 resource here I will add in Justin Johnson who is the original one of the original signatories to the Transportation Climate Initiative for Vermont in 2010 when it was launched to think about ways to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. Which I did over there. You know what I mean? Put his name on paper so you know. Yeah. You gotta do something. So, we, so in the intervening years we've spent time working with states that now extend the TCI region, extends from Maine all the way down to Virginia now. Virginia joined last September. It also includes the District of Columbia so broad range of states, good diversity of various forms of transportation included. We've, transportation is a much more complicated emissions picture than say our power production sector where most of it comes from a few large power plants and point sources are generally easier to control than we are all the generators of carbon emissions from in the transportation sector. So in 2010 there was launched a process to evaluate what the information needs were, how what policies were out there with an eye towards a following on the regional greenhouse gas initiative which was the cap and trade system for power production within the northeast region, northeast of the Middle East. So as many of the same states there are a few more in the TCI region than there are in the, in Reggie. The, in December of this year every state in that region except for Maine and New Hampshire and kind of New York, New York will come along eventually and Maine, Maine joined now that the administration has changed. So I nod to a statement to go through what we're calling a sort of two gate process. To, the first gate was to sign on to be part of the conversation. The second gate will be whether or not people want to do this. And the this is to evaluate what a specific cap and trade for transportation would look like, how it would work, what the mechanisms would be, what the potential cost would be and, and provide an opportunity for states to weigh in at that point as to whether or not it seemed appropriate for them. Can I ask you why New York didn't sign that? I will give you the public person, which is essentially that they, they have been, they're continuing to be part of the conversations. They just, they had other priorities at the present, at what was going on and just didn't get to the right people at the right time. So they're still part of the conversation. We expect them to maintain part of that conversation, whether they decide to join or not as ultimately their choice, but it isn't, it isn't like. It wasn't a no, it was just like we're, it wasn't a, it wasn't a no, but there's a longer answer that I'll have to explain to you over here sometime. But that, that wasn't the case with, to live free, to die free. New Hampshire was, they haven't been as active a participant. And so, it wasn't a no, it just, it wasn't an affirmative yes. And I'm assuming with the change of governorship in Maine, that may be. They, we believe that they will come on as well. So interestingly it includes Pennsylvania, which the Reggie does not. Pennsylvania has many truck long distance, long haul truck routes going to the Midwest. And so it's an interesting sort of addition to the, to the mix. One of the big questions is whether or not ports are included in that. We don't necessarily have major port facilities, but New York, Maryland, Delaware, all had major port facilities that they're, you know, that there's a question about whether or not those are. All the boats on the lake? Right, so when we're all living in sailboats or whatever the, you know, or barges, some tiny houses on, on, on tunes, we'll need to evaluate that. So the, what is happening now essentially is trying to figure out what the program would look like. And it's a, a Captain Treat System, I'll talk generally about what a Captain Treat System is first, kind of. There are, the way it generally works is that unlike a command and control regulation where I tell each of you that you have to reduce your missions by 50% over the next 20 years. I tell the room that they need to reduce their missions by 50%. And you all figure out who can do it most cost-effectively. The, the chair decides he can't do anything cost-effectively. He'll just buy allowances from the rest of the committee in order to meet the, the overall goal. So it allows the marketplace to establish, to, to work at creating a more cost-effective outcome. But it still arrives at the overall goal. It works well for issues where, where they're, where, where localized pollution isn't really the necessary concern. We're concerned, concerned about global emissions generally. And so it works well for CO2. It, it worked as, as a mechanism to deal with acid rain in the 80s and 90s. It has worked with, with Reggie to reduce from the power production sector. Other, other jurisdictions around the, around the globe are using it to address all sorts of emissions from different parts of the economy. And as a reminder, I'm sure Michelle has told you in the past that 43% of our emissions come from transportation. So it's, it's a huge chunk of the problem and what the hardest to deal with because of our, all, all of our relationship with how we have to get around. And how we have to travel and have to live our daily lives. So that's the basics of what a counter-trade system looks like. However, we have to do a lot of work to figure out what, what are the pieces in there that make it function. Fundamentally, there are a lot of things like, what is the initial cap? What are our current emissions and how do we ratchet that down over time? And what does that slow look like? That is a negotiated process between 10 states, 10 states. And the District of Columbia to, to figure out what that looks like. That's a complicated process, as you can imagine. When we're trying to build consensus rather than having a, a vote. But there are also other mechanisms of where do we set the ceiling price, right? So the prices don't get too high. Do we set some sort of, before you even get to the ceiling, do you put in what we call a cost containment reserve in place? Where additional allowances, so that cap would go up a little bit to make sure that the costs stay, stay, stay lower to supply a demand piece of that. There, there's also the, what does the floor look like? And what is, is there a containment reserve on the, on the low side to create an emissions containment reserve so we get, that we stay on the emissions quite self-evident. Lots of complicated mechanisms. How do we do, how do we make sure that people aren't speculating and gaming the system? There's, you know, if we, there's, we have, the Reggie, we have a group that does sort of our market security workforce. Looks at, you know, some similar things to what the SEC would look at, just in terms of doing audits to make sure that people aren't trying to gain the system and, and