Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: You are live.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: This is Senate Transportation. We I wanna thank the committee for showing up on Monday, April 13. We have a number people to testify today. Before we did that, so I don't lose the paper, I would have the appointment of Rob Robinson from Cambridge, Vermont for the transportation board. And my report back to you is, yes, he would like to do it. He's been doing it since April. He has a very, very, very long resume. I know him a little. He worked for he's worked with company called Fortune one hundred Venture Capital Organization. He has been on the workforce of yeah. It's a huge long list. Huge long list. And but he would like to do it, and I would recommend him to the committee. And if he could take a vote, then I can get rid of the paper that I've had on my desk for two months. I mean, my diaper is somewhere in the So I so I would move Rob Robinson for the transportation.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: So I could Oh, do I need to pay? Yes, please.

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Oh, look at wow.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: It's like yeah. I'm leaving.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Well, we could vote at the end too. I feel I feel good. Approval. Sounds lovely. Thank you for doing that.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Yeah. You

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: can forward us the email if you want to know more. Well, thank But I feel confident. I feel very confident in

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: the results.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: New member or continuing member of the institution.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Oh, she's not. Do you want to do it now? Yes.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: There could be a list of convictions too.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Then Rob? Rob Robinson. Okay.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: So this is to confirm the appointment of Rob Robinson to the transportation board.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: For return from 03/07/2025 to 02/29/2028. 2025 to I'm sorry. February? 02/29/2028. '28.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Okay. Great. So I will call the vote. Senator Biden?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Senator Harrison? Yes. Senator Perchlik?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yes. Senator White? Yes.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Senator and the chair? Yes. Okay. So it's 500.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Perfect. Thank you. Patrick, thank you, Anthony, for being here. We are now talking about the ED sections, and we had two sections that we've added into the draft. There were a couple of other suggestions that were suggested, but we wanted to get you in the chair and give you

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: a chance to say something about. Appreciate that. Gonna put myself on the timer because I know you're working extra duty today and there's a bunch of other people behind me, but thanks for the record, Anthony Ergole. I am here on behalf of Controversion Law Foundation, but I should also say that it's been my pleasure to work in collaboration with the Vermont Natural Resources Council and Vermont Public Interest Research Group, all with whom we share a deep commitment to decarbonization, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from in state sources, and enhancement of consumer opportunities in the ED section. And you're also gonna hear from some representatives of the charging provider industry following me, I wanna thank them very much because the groups I just mentioned and myself, we have been in a dialogue with those industry representatives for several months, and I think we are fairly closely aligned on the policy I'm gonna talk to you about today, although there might be some competing red lines by the time we're done So as you have probably heard many times before, sector is the largest in state source of planet warming greenhouse gas emissions. And for that reason, our Climate Action Plan rightly targets major reductions in admissions by substantially increasing the number of vehicles on Vermont roads. Many Vermonters have already made the switch, driving all electric vehicles or plug in hybrids. I know that's true for a couple members

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: of this committee. Thank you for that. Some have done

