Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: You're live. Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: This is, Senate Transportation, and we're resuming our, testimony. And we're taking back up tick cars. And if you could introduce yourselves, tell us something about who you are and dive right in.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Okay, great. Thanks for having me. I'm Rachel Stevens. I'm an attorney representing the Agency of Natural Resources. I'm joined by my colleague, Deirdre Ritzer. She's the Mobile Sources Section Chief for the Air Quality and Climate Division at Department of Environmental Conservation. The Air Division is responsible for administering Vermont's emissions inspection requirements and program, and it's our job to ensure that motor vehicles comply with state and federal Clean Air Act requirements. I just wanted to acknowledge that I think we were asked to discuss both KITCars and s two eleven. So we'll just, I guess, ask for you So to let us know when to move on from kit our understanding is that there's not yet a bill proposal, but we understand that there is some interest in certain vehicles being exempt from emissions requirements. So we thought it would be helpful if we provided an overview of some of the legal concepts to the committee that the committee should keep in mind when it as it relates to emissions requirements. DEC did provide this summary of legal requirements and so much of this information is provided in the legislative study that was just discussed. But I just wanted to summarize the high level requirements to keep in mind. So the first requirement relates to emission standards. So all new motor vehicles, regardless of whether it's purchased or it's built at home, must comply with the latest emissions standards. These are required by the Federal Clean Air Act and implemented through DEC's Low Emission Vehicle Rules. The Clean Air Act requires all engines and vehicles to be covered by what's called a certificate of conformity from either EPA or California, demonstrating that all emissions requirements are met before they can enter into commerce. In Vermont, as you heard, we follow California's emission standards and so all new vehicles must be certified. I wanted to make one point based on the previous testimony, to clarify that it is possible that you have a vehicle that has a VIN and a registration, but that it is not legal to operate because it does not follow the compliant emissions requirements. So just wanted to make that clear. I'll just move on. So there is a kit car policy with the US EPA, and we have a copy of it we can provide to the committee. But this describes kit vehicles as those typically involving new bodies, used drivetrains, or new and used chassis. Fully assembled kit cars and complete what are known as kit car packages are considered motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act, and therefore they must follow emissions requirements, whether it's the EPA requirements or the California requirements. So this is an important policy because it clarifies that kit cars are motor vehicles and therefore must follow the emissions standards. There is another federal law that was discussed a lot this morning that I think it's important for the committee to look into. This is what's known as the FAST Act, which is the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act. This federal law has a legal exemption for emissions requirements and an exemption from state inspection requirements for low volume manufacturers that meet certain requirements for their vehicles. So this is known as the low volume manufacturer specially produced motor vehicle exemption in the FAST Act. We have some EPA guidance on the exemption, but from our perspective, this is the legal avenue with which manufacturers can get around certain inspection requirements for states. Moving on, I wanted to raise an issue that we heard from Jonathan this morning as well, just to reiterate. There are state and federal laws that prohibit anyone from altering the configuration of an engine or emissions control equipment beyond the installation instructions provided by the manufacturer. This is known as tampering and it's prohibited by the federal GINAIR Act. Even if the legislature decided to exempt certain vehicles from emissions requirements, it is still possible that these vehicles could be in violation of the federal tampering prohibition. Because as Jonathan explained,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: it's prohibited for any person to alter the configuration of an intermittent control equipment beyond what was originally certified and consistent with the instructions of the manufacturer. And this is a state requirement and a federal requirement.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: So, the third legal issue that's at play here are emissions inspections themselves, which we heard discussion about earlier as well. So, as you know, light duty vehicles 16 model years or newer must have an annual emissions inspection. We'll discuss when we talk about two eleven that these emissions inspections are required by federal law. And as I mentioned previously, there is a federal exemption to state inspections under the FAST Act. So we'd recommend that the committee take a closer look at that existing option. So the last legal issue I wanted to flag is related to tampering. It's something noted engine switching, which Jonathan mentioned in his testimony. So depending on if there is a dual proposal, there could be an issue with engine switching, which as I mentioned is tampering. This is for light duty vehicles. The installation of a light duty engine into a different light duty vehicle by any person would be considered tampering unless the resulting vehicle is identical, which means that it has the proper emissions configuration. So these four legal concepts are very important to keep in mind, and they would still potentially limit any state prohibition or state allowance that Vermont might consider. I did want to point out that DEC agrees that bill amendments could be useful to clearly define or clarify how specially constructed vehicles are defined and what the standards are. So, we would be open to reviewing definitions that might be proposed to provide clarity on that space and certainly available to provide specific comments if there is a bill. Happy to answer any questions.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Do have any questions about the admissions? Are you doing both?

