 I'll call to order the transportation energy and ability committee on August 1st at 5 of 7. Now, energy and emotion are agenda. I would move that we adopt the agenda. My only discussion point is I have not reviewed the minutes from last week. So I'd like to postpone those until our next meeting in August. Okay. Given that amendment, all those in favor? Aye. All right, agenda. Next is public forum. So before we get, if you get a public forum, I just want to just a couple of things. I want everybody to be respectful in their comments. And if you've already said something last week, unless you're here to say something different this week, it would be good in terms of the committee's ability to move the issue forward and just to hear new perspectives and testimony this week. Also, I would ask, we'll take as much time. There's not a lot of people signed up to speak or they're out online. Anyone online can use the raise hand function? So, you know, we have this room. We have a hard stop at 7. And so we'd like to get to some deliberation as well. So just keep that in mind as you're offering a public comment today. Try to keep it as brief as possible, but get your message across as well. And so with that, we'll start. And the first speaker tonight is Lucy Hillman. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Lucy Hillman. I'm Executive Director of Facilities Management at UPM. And I'm just expressing support to maintain having renewable gas and also would advance wood heating to this ordinance. As we try to evaluate many options going forward, we want to keep our options open for the future so that we are able to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. So it has to keep that aside. Thank you. Next, we have Ashley Adams. Hi, good evening. I want to thank you for your careful attention to the carbon fee ordinance and for convening additional time for public comment during this meeting. The predicament that this ordinance has created began with the extremely misleading ballot question two, which a number of people thought against, myself included. It passed because voters believed the carbon impact fee would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, its stated purpose was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the city. However, due to a widely misunderstood word, many of us are here again tonight attempting to stop the city from incentivizing greenhouse gas intensive and otherwise harmful sources of heat. That word is renewable. Governments and utilities everywhere use the word renewable because they know the public mistakes it for both climate friendly. They use it in an effort to promote combustion based heat and energy. Burlington Electric and Vermont Gas are just two examples. As every climate scientist will tell you, we need zero carbon heat and energy, not renewable. We know through physics and chemistry that all combustion based sources of heat and energy, whether they're renewable for 40 years, 100 years, or 1000 will continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We also know that combustion based sources come with a host of other harmful impacts, including to biodiversity. Please do not forget that if by some miracle we succeed in salvaging a habitable climate, we may still be taken down by biomass extinction. Look no further than to the collapse of insect populations if you doubt that this is on the near horizon. You need not listen to me. There's ample scientific evidence available. No further study is needed. You need only to listen to the scientists. I am for you to first do no harm. Please do not incentivize the use of combustion based heating systems in our city through this carbon impact vein. If you do so, you'll be increasing the use of polluting and damaging heat sources. Furthermore, you'll be deceiving Burlington voters who passed valid question to they voted yes, not because they wanted to incentivize dirty sources of heat, but because they believed in the spirit of the proposed ordinance that it would result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the city. If you pass this ordinance as written, you're doing nothing short of defying the intent of the Burlington voters who wanted to want and deserve real action on climate and preservation of a living world. Thank you. Next is Nick Persepieri. Thank you. At the last meeting we heard from Mr. Springer who was advocating for basically incorporating into the city's ordinance language from the State Affordable Heat Act, or S5, and I submitted a write-up explaining why the city shouldn't do that. I just wanted to make sure that you received that and I asked, do you make that part of the record? You've done so. Thank you. So I won't repeat the points that are in that write-up. I agree with what Ms. Adams just said that we should not be allowing or incentivizing combustion based heating sources in the city. The ordinance as written would impose a fee on fossil fuel heating, which is primarily gas, but not on several types of so-called renewable energy, which actually emit more greenhouse gases and have other environmental problems that I've documented, some of the submissions that I've made in writing. I won't repeat those either. In fact, as I said earlier, I support the city's push towards electrification and heat pumps. Remember this ordinance addresses new construction and we ought to be able to build new residential, new construction so that it's weatherized sufficiently so that heat pumps can provide all needs. There's no need for these other high greenhouse gas so-called renewable types of energy. And if for some reason that is not an option for someone, the next best option is actually natural gas, which emits fewer greenhouse gases, has fewer air pollution problems than all of the other so-called renewables. With all due respect to UDM, advanced wood heating and renewable gas would both put more greenhouse gas emissions into the air and advanced wood heating as severe local air pollution issues. The American Lung Association recommends that people not use advanced wood heating to heat their homes and commercial boilers also in excess pollutants compared to fossil fuel-fired systems. These have no place in the city, especially when we're trying to promote dense walkable development. So we think that all of these so-called renewables should be prohibited. If you're going to impose a fee on them, Councillor Bergman had an interesting suggestion last meeting that I hadn't considered before. And that is that the voters have approved a fee on fossil fuel thermal energy systems. And so it might be, we might be able to construe that to include gas-fired furnaces or oil-fired boilers regardless of what type of fuel they use because they're still a system designed to use fossil fuels or they could also use an alternative system. The current ordinance wouldn't do that, but it might be changed to allow that. Thank you for considering my views. Thank you. Next is Catherine Bach. Hello again. Thank you for allowing me to speak. It's kind of different from what the others have said and from what I said last time, and it's not long, so I'd like to say it anyway. I've no doubt that we all want to do what's best to reduce emissions and do what's best to reduce the climate chaos now living in. But solutions are conflicted. On the one hand, there's a need to supply sufficient energy for heating. On the other hand, we must reduce emissions and increase efficiency. I remember my father who was a Holocaust survivor from Austria, walking through the house many times every evening and turning off all the lights he found unnecessary, saying, stop facing electricity. It was like we were not allowed to have more than one little spot of light on whatever we have to do it. My four siblings and I found this very annoying, and we turned the lights right back on as soon as he left the room mumbling to each other, they are not ours. We need lights to see. He was trying to save money, not aware that wasting electricity could also lead to drastic changes in the Earth's climate. But his point would be useful today. We need to find ways to use less energy, reduce emissions and still survive the cold and the heat. Do we want a heating ordinance that increases emissions? We must be honest in how we calculate the carbon impact of heating fuels. Last meeting, there was talk of the Greek model and using that is not correct because it was specifically designed for liquid biofuels used in transportation applications. It's not designed for solid biomass and should never be used for this purpose. Unfortunately, S5 allows the state to use Greek model for applications that's not designed for. As I understand this ordinance, it would impose a carbon impact fee on fossil fuel heating systems but not on greenhouse gas intensive and otherwise harmful combustion based renewables. The ordinance was written after the Burlington voters passed ballot measure two. That ballot question was extremely confusing and did not define the word renewable and failed to mention that burning renewables can admit as much or more carbon as fossil fuels. Leading citizens to believe that passing the ballot measure would reduce greenhouse emissions in the city. Will it actually do that? As I've said before, incentivizing the burning of any fuels does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to stop the climate emergency. And to quote my father again, we must stop wasting energy. Thank you. You're on. You've got it. You've got it both ways. I'm Dillon Jamatis. I'm the director of public affairs for EGS. That's what I'm going to ask. Welcome the opportunity to have a conversation with you. I want to commend the committee, the council, the community on showing up, having this conversation. Certainly, we recognize that these have changed and how we address greenhouse gas emissions is rapidly accelerating in Vermont. We want to be a partner in it. So we show up in that spirit. I just want to give you a quick fly by of what I see is the big issues impacting this conversation. And to start, just to give you a little background at EGS, our long term objective is to provide net zero emissions energy to customers. So we think our goals are aligned with the city of Burlington's and we've been rapidly evolving portfolio products that we provide for models to try to do this. This includes reducing energy usage. So through