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: so for environmental reasons. Some have done so for economic reasons. I suspect more will do so for economic reasons as the war in Iran affects gas prices at the pump. And some have done it because they realize that EV technology is in many ways better than our technology. I personally have done it. My household was done with two EVs for a combination of all the reasons that I just mentioned. But notwithstanding the good work of early adopters, we're still far away from our goals. And so we confront that fact against the unfortunate reality that repeal of EV incentives at the federal level and the total anti science surrender in the fight against climate change at the federal level has resulted in a situation where, to paraphrase Dave Roberts from Drive Electric Vermont, a lot of the carrots and a lot of the sticks that policymakers have been using to get people into EVs are kinda disappearing. So this creates an urgent need for creative, low cost state policies to speed along EV adoption and to ensure a better driving experience for those who have made the switch to EVs so we can have a situation where more Vermonters are reaping the economic benefits and the state continued progress toward attaining our required emissions reductions. So the real time charging data language you are now considering for inclusion in H. Nine forty four is one way to smooth the road ahead for EV adoption in the state while also improving the experience of the many EV drivers from Canada and surrounding states whose tourist dollars we hope to secure. Consumer data reveals that range anxiety, concern that an EV will run out of power without any place to charge before reaching its destination, presents a major challenge to EV adoption and to keeping people who've already switched to EVs in those EVs. And that's especially true in a rural, cold climate state like Vermont. So for those driving far from home, finding a working charger that is available, accessible, and affordable can be complicated. EV drivers often need to download, register with, and consult several different proprietary apps instead of just looking at the navigation app like a Google Maps or a Waze that's free and that they're already in. Like, We don't want distracted driving when your battery is running low. We want you to be able to stay in the navigation environment you're in and find your way to a charger that's gonna be working when you get there, available when you get there, and one that's not gonna break the bank with hidden fees. So we want to save drivers from having to play charger roulette. And this connects to EV adoption insofar as there is studies that show that charging anxiety is depressing EV sales. In fact, a recent study from the American Enterprise Institute, which I've put into the record of your committee with long body materials, estimates that universal real time data on highway fast chargers would raise EV shares of new vehicles, new car sales by 6.4 percentage points in 2030. That's 3,500,000 additional EVs on the road compared to the status quo, and that is adjusted for a lack of incentives. So just changing this policy can get more people into EVs. Vermont can do its part to help build this transparency into the charging network over time. By transforming charging from a guessing game into a predictable service, the t bill charging language that you're considering would clear a psychological and logistical hurdle that slows the entire EV transition. And this is also common sense consumer protection. It empowers drivers to make efficient and cost effective charging decisions when navigating through Vermont. Every legislator, regardless of whether they prioritize and transition to EVs or not, has some constituents in their district that are already driving EVs or plug in cars, plug in hybrids, and they have poorest business that want people who drive EVs from other states and from Canada to come and visit them. So even if you're not as concerned as I would argue and my client argue, you should be about climate change, there's still a consumer protection and tourist promotion benefit to this policy. And in fact, the importance of universal real time charger data is reflected in the design of NEVI, the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Funding Program that you've probably heard about, and that will eventually assist Vermont in deployment of up to two dozen fast chargers when the funding is all given out. I know it's early days for NEVI in Vermont, but eventually, according to NewTran, we may have up to two dozen NEVI chargers. So the real time data sharing that CLF and our colleagues are advocating for inclusion in this year's transportation bill is closely modeled on the requirements that apply to the NEVI program. And because Vermont is benefiting from and will administer NEVI funds, state government will, of necessity, dedicate some resources to figuring out how do we monitor and audit charger provider compliance with this real time data transparency requirements, the NEVI program. Meanwhile, our southern neighbors in Massachusetts and our regulators in the state of California, whose Clean Car measures Vermont often emulates when it comes to California regulations, they've extended the NEVI real time data requirements to a wider range of publicly and ratepayer funded fast charges. Now these are two very significant states when it comes to their influence on the charging markets. Both have high levels of EV adoption and both are very heavily traveled highway corridors. So their policy, when coupled with the NEVI requirements, has the power to move the overall charging market and set a technological standard that charging providers are already working to implement. CLF applauds and very much supports the ultimate goal of requiring universal, free, real time data availability from all publicly available chargers, regardless of whether they enjoy any form of public or ratepayer subsidy. And that's how your current language looks now. You've gone big, you've shot to expand this beyond Canadiani and beyond what other states are doing. At the same time though, we are mindful of the fact that the most pressing need for Vermont in this moment to have more chargers built everywhere by every charging provider, and that there's gonna be a learning curve for this kind of requirement with both industry and the state government regulators who have to make sure that it's working right. So for that reason, I am comfortable recommending today that Vermont could start by following but not surpassing our sister states when it comes to a phased rollout of this important policy. So one way to accomplish this phased objective would be to adopt California's regulations in statute. And those regulations, as I understand them, are nearly identical to NEVI. I think the one difference is, and it's an important difference, California's regulations require one minute intervals. That's their definition of real time.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Mister Chair.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I know you haven't seen the most recent draft that we got yesterday from Damian unless it's been posted. I'm just wondering, is this the language that's already in the what representative Pouch had introduced on his side and that's the same as the California Yeah. I think. Okay.

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yeah. It's different. We're and this comes in part from our conversation with the folks that will follow me afterwards. Okay. You know, as I said, we want to make Vermont a friendly place to install more chargers.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Okay.

