 Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for being here. Last week I talked about my concern that halfway through the session, neither body in the legislature has passed a housing bill. Even though most would agree, we have a housing crisis. This week the house is set to pass H687, a conservation bill that in my opinion will actually make it harder to build housing in most areas of the state. Also this week, House Appropriations is trying to figure out how to fill a gap they created in the BAA. And it looks like housing investments could be on the list of cuts. That turns out to be the case, and maybe they're saying housing isn't the crisis they campaigned on. But housing isn't our only challenge. So this week I wanted to talk a little bit about affordability and give an update. With a clean heat standard implemented after the overall my veto last year and the renewable energy standard bill that will be considered this week in the house. Before we dive into the details of these bills, both of which will add significant costs on Vermonters, it's important to think about them in the context of all of the other added costs Vermonters face, everything in the aggregate. In addition to cuts to housing and other investments, the house is also talking about raising taxes, which I don't think will be a surprise to many Vermonters, unfortunately. But here are a few things to think about. First, two and a half months ago I proposed a balanced budget which grew at 3.57%. Funded programs and services may do investments in priorities like housing, public safety, and flood recovery without raising taxes for fees. Second, while trying to raise taxes is nothing new for the legislature, unlike last year, they're not talking about raising taxes and fees for a new benefit. They're talking about raising them to fill budget gaps they created after overspending last year. We're already one of the highest tax states in the nation, and any tax on businesses will be passed on to consumers, which at the end of the day will hit everyday Vermonters. And let's not forget, Vermonters are also about to face a historic property tax increase, all while people and businesses are paying 20% more at the DMV this year. And on July 1, Vermonters will be hit with a new $100 million payroll tax. As a reminder, both of these increases I vetoed that were overridden. On top of that, in the not too distant future, Vermonters could pay hundreds or thousands of dollars more per year to heat their homes with a clean heat standard. I continue to be concerned about the impact this will have on everyone. But especially low income and rural Vermonters. So when my veto was overridden, I said we'd keep Vermonters informed on the process. Mr. Tierney will provide an update in a couple of minutes. She'll also talk about the renewable energy standard bill that's moving through the House this week, which could cost ratepayers hundreds of millions over the next 10 years. And while we share the goal of using more renewable energy, reducing emissions, it doesn't mean there's an open checkbook. Our public service department spent 18 months engaging directly with Vermonters and crafting a plan that would actually get us there faster at lower costs and in a more equitable way than the House bill. Unfortunately, all that work was ignored and their proposal was instead written by the utilities, lobbyists, and special interests. Vermonters can't afford to put theory and good intentions over practical solutions. We're seeing that firsthand with the clean heat standard and they should learn from it and take the time to get the renewable energy bill right. So it's actually feasible and affordable. With that, I'll turn it over to Commissioner Tierney for those updates. Thank you, Governor. Good afternoon, Commissioner Tierney for the Department of Public Service. Updating the Vermont Renewable Energy Standard has been the focus of much discussion this legislative session. And as you may recall, as the Governor just noted a moment ago, the Department of Public Service proposed a path that was developed by closely engaging with Vermonters themselves who told us the number one priority in securing their clean renewable energy future should be affordability. The department's path would move all Vermont utilities to 100% energy that is free of carbon emissions by 2030. But to date, the department's proposal has been set aside in favor of H-289. Both the House Committee on Environment and Energy and House Appropriations devoted a lot of time to crafting and reviewing H-289. I want to acknowledge that work, even if I do not share the view that H-289 is the preferable path to getting where we agree Vermont needs to go, 100% carbon-free energy in the near future. Vermonters want to do the right thing to combat climate change, but in a way they can afford. H-289, as presently drafted, does not meet that standard. Not when the department has a proposal on the table that is more affordable following 18 months of talking to Vermonters about what they want their energy policy to look like. As we consider the costs of updating the renewable energy standard in 2024, we need to keep in mind that these costs would come on top of the costs Vermonters are already paying for the existing renewable energy standard that became law in 2015. In this year's annual energy report, the public service department reported that the costs of the 2015 standard for just one year, 2022, were approximately 15 million, and that the net present value of the future costs for just the 2015 standard will fall in the range of 107 million to 280 million over the next 10 years. So again, the costs for H-289 would be on top of the costs of the 2015 standard that is already law in Vermont. Now the joint fiscal office has also spent a lot of time this session estimating the potential cost impacts of H-289, and I hold the work of JFO in high regard, even if I can't agree with all of their conclusions. The department has reviewed both the first fiscal note and the revised fiscal note, and has audited the JFO's testimony about H-289 costs estimated before house appropriations. Still, the department remains firm in its assessment that the JFO's range of estimated costs is too low. This too low estimate is understandable given that JFO qualified its analysis at page eight of the revised H-289 fiscal note. JFO said there remain five