use it inappropriately. It is, it is a marketplace that is possible. So we want to make sure that nobody is trying to do that. There was a fair amount of speculation within the Reggie market as, as the, as the federal government was considering the Clean Power Plan, which would have put carbon emissions production requirements on all states. Under their power production, and so everybody sort of saw that as happening and thought that the value of Reggie would go, that the Reggie allowances would go up. And when the Clean Power Plan has been pulled back in the current administration, the prices came back down and have been relatively flat. The Reggie program has worked in large part because we've set the sort of signal to the market and let them figure it out. At the same time, there have been technology advances that make it easier. You know, there's chief natural gas present. Advances in the way power, power is produced. Renewables of health, but generally it's been mostly natural gas. And the other pieces, most of the revenue that's been spent by the states has been on increasing efficiency. So we're getting reductions in our energy use so that the overall effect is we're using less power and, and we're creating fewer emissions. So it's been a sort of, that, that piece, it kind of works in two ways. We're going to cap our nuclear plant, we're going to be a nice company. No, we're not going to wait in the house. I just say, Bobby. Maybe I'd rather keep it open. So we have, so that is, that's the sort of general pieces that we're on. And so what I've asked, there's been lots of interest within the building about this, this process and what's, how it's going to work and what the outcomes are going to be and most of the answer is, I don't know yet. We're going to figure that out as we go. There are, there are questions that we need to answer, but I don't know what those are. And they're going to build on each other, sort of, to set up the governance structure and some of the decision making and sort of basic frameworks of the arrangement before we can get into some of the detail on what the cap's going to be and how then we do modeling to find out what we think the costs are going to be and how do we evaluate those pieces. Is that a staff at that being paid, like TCI has their own staff? So, sort of, so the Georgetown Climate Center, which is a arm of Georgetown University has been our nonprofit facilitators of this discussion for the past nine years. I've been catching a fill in of Georgetown, a fill in of what? Of Georgetown University, so it's a part of the university. They have provided us the sort of staff resources and sort of facilitation pieces. They won't necessarily be the ones who are staffing the decision making. This will need to bring us back into the state fold to get into the details. So, like you're doing some of that work, like I know when Reggie was born, we had a PUC staff for the board at the time going to those meetings and being the staff, so it's similar. So, we have the same sort of team approach that involves the agency not resources, the trans, public service department. We're not clear what the PUC's role is going to be because they don't need regulate their unregulated fuels from PUC's perspective. So, it'll be interesting to see exactly how that will work. But since the beginning, the conversation has involved environmental energy and transportation officials from all states. Now, that's who's doing the work really, right? These staff from all the states. Yep, and lots of us thankfully have experience with Reggie to bring to bear once we get into the decision making. So, we understand how these things work because they are complicated and there's a lot of learned experience from the Reggie process because it hasn't always been perfect. And are you working with the Washington Climate Initiative about what kind of work didn't work? We've gathered a fair amount of information from the Washington Climate Initiative over time. The challenge with WCI, which is the California and Quebec cap and trade market, is that they haven't actually done. The transportation sector hasn't actually really participated other than to buy allowances at this time. Because they're still in the low hanging fruit of the power production sector getting most of the emissions. Any reductions and emissions that we're seeing from transportation in California and Quebec are from the reinvestment of proceeds into electric vehicle incentives and public transit and the like, rather than from directly from the cap playing the fact. Because the price is just, it's cheaper to buy at this point. And your timeline for the TCI is? Scares the hell out of me. Yeah, it's pretty fast. Yeah, so the timeline is by next December we're to make a decision. Each state has a decision point, right? That's that second gate is to decide whether or not we want to participate. That is an incredibly aggressive timeline just to put into context the last program review we did for Reggie where we evaluate kind of where we are and what changes need to happen within the existing program for two years. And there's more attention and there's more focus going to be put here than there was because we knew Reggie was working and we didn't necessarily need to make changes. But it's complicated and there's a lot of back and forth. Different states have different interests and that's going to only become more complicated through this process where people's transportation profiles or states transportation profiles are so very different. So things like generally what fuels are going to be covered. So if bomber fuels are covered in ports, do states even have jurisdiction there? That's the question. Is it going to be simply gasoline and on-road diesel? Are there other pieces to it? Where is the point of regulation going to be? So it's easy with utilities because they're both the generator and generally they can reach so we look to them for point of regulation. But it's not the same. We're not going to require every person and the state of Vermont and around the region to enter the marketplace to decide how many allowances they need for their own emissions. It's going to need to be upstream from that. So what does that look like? Good luck. It sounds like a variation of the actuarial analysis that we do in healthcare. It's not far off from that. In terms of the points of view. But to go back to the why of this, because it sounds complicated and so what's the value in it? The why is essentially we get the whole region working together so we get the emissions reductions from the whole region and unlike other carbon pricing pieces like ATACs we can set what emissions we want so we get that downward trajectory and the marketplace finds the most efficient price rather than setting the price and hoping that we get the emissions reductions. So there will be costs that get borne by consumers as part of this so the point