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: And we want to give the industry that and the regulators the time they need to, like, figure out how to make this work. So if we start with a bigger universe than NEVI, because that's a pretty small universe, but a smaller universe than every existing charger in Vermont. Really focusing on the ones that are benefiting from a public subsidy or a ratepayer subsidy, that seems like a manageable starting place and certainly moves the industry standard overall without taking on too big a task right up front. Okay. So see. No.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: This is Her draft language doesn't, but I have draft language trust both both witnesses. Oh, you do. Vaccine.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Like, I didn't I was like, I didn't ask for that. So if but but you have it. Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I I have it. So if the committee wants to go in that direction

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I mean, I'd like to at least see what you were asking for.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. My impression is that the two drafts are very similar. There may

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: be a couple of Okay. Logical differences. Yeah.

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Tried very hard to come to consensus and then we said, Well, it's gonna be up to the committee anyways, so let's present our respective views and let the committee debate, which is best policy. But I think we worked really Knowing that your time is short, I think we've worked really hard to narrow the variance between the positions. And I think it also reflects a shared goal that the charging providers realize that making sure that drivers know where their chargers are and whether they're working and available is good for charging providers as well as for drivers. And so there you have that. And it also is picking up on Senator Perchlik's suggestion from your earlier session that if we can save having to tag one of our state agencies to come up with and write a rule, that's a big savings in cost and time. Rule making, as you know, it's a very involved process. And if another state has set a standard that the industry's already comfortable falling, why not benefit from the work that's already been done? I think we just covered that. The universe of charge that this should apply to, and I don't know if Damian has, I can give this to him, but we wanna look at something that's closer to the Massachusetts regulation,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: and that would

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: be publicly funded and available charging stations would be a public electric vehicle charging station that has received or expects to receive a grant loan or other incentive from a federal or state government source or from funds provided by Vermont retail electricity providers and that is located in a publicly available parking space. I wanna emphasize this Vermont retail electricity providers piece, and I will note that we have talked a little bit to GMP and Burlington Electric to part this. Vermont has a number of funding streams that are public and ratepayer funding streams supporting the deployment of publicly available charging stations. These include not just NEVI, but also, I understand ACCD gets some money to put out for public charging that comes from the infrastructure charge that EV drivers are paying when they register. But also our Vermont Electric Utilities under tier three of our renewable energy standard, They have an obligation to help their customers reduce fossil fuel use, and one of the ways that these utilities have been fulfilling that obligation has been funding the deployment of fast chargers, level three fast chargers. I've seen data that says GMP has been incentivizing this deployment, and that there's been at least nine stations, fast charging stations over the last two years that GMP has worked to help install. So given that our ratepayers are investing in this, it seems like publicly funded and ratepayer funded would be a great place for us to start increasing the transparency and pushing the market overall in this direction. Now California, even though their regulation has been on the books for a while, they are not making this mandatory for their universal publicly funded and ratepayer charge funded charters until September 2026. We think that'd be a reasonable place to start for Vermont with, like, new installations and refurbishments. So if you're going back and oh, that's my time,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: so I gotta

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: wrap up here. But we think that's a good starting place and eventually what we expect to happen as the industry gets comfortable with this, as the technology comes online, older stations will be upgraded to this capability. We have a number of agencies that are cooperating in the rollout of EV charging, and I'm mindful, having spoken to the Agency of Transportation and heard their concerns voiced in the earlier session, that they do not wanna become the one stop regulator for this responsibility. So I think it would be reasonable for you to empower, but not necessarily require every state agency that has a funding stream to be involved in auditing the charges that are paid for with their funding streams. So if it's ACCD, they can look after their charges. If it's V TRANS, they can look after their charges. If it's electric utilities, DPS can look after the ones that are being funded with your agreed dollars so that it's not all landing on one agency. And also because it is a climate goal, you can involve the and our Office of Climate, which is a clearing house and could work to help foster collaboration among all those different state agencies so that it's not a big responsibility out of the gate. And again, if you take, as Senator Perch suggested, the rulemaking off the table, it allows for that interagency collaboration without overload of any particular agency. So I'm gonna stop there for any questions, but express my great appreciation for the committee taking this up. Your House committee members had a lot of support for this, but ultimately ran out of time. Know you all are hustling and time is short, and I hope that the effort that my Environmental Advocacy partners have made with industry to try and get you something that's as close to consensus as we can will speed this along to inclusion and appreciate your time today. And I will be around throughout most of the rest of the week. Tomorrow, unfortunately, I may miss most of your sessions because I have to help defend the state against the Trump administration's request for our election data that will be

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Do that. Yeah.