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: No, we can do Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I have a question not about the kickers.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Okay. Should I move on to the other?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yes. We can move on, and then we'll take questions.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Okay. Perfect. Okay. So moving on to S two eleven. This is the bill that would change the annual inspection requirements. I provided a handout to the committee yesterday that details the specific Cleaner Act requirements. So, I recommend that the committee take a close look at that. I provided the citations of the statute, the federal law, the regulations. I also wanted to highlight an important federal court decision that came down last week from Federal District Court in New Hampshire. This is related to New Hampshire's attempt to roll back its state inspection program. I have a copy I've linked to the case in the handout, and I can provide a copy to the committee. So in general, the Federal Clean Air Act and EPA implementing regulations set out the emissions inspection requirements that Vermont must follow. Vermont must demonstrate compliance with these requirements by submitting what's known as a safe implementation plan to EPA for approval. The federal requirements assume an annual inspection frequency unless an alternative test frequency can meet emissions performance standard. If this standard cannot be met with a biennial frequency, then the inspection program must remain annual. There is an alternative option where other changes to the inspection program could be made to offset the emissions reductions lost by moving to frequency, such as increasing the vehicle model years subject to the emissions requirement. So, this assumes that moving to biennial will have an increase in emissions. And so, in order to get that approved by EPA, we would need to demonstrate some emission savings by some other change to the emissions program. If the standard can be met with less frequent inspections and this bill becomes law, the DEC would have to amend its state implementation plan and seek EPA approval before it could be implemented. We are uncertain about whether a reduced inspection schedule could meet the federal performance standard under the Clean Air Act. To make this determination, DEC would need to undertake extensive emissions modeling. If we do meet the performance standard, DEC, as I said, we'll have to undertake significant revisions to the SIP and get approval. So that is outlining the process for moving forward with any change to emissions frequency.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Why don't you finish and

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: then I I'll come had a few other points beyond

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: points and then Okay.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Okay. Great. I think we're we're doing good on time.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I I you know, we interrupt here. Go ahead.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Okay. So, as I mentioned, we don't know whether the performance standard could be met until we do the modeling. Though in our expertise, we do expect that the change to a biennial inspection would increase air pollution in Vermont, including increasing ozone, air toxics, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. This is because the longer time you have between inspections, it means repairs will be conducted less frequently, allowing vehicles with malfunctioning equipment to operate longer, causing harmful emissions to increase. I provided an example, which I think is for me was a pretty shocking statistic. But if a vehicle's check engine light is illuminated, this means the manufacturer has already determined that the emissions have increased by 50% or more due to an emission control system or part failure. This is why inspections are an important part of making sure that these issues are identified and repaired. It's our view also from the Air Division that increased air pollution has the potential to adversely affect populations or public health, especially for communities that live near increased traffic and areas with dense traffic. I also wanted to clarify something from previous testimony we heard. I just wanted to clarify that there are 28 states and DEC, DEC, DC, 28 states and DC that require emissions inspections. 11 of those jurisdictions require annual inspections, 13 of those require biennial inspections, and five of those jurisdictions have a mix of annual or biennial depending on the vehicle age. In New England, Connecticut and Rhode Island are biennial and all the rest are annual. I also wanted to point out that we do expect this change to increase the cost of emissions related repairs for vehicles. Regular inspections for early diagnosis and timely repairs can often be less costly. For example, a poorly performing spark plug can cause the engine to misfire, which can quickly degrade the performance of the catalytic converter if repair is delayed. A spark plug repair itself is relatively inexpensive, while a catalytic converter repair, in addition to the spark plug, can be expensive. So from our perspective, delaying repairs can have a negative cost impact on consumers. It can also have an impact on warranty coverage because a vehicle's emissions warranty is based on the vehicle's age and mileage. If an emissions issue arises near the end of your vehicle's warranty, but you delay repairs due to an inspection being every other year, it's possible that you would miss out on warranty coverage for that repair.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: think those are my high level points I wanted to raise for the community.