of the evaluation is to understand what that impact is and what it ultimately looks like and whether or not it makes sense for Vermont to be a part of it. But we can't answer those questions until we've done this work. So it's certainly going to add to our knowledge. So time frame for this work analysis to be done. Yeah, so pretty much in December we gave ourselves a year to basically get to the point where states were choosing whether to be in or out. And as part of this we want to make sure that there's a robust opportunity for stakeholders to engage in the process in kind of way and there are some that are used to that from the Reggie world but there will be different stakeholders in this process. We've been doing a lot of stakeholder engagement over the years but we need to, you know, we'll need to do more. And so when you think about what that timeline looks like in terms of figuring out the details, doing the modeling work, engaging the public and negotiating with a bunch of very disparate states it's going to, yeah. You're not going to do it again? I don't think the governor, my secretary will let me focus entirely on this but I will, you know, we'll have good people working on it. We should try to find out this morning Senator McNeil said, we wonder why this, no, 209, 219, oh my God. Keep going down and around. Yeah, it's in his head, see he's talking about it, I already got it there. Every Thursday I said that it was Thursday and Thursdays it dropped the price three to five cents a gallon. So it's like 206 or something at some place. It's 209. 209 something or Monday night. So what you're talking about is what the governor's been referencing as a potential initiative that he's proposing for the state to take. I'm just trying to link what the presentation is with what has been in the paper right now. So this is very much, the governor isn't proposing that this should be something that we do. He signed on to say let's do the analysis, let's sit at the table and then we can all decide together. And just for reference the way, so your engagement in the Reggie process was to, at the beginning when we agreed to the program was to authorize the various state agencies to do the work and gave rough parameters and then gave us rule-making authority to put it in place. The same time you also decided where the proceeds would go. And we would imagine the same process would work, would be the way, if this were to move forward. So if we could be having a more specific conversation next year if that's the decision. Just also to put it into, to make clear on what it is and what it isn't. This isn't a compact of states. We don't have federal authority to have a specific compact. It's a, it would be, as Reggie is, a group, an agreement between the states to have identical or nearly identical programs that are linked together and share the auction platform for the allowances. So it's somewhat complicated but it gets us by the whole need to have federal authority for a compact. So when we negotiate what the, what the model regulation should look like for all states, it's kind of, I just want everybody to be aware that it's not something that we can then tinker with a whole lot in Vermont. Because otherwise the thing will fall apart. So. Beginning ten states to agree. It's a hard deal. It really kind of gives me the heavey-dee-face. But, yeah. We play a good role in Vermont because we are, we are not the largest player in the room. And we can be bridge builders. We have been in Reggie because we, we can help people come together more generally nicer than most people. So, and still get what we, what we need out of the program. Reggie has been financially a generally positive for the state of Vermont because we've gotten more, way more allowances than we've paid in terms of cost. And to be able to reinvest those, those have primarily gone into weatherization work. Because we'll, you elected to, to put that money towards weatherization rather, towards thermal efficiency work rather than electric efficiency work because of the work that was already happening in the electric efficiency side. Any other questions? Go ahead. So right now you don't see a role for the legislature till we get to December. And so the next legislative session, if the decision is to move forward then that's when we need authority for rulemaking and those kinds of things. That would be my ask. I do understand there's interest in, in weighing in in some form or fashion. I, my concern. You mean from the legislature? Yes. Weighing in this year. I have let, heard it less on the Senate side than on the House side. Okay. So what I, what I have said in most committees is, is that they're, that this is as you can imagine with 10 states it's very complicated and there are different ways for us to get to the same end result from an admissions perspective and a cost perspective by changing different levers within the system. And if you tell us that we have to do it this way and that way I won't be able to get there. So that, that, that's my ask. I don't, I don't like the support for the process. It's fine. And I know everybody wants to know the details and I'm happy to share them as we go but we're just not into that phase yet. And what do you think of the idea of Vermont signing up as, not as full members but as participating and just as observers and WCI in case the TCI doesn't work out or something like that? Or is that money to water? I think we have a process that's, that's working that we're actively engaged in. I do think the WCI question is more complicated because we have an existing cap and trade through Reggie for part of the, we would, aren't talking about this other piece for TCI. WCI had lots of pieces that, so it covers the entire economy for the cap and trade. So, sorry, it's the Transportation Climate Initiative. Oh. It is the, the, Tea for O. Yes. Tea for transportation. Tea for, there you go. They're trying to play it to your soon, your, your tune. WCI, Western Climate Initiative. No one, WCI. Okay, so WCI covers the entire economy, all emissions from the economy. I thought maybe it could be trans, Atlantic or something. We don't have any European members or African members yet. That would be fun. Oh, we think they do. I have some concerns about trying to link up part of our system with WCI because Reggie is working, so I wouldn't want to monkey with that. The price difference between WCI and Reggie right now is pretty significant. It's three to four times higher in WCI, and it is actually built in that it will increase over time, no matter what. And we do have some of that in Reggie, but it's more aligned with inflation, whereas WCI increases, the floor increases 5% plus inflation every year with the idea that they're trying to get people to make investments early so that they see and return on that investment going forward. There's some sense to it, but at the same time, eventually you get to a cost