things like full home weatherization, comprehensive air sealing, working with businesses, large commercial and industrial customers to seal up their buildings, keeping more of the warmth in them so they use less energy. It includes increasing access to the latest technology and equipment available. So for us, you know, we were gas utility that service gas equipment up until a few years ago. Well, we're doing heat pump water beers now. That's an electric appliance. We're doing heat pumps in customers homes with things such as centrally ducted heat pumps. And we're working to bring to scale things such as geothermal energy development, something that we hope will decarbonize large customers. The third piece that we got to do is displace fossil fuels with low or no carbon alternatives. That is part of what you're contemplating in this policy with regard to the types of fuels that would be allowed in the city and new construction. I just want to pull back for a moment, though, and let you know that when we are looking to align our policy with what's going on at the state level, we're a fully regulated utility. We look toward the Global Warming Solutions Act. That's a 2020 law that the Vermont General Assembly enacted that says requirements for the amount of greenhouse gas reductions that need to take place in the state, most notably a 40% reduction by 2030 and a 80% reduction by 2050. And then recently, we had the Climate Council step forward to put forward the first ever Climate Action Plan that is the statewide blueprint of how we're going to reduce emissions. And they look at modeling through their subcommittees that considers a range of technologies in how we reduce emissions. Amongst those are many of the fuel types described in the ordinance. So with that, I also want to reference a new law that was just enacted. The Affordable Heat Act, a couple of folks who prefer to it, also called the Clean Heat Standard, sometimes called S5. Now it's the law of the land that's Act 18. The Affordable Heat Act is really important because it's a performance standard to transition the thermal sector. When we say thermal, it's buildings. This would transition the fuels and the equipment that are used to warm Vermonters homes. It's a market-based program. So it would require Vermont gas and other obligated parties. These are fuel dealers, kerosene dealers, oil, and so forth to clean up the fuels that they deliver or to purchase credits for activities that incentivize cleaner energy alternatives. Perhaps an electric heat pump, it might be any number of things because they're defined in the bill. This would generate incentives for Vermonters to help transition to cleaner energy types. And it prioritizes low and moderate income Vermonters. About a third of those measures need to go to those folks. This would constitute the most robust low carbon fuel standard in the country. We work all the time on these policies. We know what's out there. This is hands down the most environmentally friendly low carbon fuel standard policy that's been described. I have the law right here. I've got multiple tabs. I'm not going to take your time. You've got a lot to do, but I can walk you through the various ways that there's a carbon intensity threshold. There are fuel pathways analysis, inclusive of biogenic emissions, upstream emissions. This is a robust piece of climate policy that looks at the total picture of reducing emissions. It also does something that's very important for us that I want to share with you tonight as you weigh this proposal. The statewide process that this will engage creates an apples to apples process. It's comparing technologies not based on their names, but on the sides of what they will do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide Vermonters with a cleaner energy source in their home. On that, the draft ordinance pretty closely aligns with Act 18 to the extent that it names the technologies. It provides a performance standard that folks need to measure to, and it doesn't penalize sources that would reduce emissions. On this front, I'll just say that I would urge you to consider how local regulations will impact the statewide implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act. I referenced Act 18, the Affordable Heat Act. That is looking at upstream emissions. It's considering how everything we do in Vermont to warm homes, to electrify different sectors, to create better solutions, how that impacts our environment. It's a very robust law. It's going to be taking place in a regulatory process, the Public Utility Commission, members of the public to participate in those hearings. This is going to be a process that really focuses on the total picture. As you design policy here, it's important to consider how it fits in. With regard to that, just one final piece. The Global Warming Solutions Act, it's really unclear how it will impact customer costs. What we do think is that in the near term, there will be some upward cost pressure as a clean heat market is established. It's a distribution utility. We're also an energy efficiency utility. We're also a service provider working in customers' homes. We think that we are well positioned to work with our customers and our communities, such as Burlington, to facilitate a transition that's affordable. At the same time, the new law Act 18 is going to provide clear guidance on how thermal sector transformation should take place. This is just really important because we want to ensure that all the communities we work with, the policy is aligned with what is emerging there. I'd be happy to meet with anyone to describe what's in the law to let you know why we think it's going to provide the best set of baseline data for these community conversations that are going on around the state. For now, I'll just leave it with you with this, that the ordinance is introduced. The current draft provides flexibility. That's going to be really important for the state as it tries to make progress towards its clinicals. It's going to be important for those of us who are working to try to work with customers to transition to cleaner energy types and having certainty as to what it's going to include, the certainty both to the customers who need flexibility in the energy choices they make and to the energy providers in the community is really important. We think all this will serve to benefit our shared climate goals. The goals of the state, the goals the city has set out, and the ways that we can work together to achieve them. I'll leave you with that. Got the law here. Happy to talk about it, but I'm not going to do it now. Please reach out if I can answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Del. Appreciate it. So, Jack, since you're the first, do you want to introduce? That'd be great. Yeah. Great. Good to see everyone. Thanks everyone for being here. I would say, so I sent you all some proposed amendments in my thinking behind them. In terms of my comment, I would say we shouldn't confuse this particular ordinance with the bigger picture and the bigger mission. The bigger mission is that we have to decarbonize every building in the city as quickly as possible. That's what we're trying to do. This ordinance is trying to get the ball rolling on that and specifically targeting new situations where there's a new system being installed, which is a long-term investment that's being made. So whether that's a new building or an existing large building that's replacing their system, that's a long-term investment. And that's a moment that we're trying to intervene and where it's the most logical and the most important to invest in the right technology, the technology that we most want to see. And I think we have pretty widespread agreement in city government from my understanding that electrification is the preferred method and the preferred way to go. I think for this policy, that really needs to be to focus electrification in geothermal where possible, which is also a system that's running on electricity but using the temperature of the ground below. I think those are the lowest impact systems, those are ones we should bust in. We're going to have to decarbonize the entire building sector. There's going to be a lot of buildings that are going to take different approaches and I don't think the city is going to be able to force everyone to rapidly make the switches we want, but this is an area where I feel like we can come in with strong policy and actually dictate what we think is best because these are players that have the financing to create these new systems and do it right from the beginning when making these long-term investments. So I think these are moments where we got to do it right and go electric. Vermont Gas is already servicing so many buildings, including so many individual homes, that they're going to need to supply with renewable fuels and they haven't made that much progress so far in terms of converting their fuel mix to be renewable, but ultimately they're going to have to change the mix for a lot of buildings, but in terms of the new systems, let's not add to that problem, let's do those right so that it's a smaller pie that Vermont Gas is going to have to decarbonize. Thanks. Thanks, Jack. So that's everybody, the person, there's nobody else who I've just spoken to now. So what do we have online? Pipe quarter, should be able to unmute. Good evening. I'd like to respond to some comments that Mr. Springer made last week regarding a difference of opinion, he said, between how we count carbon emissions from woody biomass and renewable natural gas and other plant-based fuels. The city shouldn't be making policy decisions based on opinions, they should be making them on facts and I and others for months and months have been trying to point you towards the facts and the facts are that plant-based fuels are as dirty or dirtier than fossil fuels. Mr. Springer is providing you a lot of assumptions, namely the assumption that woody biomass and other biofuels are carbon neutral. That is not based on facts and we should not be making policy decisions based on assumptions or opinions. The Affordable Heat Act, S5, is a 48-page document, I believe, as of last count and it has several guardrails, none of which are incorporated into this heating ordinance before you. So there's a drawdown for such things as renewable natural gas in the Affordable Heat Act. There is no drawdown in this ordinance. So you're taking much of what the state perceives as good but throwing out any guardrails for it and you need to place, if you're going to include combustion-based sources, you need to place clear guardrails, life cycle analyses, carbon intensity values and I don't think the city is equipped to do that. Can any of you explain what a renewable sourced biofuel is? It's right in there, a sustainably sourced biofuel. Can any of you define what that is? Do any of you know how much carbon is reduced by an advanced wood heating system? That's an easy one because I told you, none. It produces no less carbon dioxide than any other wood heating system. There's a lot that you're taking or grabbing from S5 without really including any of the guardrails and now I'm repeating myself, so I will sign off. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Next is Peter DeVall. Go ahead, Peter. Well, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Strike All is a time-honored tradition in legislation. It's used when the original draft has problems that can't be resolved by editing. That's what's in order for this ordinance. The future of the McNeil generating station and the proposed thermal energy ordinance are intricately linked. They're linked to several bits of legislation, not just S5. BED has been central and transparent in creating complicated overlapping thermal credit schemes at both the local and state level. The misadventure has taken many years. The awkward wordiness of the draft ordinance indicates the weak logic underlying both the ordinance and the steampipe project and the associated legislation. The ordinance is fatally flawed. An interesting key feature of the ordinance is bringing all carbon emissions from equipment operations up front to assess the fee. It essentially makes the ordinance a ban on new fossil fuel eating equipment in new construction, but it also reinforces the burning of biomass and locking in dependence on McNeil. If the objective is to reduce and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, this proposed ordinance would fail to achieve the objective. The ulterior purpose of propping up McNeil is an obvious consider a test. Ask yourself if you want to pass an ordinance that simply zeroes out greenhouse gas emissions in new buildings. What would it be? It wouldn't be this awkward credit scheme. The answer is a simple change in the building code. All new construction shall be commissioned FIAS zero certified. A one sentence ordinance. FIAS, of course, is a passive house institute in the US and there are tougher standards than FIAS zero, including a living building challenge, but it's a good start and ensures that new buildings would be truly low carbon and zero combustion. Burlington wouldn't be breaking much new ground. Denver, Boulder County, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington state all use FIAS certification in their building codes. You have a chance to do something that is rare for lawmakers. Passing an effective ordinance while simplifying the code, make the ordinance one sentence and delete the whole bunch of nonsense that the ED has been pushing. Make all new construction FIAS zero compliant. Buildings live much, much longer than humans. You're great grandchildren. Well, thank you. Thanks. Thank you, Peter. Next is Peter Sterling. Peter Sterling. Go ahead. Great. Hello and thank you for your time this evening. My name is Peter Sterling and I'm the executive director of renewable energy for Mott, the trade association representing the hundreds of businesses working to move Vermont to a 100% renewable energy future. With just over one-third of Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions coming from heating and cooling our buildings, reducing thermal emissions is critical in Vermont's fight against global warming. That is why REF supports the enactment of Burlington's carbon pollution impact fee as approved by Burlington voters this past town meeting day to encourage the design of large commercial buildings to use heat for renewable electricity or wood pellets instead of fossil fuels like oil or natural gas. I encourage the city council to follow the wishes of voters and keep the carbon pricing at the maximum level of $150 a ton and to ensure buildings are able to deploy truly renewable fuels and technologies, including advanced wood heat. Implementing this forward-looking policy will once again reinforce Burlington's leadership role in decarbonizing our society and show the rest of the nation how carbon pricing can be part of a policy solution to fight climate change in the real-world context. Again, thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue. Thank you, Peter. Cheryl Joy Lipton. Cheryl Joy Lipton. Cheryl Joy Lipton. Hi, thanks. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. I've heard a few things. I've heard a bunch of things that I would like to talk agree with and then a couple of things that you should be aware of. Using S5 or the Affordable Heating Act is really, you need to be aware of that because right now it's not actually passed as a rule. It's just, as they say, a study at this point and it's not passed legislation until probably 2025 when it will have to go through the PUC and then they'll come back and then it will have to pass legislature. So it's not really feasible to use that as an argument. The other thing I would like to bring up is that we really can't be net zero right now. We can't be renewable right now. We really actually should be negative on the carbon because what status quo is obviously not working. So we can't just keep status quo. And the issue of renewability with biomass and biofuels is that they aren't really renewable in the time frame that we need them to be. If we are going to be using something that's going to take 80 years, 40 years, even 20 years to replenish, that's not, we need it to be a lot quicker than that right now. That could have been something to talk about maybe some decades ago, but it's not right now. The other thing is that using, so first of all, I should have started with this, which is that if you're going to have a fee on some things, whatever doesn't have a fee is of course encouraged. So of course you're going to be encouraging any of the renewable natural gas and biomass and advanced wood heating, etc. Not only is that bad for the environment and bad for the climate, it's also bad for human health. So advanced wood heating has been the data and sciences there showing that it's unhealthy for people and also the environment. Bringing up the flooding and everything that we have been dealing with here in Vermont, when we encourage the use of woody biomass, then it's going to increase its use. If that's even at the state that we're using it now, it's too hard on the forest ecosystems. And if you're just having cropland and raising trees as crop, then that's one thing. It is not ecosystems and good for the hydrological system that was working so wonderfully before we messed around with it. So to continue and to increase the amount of wood used is going to cause more damage to the forests and create more flooding and runoff than even exists now. What we have to think about at this point, what we all have to think about is what is going to be fixing the problem, not using any kind of renewable natural gas and biomass, woody biomass, is not going to fix the problem. It's more damaging to both the climate and to habitat and to forest ecosystems. We need more, there's less than 1% of older forests out there right now, and we need much more than that in order to make the land soak that extra rain up instead of having it be runoff and causing continuing to cause catastrophic flooding like we've had. I'm happy to talk more about this. It's not complicated, but it's a subject that could use more comment. So I'm happy to talk more about that if you'd like to hear about it. Thank you. That's it? Okay. Right. Is there anybody else online who wants to speak at public comment? Please raise your hand now. Okay, then we will go ahead and close public comment, and then we will move back to the ordinance discussion that we were having at our last meeting. We have the ED here, who'd like to join us. So the purpose of tonight was to take some of the testimony that we hadn't had last week we weren't able to get to because of the length of our agenda. So we've done that. And one of the things I would like to do in the community after allowing me to respond and to maybe add additional comments is to talk about a process going forward into it. So I guess first, that's sort of my vision of how the rest of this night goes. Is there anybody who has? So I have amendments to the ordinance and I'd like, you know, most of which were shared with you and Hannah from Jack, but several of them were not as I marched through the ordinance. So that works in terms of process. I can see how that fit in a process discussion. My intention is to march through the ordinance or at least through amendments starting at the top. I just started reading the stuff that Jack's on over today. So I don't know that I'm willing to discuss this, but I think my inclination to make this part of the meeting record and we need to continue making recommendations. We would do so, but certainly open to discussion. I understand that. I would like them to be placed, you know, for deliberation. I'm okay with people chatting and taking another meeting. I think that it is reasonable and again, this gets into process, so I'm willing to wait because Darren is sitting there to chat on that. You want to do that? Let's do that and then we'll get Hannah's take on process after Darren. I'll try to be succinct since we talked a lot last meeting. I guess the first item I would just mention is I do think that the initiative here is really good policy and we're very supportive of it as it currently stands. We appreciate the alignment with the state plane heat standard. We understand that we can't recreate that regulatory framework from scratch here in Burlington. We want to be where we can be aligned. I disagree with comments that state that renewable fuels are necessarily larger in terms of carbon emissions. I don't think that is consistent with the science, certainly not in all cases. I think it's conceivable in certain cases, but I think there