Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: You're alive.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So this is Senate Transportation. It's Tuesday, April 14, and we are slogging our way through 8944. And Damian, if because Anthony needs to leave, why don't we go right to the sections that
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. For the record, I'm Damian Leonard from the office of legislative council. We'll start on section 41 on page 70. So you're going to see two colors of or three colors of highlighting in the next two sections here. The first is blue. This is where ChargePoint has proposed striking out language that was in the draft that was not proposed to be changed by CLF. You'll see yellow language where they're both proposing changes from the underlying language, and you'll see gray language, which is language that changed from the prior versions of this that you saw when we created the first draft, but we haven't had time to go over it yet. So and then unhighlighted language is language that has not changed. So in the definition of charging network provider, the charge point proposal would be a person that operates the digital communication network that remotely manages the EVSE at a charging station. The blue language that is in the original draft and that CLF did not propose taking out in their draft yesterday was and is responsible for operating and maintaining the EVSE, equipment and other facilities. A charging network provider may delegate to another person or contract with another person for charging station operations and maintenance.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: So if I'm understanding correctly from your next note, they want to get rid of this section or they want
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to rid highlighted blue language.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Okay. I don't have
[Michelle Blumkauer (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: a strong opinion on that.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Is it so is the reason for this that it could be a different entity that's responsible for and maintaining?
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I think the I think all they want is that the definition just covers that the the charging network provider is the person that operates the digital communication network, and they wanna leave responsibility for operating and maintaining the EVSE, supporting the equipment and other facilities, and they also want to leave out the delegation. There, it it makes the definition more open. So it's just focusing on if you're calling out a network provider, it's just the person who operates the digital communication network. It doesn't restrict them from operating and maintaining the EVSE, but it doesn't say that in order to be a network provider, you have to be responsible for operating and maintaining it either.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay. Responsibility for the actual equipment on-site, is that defined elsewhere in this? Because someone needs to be responsible for that.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, but we don't have to define that for purposes of creating open data requirements. This allows them to figure that out by contract. So you don't we're not regulating how charging stations are operated. We're regulating this language here is regulating the availability of that data.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Right. So
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there is a definition later on of charging station operator, which is a person that owns or provides the EVSE and supporting equipment and facilities at one or more charging stations and is responsible for operating and maintaining it. So there it is laid out because that's the actual operator.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay, so just one thing, I would
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: just like to, not right now,
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: but before we finalize this language, when we looked at network providers and we had much more complicated definitions and data privacy language. So I would just like to make sure that this is as robust as what we have in other bills or other bills.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Because it's just like a person that operates the digital. So do they hold the data? I mean, there's a lot of nuance to it and I just want to make sure we're not leaving something Well,
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so I guess the question is, the One of the things to think about is whether the more robust definitions that are needed when you're regulating data privacy are necessary, in this case when you're simply requiring that they make the data on charger status availability available in real time or use some various third party apps. So that that's I think the question here is you've you've got two different purposes. One is to regulate how data broker deals with, deals with personal data and potentially private data. This is requiring disclosure of availability data and basic statistics regarding charging stations to third party networks. So you may not need as robust the definition and it could create additional complications and problems if you start to bring that in. But it's something to consider. Ultimately, the choice is yours.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right. I just want to understand it more and talk about it more offline.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And I
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: do think that privacy needs to be discussed.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Because there is information that this operator will have on individuals or that's my understanding is the operator will have information on individuals and it's just part of the whole system of collaborating data. I
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: would like to get where the changes are in this to be respectful to Anthony and then just have him make a statement about what each of these changes and where it is in that. And then we can come back.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The next proposed difference, so the original language was charging station means EVSE available to the public or a group of EVSE available to the public in the area in the immediate vicinity of the EVSE or group of EVSE, including supporting equipment and parking spaces for users. And then the charge point proposal is charging station means the area on the immediate vicinity of a group of one or more chargers and includes the chargers supporting equipment parking areas adjacent to the chargers and lanes for vehicle ingress and egress. And then as the clarifying sentence, a charging station may comprise only a portion of the property on which it is located. So the first sentence of the charge point and the prior definition are very similar except to that the charge point definition includes the lanes for ingress and egress, and then it adds the second sentence clarifying that it may comprise only a portion of the property on which it is located. So for example, if you have a hotel property that has a bank of chargers along one side of the parking lot, the charging station may only be that bank of chargers and the associated parking spaces rather than the whole property. The next point where there is a difference between charge point and the underlying language is that in the definition of DC fast charger, charge point proposes deleting the word rapid charging so that instead it would read that enables charging through the delivery of direct current electricity to a plug in electric vehicle's battery. The change there, don't think has a it doesn't have a negative impact on the definition, and it avoids an argument over what rapid means.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Oh, right.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Yeah. I
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: don't know if we're checking things off in the
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: spelling as well, but it gets pretty
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: We until Anthony gets the chance to say Oh, okay.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I'm trying to get through all the changes and then you For the definition of level two EVSE, the original language says that it's single phase input voltage from two zero eight to 240 volts of AC. The charge point proposal is single phase input voltage from two zero eight to 277 volts of AC. So otherwise, it doesn't, it doesn't change the definition, and it actually encompasses, some chargers that were left out
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: of