that the public is not willing to bear because you've created an inefficiency market place. So, given the limited resources that we have, I prefer to focus on this because this is going to be a lot of work. And I think the other piece for the transportation side, given how much leakage there could be in the system for other people driving their cars to say, you know, it's relevant to seeds and becomes its own separate state. People are more mobile for transportation, especially with New Hampshire not being in a mix, that's a complication. But if we were to join WCI, none of our region would be in there. So our prices would go up and nobody else's would. And so it doesn't create that shared environment where the costs are comparable. We're hoping you make DCI work. Okay. We're counting. You understand all this stuff. Yeah, you understand. That's his value every day. Yeah. All right. Well, if I'm happy to come back later in the session, I may have some more specifics on where we are and I'm happy to update you if that's helpful. Sure. But at this point, please let me give me the flexibility to figure out if this can work. Thank you very much for coming over. Thank you very much. So, Peter, we have committee discussion at 10. I'm supposed to meet the governor at 10. No, we can do what you're doing now. Okay. I won't bother you, but I need to follow up on milk oil. And probably I should just talk to Rebecca. Wouldn't that be the easiest thing? Probably. I can let her know that to come find you. Yeah, if you would. Okay. I need to talk to Ann R. Water quality. Milk oil has a transportation fuel. I wish. No. Rebecca's around in Marshall. I'll talk to Rebecca. Actually, I need to talk to the commissioner about a tire dump. Somebody... Seriously, I have a woman who lives in St. John'sbury and someone has illegally dumped, I don't know, 1,000 tires on their property. And the property owner is supposed to be responsible for the disposal, but... Well, yeah. I don't think... And so, needless to say, when somebody has illegally dumped that level of volume... Yeah, I don't know. She didn't know. I think they do know who did it. But anyway, I can imagine as a property owner it would be a little disconcerting to find, you know, hundreds and hundreds of tires. I looks have enough property where I don't notice. Right. That's it. Yeah, well, if you do have just a few acres in its back or on a dirt road, you know what's conceivable. First in ten years. Now you know who you are. We're going to join Yuri this morning. What time is that? Any questions you have? Ten. I run the risk of repeating things, so I don't think I should... I'll ask a question. It's already been asked. No, I don't want to answer it twice. Is there anything we... Is there a role in your opinion of the legislature and what you do to work that most of which has to happen in essentially a... Is that the answer? Is that the answer? This is a question that I'm hearing so far. Thank you for your testimony. This is a question that I am very happy to answer as many times as possible. It is at this point, we don't need any support from all these people. They don't need to be encumbered by the legislature. As you know, the worry collectively from the administration and the legislature would be that you feel like the administration gets to a place where you feel like you've done the best following administration's guidance and the legislature says well, we don't like it. That would be the worst moment to reach after all the hard work for our next year. You're a boy getting to a point where you think you've done a good job and the legislature says not good enough and then you find yourself you and the governor possibly entering the state into something and then you've got a legislature trying to figure out that, I don't know how we... So my role is very clear. It's to get the best possible deal for the state of Vermont given what's possible negotiating with ten other states. If you choose not to like it I can't. I'm not going to be able to go back and we're going to have a Brexit situation where I'm going to go back and be like but we really want a better deal. No, I understand and I think part of it is that the extent to which things can be communicated and I know that's hard so I don't profess to know what to do but I think in the blue quality is probably as important as some of the... So one of the things that is guiding principles and I've been pushing folks within the discussion about is that by maybe the late summer we need to have a series of sort of what we've decided upon in terms of the structure of the organization and then some opportunities for the public to comment on what the cap looks like and how it goes down and then the modeling results associated with that to show what the public impacts will be and that gives the opportunity for people to weigh in and what I would offer at that point is for... and that's a gut check for all the states to sort of see what their citizens are saying and that would be a great opportunity in the advance of that before that goes out to sit down with you. I know it's over the summer but I think that's what the trajectory we're on and to sit down and provide a briefing to say here's where we are and here's the pieces that I think are going to be sticking points and here's what the projections look like and we need to negotiate within that. If that's helpful I'm happy to do that. Well I think definitely and I think it would be, we'll figure out the right format for that to occur and one of our broader challenges is the energy goals and carbon reduction goals we have as a state partially or dependent on the success of this strategy and how to inform what other things we do to complement it and looking even at the RFF report which I'm sure you saw which had estimates of both the financial and environmental impacts of the TCI though they admitted it depends on what's actually negotiated so our attempt to reach those goals is influenced by... I'm glad you brought up the RFF report I think I would just add a couple of things as you think about TCI relative to that report a couple of things that they did as part of that discussion were to because they didn't know what TCI was going to look like, that's fair was to use the WCI price current for a projected price as a placeholder for TCI. I can tell you that there's no way that any of the states are going to agree to a price that high because it's three or four times higher than what they're paying in Reggie right now and that is the starting point for most states. They acknowledge that I believe. They acknowledge that and the other piece that they relied on the price to drive action so they converted the WCI price to be the TCI price and then they saw that price would do to emissions rather than reflecting on the fact that it does the emissions reductions or what it encapsulates. So it's a little bit kind of it's more back to the envelope. Yeah, I think there's more. I think this the information we get over the course of this coming year will provide much more specifics as to what the impact of this specific program will be. Great. So you could just tell them back home to stop buying. Mill foil into biofuels. Mill foil into taxes. Mix the two. I don't think we want to use them. Can we not use tires in the fuel? Can we just use the foil? What? We need to have many college parties. Sorry. Watch it. My college party will fix it. It's garbage. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello. It's not it's a different person. Yeah, that's true. Yeah, not as far as I know. It's actually a coup. It's a center of accountability meeting coup d'etat. I think that's who's the meeting with. Who's the meeting with? The meeting. The next meeting this morning at 10.30 we're about to have a joint hearing. We'll have a problem. I don't know what you're going to do. We'll be transportation in the House, Senate It's a government day. A local government day. Chair Monson, I have a draft bill that we've talked about before. I can do copies of it. And Dia has drafted it. It's still draft. But if you want to talk about it we'll read it. We've got 20 minutes. Go ahead. Okay. I think we're at the full article about the redistricting issue. Do we have a sponsor? Why is that happening? That's a problem. I'm going to call it. So the main question I have for the committee on this is the same as what I have. Oh, we draft 6.2. Yeah. Okay. The main question is does the committee want to do this as a committee bill that I go and just submit it as a bill and see where it goes and decide at that point? Because if it deals a lot with terraces that are actually mentioned it might just go to finance. So that's one question that I wonder. Do you want to go to natural resources too? It could. Maybe they want to take it like they did in our other bill. Is there anything in here about this committee jurisdiction? I don't think so. Okay. It seems like it's race. And then the two jurisdictional issues which are there's stuff about the transportation that's going on. Which is appropriations but not natural. Obviously the goal is not to avoid natural. I'm just wondering in terms of steps along the way. It's really setting up a regulatory scheme for how race setting is going to happen and then what is factored into the race setting in terms of the additional fees to make the money for transportation infrastructure much like the gas tax already does. And then incentivizing certain things for vehicle charging stations. That certainly gets a denerial to talk about for a long time what that is with the growth of the how we generate the revenues to support the transportation infrastructure. So from that perspective the central department agrees on the purpose of the bill. And we did have that section in the T bill last year around the PUC that study all of that. And this is very much linked to what the PUC might not recommend at the end of their investigation. And what it is doing is instead of having the easy the energy efficiency charge it sort of is pulling that out of what the rate for electricity is and having that go to more transportation based purposes. I see audience on all of this is it related to because you're there's no natural resource jurisdiction here. We don't want to use the question though I think from my point of view I just want to better understand what's in it. You're given a walk-through before deciding because to be a committee bill means three people in a committee have to sort of enthusiastically like it. Yeah. But if after walking through and thinking about the line in the next couple of days I think if the majority of the committee likes it I actually think it is more appropriate to go to finance and that is not unusual with things like the DMV fee bill in the past which is originated here goes to finance the transportation bill when it has different taxes or fees has been started here gone there and this would be no different we would just need to give them enough time to do it. Okay, I'll just understand what's to come here. In some parts of it can be lighter touch but we've got finance to go more and do you want me to go through or do you want me to go through it? I think that's your call. I'm happy to but whatever what you started off with so what we're doing in section one is we're adding two new definitions to title 23 one is an electric vehicle which then incorporates plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for simplicity purposes and electric vehicle charging stations we just don't have those definitions in statute yet and we're using them a lot throughout. Can we ask questions? I know that some of the presentations we've received the term DMV has included plug-ins so I'm just making sure is that, do we think that makes it kind of consistent with the use of that term? I think when you're talking about infrastructure it definitely makes sense to have them go together since they're both getting plugged in and we're using it to sort of build into the definition of electric vehicle charging station and 10 to 12 makes it explicit Yeah I'm just making sure it's not creating a different sort of industry term and we'll say in other builds that I've worked on that have had definitions included it's been split out and there's been a separate definition for plug-in hybrid electric vehicle some of the feedback that Senator Herzlick and I got on this bill was that it just was sort of making it very cumbersome when you then said an electric vehicle charging station is used to charge this for this very duke when the words were used Section 2 is taking the language that you were provided from the Public Utility Commission which was basically to say we the Public Utility Commission do not have jurisdiction over electric vehicle charging stations that are not being operated by distribution utilities the ones that like Charge Point could theoretically set up we don't have jurisdiction over them so that they can charge by the kilowatt hour because we're not able to have the non-distribution utilities charge for electricity they were, it sounds like but that's sort of the loophole was to say you're charging for the time that you're plugged in as opposed to electricity so instead of just saying that the Public Utility Commission does not have jurisdiction over electric vehicle charging stations separate apart from the ones that the DUs would have it's setting out sort of tiers of jurisdiction that's lighter than what you would have for a distribution utility but still having some oversight so that there are consumer protections there an establishing a rulemaking process I don't know if you want to talk about your motivation behind that so the CUC said we don't want any jurisdiction and my thinking is that we want to have some jurisdiction it could be very small just be like on the terms and conditions so that