are a lot of instances where renewable fuels have demonstrated greenhouse gas emissions benefits and that's why we're supportive of them. It so happens that renewable tends to align perfectly but largely with greenhouse gas emissions reduction. It so happens that fossil fuels that are geologically stored underground brought up in burn happen to align very poorly with the climate and with greenhouse gas emissions. I won't go into the weeds on that. I'm happy to discuss it further. The bottom line for us is the idea here that was put before Burlington voters that they approved and were grateful for that is to put a fee on fossil fuels because they are a driver of the climate crisis. To align where we can here with renewable fuels, whether that's electrification, which we're strongly supportive of, or other renewable fuels that may have applications. The only other point I'd like to make is that this ordinance applies not only to new construction but to large existing buildings and to city buildings. The large existing buildings may get short-tripped in the conversation, but it's a really critical point. I appreciate that you have us here. There are other buildings that were represented in stakeholder discussions. To try to figure out what is practical, technologically feasible, cost-effective, but then a reasonable parameter for an existing building that's going to be replacing a system, a boiler, a water heating system. How can we add a carbon price to that calculation so that they can make a good decision? As Jack Hansen mentioned when they're making that investment, but do so in a way that gives them as many tools as the toolbox is possible. I just want to reference that this applies not only to new construction, which it does, but also to major investments in large existing buildings, of which we believe there are roughly 80 that would qualify in the city of Burlington in addition to city buildings and a number of which are part of UVM Medical Center, Champlain, the school district, and then several more that are in private sector or nonprofit entities. I'll stop there. I'm glad to answer questions or help answer questions if you have, but I don't want to take more time. Okay. Does anybody in the community have questions for James Brown? Hannah, do you have comments or ideas about what you'd like to see in the process? Like you, I'm just now seeing the amendments that Jack sent over, so I need a minute to read through them before I would be ready to comment on any of them. I'd be really interested in putting them out there, whether we take the time to go through them, to read them now is, you know, think about them and talk about them now. That's fine. Having a short conversation, I'd be happy to give my reasoning, gotten some reasoning from Jack, but that may not be, it's not in the public domain, so we should share that in the public domain. And then willing just to see, I mean, I would like us to act expeditiously on that and to the extent to which I disagree with my friend Peter DeVall about strike all and just have a very simple thing. I think that the framework that we've got with amendments is one that I am in support of, so that necessitates our going through them. So that is my desire for tonight. Okay. One thing I was going to ask Jack, since you sent that material over in an email, are you okay with us adding that to the meeting record? Oh, absolutely. Okay, so we share that email with you, you can have it out to the meeting records. And anybody else who spoke in public comment, I know they could send some things over, who wants to introduce anything to the meeting record. If you have your comments in electronic form, send them to the committee and we'll make sure that they're added, like we've been doing in the previous weeks. And so next was, so again, next one, I said that next was included. Well, with that, I guess we can go ahead, I guess I would just like to make sort of a general comment and we can go into the amendments that you want to propose. And so like as we've been going through this process, I really have been trying to take it all in and following the sort of ideas that people have been putting forward. As a matter of fact, tonight, Peter DeVall spoke, he mentioned in place of his strike-off, he mentioned something I hadn't heard before, this bio-certified. So that's something I want to look at now. And I've been sort of doing that and chasing things down as they have come up in some of the testimony we've heard. One thing that has become sort of increasingly clear, it should have been obvious from the start is like, and people have mentioned it public comment, is that we have authority to do this for fossil fuels, not for any of the renewables that are even mentioned in the ordinance. At least not with the current charter language as it was passed by the voters. So, okay, well, you're done. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. And so I think we need to be mindful of that. I'm not saying future charter action might not be more expansive, but right now that's sort of what we have. So when I look at some of the discussion we're having, I'm not sure that even if we include it in the ordinance, we really have the authority to regulate. The one that stands out is potentially of the listed fuels there that we may have some discretion on would be the renewable gas, because my understanding would be blended with fossil fuel based gas. However, I still fall back to sort of in a general sort of framework, I would like to be aligned with what the state's doing, just because not being aligned with what the state does, I think, and I've said this about a number of topics, not just this one. Burlington sort of goes it alone. You know, we may think that we're leading, but we can also at the same time have a side effect of making Burlington less competitive or less affordable in terms of the place to live or to attract capital or the kinds of things we'd like to see happen in our city. So that's sort of like the lens that I bring when I consider these things. So those are my sort of general comments about this, and I'm also at a point where Jack had sent this stuff over this morning and I thanked him for it, but I was meetings all day, so I haven't had a chance to really digest it and think about that. I've read the material that Nick sent over on Saturday or something, but I'm still sort of trying to understand and take it all in. So that's sort of my general comment, I don't know if you had anything else before you also made your own amendments. I would just, I would probably echo what you said for the most part. I think when we approach this, making sure that we're aligned with the state is incredibly important just because those folks have been doing the work for so long, and I think that it will put us in a better position if we can model our ordinance after them. But again, I also did not, I'm just looking at my city email now, so I, this is the first time that I'm reading the amendments, and so I am just not probably prepared to make a ton of comments on them tonight. So, Crusade, I have the pleasure of having survived being 70 years old, that means that I have gotten to retire, and therefore I have a lot more time than you two. This is not your full-time job. I totally appreciate that. So, let me just start to challenge that last statement by the way, so I have a full-time job, another discussion. Well, the demands of this, we could get sidetracked if I can easily sidetrack, so I will stop. You mentioned a couple of things, or maybe there's three things that I have forgotten. The first has to do with the charter authority. Section 48 of the Burlington charter in some section 66, which we adopted with a charter change, a couple of elections ago, says that we have the authority to regulate thermal energy systems in residential and commercial buildings, including, and I will just add parenthetically, but not limited to including assessing carbon impact or alternative compliance payments for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions throughout the city. No assessment of a payment, I'm not going to edit it a little bit, shall be imposed unless previously authorized by a majority of the voters, blah blah. So, there are two aspects of our authority as the city. One is that we can regulate these systems in residential and commercial, and two is that we can charge a fee, but the fee is where the limit to fossil fuels is in place. Actually, I'm sorry, that's not correct. The fee has to be approved by the voters, so we can actually tax if the voters have authorized us, I say tax, I should say the non fossil fuels. So, we've got that authority, but for purposes of today, we've got to then look to the, come on, Jeannie, you just, you had it, oh wait a minute, I got it here. We have to look at what the voters approved, and the voters approved the, the imposition of a fee for new construction buildings that install fossil fuel thermal energy systems instead of using renewable energy systems or renewable fuels. So, that's what the fee is limited to, but this is not simply a fee ordinance. And we've talked about that before, and one of my amendments will, it's a very small amendment, but will make sure, well, is intended to give us the money from the fees that we're collecting to be able to administer it, because if you, the surest way says Grover Nyquist, to kill the government is to shrink the amount of money you can have so that you can chill it in a bathtub. And I'll be damned if I'm going to be part of any system like what Grover Nyquist has proposed. So, we've got to put in the authority to actually really have the funds to administer this. So, the fee is one thing, the regulations are the other, and you had one other, you had one other point in terms of maybe those were just the two points. Just, and I misspoke, I meant not the charter change which happened the year prior, but the ordinance, I mean, the ordinance language that happened for the fee. So, so that is the, the sort of the framework that we've got here. Going back to the ordinance. Oh, the last generalized point, and it segues into the actual amendments. I, too, want to be aligned with state law, but S18, I think it is S5. S5, it's Act 18. Thank you. I know this is the glitch, they just wonder like that, of which I, you know, can call on is in the preliminary stages of its