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the original definition, so that would qualify as level two. So the final definition where there's a difference, so the CLF proposed definition of publicly funded and available charging station or publicly funded and publicly available if you wish, mean, the 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 at publicly available parking space. ChargePoint's proposal is publicly funded and publicly available charging station means a charging station that has received an incentive for deployment of infrastructure from the state or a charge on ratepayers and that is located at a publicly available parking space. So there's a couple of things, that are worth pointing out here. The first is an incentive may not be an incentive for deployment of infrastructure. It's not clear to me whether that would include grants and loans. I think it's intended to, but that and it's also past tense, so it doesn't include expects to receive, which is that's a policy decision whether you wanna include only chargers that have received or chargers that are scheduled to receive. And then the other piece is funds provided by Vermont retail electricity providers is potentially broader than a charge on ratepayers because this means that with the for example, GMP could provide funding for a charging station without levying a charge on rate payers. Does that make sense? So they they can do it through their own funding without having to levy this specific charge. So the CLF definition is likely a bit broader than the charge point definition. Again, it's up to you. Going on to section 42, I wanna highlight there's a typo in the title of the section. There is no rule making provision in the new language, so that should just be struck. I'll take care of that in the next draft. Within the lead in language, the CLF language is except as provided in subsection b. Charging network provider about shall network publicly funded and available charging station in Vermont. Ensure that the following data fields are made available free of charge to third party software developers via an application programming interface. ChargePoint's proposal is accept as provided in subsection B, a charging network provider shall for any network publicly funded and publicly available charging stations install them from on or after 01/01/2028. So that is and I think that original date and I I don't wanna speak for jargon point, but my understanding was that that was based on timeline for rulemaking. Mhmm. But you may wanna check with them if you choose to go with a date in the future. Ensure that the following data fields are made available free of charge to third party software developers via an account location programming interface. So the big difference is the date, 01/01/2028 or present. The language from both groups was the same for the following items. So the data fields are unique charging station name or identifier, address of the property where the charging station is located, geographic coordinates and decimal degrees of the exact location. This allows your GPS to navigate to it. Charging station operator name, charging network provider name, charging station status, including whether it is operational or under construction, planned or decommissioned. Charging station access information, including access types, such as whether it may be used by the public or is limited to use by commercial vehicles and charging station access days and times, including the hours of operation for the charging station, charging port information, including the number of charging ports, the unique port identifier for each port, the connector types available by port, the charging level by port such as DC fast charger AC level two, the maximum power delivery rating in kilowatts by charging port, the maximum output voltage by charging port, the accessibility by a vehicle with a trailer by port, I. E. Yes or no, and the real time status by port in terms defined by open charge point interface 2.3.1, which is that standardized document that was incorporated into now the employment is incorporated into the California RIMS. And it is different from ChargePoint, the company. It's ChargePoint two words, So ChargePoint, one word with two capital letters, which through April, I will admit. Pricing and payment information. And so the for nine through eleven, we're getting into differences between CLF and charge points. So CLF's language was pricing and payment information including all fees associated with charging such as parking fees, plug in fees, and roaming fees. The real time price to charge in US dollars per kilowatt hour or megajoule at each charging point in terms defined by open charge point interface 2.2.1, and the payment methods accepted including charging network providers and charging station operators that have roaming agreements that will allow their customers to use the charger. ChargePoint's proposal would be pricing and payment information, including the pricing structure, real time price to charge at each charging point in terms defined by the open charge point interface, and the payment methods accepted at the charging station. They are essentially the same. There's a little more specificity in the CLF language. Then the next B, there is a typo in B, but it's if the publicly funded and available charging station is made available to the public for only limited time periods, it shall comply with those with this section during those limited time periods. So in other words, it doesn't have to provide real time data at a time when it's off. Okay. Yeah. So this is an example of this is like
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: A parking garage. The parking garage. You can't get to the charger. That's what I've seen.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or some of the of the stores that have a charger that's free for customers, they turn it off when they close for the day so that people can't park and charge there overnight, that sort of thing. And then c, this is language we discussed yesterday. The provisions of this section may be enforced by any state agency or department that provides grants, loans, or other incentives to support the construction or operation of publicly funded and available charging stations. The idea with this language is that it would basically be enforced as a condition of the grant, loan, or other incentives. So in other words, in order to receive that, you'd have to comply with this. And then if you violated that condition, could be sued for breach of contract. It doesn't provide another enforcement mechanism. So you would have to The only way I see to enforce that is in that manner. And then ChargePoint had two different proposals for BMC. B was a network provider may attach reasonable conditions to data use that are designed to protect confidential business information provided that conditions do not prevent third party software developers from accessing real time information. That was in the original language. And then c, a state agency shall provide a list of charging stations that are subject to this sec section to the EV charging network on a quarterly basis. And a state agency is left in brackets because they made that proposal, but they didn't name a state agency, and I don't know who would do that. And then d is a definition of real time that was included in CLF's language. And this is from both the NEVI and the California standard. So it's one minute updates whenever the charging port status changes.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: All right. Anthony, you wanna Yes. Come up here. Thank you. Quickly tell us what your degree and Grand Isle Georgia's.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: For the record, Anthony Arpino, Conservation Law Foundation, thanking legislative council for his quick work and the committee for accommodating my court schedule. Just gonna focus on the issues that are differences that are important to us. So everything else that I don't mention, you can assume we're okay with. Sorry, I'm working with my phone here. So the first point that is important to us is the definition of publicly funded and publicly available guardian station. I think legislatives councils observation that our definition is broader is asked. It is broader. It's intended to be broader. We've also specifically used Vermont retail electric electricity providers because, as I explained yesterday in my testimony, there's not like a specific charge on the bill. That's not how our electric utilities work, but that doesn't mean rate payers aren't ultimately supporting those charging stations go out. So we think that's an important difference and a broader universe. Just for the committee's benefit also, our definition other than the Vermont, the words Vermont retail electricity providers pass with Massachusetts. So we have some consistency among border states with our definition. So that one's important to us. The other next important thing would be section 42, the subsection A, which is page 73. They a starting date of, or like they apply this to chargers installed on or after 01/01/2028. We have proposed tracking with California, which would be 09/28/2026. So two years sooner. You don't have to go right down to the day, but I think the idea is California, the industry is going to keep up with what California mandates, and so Vermonters should have less than what Californians have in terms of this protection. So if it was 2027 you'd be Sure, like oneonetwenty twenty seven. I mean, I like to see it start sooner, but if you wanted to do a clean oneon start. Just, yeah, you know, just, it would be a lot closer. Yep, yep. That would be better than 2028, that's for sure. Then the technical changes they've made are mostly good with us. I, so I'm now on page 75. Yeah, the lines 15 through 17, through 18 charges are good. Agree in principle with them that we should be tracking NEVI. Our goal is not to make, you know, in terms of the universe that's covered, that's okay. Like in terms of the technical standards, we do, we're not trying to go our own way on the technical standards. So we defer to them on that. The language that Damian came up with to track my suggestion yesterday on '76 is good. The one thing that it misses is, I think it would be the Department of Public Service that oversees utility compliance with tier three, so I don't know how to get that in there. Department of Smoke Services isn't actually providing the ratepayer funding, it's their, they're overseeing utility compliance with tier three. So off the top of my head, don't have an idea for that, but I do have one.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that's in C.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yep, that's in C. I would also say with the language department that provides, I would say provides or administers because we wanna capture if it's pass through funding. I don't know if that makes sense to you, David.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Okay. And then we didn't have a problem with, so one minute is important. In terms of the state agency that provides a list of charging stations that are subject to this, we thought a good idea would be the climate office because the climate office already plays sort of an interagency coordinating role, and so they could just survey all of the agencies that already have a seat at their climate office table and say, Hey, what's your list? We'll compile it and publish the list to the charging companies. So that's my idea, and I am talking to the climate office about this and with Patrick from VTrans tomorrow afternoon. So if they hate that idea, I'm sure they can tell you, but I will also report back. I
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: just want to ask Andrew some questions, please. Yes, yes, certainly. Okay, so on page 73, publicly funded and available. Why do we not just say or available?