charges stations just could do whatever they wanted they could charge, you know $500 fee every time you hook up or something so you want to have just consumer, basic consumer protections so if there's bad actors there's a way to deal with that and also so we can just collect data so we know where they are so it could just be as simple as a registration system that Charge Point could send it on quarterly report to the PUC here's the 10 stations we installed and where to follow we certified we're going to follow the terms and conditions on how to do charging stations what would it look like to provide that consumer protection through terms and conditions what would be so if they want to charge $500 to plug in for instance, they'll probably not do very well maybe they get people once but not twice what is the set of things that the commission would look at and maybe kind of so they would be they set up a rule which is what Bill asks them sorry maybe I'm a premature the answer is a good question and I didn't see the terms really like you can't charge over this dollar amount but if somebody were to complain that there was a consumer to complain or if they were doing something damaging vehicles or something like that I see something in the rule would be like if you have a charging station you're required to say what the cost is going to be per kilowatt hour so that when you pull up there and you decide to charge you can see oh it's going to be like a gas pump has to be more like an ATM or the ATM says do you want to pay $350 or you know you have a chance to back out before you hit it so that kind of stuff would be in here but it wouldn't be anything about the rates and things like that and some of that is laid out on the bottom of page 4 I have lines on 18 for the end everyone charges the same every station charges the same amount so it's going to be a cost just like gas so it's going to be like gas so you wouldn't know so if you went there once and they charged $2 per kilowatt hour you're like I'm not going to go back there or only in a emergency would I charge theirs but if there are five different companies that each are in GMP territory and they're each going to then turn around and be a service they're all buying from GMP at the same rate then the question is how much they think they can get away with working it out to cover their costs and get a profit right that would be okay and that's when I was like can we get the same amount for transportation funding that would be the same so they all pay GMP the same they all pay the same kilowatt hour fee that goes with transportation but then whatever their margin or profit would be that would be up to them just as like with gas stations we don't really know last year when we were talking about clarifying PUC authority regulatory authority and obviously whatever it is charge point they wanted to be treated as a service and so it's good that we've got we've got a pretty clear statement from the PUC saying they don't want they don't feel that they want to regulate this and we're saying we want a little bit of regulation and it's the example I was given to the PUC doesn't regulate Comcast so the Comcast can charge you whatever they want but there is terms and conditions that PUC does control over case so that's similar it's just like there's some regulation but not over rates so I personally I'm glad they made that recommendation that it should be subject to their regulatory authority no they their recommendation was not to have any PUC oversight well I know they want but I'm glad that at least we're going to pull it back and say there are certain things that we in fact want to have in place but I would I think the message that we got was that if they we treated these service entities the equivalent of a utility and brought them into regulation that would have a very detrimental impact on the development of our charging station network and so I'm I'm just saying I'm glad the PUC came in with what they did even though we're going to maybe put some some conditions under it there's also leaves the space for the agency of natural resource or sorry agency of agriculture or markets and they don't really have standards yet for that but there is language in here about how they should work with the PUC to establish that process and it remains to be seen if there's a way much like they fill something volumetrically to figure out if it's dispensing the right amount of volume how do you figure out if something's dispensing the right amount of electricity why the public utility commission for this limited consumer protection work versus agriculture you know we talked about how they do the gas station products and making sure what's the well there I can see these there would be involved in the PUC to have that as part of it but since the PUC is dealing with the utilities and the rule could be that the utilities gather this information and set it in rules since they're already having this customer relationship with the charging stations the PUC could do it through the utility since they're going to be selling them the PUC versus ag but are you saying that the PUC rule making may suggest that the PUC is giving you the right read out for the amount of time you dealt in so it doesn't necessarily mean we're going to have a second set of people going to a gas station that has both gas and charging is there does the department weigh in at all or would they just weigh in as well maybe it's in here but in terms of recommending what those protections might be in agriculture yeah on the rules and the utility page four mine's 11-12 okay so the next section section three on page five this is laying out tariff setting and this is establishing two different ways that electricity is priced basically you've got the normal residential consumer and then separate electricity rates for electricity that's being used for electric vehicle charging stations whether it's going to these charge point stations as you said everyone's getting it from GMP or if it's GMP having their own stations and this is laying out the rate setting mechanism and you'll see a lot of language about what is to be considered in rate setting in the next section but this is establishing the two fees that are being subdivision B on page six there's a one penny per kilowatt transportation infrastructure assessment and that will go it'll be on the bill we're mirroring language about the EEC you need to be given the ability to find it what it's being used for but it's going to go to a separate account within the transportation fund to be used for the rehabilitation reconstruction or replacement and then the other fee is the oh, I'm sorry that one's an act the other fee is the transportation efficiency fee and that's the one that goes to a separate account within the transportation fund same language about how it needs to show up on your bill and that will be used by the agency of transportation to