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: Go. Okay. Thank you, mister chair. Normally, it tries to give other people an opportunity to first. So, well, I really appreciate your analysis. I think there's one fundamental assumption that's wrong, which is that folks will delay repairs if they're not getting an annual inspection. What I've seen in some of the research I did in advance of introducing the bill was look at studies to see if folks actually did delay repairs because of inspections. Like did they actually wait longer until they needed to get an inspection to actually do repairs versus why are people delaying repairs? And the main reason it seems from the research that we had a study that was done in 2015 by the nonpartisan group, like the JFO for Congress, they showed that in fact there's very little connection between people choosing to get repairs and inspections now because what most of us see is a check engine light comes on. Right. You you see your something is alerting you in your vehicle that something is wrong. So the reason for you not getting a repair isn't because you're getting an inspection and you're learning new information. It's because you either can't afford the repair, you don't have a qualified person who can do the repair, you're at a great distance to getting the repair done or getting the repair done would delay your ability to use your vehicle. What they found was the leading reason people didn't get repairs was time where their vehicle was not accessible to them. Seemed to be the number one priority. I actually think the underlying assumption that people will get fewer repairs is not accurate to the data that I've seen, at least in some of the research I've done. So I'd love to see a little bit more critical analysis on that point if you've got it. But I did wanna say I really appreciate you bringing forward the fact that of states that are meeting the standard, 13 of them are doing it by end. So we would need to make some changes, but it looks like there's other states that are fully complying and also doing it this way.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: So Yeah. I appreciate you raising Yeah. The performance standard can be met, which is like an emissions calculation model. Then there are options for an inspection program by the end.

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. And I just also really appreciate your work in general. It's critical, and I think that this is the key piece to the two year inspection conversation where the river hits the road. How do

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: we maintain the quality? Okay. That'd be helpful. Okay, we can take a closer look into the repair Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: This comment really might be that you need to go back and have some discussion about this. There's a timetable here. We we were gonna do stuff, we'd need to go back to the fence and get waivers and do all of that. It would be helpful if there was a clear path that if we were gonna go forward with this, what does that look like for time? You know? Could it be accomplished in a year? Is it are we really looking at a two year? What are the key points in each of those that we should research before we go ahead with this? Can you create that picture that is a realistic picture, not Yeah, I can can definitely We heard specifically from the DMV and the financial piece, they said that whatever we did, do not do it in the middle of

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: the year. Make it a calendar year that so there are practical pieces that we would have to follow, and I think it's important for this community to understand those practical pieces before we took any steps. So one practical piece would be the modeling itself. So this would probably take several weeks to conduct. There's some question about getting hold of the EPA staff that we would need to do that. But I think the modeling itself could probably happen in several weeks. The real limiting factor when it comes to timing is getting EPA approval. That's why I pointed to the court case because the court was really clear that unless and until EPA has approved the SIP provision, it cannot be implemented. And so that was my big takeaway from the court decision. So that's the bigger question. And I did want to point out to the committee that there are other issues with the state implementation plan now that are causing EPA concern in approving the SIPP. So we are working actively with the ND to resolve those issues. But I think if we were going to introduce this as a new change to the SIPP, it would be kind of grouped into those other discussions

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: that we're having. You know, here's part of just my thinking, and I'm not speaking for the whole committee. If we were gonna research this to get ourselves out front and make sure all of our bases are covered before we get there, what are the questions we should be asking to get definitive answers to? What are the things that we should be out there moving us along to get the answers to before we so we need to ask the right questions. Second piece, and this is more for the agency of transportation itself, they're building an in bus system whereby in January 1, they wanna go live with miles traveled for electric vehicles. Thus far, what we've heard is that would be based on them at the end of inspection taking the miles off the car. We're not clear about what the alternative to that might be. And those are all questions that I think we need some help answering. And so if we were going to do something to research those to get us in a position next January or to May, what are the things that we should be laying out and researching?