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Because it's my understanding that the tier three funding from utilities or from the infrastructure charge that ACCD administers sometimes goes to multiunit dwellings that are not, like, their own residents, oh, I see Michelle here.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right, right.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: They're residents only. And so, like, you'll know if you live at the, if the charters are only available to residents of the apartment building and you live at the apartment building, you'll know.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah, I guess what I'm getting at is why, concerns me is that we're having a subset of all of the chargers be in this program. So I think the private chargers that are publicly accessible ought to be in that also. Tesla, honestly. I don't know if we could get them in, but this is supposed to be a comprehensive way of folks to understand really the pricing there's a similar thing for gas stations. The reason we have big gas stations signs of prices is because the federal government told them to do that. It's not a coincidence. So I just don't see why private folks shouldn't be included in sharing their pricing. But because we could, the access doesn't have to limit that. The access is a different issue. So I don't know why we limit ourselves to both. I don't see a reason for that.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: So there's a couple of reasons. One is, I agree with you, that's the ultimate goal. I think we're trying to phase this We're trying to get started. We're trying to get started and we think this will move, this will ultimately move the industry in that direction. We wanna create a regulatory universe that's manageable at this point for our state government. And right now, there is no one stop shopping for everyone that's overseeing the private networks. Starting with the public, to administer. It definitely it's consistent with what California and Massachusetts has done. It doesn't jump beyond them. And because they're in the public subsidy, it also eliminates the possibility of a lawsuit over this because, you know, the courts have said if you're taking some kind of public subsidy or ratepayer subsidy, then you don't have like a trade secret protection necessarily, but if you're doing if it's purely privately funded, there might be. So I think the idea is to push the push like, this is ultimately good for the charging providers. They will eventually all see this as to be their benefit, if they're not doing this, then they're gonna lose business to the chargers that are. So I think we're We started where you started, Senator, and we wanna end where you wanna end, but we're, as a matter of compromise, thinking that this makes place as a logical starting both for our regulators and for the regulated industry. And eventually, we wanna move there, but let's start here, see how it works, come back and fix it and broaden it if it's not
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: working Okay.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I appreciate that. So what we might wanna do is just have intention. Intentional language, but we can talk about
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: that later. I think it's fair to say what you'd like is this to be successful and then we'll move on. That's correct.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right. But sometimes we don't do the moving on part, so I just wanna have some sort of state
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: You know my client DLF. Will come back to move on. Okay. Good.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If we
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: will ever get the entity before.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: No, actually it's a personal system. But this is good. Appreciate that. So a couple more questions, okay? Yep, go ahead. So incentive, an incentive for deployment of the infrastructure, is a charge points proposal, and that could be non monetary. I mean, monetary can actually be more impactful. We have incentives too. Okay.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: So they're just narrower, we're broader.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay, okay, so that's cool. So this language, and it may just be, I don't think that's the intent. I don't think we're trying to say in line 20 that only stations installed after 2028 are subject to this. This is after 2028, all charging stations are subject to this.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Again, so would add actually, I forgot. We would say installed or refurbished because a lot of these existing stations are gonna go back and improve. And I am right there with you, senator. Our ultimate goal is all stations, but we have more stations to be installed than we do currently, and our belief is if we start prospectively, it will eventually trickle back to all stations. So I wouldn't oppose what you're saying. I think industry would. But we still think we are making meaningful progress if we do a prospective.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So this is intended to be stations installed or refurbished, which good luck finding definition for that, it's gonna be workable. But I'm sorry, I shouldn't say that. But I think that
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: if you go back and We are we
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: we have a lot headed to be installed planned to be installed in 2027. I mean, there was that that map that we looked at yesterday. A a significant number of stations and that will bring us actually better than NEVI. Every 25 miles we'll have a station. That's supposed to happen in 2027. That's what we want. Yeah, but after 2028.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: No, we don't agree with them after 2028. That's their voice.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay, good. So then, I thought
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: you were thought you saying okay. Are you about, because let me come back. So on page seventy and seventy one and seventy two, you're pretty much the same. On page seventy three and fourteen, there's a difference between publicly funded and charging. You like your language, again, not theirs because yours is a little broader and you bring in Vermont retail electric providers than they do. Section 42, you would like us to be closer to the California date. Doesn't have to be, but you don't want to lose a year and other costs. 100%. Then we're pretty much the same on 'seventy four and 'seventy five, but 'fifteen through 'eighteen, and you would take that language because you're really pretty close to the same. Yep. And then on And the reasonable conditions to data use were also, were fine with that. That was in our report. And on page 76, the state agency would put the Climate Office. That's correct. And that's the one other thing was to try and find some, like the grants provided or administered, so that captures pass through money and then some concept to get how the Department of Public Service oversees tier three
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: spending by the utility. So is an item served provided by electric retail providers?