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Be there. I'll be here early in the morning, and I have to be in Brooklyn Courthouse. But I think many senators know how to reach me, and Damian also has my email as you move forward with this. So thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Emily.

[Emily Kelly (ChargePoint)]: Great. Hi, can everyone hear me okay?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yes, we can.

[Emily Kelly (ChargePoint)]: Okay, great. Good afternoon, Chair Westman, members of the committee. Thanks so much for the opportunity to testify. I'm Emily Kelly, the Director of US Public Policy at ChargePoint. ChargePoint is the largest EV charging network in North America. In Vermont, there are over 450 public ports on the ChargePoint network. And within our business model, those stations are primarily owned by Vermont businesses, towns, utilities, and attractions like ski mountains, or really anyone else who wants to offer charging as an amenity to drivers. Also, just want to say thank you to Anthony and his clients for the collaboration on this. You know, I do my best to track and monitor all the EV charging legislation being introduced around the country. And so appreciate that when this came up, a colleague of mine reached out to get the industry engaged. So appreciate that. And mainly, I'm here to express our support for the red lined amendments that we've crafted for this bill. I believe I sent those over. I'm not sure if you've seen them exactly. But we think that these amendments strike the right balance between improving transparency for drivers and ensuring the requirements are workable for charging station operators and network providers. As Anthony mentioned, the red lines focus the requirement on publicly funded and publicly available chargers, ensuring that transparency obligations correspond with the use of public dollars and ratepayer support, which we think is reasonable and a fair approach. The data required and specified in the bill mirrors existing NEBU standards and open charge point interface definitions, which is a communication standard known as OCPI in the industry. And we think mirroring your requirements with the NEVI standards is really important because we're really trying to avoid that 50 state patchwork of different data requirements when we are required to do this. So again, trying to align those with NEVI as much as possible is really helpful. I know Anthony mentioned there may be some slight nuanced differences between NEVI and California. I don't think in practice there is. Some of the verbiage might be different, but I think all the requirements are the same. So NEVI does also require one minute intervals that the data be updated. So that's the same as California. That's not different. So we think this draft clarifies definitions, duplicative or vague requirements, and allows charging station operators to place reasonable conditions on the data used to protect confidential business information without undermining access to real time status and price data. And then in terms of the rulemaking process, I think, you know, in the initial draft, there was a rulemaking in there because there weren't any details around what data needed to be shared and things like that. So that all had to be figured out. I agree if you just align it with the data requirements in NEVI, a rulemaking probably isn't necessary. But I will just say, from our perspective, we think it'll be really important for, obviously, the agencies that are in charge of dispersing any incentive money, they'll have to have, obviously, be monitoring and enforcing that the charge point operators are actually sharing this information and sharing it correctly. And then I'll say also from our perspective with our business model, we don't always know when a station has received public funding or ratepayer funding. And this this would you know, this mandates the network has to share the the data, which is fine. But we just need help in in the state letting us know which stations this applies to. So I just that's in the newer draft, and that would be very helpful if that could be made clear. So, yeah, lastly, again, the amended language aligns with the federal standards. And although I can't speak for every charging network that deploys in Vermont, at least ChargePoint thinks this is the most logical approach if we want to avoid that 50 state by state patchwork. So for those reasons, I support the redlined amendments and urge the committee to take them into consideration as you guys decide on language moving forward. And then lastly, I'll just mention this just so you guys are aware. The report that Anthony mentioned by the American Enterprise Report or whatever the title is, we know that they are flagging this as one solution potentially to solve some of these issues around data transparency and range anxiety. I'll just flag this as a very new and nascent solution that was identified again originally in NEVI, and California is going to start including it soon. Massachusetts has passed a bill about it, but they haven't implemented it yet. And so, with all due respect to that report, we think there's some flaws in it, and we think that it, again, the data that it takes into consideration is only from one app. So it doesn't give like a totally clear picture, I think, of what data is out there and available to drivers. So I'll just say, you know, again, my point is this is a new and nascent solution. Hopefully it helps with range anxiety. We want to be helpful in solving that problem, but we don't know yet if it's, you know, the solution to the problem. So I'll just kind of end with that, and hopefully as we collect more data and time goes by, we'll have a better sense if this is the right solution we should be using to solve some of these issues. So yeah, that's all I have. Thank you again. I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Any questions from the committee? No, we got a question from Senator White.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Thank you so much, Ms. Kelly. We appreciate you coming in here. And as a PB driver with my little charge point tap thing, very, very grateful for your network. I guess the question is more towards Damien because now if I'm understanding correctly, what we've heard from Anthony was a version of language that's different than what we're hearing from the ChargePoint folks. So we're gonna be seeing both of those and it sounds like the distinctions are closer to California. I guess I'd like to go over Yeah. That and understand