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: I, there are some topics, as I mentioned, that we've been in discussion with DMV and B TRANS about, about how to improve the inspection programs if the EPA will approve it. I don't necessarily want to testify about that without consulting them

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: about I don't want you to. That's but

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: But I think what we could do is I do think that what you talked about the mileage based user fee, these other discussions that we're having related to the SIPP and this discussion are related because it relates to whether or not inspections are annual and how they function in our system. So, I'm thinking, as I mentioned, at the staff and leadership level, we're talking frequently about these issues. And maybe we can What I what

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm the pressure we're under is particularly for lower income monitors. The inspection is becoming more and more difficult for them. We frequently have people that have brand new cars come in and say, let us out. And and so it becomes so we are under pressure from constituents. There's hardly a place that any of us go now that we don't hear about this. So I think it's important for us to what would the path be if we did? What's the pain to get there to do that? And we need that information. And I think

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: there

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: everybody at the table wants to have the correct information and correct to be able to here's what it would take to get there because we have to answer constituents that are, quite frankly, if we put it to a vote without any information out in our communities, I probably know what the answer would be, but we need a balance.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Right. I mean, think there's two things that came to mind. So one is I think what I've already shared that I think we can, because we've been having active discussions about, and we meet with EPA quarterly about our SIP, and we've met regularly with D and B to talk about what we need to do to improve, that maybe we can accelerate those leadership level conversations and see if we can come to some agreement about what might be a path forward.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm not afraid to have this committee put something up that instructs you to do that and come back to us.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Right, that's understood. I did want to just mention also, which I'm sure the committee is aware, but we do at DEC operate an emissions assistance repair program that provides funding and it covers, you know, for low income Vermonters specifically, it can cover the cost of their emissions repair. I know much of the complaint that you're probably hearing is related to the safety inspection, which is not something that we can provide funding for or have oversight over. So, from the emissions perspective, if it's an emissions related repair, we have funding to pay for that for low income Vermonters. And I know you've just been testifying frequently to the other environment committees about that program,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: and it has sufficient funding available. We'd like to continue this discussion in a scenario. Go ahead.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah, I have several questions, and I'd Senator White to take it to the Christine of your word. Very important. So states that don't have mission inspections, are they getting an exemption or are they just never trying to follow the EPA regulation?

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: They didn't have to follow. Yeah. So, there's two things. States that are in non attainment for their air quality standards have to have inspection programs or states that are in the ozone transport region, which are specifically listed in the Clean Air Act, have to have inspection programs.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And we're not in the companion areas, right, Vermont?

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: We're in attainment. So we're in

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: a team with all the criteria. So it's the reason that applies to us is because we're in the ozone transport Yes. And that's all I can mean.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So just wanted to clarify that. And then do we have an approved SIP now? Yeah. And when was the last time our SIP wasn't approved?

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Never.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Never? Oh. And

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: That's saying EPA has never had a federally compliant program.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Right. The EPA has not.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Vermont has not had a program. Right. We have been working actively. Our last SIP submittal was in 2022, and there were a few deficiencies that EPA pointed out at that time, so we've been working actively to get those resolved. And I think we're close.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: This came out before years ago, because I thought we had to have one approved in next

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah, three days or

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: we had a SIP submitted, all states had to submit in the 90s when the original additional requirements were in place, but EPA never approved our original submittal. But we did have one in 96.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Because when we started the admission inspections for the tablet, we had much problems and that's when we started the program to pay for it because a lot of people were failing it even though they probably shouldn't have. When we talked about it then, your predecessors came in and said, well, we're worried about our SIP, so don't change anything, but we're here, we're like whatever that's been six or eight years later, we still haven't Still don't have a SIP. So I'm a little worried about not doing something because we're afraid of our SIP won't get approved when we haven't had a SIP ever. You There

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: is significant legal risk because of the citizen supervision under the Clean Air Act, and that was the basis of the law too in New Hampshire.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So I understand that we'd have to ask for an exemption because we're in the Ozone transport here, but my guess is

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Well, wouldn't necessarily be an exemption. It wouldn't necessarily be an exemption. It would be following the process for, so we wouldn't have to get special permission. It would just be following the process. So if you want to move away from annual, which is the default, then you need to show compliance to the performance standard. So typically, previously, we had always submitted our SIP as annual because that's what we did in Vermont. So if if we move in that direction to try to do biennial and we can meet the standard, EPA can approve that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And EPA can approve that. We don't do it at all.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I could do zero. Yeah,

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: I'm not sure. I don't know if we could