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yeah, but the provision to this section may be enforced by any state agency or department that provides grants, loans or other incentives to support the construction of public That's the enforcement part? Yeah, because the department doesn't provide those. It just makes sure that the tier three funding that the utilities are spending is consistent with their tier three obligations.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And how do you see enforcement the country? So they would somebody would notice if they're not making this data available and they Yeah. Yeah. But any any other any state agency that provided funding for that chartered station contact them and figure out the. Yeah. Yeah.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: So since we're in a time crunch, if I'm looking at this in 14, and knowing that if we get a bill out and we hear back from somebody before this bill gets to the floor, because it won't be either before or at least a week or two before it's come to the floor, We can take this back up and we can do an amendment with correction to that. In this, what I'm gonna propose is page seventy, seventy two through 72, we'll take the changes that are suggested. And 73, we'll take what Anthony's language at the top instead of ChargePoint's language. The date, I'm easy, 2028, or we could just knock off a year and say 2027, January 1, instead of we lose between October, November, December. But it our due date. We have big opinions here.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I don't I mean, I'd like to start with the rest of these discussions.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Well, that's that's what we're proposing is we we just say instead of 01/01/2028, we say 01/01/2027.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: That was your proposal, and you had July. Yeah. Yeah.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: He what he is This language is about when charge decisions are installed, the charge point. But the other language is just when you're there. Right. There isn't any in the other language about when it's all air ventilation, is the way I understand. Right. Regardless of when they were installed. ChargePoint is trying to just get the ones installed after 2028. Yes. Was California's one name were installed in September 26? Yeah. Or just starting at September 26, all alterations have to be put?
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Installed after. Installed after. Okay. I
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I think we should talk about that.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Well, might September 26.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Then September. Would be great. September, I'm good with September 20
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yep. That
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: would be great.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: You got that, D and B? Wait, no. And then the next two pages, 74, 75, we're good to go with that. And the charge point language between fifteen and eighteen, you seem fine with. Yes. We would plug that in.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Can I just have one question on line 18? Yep. Payment, yeah, page 75 regarding the charge point recommendation is not as specific. And when we say pricing structure, I think it's really important that things like credit card be delineated specifically? Is that the intent?
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Payment method's accepted on line 18.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know. Needs to be available on an app is to tell you what, how we can pay.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I understand, but they might say, oh, you can pay with American money. I mean, I just wanted to be clear that that will credit cards be, and they probably will, wouldn't make sense to not, but I don't wanna assume here in this case.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yeah, I think, I'm pretty sure this language is the NEVI language, subsection C on line 18 of 75. And my understanding is the NEVI compliance is you have to save, it's credit cards.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay, so that would be good to know.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Can you just check that out before I get back to us?
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I have
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: the expert who's report I put in. And for the sake of trying to push this along, we'll accept that, and if you come back and tell us credit cards aren't accepted, we'll reopen this. Does Okay. That Well, it says is whether they accept, they have to tell you whether they accept credit cards. Yep. It doesn't mandate them all to accept credit cards. That's a different Yep, that's a whole different level. If we hear back from you You wanna make sure the level of level of detail is what's required of them.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right, because that's really important to the customer.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: I completely agree.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And debit cards.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Completely agree.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And similar to being
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Completely agree. But if we're trying to follow national standards and national, know Yep. Make sure that that's not left out. Yep. You. Understood. Totally. And then on '76, we'll plug in Climate Office you had
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: have a
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: question about few other
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: why that's needed. I don't know if you want to
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Okay, well we can. I I wanna make sure we get close to I didn't happen to speak for ChargePoint here, but they that in our negotiations with them, they said they don't always know because they're operating charging stations on behalf of other people, and so they would then be responsible for publishing the real time data, and that information is not always passed on to them whether the station that they're operating has been publicly funded. They So could they turn on with a switch which chargers will broadcast this information, and they wanna make sure that someone's telling them which charge to which chargers this applies so that they don't leave any chargers that are in this universe, not switched on. Should they have
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: it recorded in perpetuity? I mean, why not just say they show when the charging station is provided the incentive, they'll tell them what they have.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yes. That that would work.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Just worry about doing it on a quarterly basis.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: No. That would that
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: would work. Once you know, you should know.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not gonna
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: be Once you know, you should know. And there should be like, the the list should only go in one direction. It should only get bigger. Right. Yeah.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: They're never gonna take it off. When you get the grant, it's like, hey, by the way, have to report this. That's right. I think we should change that a little bit.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Did you get that, Jamie?
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so do you want them to shall notify any of the charging network when a charging station becomes subject to this section?
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah, and I don't know if we want the climate agency climate office to do that for everybody because they might not know, so I would say the state or public utility that is providing the incentive needs to inform the charging station that you're subject to. Oh, okay. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Whatever state it is, maybe there's some other weird thing that like, NEDA has a loan program for public charging stations. That's it.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yeah.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So any and and NEDA provides the incentive? Yeah.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: You had somebody right behind you that was going to say the same thing.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And the utilities provide incentives, so there's a lot.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah, so that would one.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So for the utilities, is that going to be the Department of
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Public Service again for They might not, why can't we just have the utilities too? When they if they provided incentive for, they wouldn't have to have it for home station, but if they provided a center for a public station, then they can inform that, hey. You this is great care of money. Therefore, public money. Therefore, your subject is required.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Is that around the book of
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: the public credit stuff? I don't think so.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Because of the definition of publicly funded and publicly available, that will delimit appropriately who they have to tell us, which charges they
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: have to take. And how about they copy the state on that? Have to figure out which state agency is gonna deal with this. But how about the utilities copy the state when they send it
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: to? Right,
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: the state being, you know.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: We don't know, that's what we gotta figure out for a lot of reasons.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: I think you're good leaving it decentralized, but if you want, if you're worried about the utilities, would be the Department of Public Service. They're reporting to the Department of Public Service on how they're complying with their tier three obligations, and they could just include that information in the reports they make on tier three compliance.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: That sounds like a great idea. Okay.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I missed that. I'm sorry.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: The utilities can notify the Department of Public Service when they're reporting on their tier three compliance activities.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Or just whenever they provide the funds, because it might, could be outside of tier three, or it might be it?