provide electric vehicle transportation efficiency public transit for transit by rail electric vehicle charging infrastructure and last mile transit options and there's a reporting back on that saying what they've been using that for would you change the fund whether the fee whether it was up or down for this is set in statute which is different from the EEC which is done through making an annual basis and there's a separate fee for it would just be a variation of a fee bill in terms of what you're watching the one percent efficiency one not the one that goes to the transportation fund but the efficiency one the first in pay is one cent meant to roughly mirror what people pay as a percentage of their electric bill for efficiency I know that was the concept but is one cent have any relationship to it's slightly less the EEC the other residential bill is like one point over so it's just to make it easy round it off and just just have one the public utility commission makes a decision and then the charge goes up or down we don't check any cheer this one though if we wanted to change it it would have to go through the legislature did you contemplate having it tied to the I think before we got to 6.2 we had it tied to the percentage of the 90% of the EEC charge but then there's really that set with these all other parameters so it didn't make sense to tie it to that I think maybe and eventually maybe after you change it a few times we would want to set something automatically so you don't have to come back every time but maybe we thought at first of the legislature it would be a system of how they decide when to move it out and the other one the one that replaces basically the gas tax is that the one sent have any relationship to the current gas charge I think it's probably a little bit less than it would be I think you had tested on me yesterday it was like a penny a half there was some discussion I had discussed with Michelle that the email there might be higher if you add in the PID and for down tax but I wasn't really clear how how it was being calculated like what the equation was so we could look at it but it could be as high as five cents kill an hour the last thing I want to do because let me tell you if we go public with a two cent gas tax increase we can kill one cent I'd like to add something I don't know about Michelle how you feel that sort of lends in so it floats I don't know what the system is but right now we need a gas tax but who's going to come up for those gas tax right so this could be like percent well you could do a percentage like you do with the tip but the idea was here and then kind of get things going and see how it goes and then come back I want to make sure the agency because I don't want to fool around with this thing going forward because this is going to be a growing thing as we all know we want us to stay without having come back there a year six months or screw it up or something so what I would maybe say is that that we ramp it up over time if it really is four or five cents a kilowatt hour that we start with one and give a chance to uphold it but then you're going to have to raise it yeah but it's just raised in statute like every year we'll raise a cent or something like that do it once with a schedule of increases rather than have to do a step along this way because I want to make sure I understand something like the gas tax was a hundred years ago or whatever I want to make sure that we're doing it right the right way the last thing I want to do or the next person going to do it stand up and say well we're going to raise it three cents because we underestimate it I Jim had a question oh so there in relation to the one cent kilowatt hours what is that equals a gallon half a gallon or gas well you guys the whole kind of question about like it's they kind of convert it to miles and dollars per mile driven and then try to make that conversion around because different vehicles have different efficiencies and just like with internal combustion engines it's different so that's that's where we need a clear explanation of how we're making it because when I go back home I'm going to have to explain this exactly what this is right without how about right now I can't really explain it in a way that it's clear how we get from whatever the kilowatt hour cost is whether it's one cent or five cents to two cents a gallon and two percent tip like that's the part that I can't really explain really right now so this is a place over recommendations and it was a joint recommendation from the department public service the agency of natural resources and what they filed with the PUC was that it should be a per kilowatt fee to sort of make up what's being lost and lost gas revenue and it should phase in at a certain point so you wouldn't hinder emerging technology and I believe they had that when the market share was 15 percent in a year was their trigger point so doing a phase in would align with that recommendation then you have an incentive to not plug into your charger at your house so if your car charger is hooked to this tariff if that is higher than your rate of your lights and everything else then there's an incentive to kind of work around your charger and not go through this tariff so we want this tariff to be at or below the residential rate so that you purposefully want to use this rate to charge your vehicles I had a question it seems like unlike the gas revenues tax revenues that support a variety of parts of our transportation infrastructure including road maintenance this seems to eliminate more to physical structures it is limited really and so I'm just thinking as this technology grows we may be constraining the use so that we are cannibalizing other parts of our transportation needs so I'm a little concerned about can you give an example of something that the normal gas tax supports that the the biggest for the big just wondering what this this looking it says should be used for rehab reconstruction replacement of state bridges the most obvious one is the maintenance both of that I can say the maintenance rehabilitation of roads I guess the question is is this different than what you're so the the team or state funds match federal funds which is principally the infrastructure talked about here pays for our staff including all of our administrative staff to run programs our maintenance staff to flow roads et cetera and so I would say a lion's share of our state funds is not actually building a bridge you know reconstructing a culvert et cetera it's kind of all the support services and the match to make those things happen so it would be very detrimental to set up a language to restrict the broad array of things the T fund currently including grants miles just to give towns money the town resources I think the efficiency fund concept is great to funding rail public transit whatever bike and pad side that was fine that's fine but I think