implementation. And in fact, the key things that we have to, that we've incorporated in here actually will not even come into draft form until about a year and a quarter, until next fall. Don't know. And they're going to, and a year and a half in January of 25, the legislature is going to vote on them. And indeed, you listen to the governor and they overridden. They overrode the governor, but the governor's going to have a say in this as well. So, I think actually that we and align with the, at least the spirit of the state legislation, but we should not actually get ahead of that. And that whole carbon credit, which I want to thank you, Dylan, that was really helpful. Dylan offered me the opportunity to chat and we did, and it was really helpful for me to understand that. And I totally appreciate the time that you spent to do that. And it is quite possible that many of the things that we have listed will end up if getting into our ordinance, at least if I, you know, if the way that I'm looking at it is approved. But just as a segue, I believe that the heart and soul of this ordinance is in section, in the definition section in 8-77 in the definitions of renewable fuel, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. And I think that heart and soul gets too far ahead of what the state system is going to do, what that regulatory process is. And I don't want to go there. I think it opens the door for things that, and we do have actually ways to get back. But, you know, I speak in metaphors, so it's like open in the barn door, the critters out. I don't want to do that. I know the hat that goats have when they get out of the end and they eat up all of your orchard trees. So I've seen that happen. I don't want that to happen. So I can begin by going through on the lines where I see there are some changes that I would like to have made, if you would. And let me just say, I'm not proposing a change here, but on line 13 and 14, lines 13 and 14, we actually reference in this ordinance a particular vote on a particular date. And I'm not sure that we should be doing that. It didn't move to change that. I understand why it's here. If this gets amended and there are changes by the voters, you've got to amend that section. I don't know that that's the best drafting, but I just throw it out. That's the picky person that I am when coming to draft ordinances, which I've done far too many. So the first change that I would make, that I propose to make is on a line 35. And fundamentally what it does, and this is what this here said. So here is different. Well, there are a couple of things that are different. But that's a very clean, that's a clean one for Maddie. Yes, you're welcome. And here's a hard copy for you. And I have a hard copy for you, Anna, but you're not here. So I'm sorry. First one on line 35. It actually, it says here to delete the line and replace it with, it says, thermal energy from exclusively renewable comma non fossil fuel sources such as, in fact, we have the words thermal energy or from there. So it's really just adding in front of the colon there. And then you're going to have the list. So that would be the first one. And maybe it makes sense for me just to go through them sequentially or, you know, if you want to do that. Then we can go back or go just any ways you want to do. And sort of echo what Jack said, and this will be put into the record. And I hope all the public comments, particularly the ones that were in writing will also get into the public record. But as I just said, the ballot item gives us authority to put a fee on fossil fuels. It doesn't give us authority to put a fee on renewables. We can't redefine fossil fuels nor renewables as we can't redefine fossil fuels as renewables or renewables as fossil fuels. But we can provide examples of widely accepted renewable thermal energy options that achieve compliance to the ordinance. So this is Jack's reasoning on that. And so now we would march down to the next. So there's no changes in number one, which is the electric powered thermal equipment. There is no change in number two, the solar water heating, and there's no change in the renewable energy based district heating. Then the proposal is to delete lines 52 through 65. These are the three, one, two, three, four for other types of fuel, the green hydrogen source, the advanced wood heating, the sustainably sourced biodiesel or the renewable gas. And the reasoning, I think, is included with what Jack was saying. But also this is where the state law needs to get enacted. And they need to develop. They need to develop the credits. And without that, we've got a major problem. There is a whole section, Section 8127, tradable clean heat credits. It is many pages long. It's got credit values and credit issues. A list of eligible measures. There's going to be an analysis of carbon intensity of fuels. It goes on there. So this is a complicated thing that the legislature is going to create. I don't think that we're ready to determine that these things are good enough for us and then wait for the legislature to say, oh, by the way, they're not necessary. This is what the situation is. I think that we have the time in my conversations, both in the committee last meeting and also with other folks. It does not seem to me that these are systems that we are going to be needing to be permitting right now, at least before the system is in place in the state. But I would just say that in the deletion of this, I would then go, I am not proposing to delete 67 through 70, which is sort of a catch-all. It is a loophole. I understand that this will be a little loophole. But what it does do is it provides an owner, it provides an owner with an opportunity to say we can document that the system that we're going to propose and it sounds maybe like the advanced wood heating system may be a one that is prime for this, that is going to effectively meet state standards. So that is why I left that in, because there are possibilities and you need to have a system for that. I would note that we have got a typo that we need to correct in line 68, regardless of anybody's thinking about my proposed amendments. We have a typo that we should correct for the word receives. So we have an extra unit there, but that's an easy thing to do. I just wanted to point that out. Moving along to line 73, this is also a very technical amendment. We say at the end of the line of this section, and this section refers to, well, says what it means. It's the section, section 8-77, which is the definition section, line 73, eligible to satisfy the requirements of this section. And we just need to change that to section, delete this and change it to 8-78 for fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if such, it just carries on. But ultimately, where the requirements are, are in the next section down. It's not in the definitions. And if I am just not understanding that, I'd be, of course, happy to understand where I'm wrong. I think that this and the typo, these are easy mistakes that drafting made. And I want to thank Darren actually for writing a really, I think it's really a good ordinance. And it's a complicated ordinance and trying to link it with the state. So this is something I think is a mistake. I might be wrong, like I said, and if so, but it's not a criticism that I make in doing that. I want to just acknowledge the good work that you did on that. In lines 146 through 154. And I actually, this is not your comment. So Darren, here, let me give you a copy here. So then make it easier for you, I'm sorry for all the rest of you guys. I didn't make it. To delete lines 146 through 154. This is in section, in subsection D of section 8-78, which is the, although the other I said was the heart and soul. This is the way that that heart and soul works within the body. This is the body that that heart and soul get placed into. And it is replaced with, I'll just read it. There's a pretty significant deletion. Fuel or renewable fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. And an applicant shall demonstrate compliance by providing a contract that shows A, that the renewable fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions is being delivered directly to that building's thermal energy for this energy system. And I had added to what Jack had said for the life of that thermal energy system. And be the estimated quality, quantity of renewable fuel that reduces greenhouse gas expected to be delivered to that building's thermal energy system. This changes a much more complicated approach. And what Jack has indicated, and I agree, is our goal as a city laid out in the city laid out in the net zero energy roadmap and elsewhere is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel use right here in Burlington, not pay for reduction to elsewhere. A building that is consuming fossil fuels here, but paying a fee to a fossil fuel company in hopes that they will reduce fossil fuel use elsewhere is a system that is much harder for the city to regulate than simply require actual physical reductions of fossil fuel use at the building here in Burlington. Furthermore, the health and safety benefits for Burlington residents are only achieved through physical changes here, not through payments to support changes elsewhere. This deletion relates to what it would let me just read what is being deleted. They go fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, such as gas utility services that could utilize fossil fuel or renewable gas or oil heat systems that could utilize oil or visor with biodiesel and applicants shall demonstrate compliance either via a contract demonstrating that the fuel required by the thermal energy system is fully sourced from such other renewable fuels or technologies for the life of that thermal energy system parenthetically. I just brought that for the life of the energy system into that. I think that we inadvertently were dropping that in Jack's initial or to little light of annual compliance certification that the applicant is pursuing is purchasing renewable fuel to cover the entire need of the thermal energy system. If the applicant uses the annual compliance certification and the applicant fails to provide an annual compliance certification in any year that the applicant is using renewable fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, the applicant will be assessed