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yes, that's a parent portal, I'm sorry. Yep, it could be rather than tier three. So they just tell the department. Yeah. They'll tell.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Which I think they probably are, but they can specifically. Yep,
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I thought we were talking about letting the charging networks know also.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yes. Charging I thought you just said you also want them to tell the state.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Well I was saying yes, but I don't know Jamie caught that language.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what I was busy taking notes
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: on
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: while you guys kept talking.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Okay, great. I'm gonna run to court. Yeah, run to
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the court.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: I think what I hear around the table is in concept. We are together on this and ready to go. And so, Damian, if you can do a clean draft, we'll come back around and if we hear anything, we'll get people in and we can do a cleanup amendment afterwards. Go ahead.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So you you can go on and see. Okay.
[Anthony Arpino (Conservation Law Foundation)]: Very grateful. To the committee. Appreciate your work.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So true. On
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: page 75, there we have bottom. Line length being this point going on. I wondered if this just when I read it, it seems like there would be a contradiction to this public available parking space. And then if it's only public
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: part of
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: the time. So one question I have is like does the definition have to say that's a publicly available parking space? I know. Doesn't say publicly available. I'm sorry.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Is this the issue with the place that closes at night?
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: That's what this is on this page.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this should be, what it should say is if a publicly funded and available charging station is available to the public for only limited time periods, it shall only be required to comply with this section during those periods. Okay. Or something along those lines. Actually, a similar way is a publicly funded and available charging station shall only be required to comply with this section during time periods when it is available to the public for use.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: We open or close instead of available in that instance so that available means, like, like, functionally available in the world, but then open or close would mean that day just just to make to make it clear. Because it's still available. Mean they can or I don't know it could be I mean there's all different sorts of things.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So open or closed
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: If you're a condo.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right. This is not the condo part. But this is this is somebody who closed closes on a like, at night or something.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. But it doesn't necessarily tie to when the store is open or closed. So for example, you can have these on a switch that turns off at 08:00 every night and the charging station mean, if you wanna define open as meaning the charging station is available for public use, we can do that. But, I mean, it it's your terminology, but it seems like we've been using the terminology available for use by the public.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right, but it turns out that available, it's not always open when it's available. Available is a condition that goes for years. Open is something that is in hours. Do you know what I mean?
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know what you mean, but I, I'm not sure that,
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: It, it's just a different, put a plan.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Let me think about Yeah. A way to phrase this.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: It's like this is a public building. It's always a public building, but it's not always open to the public.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yes. My my bank has charging in the yard, and I am you know, when they particularly when it's dark at night, they don't like people in the yard. You know? I I can understand that. Yeah, so if
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: they turn something off so it can't be used, it's still a public space,
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: but I think none of us disagree with what the intention is here. I don't hear any. So Yeah. Just wordsmithing. Yeah. If you can wordsmith that, Amy, it
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I hope you're my boss.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: K. K. I just wondered when we define it at publicly available person's space. It's that different like
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the publicly available parking space does an agenda. It's three fourteen, minus three to ten. But basically where it's, we'll call it a
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: direct line in the other language, mention art and space.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Right.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Like, if we just said it was publicly available, we don't say parking space. Like, it's just saying, like, the public can park there even though they are not charging. So if they said EV charging only, is that is that not a publicly available parking space? So yeah.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this could be, for example, a parking space that is not publicly available is like a charger that says parking reserved for state fleet vehicles only.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: There are
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: two of those cross the street. What if it just said only for EV charging only? That's publicly available. I think you're talking about when you close off the general EV driving public.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: But if you're saying it's a publicly available parking space, that to me means anybody from public can park there.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think that's the intent here. I think the intent is that any member of the public who is driving an EV can park there. I can try to wordsmith this as well. I'm just, I'm okay with it, you're okay
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: with it. I'm just saying somebody could say like, well, we don't have to comply because these aren't publicly available parking spaces, these are ED parking spaces. Mean, if it would be a very particular way of getting out of doing it, I would say, big favor to try that, but it just seemed like a good thing. I don't know if it helps to say a parking space in that sense. Like what are we adding by saying the word parking space and not just saying, look at it, that's public, that if it's publicly available. As a public available This is ChargePoint's language. I'm Well, they use lot. In Anthony's language too.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm neither CLF nor ChargePoint. Yeah. I can't speak to why they both chose to use the word publicly available parking space. I read that as any space where a member of the public driving an EV can park their car to charge. But I can just say that with a space that is available for any member of the public driving an EV to park and charge their vehicle.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: What I'll just tell you is that publicly available. That is publicly available, and that is publicly available. I can just say that too. It begets a lot for a gasoline powered vehicle to park in front
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of a charger. There are chargers where parking is restricted to EVs. Yeah. There are a number of those spaces on the.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I don't think it's a lot.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: It's not a lot.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To be fair, when a parking restriction says Yeah. EV parking only
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: It is a lot.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You can be ticketed for parking
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: a non EV vehicle. So
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Municipalities have jurisdiction under title twenty three and twenty four
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To set parking ordinances, including restricting the type of vehicle that can park in a space and the times when they can park there. So that is a that can be a restriction with the power of law. Similarly, a private owner can tow vehicles that park in a space where they say parking for blank only. So the and that's not law, but that is also a publicly available parking space for EV charging. But let me see if I can wordsmith this. My suggestion gets rid
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: of funny words which takes us back from our 100 page global. So you want to get rid of I would just say publicly available.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that is publicly available.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Located at a parking space which we've taken out. It's my they just I mean, how it lines up.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am happy with that change. Oh my god. K.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Let's start to go through this. From the beginning. Boy,
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the number of hairs that are being split this morning. I I I'm saying that. We're get started.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay. You you know, the more we do this, the more I think can people be ready to come in at 08:30 tomorrow morning.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Sounds like a friend.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay. I just I don't need I don't need it to be a threat. We just need time to work our way through this.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I can come in, but I have normally have a meeting from eight to nine, so I'll just need to know by this afternoon.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm can I ask? Can we be I'll be here at 08:30 tomorrow morning?