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Why are we in the Ozone trip? Because my understanding we're in the Ozone transport is because we're receiving the transport. We're not transporting any of that.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Right. Mean, it's related, yeah, to cross border air pollution.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And how does it morph because it's crossing the border to us that we're in the zone? So I can't imagine, maybe you can explain the legal argument of why we would be required to do emissions when we're not exporting any of the pollution or concern.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: It's part of maintaining air quality in the region, which has significant issues with ozone. So I mean, I don't

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: But the ozone is not coming from Vermont.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: I understand. I understand.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: But that's that's just a thing difficult for, as this chair said, when we try to explain this for people who feel they're being harmed by that program, and we explain that we have this non approved SIP and we're in that ozone transport area, but we don't actually produce enough ozone to be out of compliance, but we're receiving this ozone from other states, it's a difficult argument to make that they need to spend more money. Senator White points, this has been brought up before, a reason why we need safety inspection that it will save money in the long run. I think those examples you gave is true on those examples, but that's not how it works on the ground. That's not what happens. People go in and have to get a rotor work done for $1,200 when their car costs $2,000 and they don't have $200 to spare, and so they lose their car or they drive illegally, and there's a question about whether they needed a rudder job or is the rust on them?

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yeah, that's the issue.

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: A Go

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: real estate agent. What's happening now is they're being penalized financially much more than any benefit from the safety inspection.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Well, do think that's where I think it's kind of unfortunate that we have, we've got the safety inspection and the admissions that are coupled together and there's a separate set of requirements. But as I mentioned, we have significant funds available for people, low income people, that need us

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: to But the have problem is not the admission inspection. Like, do you know how many failures we get from admissions a year?

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Probably, yes. One second. Continue with that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I would assume that of all the failed inspections, the emissions is a small percentage. I know we had a problem on the first one with the tablets and view system, but people had to drive around for a while before they test their stuff and things like that, but I think we solved that problem. I'm glad we had that program for emissions, but I don't hear from constituents about its costs from failing in the emissions, it's costs for rest.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: So in 2025, the total number of emissions failures was 13,888. Out of, for the emissions inspections, it was 383,000. Total inspections, it was closer to just under

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: 500,000.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay, a small percentage, but still at least a number.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yeah, I think it's roughly down to maybe about 4% of the annual emissions inspections are failures.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay, that's helpful to know. And the check engine light, your handout said that check engine light on it means that there's an emission problem, the check engine light could be bad as things, but it's not always for emissions. It is always for emissions. No, it's not. Yeah. I've got really? That's not what it's supposed to

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: That's be if a manufacturer decides that whatever the issue is has potential impact to emissions, then it's the check engine light. The check engine light is only allowed to be used for an emissions

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: related issue. It's only allowed for used permissions, but if there's a problem with the the system of the the sensor itself Right. That really doesn't have anything to do with emissions.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Other than if the sensor that is supposed to be monitoring that emission system and that emission system is failing,

[Deirdre Ritzer (Mobile Sources Section Chief, DEC Air Quality & Climate Division)]: but the sensor's not working, that could also have an emissions impact. So that's why it's important to have

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: it I think my my most recent experience personally was the cable going from the sensor behind the grill to the central. The cable, they was faulty. The cable, as soon as it was replaced, was everything worked fine. And so was the cable itself and the manufacturer, the auto dealer wanted to charge me $3,000. So I can understand how anybody that's in that position would you know, I was like, you know, $10,000 for a a little piece of cable. But so I would say to you, I understand what the the system itself, but the parts on that, I don't consider part of It's to get an answer, but it's a little that.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yeah. I mean, I do feel like, I know I didn't say this exactly in our statement, but, you know, motor vehicles are the largest source of air pollution and greenhouse gases in the state. And this inspection program is the strategy that EPA and states use to monitor compliance. So it's really our best tool to keep emissions under control from vehicles. And I understand there are a lot of challenges that consumers in motorists have, and that's why we've established a repair program to provide assistance. That, I mean, that's best And

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I don't think any of us want to go out around the rules or anything, but there are places where there have been alternatives.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yes.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And I think that what the committee would like to do is investigate what those are and measure what the alternatives might be versus that when we get the questions that are coming from the senator from Washington and we go out into the public, I think we have to be able to say if we don't decide to move ahead, this is why. And, or if we do, here's what the alternatives are, because I think we're very aware that we wanna live within the waters. I would say this is not the Hampshire.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Right, well, as we indicated, there are options, there is process, and we can certainly explore the How do we ask the