we would not serve the current service the T fund administers if we were to move to this other well I can't just be dedicated to the same thing to gas taxes the perspective would be instead of having a transportation infrastructure account it would just go to the transportation that's really one of them which I'm okay with in theory to take the language from the T because I was trying to match that but I'd be okay with it well our concern is we are seeing the growth of EVs then you're going to see a concurrent reduction in the money into the transportation fund that has a great deal of latitude about how it's spent and so as we look to the future and that revenue replacement from this revenue source I just that's why I raised it I just I just see that could be problematic maybe not originally but it sounds like you're open to going to T yeah no I just called the transportation infrastructure assessment so I wanted to keep it infrastructure but we maybe keep the name but we maybe keep the name but we maybe keep the name but we maybe keep the name but we maybe keep the name but we maybe keep the name well return so the next section is setting out how that tariffs are determined you'll see my language later on in the field where distribution utilities above a certain customer base and this is in section five are required to file tariffs with the Public Utility Commission on our board December 1st, 2019. And then as you see, we review them based on all of the considerations that are made out in the tariff language starting upon age seven. And I can't take this. This language, this came from draft. So this is what they think the tariff should be. So I'm not with the regulatory assistance project. The staff or two people that used to work with DC and they had suggested this kind of tariff language. You had mentioned on the top of page eight that you thought that we should start with just the larger utilities. And that's why you're going to have some threshold, 17,000 customers and above. Would that be GED or monoelectric? BED. Yeah, BED is the smallest of the three. It's just about 19,000. And then the idea would be take it from there. Maybe include others, but not. And then it's all, they could file a tariff. And it's proletariat. Yeah. So WEC, Washington like to grow up wanted to do it. But the three big dogs would be compelled. And that's going to cover 80% of customers. And what Senator Perzlick was talking about earlier, where you don't want to have the electric vehicle charging be so expensive that people are just plugging into their homes by having the rates be set with different considerations, you're setting up sort of two paths, you know, your home, you can charge in different ways. The electric vehicle charging stations out in the world are having these different rates. Why don't we go through the last couple pages and we have another team? So section five requiring the tariffs to be filed on December 1st of 2019. Page 11. Page 11, yeah. Section six is requiring the Public Utility Commission to make rules on or before December 1st, 2020. And that's laying out a lot of what that sort of consumer protection, weights, and measures regulatory scheme would be. And then a lot of this is just sort of tidy up language in section seven. Some of this is coming from what the Agency of Transportation has proposed in the T-Bow for purposes of their ability to set fees if they're going to have electric vehicle charging stations. I think they're planning on having that be something that's more state-owned infrastructure for. Nine will have to be changed. Yes. Nine references to the infrastructure kind of one. Oh, subdivision nine, not section nine. Sorry, yeah. Yeah, so instead of that, when we're going to the transportation infrastructure, half of it will be up just to the transportation fund. And then section eight, as Senator Mitchell noted already, is just laying out what goes into the T-Fund because we're creating two new regulatory sources for it. OK, well, I guess a rough idea of what we're dealing with. So Andy, this approach would be an alternative to what we had a study out of the UVM group to do it on the registration. This would be, in some ways, this is more formal when we're looking at the trends. And the technology has changed. The meter and technology has changed with that report, I think, because they were really concerned about how you would meter a kilowatt hour charge time report. And we think that there's not as much of an issue there. Was there any thinking that there'd be somebody who generated their own power and directly charged? I don't know, I'm trying to think like a vendor who would have a large solar infrastructure and then that would kind of like our discussion with the airplane guy. And they're not playing any. I think under this regulatory scheme, they would just be regulated like charge point would be. On an consumer basis, but not on a non-animate setting basis. I don't know that it's realistic, I just don't know. Yeah, I mean, because if you're not, there might be some weird regulatory situation where you build a generation, whatever it is, solar or not. And then you're only selling at the charged vehicles. And this kind of exempts you from TUC for selling electricity for charging vehicles. You're basically getting around the regulation of building a generation source. I think there's other issues, storage and things like that. I don't know what it works for. But I think when the actual point of charging, there still would be regulation setting aside the generating of electricity. Well, what happens with so many people? If I wanted to put solar panels and generate a lot of electricity and I'm going to charge my vehicle, then I'm going to avoid the charge, right? Well, only if you're tired of solar panels directly to your vehicle. You're right. But then you could only charge one or something. And most people want to have the flexibility of net metering and then charging whenever they want to or whatever they want. The amount of solar panels to power a car is probably a lot too, right? I don't know. Or would a home with solar panels on a typical person's roof, for instance, do you think it'd be sufficient? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Why don't you put a panel for that? That'd be cool. Or in our road. That's all right. I mean, you need a big enough array over the course of the year. So like in the winter, it would be very difficult on the power of my car. But in the summer, it's OK. No, it's just thinking there might be circumstances where people wouldn't be paying this charge at all, depending on what they had for a generation. Or as the development of batteries gets better to store the solar in the other. OK. Let's take a fee as small enough to where it would be worth it, but it would be the same issue if someone was choosing to plug into their regular residential energy sources and closures, too. That's all there was.