substantial, I quote, topics that are worthy of consideration but require more time to study, and I agree with that assessment. Here are some of the more specific reasons why the JFO's H-289 cost estimates seem too low to the department. On the power supply side, the JFO's revised fiscal note concludes that H-289 will result in significant costs of remonters, about 150 to 250 million from implementation through the year 2035. For reference, the estimated cost of the department's proposal is 110 million for that period. Now, neither the JFO estimates nor the department's estimate captures what res updated costs will be to remonters beyond the year 2035. But there will be such costs, they are in law if this law passes, and the costs beyond 2035 will be significant. They will be additional to what remonters are paying now, and as yet, these additional costs remain unquantified and unaccounted for in the estimates we have so far. On the transmission side, the revised fiscal note nominally states the low end of the cost range is zero. But then on page six frankly concedes that there actually are likely to be costs. Moreover, H-289's approach to speeding up more in-state renewable energy depends heavily on optimal siding. An issue that has notoriously hard fought in our state, especially in many of the very places and communities where this optimal siding would need to occur if the JFO's low cost estimates of H-289 are going to translate to reality when implemented. And even if we assume no transmission infrastructure costs only to an RES update, we would need to deploy alternatives to building transmission infrastructure, such as load management, storage and curtailing generation. These alternatives are also costly and represent additional money but monitors will have to pay toward the renewable energy transition. Nor do the JFO cost estimates for H-289 include carrying costs for the transmission and distribution investments that will be necessitated by H-289. What are such carrying costs? It's like when you build and finance in addition to your house. You pay interest on the construction and you pay more tax on the property value you've added to your house. In the world of transmission and distribution investment, an example of the carrying costs is the additional money rate payers will pay in rates to utilities to invest capital in the transmission and distribution needs resulting from H-289. Now, we will no doubt continue to debate exactly what the best estimated cost of 289 is, but the bigger point is what matters and that should inform our policy judgment. The bigger point is what Vermonters need to know their government is paying attention to. The bigger point is that by any measure, any estimate, the total costs of Vermont's investment in renewable energy current and future is sizable, material and therefore must be managed at a pace that is affordable for Vermonters. Again, H-289 as presently drafted does not meet this standard. Certainly not when the department's 110 million cost estimate is still on the table as that is clearly more affordable and certainly not when the JFO tells us there is more information worthy of consideration if they just had more time to study it. The many estimates we have on the cost of 289 and PSD's proposals are just that in the end, their estimates. Directionally, the differences between the two proposals are clear. The PSD's proposal comes at an estimated cost above business as usual of 110 million over the next 10 years while H-289's costs could easily exceed 500 million for that same period. The two proposals are exactly the same when it comes to the emission reductions required by the Global Warning Solutions Act by 2035, although the department's proposal gets to carbon free by 2030, which is five years ahead of 289. And I emphasize only the department's proposal and estimates come following substantial public engagement consistent with the spirit of Act 154, which the legislature invested considerable time and effort in last year of passing. Passing H-289 adds cost, complexity, and risk with little additional benefit to Vermonters. The PSD's proposal offers a path toward achieving 100% clean energy with straightforward recognition of utility power supply resources and investments, manageable increases in rates that won't fort electrification and a structure to embrace community benefits and needs. The department's proposal will also result in building significant and necessary in-state renewables when and where they are needed to optimize the significant grid investment Vermonters have already made while leaving resources to support other resilience and decarbonization initiatives and the extensive orchestration needs of the emerging modern grid. We need to remember that Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions are overwhelmingly concentrated in the thermal and transportation sectors, how we stay mobile, how we stay warm. Vermont needs to electrify these sectors, to do what we need to keep the rates of our renewable electricity as low as we can so that folks won't shy away from switching to electricity. To fight climate change, we need folks to switch to heat pumps, but that is a very hard sell. When considered side by side with the many other cost of living increases Vermonters are now facing as we speak, whether at the pump or at the grocery store or at the doctor's office or at town hall when paying property taxes. In fighting climate change, Vermonters simply cannot afford government policies that fail to heed their clearly expressed priority, which is affordability. Now, turning to the clean heat standard update that the governor promised you, here's what I can report. You no doubt recall, as the governor said from last year's session, that the administration expressed deep concerns about passing a law that sent Vermont on a course to create a clean heat standard with so much still unknown about the hit Vermonters inevitably will take to their wallets. The general assembly nonetheless passed such a bill and the Public Utility Commission is now hard at work in designing a rule that will come back to the legislature for review and about. The work before the PUC on the clean heat standard is moving at a swift pace under pressure of statutory deadlines that are challenging and in one important instance at least have proved demonstrably unworkable. By that I mean the