an alternative compliance carbon pollution impact fee equal to a pro-rata share of the remaining expected life of the thermal energy system. I just have to say that I'm intrigued by the certification process and with the thinking that is really behind that because as things change, maybe a person wouldn't certify how do you approach that, but one of the problems that I think we need to make sure that we're not creating is to burn some administrative system and compliance system as I said last meeting will require it's not just send it and forget right or you know done and you know you're done you get a billing permit, you follow all the requirements, you install it, the inspector comes they say this is great and they go and there's no annual process in the way that our building system works. Certification systems require that and we sort of have that in the building in the rental housing system. We wouldn't continue to have that if you go way up, we would change the right to like say well guess what the Department of Public Utility, the Public Utility Commission has found that this fuel isn't any good so you've got to have a system that is administrative regard to this but I think a certification system is actually not the, I haven't decided that that is the right thing to do with that. There's a proposal to delete lines 156 through 160 which says if an applicant with one or more buildings is seeking a permit pursuant to this chapter and is already using one or more thermal energy systems that rely on a renewable fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, the applicant may apply for credit toward any alternative compliance carbon pollution impact fee equal to the carbon value of the renewable fuel which reduces greenhouse gas emissions used for any thermal energy system since January 1st 2023 and what Jack's reasoning which I think also makes much sense is these lines undermine the intended impact of this ordinance which is to reduce fossil fuel use in greenhouse gas emissions and buildings, building owners who have already taken steps to reduce fossil fuels use, fossil fuel is use and greenhouse gas emissions will reap the benefits of doing so. They do not need to be permitted to increase pollution going forward to allow them to do so undermines the intent of the policy while providing no tangible benefits to our community or climate on the rebate side we give incentives to people who quote unquote switch from fossil fuels to electric heating not those who have quote unquote already have electric heating let's use the same logic on the regulatory side. Two more amendments online 163 which is where the proceeds of the the fee would go to after the words proceeds and before the word shall I would like to add the words accept those funds needed to administer this ordinance it says is all alternative compliance card which an impact fee proceeds that I would have accept those funds needed to administer this ordinance shall be placed in a clean energy fund established blah blah blah I mean it is possible that that should go at the end of the sentence or somewhere else if the placement there makes is a little bit more confusing that should be and the very last thought just to finish that regardless of where it's placed I think you need an explicit allowance of the use of the fees and I know that permitting and inspections are going to need fees to administer this stuff by perhaps even BED is going to need some fees and so we should minimize those but know that we can't do it without administration and finally the last one would be to delete line 191 which is a line that says to subsidize the cost of converting the city's vehicle fleet from fossil fuels to electric and I mentioned this last week Jack says this policy is intended to accelerate building decarbonization we need strong policy stronger policies to decarbonize transportation but those should not be at the direct expense of building a decarbonization let's develop a stronger policy on transportation decarbonization that does not negatively impact building decarbonization I would say that I just would like to see how this goes forward I understand that this is when remaining proceeds are collected and not paid pursuant to helping big buildings or you know technical assistance and rebates above but the section before is to provide financial assistance to help low-income residents deal with the consequences of you know funding these initiatives and so I would like to test this before we turn around and subsidize the the fleet I think you said last time that you know you see this as a building related fee and I think there's a lot of sense to it I am open to the idea of using this per fleet electrification but not at the on the onset and that completes the what I think is actually a fairly short list of amendments for a six-page this ordinance counselor came any immediate response um I'm still trying to digest everything that Jean just said as am I but I will still play in a little bit here where I get some notes okay so um just going in order I have Jack to print it in yours and made notes on both which was sort of bad I'll be able to draw them in notes hopefully so um so one thing that stood out for me in the recommendation on 935 first of all I'll say that like I said at the outset in my sort of general comments this enumeration of of renewables um although instructive I don't know that based on the um our ability to let the fee are because that's on just on fossil fuels there they don't they sort of they're sort of instructive of the kinds of things that we would like to see but um but not necessarily things that we can do something about should people choose to use them for instance um so to go so that's my sort of secondary general comment but on 935 um what stood out to me is I like I like the simplification idea for this whole section but the word exclusively sort of jumps out at me because I think that that correct me if I'm wrong is is targeting the renewable gas correct uh maybe not only but yeah okay and so I mean that's sort of I think open for discussion I guess and we don't need to do that yeah I just want to sort of put a put a pin in that and you know and I'm not sure actually because of the because of the the safety belt because of the safety because of the safety belt you know it sort of kicks it down the road but it doesn't list it and identify it there and I'm not sure that the safety belt is um is tight enough but uh this taxed my mental abilities as you know enough so I couldn't quite get get there um with that you know thinking this through um and yeah so I'd like to put a pin and the word exclusively in in our discussion around this particular amendment um online 35 and perhaps explore that a little bit more um so that's I'll just say that for now um and then deleting lines 52 to 65 um lines 52 green green hydrogen I'm not sure that we have authority to do anything green hydrogen either way whether we include a reference to it in this list of definitions or not so I'm just asking about utility of having it as I am of advanced wood heating um is a sustainably silver splat it's um I renewable gas is different to me I think because I do think if it's mixed with um fossil fuel based gas which I believe is the intention then there is maybe uh an opportunity for us to do something that although I won't say that I'm necessarily supportive of that um I would just say that I think that bullets four five and six are different than bullets seven um and so this is my common my running commentary um and so I'm sort of I'm a little agnostic about removing four five and six and I think we need to see about the safety valve provision if we wanted to keep um we may want to keep renewable gas in its current um form uh that's anticipated for deliveries with fossil fuel gas um we want to make sure we if we wanted to do that we had the sufficient ability to do so um and the safety valve as you're calling it number eight right yes and number eight is is the safety valve so that's just like what I'm yeah what what struck me about that and I do think that um this is where the implementation while the drafting of the uh the regulations which so getting a draft regulation that defines the the carbon life cycle and that does all of those other things that that law says is critically important great to all of these better you know four through seven um and then obviously the technical uh next um on line 73 I'm supportive of that we're good veterans okay uh the uh and then you know in on line 73 with the uh the reference to the sections requirements like this section yeah yeah that's the one that yeah I I got even um and then we were on two lines 146 to 154 and had questions which was um so I followed what you were saying and I agreed that we can't create a requirement and I have an administrative framework to ensure that it happens and so I like the idea of having it paid for anticipating having it paid for through the through the through the theme um but this this part I was not clear to me if the goal here um generally is to make just to simplify this so there's a one-time certification at the beginning and not an annual certification is that what's again like I was seeing this for the first time and I was trying to read it a lot and listen to you while you um we're talking about you I think I think the answer is yes in terms of certification but I'll leave it for Jack in terms of the the rest of it um I think it's also trying to make clear that we're talking about the actual fuel being delivered to the building I think that's the other purpose of that change I still have to be track away um and I know this as well I'm just going to another thing I was going to ask about is I think it's the same question I had about it as exclusively right because again what other of the fuels that were enumerated except for natural the renewable natural gas with the supply can I speak to that because because I'm not trying to with both of these I'm not trying to prohibit the use of natural gas but I'm trying to make you clear that the avoidance of the B is specific to not natural gas that is specific to non-fossil fuels and so if you're going to be delivering a mix that's 90 percent you know fossil fuel gas and 10 percent renewable gas you would avoid the fee on the 10 percent not on the 100 not on the full thing and so this is why