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So I've looked at the language from both of them briefly. I haven't gone word by word to compare. My understanding from looking at them is that they're extremely close.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: There are some clear differences. And what I can do is, draft it, and then I'll bracket for one one or the other, you know, alternative language suggested by.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Okay. And

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: then let you go through that and I don't work with the language, but I

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: can do that. Yeah. Tomorrow we're going to spend the whole day going through the whole draft with you and if we can compare those, we can. And

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: then my other question related to that is this is on top of already existing language that we have included in H-nine 44 in the bill. We had three sections that we had gotten from you, Anthony, from Representative Pouch. We have two of those sections, if I'm understanding correctly, in the bill. Yes. So, we don't have the third section, which was the study. So, I didn't know if either we wanted to comment on that, if you felt like that was what we were going for.

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: That was something that Representative House was interested in. I'll let him and his house colleagues speak for themselves. We're happy to go along to get along, but the priority for us has been transparency, the two sections that we would want.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Well then maybe we can, okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: When we get to it, So we can talk about

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: I'm conscious of our time. I have a fair amount of operational questions that I'd like to ask, but I don't need to ask them now. I can send them later, but things like, do the rates fluctuate, percentage of that are in service, do you have capacity to, have new charging ports, data privacy, things like that. So how about I send those so that we can But thank you so much for being here and I'm so accustomed.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: We do have buildings here and if you need to get answers to questions like that and can ship those to you Dylan? Yeah, I'm happy to answer what I can. Okay. And if there are specific questions for ChargePoint.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Yeah, happy to do.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Who do you represent? Those are typically non perjunctiva. Oh, Perjunctiva. Okay.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Great. Thank you. Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And we will go through both drafts and figure out what we like and what we don't.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Great.

[Emily Kelly (ChargePoint)]: Yeah, and yeah, happy to be a resource as needed.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Next on the agenda is Mercy Gallagher. Is Mercy Barnes?

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Here she is.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Hello, Mercy. Hello.

[Mercy Gallagher (Local Motion)]: Are you all ready for me?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yes, we are.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Okay, great.

[Mercy Gallagher (Local Motion)]: For the record, Mercy Gallagher. I'm a complete street specialist at Local Motion. Thank you so much for having me. I think I can keep this pretty brief and painless. So Locomotion fully supports the house passed language that preserves that preferential waiting for bike ped projects for the TAP fundings in a primary intended use while still allowing for flexibility for other eligible projects within the environmental mitigation field like salt sheds. So in the house, transportation for Vermonters, which Local Motion participates in, and B TRANS both fully supported both the 100% flexibility that the House moved towards and also retaining that preferential weighting of the bike ped projects. And from Local Motion's perspective, that's because the Transportation Alternative Program or TAP is really the federal government's primary funding source dedicated to bike and ped infrastructure, including safe routes to school, which Locomotion does a lot of work with and and thinks is very, very important. So the house had also heard testimony that environmental mitigation projects and particularly salt shed projects see a high cancellation rate under TAP funding, about a 35% cancellation, and that puts a lot more pressure on VTrans to obligate those funds in a short period of time or else they're at risk of losing those federal funds and then potentially receiving fewer federal funds in the future if they had not spent all of the funds that they had received. I'm sure they can speak much more eloquently about that process, but that's that's a lot of what the discussion was in the house. So bike head projects are actually a lot more predictable. They're a lot easier to fund and see through. But in addition to those logistical benefits, which is not Locomotion's primary focus, we find that TAP funding for bike ped project supports really critical projects to support safety and accessibility in a lot of our rural towns and villages. And actually, the TAP funded projects just got announced for this year a couple days ago, and I put together some photos that I'll really quickly.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I was like, wait, that's that.