requirement to appoint a default delivery agent before getting the results of the potentiality study that will materially define the scope of the work of that agent. I want to express my gratitude to the Senate Natural Resources Committee for its responsiveness in passing out S305 when this particular problem was brought to their attention a few weeks ago. Designing a regulated market for fuel providers when those entities have never been regulated in this manner before is to say the least complicated and Vermonters have a lot of writing on the PUC getting it right. Consider for instance the cost implications that attach to developing clean heat credit values or emissions reduction pacing for fuel providers not to mention default delivery agent costs as well as an estimated measure mix, a technical and program potential study and other details. Nearly every organization that has commented in the commission's proceedings about process and scheduling has indicated that this combination of complexity and procedural pace is challenging their ability to contribute their best thinking. In turn the PUC has been doing all it can to meet the statutory deadlines that have been imposed for developing a draft clean heat standard by rule by January 2025. Still these comments from participants are cause for concern because most of us know from our own life experience that haste makes waste. And with that, Governor, I turn this back to you once I get all my papers ready. Thank you, Commissioner. We'll now open up to questions. Governor, the plan you're talking about is at the 2022 Conference of Energy Plan. What the Commissioner of Charity will refer to you. This would be better. It's the renewable energy. Andrew. No, but that was a good question. The, what we're talking about is an actual legislative proposal we made this year. And I might add that that proposal is consistent with what we laid out in the Comprehensive Energy Plan where the department and the Scott administration called for 100% renewable by 2030, I think. Is it 30 or 25? What's the name of it? The Comprehensive Energy Plan. Do we call for 100% by 2030 or 2035? We call it the Comprehensive Energy Plan called for consideration by 2030. Thank you. What's the name of that proposal that you put forward, let's just say the proposal. I would say it's the RES reform proposal from the department. Renewable energy standard proposal. Well, thank you all. Maybe this is the question for the Commissioner, maybe TJ as well. How much of our carbon emissions actually come from non-renewable energy? You mentioned it was mostly, like how big of a dent will this make in our Global Warming Solutions Act requirements? Sure, TJ Poor, Director of Planning at the Public Service Department. The electric sector is a really small share of our Global Warming Solutions Act emissions accounted for our emissions. The thermal and transportation sectors are overwhelmingly the majority of the emissions are responsible for the majority of emissions. I don't have the exact number off the top of my head, but I believe it's less than 5% right now come from the electric sector as accounted for by GWSA. You have to talk about the impact on the rate payers. I mean, what would this mean for your electric bill? Like what's the cost of that there? Well, yeah, it's a challenge to kind of have these big numbers, right? The 500 million, 150 to 450 million, whichever one is your preference and translate those to electric bills, those are net present value numbers. So it takes the stream of impacts in each year and discounts them for the time value of money. But rate impacts are actually accounted for the actual dollars associated with each year of impact. And we reported last year that our current renewable energy standard over the next 10 years was estimated to be, as the commissioner said, $107 to $280 million for our current standard. And those are net present value terms. That equates to less than 1% to a little under 5% rate impact as an average over the 10 years. Governor, something I've been hearing from senators and others is that we need to reduce these emissions. We need to reach these goals in order to reduce climate-caused damage, mitigate damage. Is there a connection between what we do here in Vermont and in terms of reducing our emissions and reducing the damage caused by climate change? I think we have to accept the fact that climate change, I believe, is real. That carbon emitting fuels is the culprit. And then we have to do everything we can to reduce those emissions. But if you're asking me whether Vermont on its own can do this and turn it around in a short period of time, I'd say no. We're just one small piece of this very, very large puzzle. And as well, this is just, it's not instantaneous. It's going to take some time for this to take place in probably decades before we'll see any effect of what we're doing today. But it doesn't mean we don't do anything. We have to do something. But to take it on all at once without considering the affordability and the impact on Vermonters, I think is not acceptable. I think we have to consider that. Anything else you wanna add? The proposal also to create a climate super fund allowing the state to sue fossil fuel producers. I know you've been asked about before. What's your thinking on that bill? You know, I've commented a few times on this and creating a fund is one thing. Suing the big oil, so to speak, is a daunting challenge. Probably a better question for the attorney general. But I would say this is not instantaneous either. This will take years, if not decades to see through. I wouldn't look for this to be the solution to some of our financial issues. Not any time soon. Secretary Moore, would you like to comment on that? Which is just to note, we spent a considerable amount of time in Senate judiciary, which was working on S-259 and encouraged them to look at the resilience implementation strategy that the governor on behalf of A&R and the treasurer had announced work on back in January, which will start to actually estimate the costs necessary to invest to have landscape level resilience. We don't have that number right now. There's also concerns about how we would estimate some of the fuel volume calculations that are included in that bill. I think in concept, it is a really interesting approach. The governor's right, this is gonna take a considerable amount