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: two agencies and all of it, how do we get the information we need to

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: I think probably the the best that we can do is commit to debriefing with our leadership, having a leadership discussion with DMV, and a debriefing this discussion.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: What do we I think it's important for us if we put language someplace, whether it's this bill or we have a number of bills going through, how we ask the right questions of you so we have a path that we can either choose or not. Yep. Okay, understood. Go ahead.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Thank you. I've learned a lot. Had a question about the check engine light because I thought that it could be lit for multiple things, but it's pretty interesting to know that that's

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: not the case.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Is there data that we can get from folks who are fixing cars on how many engine light issues are in proportion to everything else? Because it seems relatively common to me.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: We could look at the inspection data because it provides emissions failures and it also provides the data on the safety failures. Not a lot of other granularity like what was but the it separates the failures into safety versus emissions.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: But I think you just told us that with the 13,000, right? It's just it's really interesting and it would be good to just know more.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Just one question on the modeling you'd have to do. Is there any way to put a monetary number on what that might be? Maybe when you come back Yeah. And do your Okay. We will get together.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Probably we we have access to the model now, so it would really be just staff time Staff time. Associated with with conducting it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I mean, the word extensive kinda scare me.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Well, yeah. I guess it's not like the back of the envelope. We couldn't just do it. Right. Here requires

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Well, even even the stat time.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yeah. I mean, I think we estimated maybe two to three weeks of of to have something, but we could try to drill down on that a little with a finer

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I have more questions about the LSM transport, but I can also ask you about how that boundary was created. Because I thought at one point we heard that she asked to be included in. There's parts of Maine that actually be taken out.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Well, it's in the Congress that If Vermont we were

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: to say, please Well, put us

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: we can talk her about the I don't know the history of, like, how Vermont was included except that it's a it's region based. You know, it's for the Northeast. Right. So that's part of being part of the Northeast. But I did wanna mention there are other benefits to being that would be Right. That's what it's for.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: That's why we wanted to do.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yeah, we actually have Vermont specific extended warranties for vehicles. This is all in our low emission, zero emission vehicle rules. So there are a lot of consumer benefits and extended warranties that we get to benefit from Are

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: there other other things, or is that other benefits other than clean air?

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yeah, mean, think those are the main we could try to spell those out so you could kind of have some specifics.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay, I thought there was maybe something else like five d. I remember in transport region or area we had other regulatory

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: There is another program I think related to permitting. I have to check my notes. But there are several Yeah, being our status in ozone transport allows us to implement several different kind of regulatory programs. I can pull it up if I have anybody else or I can I can do it? Stick around. Yeah. To be hopefully answer your questions. I know we have some homework to do with DMV.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And we are under, you know, the legislature here is part time, and we're under a little time. We're down to eighteen days before our arrest. So if, and we clearly wanna research the questions and not just move ahead. So we clearly, so if you could help us on how to think about, and what to do, what's a good time to have you and Agency of Transportation back with this.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: We can talk to our leadership today and maybe let Megan know or just We get back in

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: could do that. Probably early sometime next week if we could.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Okay. Well, then I think something to consider in terms of what we talked about the ultimate limitation is the EPA approval. That's something that could be considered for your effective date, for example, considering that you could pass a law but that it might not be able to be effective until it's incorporated into

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: the group. Well, we'll wait and see what you come back We to totally understand that we don't wanna be out of compliance. Okay. I

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: guess we are. That's true. But

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: there's out of compliance and there's

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: out of compliance. I'll just share your, yes. I mean, EPA has put us on a quarterly meeting schedule, and they've signaled to us that we're their highest priority SIP. So it is important for EPA and that we get a SIP approved.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yes. I you know, we're out of compliance, but we're totally at the table working with them. Mhmm. You know, there's there's one thing about being out of compliance Right. And out in that field. Yes.

[Rachel Stevens (Attorney, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)]: Have confidence in our ability to get there. Thank

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: you both very much. This has been very helpful. And we will be back in touch and we'll wanna hear but you have a sec. Okay. Okay? Thank you. And I think at this point, it's time