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: It's just done.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So take it that we're on.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. K.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Alright. Alright.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: The
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The first changes to just highlight for you on page two, they were, stylistic corrections recommended by our editors. I don't believe they changed the meaning of candidate project, But feel free to review those if the agency or any committee members have concerns. I'm happy to change them back.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. It doesn't look like Yeah. So unless I hear anything, that's okay. Bless Bless me.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: But who why did this?
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Our editors. Your editors. Yes.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The legislative council editing team Interesting. Looked at that and said, you know, we don't like the way that this is constructed. It is the standard definition that I'm cut and pasted from priority bills. I said, don't think it changes the meaning. So if that's what you would like.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay. So so these items were still in the
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is all existing. Moving. It's just moving things around. So that have, significant, I think it was expenditures for preliminary engineering or right of way expenditures or both.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: That's fine. Yeah.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: That's fine. Thank you. I just didn't know if there was
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: any just an editing change. I've highlighted anywhere this has changed from language you've seen before. Well, that's not true. Section two is new. You haven't read through this. I'm not gonna go through it. This is the standard section two, what are we doing that supports the climate action plan. Mhmm. It's a listing of projects and dollars and amounts that are affected. What's that? It's Michelle's favorite character right now. Michelle doesn't write this up. I write this up. Oh, you helped us out. Agency has declined to spend staff time on this. Really
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: it's really section three of
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: the Section three. Is it Yeah. I'm
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sorry. It's normally section two. Yeah. Section three. Section four is where we get the next change. Yep. We discussed this yesterday briefly. The change in statewide district leveling is that we've added 1,700,000 in T fund dollars to statewide district leveling. And then And that's covered in A, the overall paving funding, B, covers the district leveling funding. C, expresses the intent with the one highlighted change suggested by Jeremy yesterday of cost underruns. That to the extent that there is a shortfall, carry forward, unobligated amounts, project delays, overruns, underruns that result in money sitting on the bottom line that it'd be directed to state highway paving projects this year. Section five. And
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm going to take it unless I hear that we're okay with this. Okay.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section five. Page Page eight. Section five, Page eight, eight. State Highway Bridges. What is happening in this section is the general overview. If you go to page nine, is that this reduces the amount of Safe Highway Bridge money coming from the T funds by 1,750,000. It increases the amount of money coming from the TIB fund by 1,750,000. If you'll remember, your colleagues in the house transferred 2,200,000 TIB to the transportation fund. 1.7 was allocated to town highway general state aid and not withstood the requirements for the use of tip dollars. So one point that 1,700,000 is now being used for bridge projects, which have a thirty year, or at least a ten year useful life, which is the requirement for tip dollars that are not being bonded. And then the additional 50,000 that's freed up from the T fund is being used for the Drive Electric VT, which we'll get to later. And then B, C, D, and E are all projects where we're shifting that funding. These projects were selected simply because they had the largest dollar amounts. So you'll notice here, I just this was so that we would have the least number of projects. If we need to extend the page number, I can switch to the smallest dollar amounts. So we have view. That's a joke.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Go ahead.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But yes.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, mister chair. So just so I understand, as we're going through these sections, you're putting okay next to it. So we're feeling good about it. Internal to all
[Michelle Blumkauer (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: of these are the individual projects.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Internal to all of these are the Yes. Individual
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I you had asked me yesterday, have additional language related to I'm not I'd have to look to see what exact section it falls in, but at least the first part of my amendment related to the bridge project in the Bucks Dan Bridge, I think, would be listed under one of these. Would so I don't really know where the
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Fox Dan Bridge was added, it would amend this sections section five.
[Michelle Blumkauer (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Okay.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The other project, the Redding Town Highway Garage.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And I just forwarded it.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Is not a transportation program project, so that would be a separate appropriation of its own. It could be its own section.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So, yeah, I guess I would say that I would support, as I emailed you last week, and then I just hit reply again so you guys had it pinged in your inbox. Related to the highway maintenance section five, I would propose a change. So there's that. And then there's the other question which I'm a little bit confused about because while this is the meat of the budget, we haven't yet finalized how much money we have. So I'm a little bit concerned about giving a yes. I'm in favor of it when I actually don't know the amount of money and I don't actually know if the project book will reflect those changes. So I guess I'm a little bit up in the air about this. The slang language, yes. Me know. But I think it's like
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Let's see. Adjustments. The question here now is, are we okay with taking the TIP money and swapping out the the T Fund money is really the question that we're doing it. As it's a different way than the house did it. Yeah. And we would swap it to clean, to make sure that we live with the statute the way it is, and I think if we're gonna consider bonding going forward, we don't want to not withstand our bonding section. Yeah. So first thing in the morning, the first thing that we're gonna take up are your two projects.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Oh, okay. Okay? Sure.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Is that Yeah. But the idea of moving this money to clean the tip of money up, how do we feel about that?
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Well, is it in these sections or do we have additional language later on that calls it out as well?