of time and unlikely to face a considerable amount of legal challenge and resistance. But there are pieces of that that are in motion and other pieces of it that we think, foundational pieces of that effort that need more work right now. Is it present form? Probably not. Are you concerned about the short term costs of legal challenges and having to defend the state and court around that? Well, again, I think it's a better question for the attorney general. I don't know what their forecast is, how much they would estimate that it would cost to mount a challenge on our own. I'd prefer myself to let some other big states lead the charge on this, like California and New York. They have all kinds of resources and all kinds of money that we don't have and let them take the lead. A couple weeks ago, when you talked about school consolidation and difficulty in having local schools make that decision because they almost always say no. And you suggested that perhaps the state could play a larger role in determining consolidation. Is that their assessment? Yeah, I would say so. I mean, there's all kinds of ways to do that. I think I also, I don't know if I mentioned this or not, but when I was in the Senate at the time that we put the moratorium on school construction, for instance, in that legislation though, in that Capitol Bill, we put a provision for funding if you would consolidate. No one took us up on that offer as I recall, but that could be on the table as well. If you're willing to consolidate and bring these schools together, particularly high schools, that we could participate in a higher level for school construction, which is something that I believe a lot of them need, but bringing them together and providing that carrot incentive I think would be what I'm talking about. You're not talking about any sticks? Well, it's always sticks, but I would much rather the carrot approach. I mean, that hasn't worked, right? Well, I don't know. I mean, we're a much different time at this point. I mean, you look at all the schools. I mean, you've used this, for example, before. We have Monterey High School. We have U32, what, four miles away. We have Northfield High School. We have Spalding, all within a stone's throw of each other, and it just seems to me there's a better way of doing it. When I was in high school, Monterey High School, was a division one school. Today, I think there may be division three. I don't know if they have a football team or hockey team or anything like that. I mean, the number of students that were losing out of these schools is dramatic. So we've got to find a better way, and we have to find a way not just from a costy end point, but the quality of education and the opportunity for kids. That seems to be always lost. I mean, we've spent, if you look back maybe 10 years or so, when I first came into office, or maybe a little bit before, I think we were about $1.5 billion we were spending for education, which was that I thought was significant. That had increased dramatically over 10 years. But now we're spending almost $1 billion more than that. This is unsustainable, and we have to find ways to reduce those costs and give the kids the education they deserve and need. Holds on the phone. I'm going to go back to the room. We'll start with Chris Roy, Newport Daily Express. Chris, I see you there. It looks like you're still muted. All right, we'll try Keith, Rob and Harold. So I was talking to some homeless shelter providers and advocates about what happened over the weekend with the GA program. According to them, they've gone a little slow. There was some better communication. But I was wondering what your administration kind of learned from that whole scene and what you might do differently in the future? If anything, I don't know, but here's what you heard about. Well, again, I think from a planning perspective, it went fairly well. We, in a matter of two to three weeks, we were able to put together four emergency shelters, congregate shelters with enough cots in an area with mostly buildings that were state-owned. I think showed that we set this up with EMTs and had some oversight with the help of the National Guard, as well as with folks from AHS and to make sure that we're keeping people safe at least overnight as we transition during this inclement weather period. So from that perspective, I think we did a good job. Emergency management led the charge on this and I think it was worthwhile. We didn't receive a lot of intake as a result in the single numbers in Rutland and here in Berlin. In fact, I think it was like three nights of zero here in Berlin, three nights of zero in Bratleboro, maybe up to seven or eight in Rutland. And then the most was in the increase, I think in the first night, it might have been probably six or seven in Burlington, but it's increased to maybe 26 last night. So we know, and that was probably in Burlington as a result of their shutting down their shelter, that closing that facility on Sunday night. So that most of those who were in the, participated in the Hotel Motel program weren't the ones who we had in the Burlington facility. So in terms of communication, obviously I know that there was some concern over that, but what we were trying to do is help those communities. We didn't know what to expect when we first arrived at this situation where we knew from a seasonal standpoint that we were going to go to the inclement weather provision, which would mean somewhere between four and 500 people, it would be not eligible for the program, the GA program, another 12 to 1500 are still there, by the way. So some thought that all of them were exiting the program, but that wasn't the case. Those, the most elderly, those disabled and those families were still in the program. These were mostly single adults who were of working age and eligible to work. So in that regard, we didn't know what to expect. So we had to plan ahead and or we felt we had to plan ahead. We didn't have to do anything under a normal transition from the general assistance program. Nothing would be provided for a sheltering beyond the Hotel Motel program. It would all be just triggered by inclement weather. But we thought it was best to do that, to protect the communities, because we didn't want to see 100 to 150 people out on the streets sleeping on the sidewalks in downtown Rotland or Burlington or Brattleboro or