it's saying like we want to know what fuel is actually being delivered and how much of that fuel so we know how to assess the fee based on that if they're using a mixture thank you for that clarification that is helpful to me um over I wonder like if you install like if you install a gas burning furnace at home it's there for 20 years and the the menu of things you can buy from GS changes over that 20 years and install it it was a 10 percent let's say a 10 percent renewable 90 percent fossil fuel based mix and you did some calculation based on that and came up with a feed and then like what when if you bought then I'm buying something else from them somewhere during the light span of that um furnace then then you know and I don't think I don't know if this anticipates that the annual the annual certificate compliance certification would catch something like that I don't know if this amendment is it's if it isn't meant to be done annually or at some frequency then we wouldn't be able to um regulate that I mean I think that the the the addition of them the words for the life of that thermal energy system when connected with the with the need to provide a contract that shows that there that this is what's going to happen contemplates that and perhaps we need to to make sure as I said I speak is sort of like the trust that they're finding um that you're not going to renegotiate contract you know but if if you change the appliance then this is going or the system then this is going to kick in for the new one so you replace it gets old you replace it this is going to continue to be um in place as long as you need to end so this is all good conversation because as long as you need to get a building print very good so you know perhaps um there are but maybe maybe this is all that this is about I have to relook at that so so the first one is there and you're also then just providing that that estimates there this change does not include and I think it's a good question as to whether there's any periodic um recertifications but I would note that the proposed like that the language in the referred ordinance that we got uh the first red ordinance only applies uh the um the certification if a person chooses that contract so you still have the problem uh or those where you you've got a contract that demonstrates that the fuel requiring uh required is fully sourced right for life so um it does not contemplate an annual certification as is currently and unamended I don't say that was a gap I don't know so a contract might be just an agreement to purchase a fuel from um like in this case I can talk you about gas we're not we're not just in jets and so you could in your community having this new appliance side that you want to purchase something else they have a different product that they could sell you um which would have a potentially take a miss well the contract would have to be for the life of that energy system but it does not um on either language um address that renegotiation of a contract and the replacement of it I think that that is a good I guess that's why we need administrative ease well the annual compliance recertification I guess but I guess if you had a change it wouldn't trigger the entire program share it might just if there was you're gonna you know and again the act right now it is as it is written the annual compliance certification doesn't apply if you're showing a contract that demonstrates that it's fully fully sourced um and my next my next question so thank you and so I think that's one I want to think a little bit more about um the but I like the idea trying to simplify what's in what's there but you know without losing the intent of it um and with regard to trying to um sort of use out what might be renewable on the next I want to think about that response um the next question I had I'm hoping Aaron can help us with or maybe maybe you can why why do we have um section E this is the one uh lines 156 to 160 which I think was one of your delusions yeah why is that there what's the the intent of that is to give some credit while while at you just would it be okay if I jump backwards for a half a second just to go to the previous conversation so I don't think the contemplation was that there would be a mix of fossil and renewable fuel eligible here so I actually don't have any concern with the language exclusively because that is the intent exclusively however um I do have concern if we're taking items off the list because I think we we we know those items are going to be eligible regardless so it'd be helpful to have the fully enumerated list um having the words exclusively agree with 100 percent the issue there which kind of goes to this section you were just discussing is with fuels like renewable natural gas we don't track the molecule there there's we're not thinking about what's delivered to the building that's not a way we can actually certify anything and nobody has a lifetime contract for renewable gas if you had to if you wanted to simplify it I would argue in favor of simplifying by having only annual certification as opposed to a lifetime contract and it would ensure that every year we're checking that the person who signed up is getting that renewable fuel I think it solves the issue it's also the practical reality you can't purchase a 20-year contract with vgs for this or with the fuel dealer for biodes so having annual I would strongly urge we keep annual and get rid of lifetime want to as a way to simplify but delivered to the building is the challenge because we track renewable gas through buying the attribute and putting the premium on the customer to say I'm paying more on my fuel bill and I'm willing to have Vermont gas but I'm purchased a certain quantity for me and they're going to put it in their system but I can't track the molecule that's being delivered to my home it's been so you know part of what we presented to voters part of the presentation that we made to stakeholders was the idea that this would be an eligible option because we know there are buildings where they won't be able to electrify and where absent this option they may simply be we said fee not tax earlier it'll become a tax because they won't have an option and so you know specifically thinking about existing buildings so I would urge some caution on that piece of it relative to retaining eligibility in the way that we track it with all resources the way we track community solar we do it with renewable credits not with the electrons that are being delivered should be the same thing here to be consistent to answer your question you actually asked me though as opposed to the other piece this is also an important provision that we talked about with stakeholders we're not I think Jack mentioned this earlier this ordinance does not create a full comprehensive regulation of thermal energy and particularly with existing buildings we're really only touching 80 buildings but we know that many of those building owners have a sweep of facilities and the idea here is to encourage early action where it's not required and to have them purchase renewable fuels or install renewable systems ahead of any other requirement to do so and to get credit for that against any potential future obligation that they would have it was an idea that was presented by stakeholders in the stakeholder process it made sense to me only in the context that we're not fully regulating here to use the incentive analogy with the incentives we are sort of fully covering the field we are providing an incentive and we know that you know we're not going to give someone credit for something they already did but we're offering incentives for things we want them to do here we're not fully covering the field we're really only covering a really small portion of existing buildings and if somebody has 20 buildings and only one is covered i want them to have the incentive to do things beyond what's required and so this was an idea that came through the stakeholder sessions that were very supportive of for that reason so this is not new construct this is beyond and contemplated to be beyond new construction and existing large buildings and and city buildings the ones that are this is like right away you're a rebate system for those folks who have one or buildings right multiple buildings encouraging early action where it wouldn't otherwise be required thank you certainly no i mean i i think that that is uh that something for us to be here for us to be thinking about as as we go through i i i think that the uh the the accounting of renewable gas and i expressed my my thoughts to dylan um when we had our conversations i mean they're going to be putting those systems into the state system and they're going to come up with whatever credits the state comes up with it the state's going to add the y7 and do that whole thing and from a then then they've got this they've got a big system their accounting is really system-wide as opposed to customer-wide whereas this is related to uh to customers um i think that's it really is a a good reason for us to see how that um state system scores things and how that works out before we start adding this uh this list so that's my just sort of you know sense with that it you know it may be that the scoring will there'll be consensus people will see that um it's it's absolutely right and we can all get behind it but um that is the reason to go to that list in 52 through uh 65 and and just remove them from from that as as if they are already decided to be um that they they we've already decided that they have they are reducing greenhouse gas emissions sort of like i hate it but i want to verify it oh i apologize i don't want to speak this is the form but i know members of the penalty could i stop for a little context as well um relative to the statewide for PDAC context i would know that within the draft ordinance starting on line 37 you enumerate multiple technology beyond just those within 52 to 65 and then you propose some changes to and amongst those for instance on 37 uh several of these would fall into the life cycle analysis that the affordable PDAC will do they include cold climate air source heat pumps for outdoors heat pumps other heat pumps including district network created micro grid grid and building geothermal systems um and then additionally of water heaters uh so i would just point out