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if you look in State Highway Bridge, so let's start on four gs nine at the top. This is the overall source of funds for State Highway Bridge. So you'll see that the total funding does not change. We look the total line on line seven, but the source changes by 1,750,000 down in the state, which is T Fund, and by 1,750,000 increase for T Fund.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Okay. Okay.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section b, you can see the same change. There's no change in the total amount for can allocated to this project. It's just changing where the funds are coming from. So the state funds go down the t fund goes down to zero, and it's all tip fund in federal dollars for that project. Same for the Sunderland and so forth. So these and what will happen? You mentioned the book. So these projects are in the book currently. Yeah. And then the white book is approved as amended by this bill. So then when the final version goes out, the agency amends their dollar amounts on the spreadsheets based on whatever you pass. And so then for accounting purposes, these months amount switch. So the
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Okay.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The actual amount for each project is not changing. The list of projects is not changing. Okay. But where the money for the projects is coming from is changing.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Beautiful. Okay. I understand that.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And then tomorrow morning, the first thing we'll take up is your. Action.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I appreciate that. I would have liked a little bit more time because I know that at least the towns in both cases were hoping to have the opportunity to share their experiences. So I have a letter from the town of Royalton, but is it appropriate for me to invite them? I know both. I don't think they'll be able to come on short notice, but I did tell them if we took it up, I'd let them know.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So to the committee.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Well, my only concern is if we were to do it for these people,
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's gonna be for all projects that we
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: want to assess. I think that's a good discussion we're gonna have to have tomorrow.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: We have the time to do that for all of them. I
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I think that would be the question tomorrow that we're we'll have to answer. Go ahead.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I am of the same mind as Senator Perchlik. Don't think we have, I think it sets a bad precedence. But we could talk about it tomorrow for that. I don't even think we have to go that far. I would be a no on any additions now. That's just me.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Think Senator White should get her chance to at least express what she wants and what she would like to do and so first thing tomorrow if you could do that we'll have the discussion. Okay. Pilot sections. Okay. So
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the pilot sections, sections six is as you reviewed it the last time. Section seven is also same as you reviewed it. In section eight, there are changes on page 16, lines four and five. This is adding the provision that the amounts that are appropriated to general state aid for town highways shall be supplemental to and shall not supplant or decrease the amount appropriated under the general formula. For the state aid for town highway structures, we have the same language appearing on, page 17, lines fifteen and sixteen. And then for class two town highway road program, same language, page 19, line seven and eight.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So tomorrow and if we start at 08:30, you're on
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I'm gonna mail it back.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And at 09:00, Ted would be in, and he's going to give us the sheet of what this would produce. There is questions within this of who we're in front of. Do we say that that's 3,400,000 continues going for the payments going to towns for appraisals? And are there other things in front of that? Or so at what point do we start this? Do we do we move in front of that and say the 3.4 that has been going out the last two years, this would be in front of that, this would be behind that, and we'll have to change the language around here once we make. But should Ted will have a sheet telling us what we could expect in either case. Okay. And knowing that, you know, this is going to be a growing area after we get this started. If we have another slug of towns that does, and I've heard there, who is in the building is now saying we should have to have and all of them should have 2%.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: You're allowed to do 2% without a charter change you mean? Yeah. Or that?
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, somebody is out there saying we should change the statute. Oh.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Well, not in Senate of Ops yet.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Not in Senate of Ops yet, but but anyway, so Ted will be there and I I think the concept we're good with, but we'll have the details of that.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: K. Section nine is the same $3,000,000 appropriation from the pilot fund to general state aid town highways that you reviewed last week. No changes?
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Are we good with that portion taking 3,000,000 of the surplus? In eight?
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Nine. Or nine, I mean? Yeah.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Just as long as it doesn't get
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And we'll see the sheet tomorrow.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Section 10 is a $10,000,000 FY27 transfer from the general fund to the T fund. This is the same as you reviewed last week.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Can I ask you a question?
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Sure. Section nine. Yeah. How how would it run?
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: The chair sit from the surplus.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. This record just takes $3.99. This is this is different than a surplus. So this is the surplus is going forward. This is an f y '27 before there are any revenues that come into that special fund. This is just appropriating 3,000,000 pilot to the agency of transportation to provide additional grants.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Doesn't matter what the state of the fund is when this appropriation has been.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's assuming that the fund has its current balance. So if there are other this is something that if there are other amounts going out of the funds, you'll wanna make sure that Yep.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: You'll wanna make sure that so we'll gladly look at the sheet tomorrow. Yeah. We'll make a decision.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I I did just notice that this needs the supplemental too. Supplement and not supplant language. $10,000,000 transfer from general fund to fund. Questions?
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So I do have one question here, and it will be we have made a request of appropriations that they consider helping us with medical transplants. And if we were going to do that, would the easiest thing for you to do, for example, increase the 10,000,000 by whatever that amount is.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Oh. That'll $500,000
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: or whatever. Yep. Oh, okay. So,
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: yeah, that's yes. Well This side of the room is the decision maker.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: See. I see. I I wanted to throw that out there, and then that would balance. But I think with all, you know, to make my pitch and I will say it in the afternoon too, with all the changes in healthcare and with the consolidation of stuff, we have to make sure that we have drivers out there. I mean, I just I don't know how anybody that is poor or old or in position, what are they gonna do?
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, don't know what they are. They're gonna be trapped and isolated in their homes and not get access to their basic needs.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: If you've got dialysis, and you're in St. John's Murray and they just moved it to Lancaster, Ranch, you're 28 miles how are you going to get this? Yeah, I'm not sure any of us, that's so anyways, that's so that would be my question because then there would be the opportunity if we're gonna do that too. And I know it puts pressure on the general fund, but we're gonna have to figure out a way to balance here somehow. So that would be my question. And
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: you could put it in on a preparation for the side to take it out?
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yep. We could. Yeah. And, but I'll look for tomorrow that's on hold, and I'll look for tomorrow some sort of direction. That would be us. Some people at the table.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: When I say So
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that would make this 10,500,000 from general fund to transportation fund and the medical transports language would say half 1,000,000 T fund is appropriated for medical transports. So we'd be shifting the money, general funds T fund and not appropriated T fund for that. Okay.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: That would seem to me to be the cleanest. Okay. Section 11.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The section 11 language, this is the this is the language that provides the five year step down from the purchase and use tax transfers to the Education Fund beginning with FY '28 and continuing through FY 2031 with the and then in Section 12, that discontinues the transfer in FY 2032. So that's the fifth of the five years. So there's four years of reduced transfers to the T Fund shown in Section 11 and then Section 12, the transfers repealed altogether.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I think we know this is going to be controversial when it hits finance. Are we ready to do some misdemeanors?
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I feel good about it. I think it's the correct move for the transportation fund. I appreciate that we spent some time on it and tried to go through it. I do think we'll
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: need to talk to our friends and fucking support advocate.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: it's gonna be controversial.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I guess I just don't wanna have what happened on the outside happen where they just got completely, maybe, supplanted, whatever, you know, by ways and means. I don't know if it's worthwhile for us to have maybe a precursor conversation with the chairs in advance.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: That's up to you. You do the invite members of the community. Yeah. Walk through a little more like
[Michelle Blumkauer (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah. She's aware. Okay.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: No, I
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: think it's great. And I like the way that you presented it with the different stages because this isn't on its own. No, It's a web. Yeah. So
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: In the gutter. It's similar. So it's out there.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So I think we'll learn if this is okay. I'll just say
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: that I'm supporting a constitution committee member,
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: not an appropriations committee. Oh, okay. I totally Well,
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: we'd like to get the appropriations act.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Well, at least you're supporting it at this time. That's important. Okay, bonding 13.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So in 13 this is the authority to issue transportation infrastructure bonds that you saw last week. No changes to this section since last week.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I think we're okay with this if this Grand
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: The only thing I would want to look at is if we could do it sooner.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, so for fiscal year 2017?