Bennington or Barrie or Montpelier. And so we just, we activated to make sure that didn't happen and we were able to protect people. In the end, I think it all seemed to work out. There were no real incidents that I'm aware of. And so I think it was a successful mission from that standpoint, but we still have a homeless population that is still there. And we need more housing and more emergency shelters, homeless shelters in order to provide for them in the future. And unfortunately, the legislature took four million away from us out of the Desert Adjustment Act that we were going to use for homeless shelters and we're engaging with the ACB to see what their plans are accordingly. So we know we need more housing. That's what I keep harping on, and but we need more of all from all aspects, whether it's homeless shelters, emergency shelters, low-income housing, middle-income housing, housing throughout. So that's going to continue to be my focus. I have some, no, go ahead. Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, does anyone know if there was a reason, my understanding was they had to go to one of these shelters to fill out this form to get screened for disability if they came in under the cold weather but does anybody know why that just couldn't have been done where they were in their rooms at the hotel? Is there, I don't know about the logistics of it, but. Yeah, I believe, I mean, we talked about that and I believe that they were as best they could but I'll let Secretary Samuelsen react to that. You're on mute, Jenny. Thank you. I do, thank you Governor and I do want to reinforce that we were actively communicating, going door-to-door in the hotels last week, providing the waivers and for those who didn't meet or putting them under their door, communicating that with them with mail and also talking with the service providers who've been an integral part of this. When it comes to those who have a waiver form, those sets were critical and individual did not have to come to one of the shelters to fill it out and in fact, the majority didn't. They were able to meet with their own providers who attested they were able to work with local community partners, they were able to work with economic services and so we've been really flexible in how individuals can fill out that form and get it to us and I just want to reinforce that over and over again and as well, as we've gone door-to-door, one of the things that's critical to Governor's set is over and over and over again, what our clients need is housing. They need a unit and a unit that they can't afford. I think that this has proven that in states. Tom Davis, Cuppas-Fermont, Kevin, seven days. Hi, Governor, can you hear me? We can. So on this question of the homeless shelter and I just have a broader question for you about whether you agree with the legislature's decision to expand eligibility to include more people with more types of disabilities to be able to stay in motels through June 30th. Did you agree with that or was that part of the problem here is that they tried to broaden the pool of people that would be able to stay? No, I mean, that was in the budget adjustment. I signed the budget adjustment. We knew that going in. I don't know if they're planning something more at this point, I haven't heard, but in conjunction with that, as we've talked about before, the $80 cap was important in order to accomplish what we needed to accomplish. And I thank the legislature for keeping that in and remaining steadfast in that commitment because as we struggled over the last two or three weeks before budget adjustment passed, we had our folks working on this a day and night engaging with the hotel owners and they didn't believe that it was going to happen. They thought, to be honest, the legislature was gonna cave once again because they've done it time and time again over the last three or four years, or a couple of years when we've tried to transition out of this hotel-motel program. So they were surprised and they were holding off but keeping some of them, keeping an open mind. Some said that they wouldn't do it but they ended up doing it in the end when the legislation passed. So again, it was all a concerted effort in combination with a lot of different factors that led to us being able to do this. So we won't be at least expending as much money per night for these hotel rooms, which is we'll save maybe not half but darn close to half of what we were paying before. Okay, well on the subject of cost, I mean there are some people who have the impression that the transition here was sort of intentionally made somewhat difficult for people to participate in because it would result in 500 or so fewer people in hotel rooms that the state would have to pay for. Was that part of the motivation for the management of this transition? Well the transition, as I said before, we didn't have to do anything. We didn't have to provide any emergency sheltering for these folks transitioning out of this program that were no longer eligible for the GA program. So this was known, it was known by the legislators, this was no surprise. But what may have surprised them was us creating an opportunity over a seven day period to transition a little bit further. Maybe a little bit of a glide slope here for some because we didn't know what was going to happen but again, I'm pleased that it wasn't a mass amount of people who needed to be sheltered, it seems. And we kept in contact as well as this was a combined effort amongst many different agencies and departments and public safety, kept in contact with the localities to make sure if there was any increase in the amount of people they were seeing out on the streets and so forth as a result of this and the report back, at least to me, was that there was no increase, no impact that they saw. So it appears that everyone had a plan and was able to do something different and maybe they did receive that and made other arrangements for housing. Thanks, can I change the subject briefly? Yep. I just got back from New York City where I explored an overdose prevention site in Harlem and wrote a story about it in seven days today and I was wondering, do you intend or would you be open to having members of your administration tour that site before you entertain, signing a bill about overdose prevention sites in state of Harlem? I am assuming our Agency of