[Mercy Gallagher (Local Motion)]: These are not all of the bikeped projects that were funded, but three that I found that I could get images for. The first is in Swanton.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: It

[Mercy Gallagher (Local Motion)]: is a general improvement to this intersection for all users, which I think is pretty self explanatory.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I've Yeah. Been through

[Mercy Gallagher (Local Motion)]: that intersection before. I have not biked or walked it, but it's it's a really high crash area. So that's one of the improvements that's gonna be made. So I got all these photos from Google Maps and actually scrolling around the street in Chester where these improvements are being made. Each of the photos had someone walking in the road, so I actually included three different photos. There's someone walking in that last photo, someone walking here across the tracks, and then someone walking here. So it's sidewalks, curb ramps, green strip, pedestrian lighting.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Necessary. As someone who has walked this area because there's a store, there's another store, there's the town hall. It's all like to get to if you park anywhere, you have to walk across a very fast intersection anywhere you wanna go. So these this would be huge. Yeah. Yeah.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: And I

[Mercy Gallagher (Local Motion)]: It was crazy to see how many like, I go on Google Maps a lot to look at different areas of Vermont, and I very rarely see this many pedestrians actually captured in the Google Maps photos.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Alright. And there's trucks too. That's really important to Chester. There's huge Yeah. So nice. Zoom is

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: you could get the photos of.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Yeah. There's many And so what

[Mercy Gallagher (Local Motion)]: What was the question?

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Joking about you pick two Windsor County locations.

[Mercy Gallagher (Local Motion)]: Bethel is the third one that I picked because there is this really clear photo of this deteriorating sidewalk, and the key focus here is to make this an ADA compliant sidewalk to improve accessibility. So I'll stop sharing. I did submit those photos of my testimony so you can look at them, but these are the kinds of improvements that the TAP fund helps support. And I also wanted to add that whether or not this safe infrastructure is built and maintained, as you could see from those Chester photos, people are going to be walking, biking, and rolling on their local roads no matter what. And for some people, this really isn't a choice, whether they can't drive because of age or disability or the high cost of driving. Some people do choose to walk, bike, and roll, but people are are unsafe on our roads right now. In 2025, a hundred and sixty four people who were walking and biking were injured in Vermont, and ten people were killed, which is just really not acceptable and just underscores the the really urgent need to fund this more accessible and and safe infrastructure in our towns. And the need is much greater than the number of projects that are even able to be funded by TAP. So we really strongly urge you to maintain that TAP funding prioritization as passed by the House with the preferential weighting of BikePed projects.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Questions? Senator White has questions.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: So just so I understand where we're at with sections eleven and twelve, I wasn't able to connect the dots with what it is in our newest draft, but does

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: our newest draft have the as passed by House language? And I was going

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: to say this to you, Mercy, the Natural Resources Committee in the Senate is taking this up tomorrow morning and we'll have a recommendation to this committee tomorrow morning.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Great.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So you should touch base with them also.

[Mercy Gallagher (Local Motion)]: I'll plan to be there tomorrow morning.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Thank you. They're gonna lay in and then we'll make a decision.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Just for reference, the section numbers in the current draft are thirty four and thirty five. Those are the section numbers. Pages are 63 through 65, I think. Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: 1.1 is the main struggle? Yeah, yes. And 64 is like.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so they were sections eleven and twelve in the House and they're now sections thirty four and thirty five in the Senate draft.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: We are ahead of ourselves. It's mad someplace that we can't Yeah.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Option to. Who do stop that one? Is it funny? Yeah. So this is what he had wanted to solve.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Oh, I see.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Do you want us to break or any alarming?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: When he's out, he's coming. He's coming? How long? No. Minutes.

[Committee Assistant/Moderator (unidentified)]: Five minutes. Alright. Alright. Matt's Just hold this.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Matt's across the street. He's coming. We're just a

[Anthony Iarrapino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: few minutes early, so it's

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: gonna take a little break.