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah, if it were possible. Because I know they said it would, likely take a year, but there might be some flexibility. So I don't know if it's possible to have flexibility in reporting.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, we
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: could, but we're covered in the '27, and the other 10.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: That
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: would split a 20 into, right, into '27 is what you're saying. I don't what section
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah, I'm just thinking earlier is better for multiple reasons because the needs, I mean, one of the things we're not talking about is, and we will be talking about it yesterday, or I'm sorry, tomorrow, but, is the really harms from the projects that aren't getting done. So, I don't, I think we're much better off with the 10,000,000 next year obviously, but I'm sure we could find something to. Talking about section 13 or 14? I'm talking about 13.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: They do bonds for this fiscal year?
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: For 2027. Well, so state fiscal year. I just don't wanna, I wanna be able to have the possibility of doing it sooner.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah, I don't know what Pat Brennan spoke to. You say it could be '27 when I just can't get it to guys better than that. I, I, I,
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah, thought we heard from the treasurers of there's a roll up balloon, it's pretty.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: They said a year, but there's also bond anticipation notes that you can do when you're working through that process. So maybe I can just talk to them. Yep,
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: you can talk to them. I'll put this on hold. And then about fourteen. So Yep, Michelle has something to say.
[Michelle Blumkauer (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Michelle Blumkauer, Vermont Agency of Transportation. I'd just like to point out that section 14 outlines a process which would, reveal the governor's budget in advance of the budget presentation in January or at least lean towards revealing that budget. So I just would like to express agency objections to this section based on that premise.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Identifies project because identifies projects proposed for the state fiscal year that's why? Yes. So there are some documents that we already have that are multi year documents. That's true. So we could use the 2028. Yeah, could it be based on projects? A lot
[Michelle Blumkauer (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: of things changed during the course of the construction year and also based on right of way, permitting, etcetera. So while the capital plan for the following fiscal year that you're not approving is foreshadowing of what we expect to be occurring, it's not a definitive project that will be occurring because we don't make those decisions till later in the calendar year as we prepare the budget.
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yes, and I think that's something that we obviously can't figure out all of the improvements that could be done but most of these transportation projects are big projects. So changing a lot in a year, the year before is I think we can do better than that in terms of planning and scheduling, but that's not exactly what you're talking about, your concerns.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: You know, her concern is on Line 3 on or before 11/01/2026, If that was gone.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: That was 01/10/2020.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Is that due or something?
[Michelle Blumkauer (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: It would be on or after the date of the presentation of the governor's recommendation.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Which is like January 2021. Yeah,
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: varies, but it is in statute. Like I said what date?
[Michelle Blumkauer (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: If there's something in statute that references that date, could use that
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: and that would work for us.
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Well, would we lose out on time to get a bond? I mean, like does three months or so not make a difference substantially? I don't know the answer to that. Maybe I can ask our treasurer friend that question. Sure. Because I would be I understand what you're saying. I guess I would have I agree that we probably should have tried to jump in front of them, actually, because I dig their budget because things do change up to the last minute. Yeah. So I wanna respect that. But I
[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: also don't wanna lose out on a
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: bonding opportunity, but maybe I don't know how that works.
[Michelle Blumkauer (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Guess I'm not sure that the treasurer would bond board projects that have not been approved by the legislature and that usually doesn't happen until the transportation bill has fully passed as well as the appropriations bill. So I think that
[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: this would just be the information they're getting and they
[Michelle Blumkauer (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: wouldn't even bond until later is what you're saying? I'm not totally embedded in the process of the treasurer, but I think that in order to put together a list of projects because we do when we have bonded in the past and it's been a long time since I sat at that table, but, you know, there was a call with the bonding company about the projects and we had to answer certain questions and you know, so I think they do like to know what the money is going towards historically. But that's an answer. That's a question for Trey.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And it might be that we could say, here's a list of projects that we would put it towards depending on the the bond, and it's there might not be enough money for all well, on the project, but we're gonna do three of these for 12. Right. Mhmm. Right.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And I'm sympathetic to the governor's issue or the other. So instead we should say the agency of transportation in consultation with the treasurer shall identify projects proposed for the state fiscal transportation and including your budget presentation. So we get the bonding and we if they chose not to do bonding, we we get two budget tracks submitted.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that's in the next section is the two budget tracks. Do you want additional language that to have them include a report that provides the analysis of the present value
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yep.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In comparison and just move that to the next section.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And just move that to the next section. Okay. Thank you. So you combine both of those? Yes. Section 16 in this draft.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's the findings and intent for the mileage based user fees. Are we good with that? There have been no changes since the last draft of that. So I implemented the committee's requested changes. Have not done anything additional to that.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm sorry to that. So I think we're okay with findings. This is probably a good place to stop before we get into, And we will start again at 08:30 in the morning and continue with the spreadsheet for local option tax will be at nine and we'll start with some of the appoints, proposals, or projects in at 08:30.
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want an updated bill for tomorrow bill draft for tomorrow, or do you wanna continue working through this draft and then make all the changes in one draft? What what would you like? I I'm gonna be working on it anyway. It's just a matter of do you want me to, yeah, something additive? I think
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: The back of the bill, the sections that we did, we cleaned them up and cleaned them as close as you can to what you think the dumping is. And
[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I can make the changes that you've requested in the first 16 sections Yep. Where there isn't committee discussion. That still needs to happen.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yep. I think most of it, you know, like, the the pieces that we just did, the combining fourteen and fifteen, you might as well do all that. And then we did have unless we hear Senator Harrison is gonna check with the treasurer's office if they could do something faster than a year ago. All around the.
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: There.
[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I think at that point, we're
[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: fine. I'm gonna