Human Services would be willing to look at that facility. I remain skeptical of this for a number of different reasons, take my personal views aside, put that aside from a practical standpoint. I mean, we're not Harlem here in Vermont, right? We don't have the density of population that Harlem does and from my pragmatic mind, the way it works is I can't get it through my head how a safe injection site, let's say in the middle of Burlington where we know there's an increased need because of xylazine and fentanyl where people have to shoot up more and sometimes not even shooting up, they're smoking and I'm not sure, I mean, there's another pragmatic thing that goes through my mind, are we gonna allow people who smoke to satisfy their addiction? And I'm not sure about that, but put that aside and so you have density in Burlington and if this is truly just about Burlington to take people off the streets and get them out of sight so they aren't on Church Street in downtown Burlington I can understand it, but if people are thinking that there are going to be those who are addicted come from Essex or Shelburne or South Burlington or Milton or Colchester, to all of a sudden come when is it open 24-7, 365 and come drive down into Burlington to shoot up and we put them on their merry way back home in their vehicle, none of this makes any sense to me. So I'm a skeptic at best, but in reaction to your question I'm sure the agency of human services would be willing to go take a look, maybe they don't have to, I'm sure your article is going to give great details on that, so they may not have to. One detail in that story is that the overdose prevention sites that operate in New York City do so without state approval, they do so with city approval and I wonder if you envision, well I will say that the new mayor-elect of Burlington has said that if this is not something that the state signs off on she will need to explore doing so unilaterally for the city. What's your actual act? Well again, I think you probably know the answer to that. I vetoed a charter change for Burlington for this purpose I believe. So I probably would do the same in this regard. So I'm just, I don't want to lose sight of the fact that we have a program available now that has been working and it's about treatment and recovery and prevention and enforcement. So we have the four legs of the stool that appears to be working and I would not want to take any money, significant money in this case from what I've heard to set up this site that would take away from measures that we know works. So for those who say wouldn't this be worth it if we just saved one life in Burlington? I say how many are we going to lose as a result of decreasing the amount of money they'll be receiving for treatment and recovery? So it's a balancing act that I'm not willing to go out on the limb on this one. I believe that what we're doing is working and until someone proves otherwise, I'll continue to maintain that attack. Thanks very much. I appreciate it. The last question would be though, by what metric are you saying things are working because over those deaths they're at all times? Well actually I believe they're down just a little bit. I know Burlington is down over all statewide. They're down just a little bit. It's not a time for celebration, believe me, but over last year I believe they're down just a bit. We'll see how the numbers work their way out. Okay, thanks so much. Tim McQuiston from our business magazine. All right, we'll try Chris one more time before we come back to the room. All right, back to the room. For the Climate Superfund Bill is 259. 289 is the Senate's social media age-appropriate design bill for children, which they passed unanimously for all stages of passage. Yesterday have you read the bill? I have not read the bill. Is it an S-bill? It's an S-bill, yes. And it's going over to the house at this point. Yeah, I have not seen it, but it sounds like we have some time to take a look. How do you feel just in general about the concept of compelling big tech to adjust their programming and the addictive coding nature for children? Yeah, I mean, overall we want to protect our kids and big tech probably has a role to play in that. So we'll just, the devil's always in the details though. Ways and Means is also working on that big Medicaid expansion for Dr. Dinosaur, pregnancy women, really big expansion. Have you seen the bill? I believe we have been working on that as well. And I'll refer to Secretary Samuelsson on that to see if she has any input. Yeah, we've been working very closely with the committees on that bill. And I think particularly to do an assessment of the fiscal impact of it and to identify what the federal impacts of that bill are. I think some of those are still outstanding. And at this point, I believe it's now more of a study than actual implementation for this year. But I do think that if implemented these major changes, they were going to need to have a clear discussion on where that funding comes from. Well, yeah, because Medicaid is an infinite amount. We are under pressure to keep it within a certain range. So part of our global commitment. I was wondering, the last couple of weeks you've expressed frustration, I think, with the legislature over housing, active 50 budget pressures. Today we heard about taxes, education spending. Is this kind of from your experience of the last eight years, business is usual? Or is there something different going on this year that there's more of a tension between the legislative and executive branches of government? I think a couple of things. From my perspective, things have changed from a financial standpoint, fiscal standpoint over the last four years. We had all kinds of federal money flowing in the doors. Many of the legislators have never experienced a downturn. So we're seeing many in denial, I believe, in terms of the reality that's here right before us. We simply don't have the money. And without raising taxes and fees further, we have to try and live within our means. And they seem unwilling to do that. I've heard some who say, it doesn't matter how much we have to spend, we just need to provide these services and then we're just gonna raise taxes to fulfill that. And that's just not the way I work. And it's not the way Vermonters, I think, would want us to work. They have to live within their budgets. And we're