that all of these technologies on this list that are contemplated as being exempt from the fee are measures that will be uh assessed on a life cycle analysis and i mentioned earlier that importance of an apples to apples comparison when we look to the science we should be sure of where the greenhouse gas reductions being made that statewide context will do and here you've sort of honored that intent by listing these as eligible measures uh based on their renewable content so it's just a piece of information i wanted to share so you know i'm happy to answer any questions about particular energy sources in that 52 to 65 section but i'll just leave it there for now just know that the affordable PDAC context statewide policymaking will be assessing all of these measures and it would include things like the electric mix and other characteristics that sort of touch on them thank you shine the light i'm sure nick would like oh yeah i'd like a chance to i actually have a proposed amendment that i think everyone would love um it's i i just think this was an oversight paragraph one line 175 if it's half of the proceeds paid into the clean energy fund by a large existing building applicant shall be available to the kore for projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at any site owned by the kore don't we want to limit that to sites owned by the kore located city of burlington i mean we talked before about wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in burlington and while you're thinking about that i just had a couple of other comments i'm concerned about adding the language to paragraph 35 exclusive renewable non-costal fuel sources such as i don't think you need it i don't think it adds anything i think it might be stopping themselves and put it that because i mean we want um electric heat pumps that are powered by the grids and they're not non fossil fuel sources because the grid contains some fossil fuel power i think that's a possible unintended consequence of that language you know we're drawing from the new england grid and it's got gas plants you know providing power to us and um i approve of the deletion of four through seven i'm concerned about the catchall and paragraph eight because i just i'm concerned that the department of permitting inspections doesn't have the expertise to determine whether the particular technology is going to reduce greenhouse gases relative to the fossil fuel to a place and i think it's a bad idea to have that catchall i think we should limit what's acceptable to discrete um types of power and then when the state finishes its process with the s5 if you think it's a program and the end of the list thanks so those are my thoughts thank you um i'm just going to time keep for us here it's six dead we have 10 minutes to wrap this up and be on our way out of here i'll be thrown out by there so um i will uh just continue i had one more comment on the proposed amendments and it was um oh no two more i uh i approve of your suggestion on line 116 read of the language and that sort of anticipates how we'll fund the administration of this using using the impact for you so i think that that's a good that's a good change for us to to introduce um line 191 is one that i was stuck on early and our deliberation on this um on this ordinance and you know my preference would be to if it's where we're we're raising Mississippi on the thermal sector it should be used to address the thermal sector however um you know i also understand sort of a fiscal position of this city and meaning to have as many tools in the toolbox we have in our constrained capital environment so i'm open to sort of being broad enough to allow it but also i think i agree with you gene that we should really use it as a tool to blast disorder here because we really we need you know this year i think we we replaced seven vehicles in the entire um we're in a normal year we were you know we were up in the high team to look on us um and so that's going to start to add up over time we're about to figure something out while we're paying for our high school so this is just a reality of where we are and the letters we need to pull and you know obviously um that's why this is in here so i'm open to it i don't love it um and i've made that known and i'd rather see the place whether as in buildings and getting uh other systems in place for folks who might not be able to otherwise afford them that meet our climate spot um so one alternative is to instead of having this be a second alternative to the lie three the lies is that you have it be a fourth section and if there are no low-income burlingtonian residents and there are no large existing building applicants and there are no other um folks that um are eligible for weatherization um or increased utility costs that are found in the sections above and there's still money left over then maybe then you then you can you know electrify the fleet but you know you're basically because if because i can tell you right we'll like add this and we'll we will take money out of this to fund the electrification of the fleet at the expense of low-income folks i i've dollars to donate we will figure out a way to shrink that amount because we've got multiple constituents and i don't want to do that everybody who's in a list above um i think should uh be able to benefit from these monies and if there's any money left over well that's a very good um and public use of the funds but um so that that that is one off the top way that we could probably you know be too clever by house um so those are those are my comments um and do you have anything you'd like to weigh in with um the only thing that i would agree with right now is amending um line 163 with keen's amendment i feel good about that too that's the feed yeah yeah okay um so that's as far as we can get tonight and i so for next steps um i had messaged the uh them drivers the chair of the artist's committee and he said they'll get to a little more done away um so they don't have it scheduled right now um and so i think uh i think that i still want to sort of take in some of what was um offered and learn a little more and think about it and i don't know maybe you can do as well and i'll hand us a sheet itself um so given that um we would be able to maybe take some time out of our regular schedule but i think it's dangerous because we're always have have a lot we have a lot of stuff i would think that us meeting on the 15th which is two weeks i have so essentially i got to get to just suggest that with our meeting on the 22nd already therefore normal things dpw always loves us to to take up stuff uh on the 15th on the 15th no work for you and it's a tuesday yeah i'm checking right now i think it should yeah so i could i can meet that day and so we would then at that point maybe review and this is the process piece we should probably decide on the next four minutes um see if there's something we can all recommend and if we all can recommend something we can offer those things that we discussed along with any commentary by individual counselors on what they support and don't support does that seem like somebody's we offer that to the ordinance committee sure i mean i think that if two of us were to feel good about something then we should be able to you know to let them know that but but i think that they should get you know they should get a full understanding of yeah yeah and every every voice every committee voice should be part of it and all the community voices are part of the record they should get it if we're going to plug them and it's not i mean i know personally i i plan to would attend those meetings and they deliberate on that um to me i know the complex so um we can use the discussion in ordinance as well on as i'm sure members of the public and other stakeholders so yeah and it would be really helpful to get staff comments on of these proposed amendments as well because you know if we have two weeks then we get a chance to you know to mall and you've got alternatives and or your comments and are there there are proposed tweaks or changes i mean i think this has been a good process for that i want to continue that so is the meeting on the 15th at the same time uh yeah so it'd be at five o'clock if we can get around so much this room is not available and dpw uh 625 is not available could we could we be a vgd we'll check okay momentarily yeah we were going to go there last time we ended up here so long as i have a magic screen was on the way to we do keep technologically project us into the world i could ask how can the public participate will you post the proposed amendments i believe we're going to post uh what uh gene discussed which was a variation or in addition to what jacket emailed the committee all that's going to be part of tonight's meeting so you could see that and if you had additional things i know you've already submitted things via email and we've included them in the record you could continue to do that process okay and any particular language it would be great i think for us to get proposed amendments and to get it it's sort of its own document that says this is a proposed agenda amendment or for this ordinance and that's not buried rather than marked up some of those graphs you know and you know something that makes it clear thanks to us what they are and you know that really focuses on the on the objective so that it's easy for us to identify it as opposed to the whole you know you're giving us secret pages but not only that one line that you were talking about is what's right right so tie back they do that like the legislature will in the way that they mark up things that they just like i kind of find the limits okay we'll have to check and get back to you if that's okay that's fine if if we can't do it maybe people will find a place okay to do it well just to my invitation so right oh it did tentatively and we'll be uh what's the address it's on 585 585 five o'clock on the 15th to continue this conversation oh it was declined i'm sorry i thought it didn't that it declined me we'll we'll check on we will find we will find a meeting place we can try fletcher free library we can do that if we needed to i don't know do they have like uh they have screens yeah that's a lot everybody does sure yeah thank you okay thanks everybody uh without any further business i will adjourn us it's 701