is gonna work better in some towns. Now where you're not gonna get that immediate return, you're just gonna get on the app that we won't have to cash in hand. See, do know because part of part of the

[Unidentified committee member]: point here is we don't have it.

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

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: we need the money. Yeah.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: We need the cash.

[Unidentified committee member]: Maybe it's not with them. So is your concern just getting rid of the authority to waive? Well, I'm I'm actually just thinking out loud. I'm not sure why I actually could change the flagging as something that if we need it, then we don't wanna make it easy to waive.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. I feel I don't know. I I flagged this just because it was unclear about the secretary I was waving. So Yeah. But that's a good point. Let's leave it within an hour. And if we it's always easier to remove than to add.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Mr. Sutcher, do have something to say about? Just a follow-up. It gives the PRO flexibility in those pounds to be able to to waive

[Unidentified committee member]: it if they need to

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: or or nothing or fake it. See what you're saying? For sure. But but at the end the day, it gives them a little flexibility there so they don't have to stand up a redemption center if if it's not feasible, like Michael mentioned about, you know, maybe it makes sense in certain places, but not.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Happy to revisit it also. Okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Publication nineteen sixteen, that's one of the instances of intuitive language exchange from point of collection to point of redemption.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, yes. Good.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And then on page 20, this is probably one of the bigger changes. This is where you have the tiered handling fee. One tier is based on 3.5¢ per container for single feed reverse dining machines. This next tier is $4.01 9 for all other needs for destiny, or according to a separate compensation agreement, negotiated in a reduction location or a reduction location. So I heard that there was a request for collective bargaining, and that might not be the best to use. But this this would allow for a group to negotiate, a group of them to negotiate what their compensation would be, which I think is the intent of the request.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Want to just check-in with a couple of folks here. So, sir, how do you feel about this portion, particularly, I don't know if you have the draft.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Yeah, I'm more than I'm here. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if that covers the intent of what we're trying to do. Defer it with

[Unidentified committee member]: the right ear. One of the

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: things about to keep in mind about the collective bargaining is that's exactly what they're doing on the other side, and so they're collectively bargaining with us technically, right? So there have been some concerns raised about well if collective bargaining is the right thing to do here and antitrust and things like that, I think we should keep in mind that that's exactly what they're doing on the other side is collectively bargaining and they're the biggest companies in the world.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Do have something to mind Mr. Agree?

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: No, I mean, accurate in one respect, it's not accurate in another because you create a PRO that is a nonprofit organization that is not on a daily basis, like coordinating with all the manufacturers and distributors that are part of the PRO, but they ultimately are responsible to all of them. It's one of those things that we talked about before it came up with the lady there, like we are all, you know, kind of negotiated with the 30 lighting manufacturers, so like, we're all set to be, no, you're not, you're all under the same plan. And so it's, it's that's essential.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Perfect. No, We're gonna have to wrap up here soon, but before we go, I want to go to Senator Beck about the differentiated rates for

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: single fever versus Any

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: thoughts about that?

[Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Well, actually I don't know from who, but didn't we have some testimony that said it should be the same for both? The I can't remember who gave us this testimony.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: There was a report that showed that the difference was very small between the single feed

[Scott Beck (Clerk)]: actual costs and manufacturing costs. I expected to see the same for both. Well, not because everybody told Mr. O'Brady, but I'd be okay with them saying, but I'm not, it's not a deliberate offense. Think let's go with it being the same.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: And I know we have more to talk about on this.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: Could I just make right in this section?

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes.

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: And it was a point that was made right before I walked in, I think it's probably a good one. It's in the dispute resolution section, and whether or not, Where's that? So it's filed on page 20, line 20, the system of guidelines developed by the PRO shall be binding dispute resolution to resolve any disputes that arise surrounding fair compensation. Should probably be limited to the negotiation of a separate compensation agreement, right? Because you don't want the PRO to come in and say, hey, you need to negotiate with us, and unless you do, we're going to dispute resolution and we're not paying you the 4 and a half cents until we go through dispute resolutions. And it should be probably just limited to separate compensation for potentially not in there at all.

[Unidentified committee member]: Interesting. Going back to page 18, just thinking about this, people

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: are

[Unidentified committee member]: gonna return from not return. Exactly.

[Travis Driscoll (Beverage industry representative)]: So what have

[Unidentified committee member]: you said, unless the secretary, if something like like secretary determines that's required, there would be an interim case and be head of a little efficient. It's some standard. There were some scenarios, just waiting on that.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: That makes sense to me. And then regarding this issue Doctor. Grady raised on dispute resolution. Happy to, sense is to keep it in here, but to limit it as you suggested. Okay. Just trying to understand what you're limiting it to, just disputes about fair comp So

[Unidentified committee member(s)]: when you were negotiating a separate compensation agreement, If you have a dispute underneath that, that would go by dispute message. But otherwise the redemption center is gonna get more exempt upon that sense for all of them. Okay.

[Maggie Lentz (representing the City of Barre)]: Okay.

[Anne Watson (Chair)]: So with that, thank you everybody. You're gonna enjoy the day. Take a We're gonna pass a bunch of bills tomorrow.