putting an awful lot of pressure on them. I mean, think about, it's like the perfect storm here. $225 million in property tax or education fund increases, which is going to amount to at least a 20% increase in property taxes. And on top of that, as I said before, DMV fees increasing, we're seeing inflation. That is skyrocketed over the last three or four years. All of this coming together at one time. And the legislature is still looking at ways to spend more. There's hundreds of millions of dollars worth of proposals out there somewhere where they think they need to have them fulfill. And I know it's going to put a lot of pressure on the appropriations committees at this point, but I don't think there's any more taxing capacity in the state. We're already one of the most expensive states in the country. We suffer from a demographic crisis, a housing crisis, and all of it's linked together. And affordability is another factor in that. So who are we going to ask to pay more? And I think the issue here is, what's the impact going to be this year? You take property tax increase, whether you're renting or you own a home, it doesn't matter. You're still going to feel the impact of this education fund increase, believe me, even renters. So you take that and you take an average cost of a home, maybe take something like 250, 300,000, maybe 350, the median age, and then you factor that in on top of all the other increase we're seeing and inflation and all the other areas of pressure, financial pressure. So individuals, families are going to have to ask themselves, what are we going to do without this year? We're faced with spending $3,000 more this year on taxes and fees and so forth. What are we going to do without? And it's a stark reality for some low income families, middle income families, our workforce. I mean, what are they going to do? I didn't know more summer camp for their kids. What is it that they give up? And I think it's a stark reality. It's time for us to try and live within our means so we can protect them. And I don't see enough of that. Well, what about a 3% surcharge on the mothers who make more than $500,000? Well, again, I don't know what impact that will have on them. Maybe that would be something that they would find palatable. I know 23 individuals wrote that they would be willing to pay more taxes. Now, I don't know if they represent the thousands who make over that. I mean, I don't know if they're talking about $500,000 and over. Are they talking about single events if someone sells their businesses another 3% on that? Is it just an ordinary income? What is it that would define what $500,000 is is it over a three-year period? What is it? So the devil's in the details. We'll see what happens. But is that going to satisfy the need? And when is the breaking point for some of them who have, they have other choices. They don't have to stay here in Vermont. They can go to other states. They don't have to travel very far to go to a state that has no income tax. Could you see yourself supporting a comprehensive property tax reform measure that included, let's say, an additional $50 million to the education fund in order to buy down this day a lot of property tax rate? I, there would have to be an awful lot of other things included in that. I propose a number of things over the last eight years that have not been given the light of day. So unless we're looking onto the other side of the equation, if we're just talking about raising revenue, I'm not interested. It had to be coupled with some other significant structural changes in order to satisfy this in the future. Just putting more money is just putting another band-aid on. That's not gonna fix anything. Up in our last Saturday, the Windsor County Republican Committee changed leadership. They basically got rid of John McGovern. He's been a long-time Republican. Not identical to you, but kind of in the same mold. He doesn't think much of Donald Trump. What does it mean for the state of the party that a guy like him isn't acceptable anymore? Yeah, I mean, I think that's what we're seeing nationwide. And I think it's coming from the top. The now incumbent leader in some respects who is using a philosophy of divide and conquer. And if you're not with me, you're against me. And he seems willing to cleanse the party in his term, his words. So I think it's not healthy for democracy in general. It's not healthy for our state because I think we desperately need more balance here in the state house. And it doesn't mean I don't think anyone, any one party should have full control. I think we get the best legislation when it's a balance, when we have an exchange of ideas in a civil and respectful manner. I know you've largely absented yourself from party affairs, but when the Republican party is divided and divisive and financially weak and structurally weak, the last couple of cycles, they put up a lot of non-competitive candidates for the legislature. There's a good argument to be made that if the Republican party were even just a little bit stronger or more inclusive, you wouldn't be facing super majorities. And if you run for reelection, the same thing might play out again this fall. Well, again, I've advocated publicly for those who I don't care if you're a Republican or an independent or a Democrat, if you're fiscally minded, have common sense, willing to listen to different ideas and just be reasonable. I would advocate for you to run for the legislature because we need more diversity in that respect. It seems like the party is driving out those people. Again, from the top, it appears that way. But I would say there are a number of us who feel that their respect and dignity and civility are just as important today or more important than ever. And we'll continue to advocate for that. So I do believe that there are a number of people who would maybe not publicly, but would say that they're Republicans. But there's a tarnish to the party because of the leader at the top. So we'll see what happens, but I'll continue to advocate for more common sense and fiscal reality. Governor, what do you think of Bill Huff's get-real approach? Are you familiar with that? I'm not. I know Bill Huff, but I'm not familiar with that. You know, in the past when you've been asked about including more moderate Republican candidates, you've said it's not your job to rebuild the Republican party for mine. Has that changed? I don't think so. I mean, in some respects, I'm advocating for more balance. And I believe the balance comes from more fiscal realism and more common sense. People with a business background understand how to balance a budget. I think those are important qualities. And I think we're gonna see more and more of that. I think from what I'm seeing and hearing and people writing to us, they've had enough. They can't take anymore. And I would advocate, run for office. I mean, that's what got me to get involved with politics 20-something years ago. It was just frustration, the legislature and the direction they were going. So I thought I should get involved and I hope people will do the same. Are you taking a more active role in that regard? I'm gonna be active in trying to get more quality candidates, yes. Kind of the Motel program, please. Do you know how much the state spent to stand up these four shelters? Yeah, I don't. I don't have that at this point in time. Do you have a law park? I don't, I don't. We tried to use, that was what was important about trying to use some of our own facilities. So we didn't have that expense. I know that there'll be expense with the Guard. We were able to work with the State of Connecticut donated all the costs to us. So we were able to have like four or 500 costs. So it won't be dramatic, but there is a cost associated with it, no doubt. Are you confident that that cost is less than it would have cost to let folks stay in the Motel pending their... Well, we didn't know, remember, we had no idea whether there was going to be 100-inch shelter or as it turned out, sometimes zero. We had no idea. So per, I guess, yeah. If you take it per person at this point in time, it's going to be significant. If we'd had 100 people show up, then it wouldn't have been as significant. So it's hard to say at this point, but we'll be gathering those numbers. How many do you think will be coming back? Will be wanting to continue where does the housing of those, what, 400 or so? I have no idea. I mean, I don't, I don't know. Does either Secretary Samuelson or Commissioner Winters have a figure for how many people have re-qualified for junior housing? I do have that, Governor, if you'd like. Sure. The, we have received, I think it was as of Friday, we had about 75 applications under the new disability variance form. And then as of this afternoon, 157 households qualified under the new form or the Farm District file and we're processing those. Is Samuelson still on the line? Yes, most of the cabinet is. Secretary, you mentioned that AHS officials were going door-to-door at some of the motels and knocking, trying to get people to apply for their waivers. How many AHS workers were doing that door-to-door knocking in butch house? That I can follow up and get to that. We have them distributed across the state through our field services directors. And it was in, it was some of our contract staff, our field services directors and our community partners. So it was not a small effort. They were able to reach out and contact most of the individuals between Tuesday and Friday when the program changed. And if they weren't able to get in touch with someone, they were able to leave information there at the hotels under their doors. So I am confident that we've made significant inroads in communicating with the clients that we serve. During what hours of the day, was that outreach happening? Was it 24-7, or just during working hours? It was the majority of it was during working hours. They were able to get in contact with the majority of clients. I can get back in touch with you with the details through our field services team on the non-work hours. Governor, Commissioner Winters has described the four shelters that went up this weekend as an experiment. What do you say was the successful experiment? As far as setting up shelters in emergency situation, I think it was a success. I think that we learned a lot in what we could do and what we're capable of doing. And again, I give great credit to emergency management for leading this. So from that standpoint, yes. From another standpoint, Val? Well, I don't know. I mean, when you contemplate, when you have to set up homeless emergency shelters, it's hard to talk about success, right? It sounds like you've been in touch with municipalities and they've told you that they haven't seen any flux of hundreds of people on the streets suddenly after this weekend, but only a handful showed up to these shelters. Are you worried about them? Where are they? And are you concerned for these people? Of course we're concerned about where they went and it appears though they made other arrangements, which is typical of what we've experienced over the last number of years. As I said, when I came into office, we didn't have a GA program that went for the whole winter like it is now. It was all on adverse weather conditions. So it was like every night during the winter, you receive a call, it looks like adverse weather conditions are setting in, the hotel motel program is being implemented. And at that point, after going through that for a year or two, I asked, why can't we do this differently? It just doesn't seem to give any certainty, especially to families and the elderly. And I asked what we could do differently. That may have been a mistake in some respects because that was a big deal. We went from having a nightly type of provision which with fewer people, but far less money as well to a program where we said we were going to make, have more certainty during the months of December, I think it was December 15th to March 15th. And then a transition period on either end of that. So we developed that on our own. And again, it's cost a lot of money, but it provided more certainty for families and those elderly with disabilities in particular. So I don't regret doing that, but I know some would probably criticize that move and maybe say that that's what caused some of this. But the pandemic certainly had an effect on this afterwards. I have caucus a week ago, Senator Brood called out Republicans who's general for not having solutions to the carbon. What's that discussion of his? What are the motivators for this press conference? I didn't go to that meeting. I don't have any knowledge of it. So I'd say no. All right. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Good job.