 So, have you seen a friend? Okay, I'm going to read it then. The joint public pension oversight committee show. I can read it. Great. That would be great. Here. Thank you, Washington legislative council. Are we live? Oh, there we go. Yes, we are. Okay. For some reason it doesn't say live on these screens. Oh, this is the, I think as introduced, I think I sent you an event earlier. I can send it if you don't have, and that was the one that I was going to send off to Tony. So that's good. You did. So this is a. The amendment is a strike on amendment to the bill is introduced. So it is. It's a strike on amendment to the bill is introduced. And it's in consultation with the state treasurer, the chair of the Vermont pension investment commission and any interested stakeholders with investment and environmental expertise. And they are directed to develop a strategy. The state employees retirement system, the teacher system and the municipal employees retirement systems. The strategy and plan developed by the. and they are directed to develop a strategy and tagline for the state to decarbonize the investment policies of the state employee's retirement system, the teacher system, and the municipal employee's retirement systems. The strategy and plan developed by the committee shall be in accordance with sound investment criteria consistent with the fiduciary obligations of the retirement board for each system. In developing the plan, the committee is also asked to consider the feasibility of different decarbonization strategies and review models used in other states for decarbonization. Subsection B of the bill is a reporting requirement that says the committee before January 15th of next year shall submit a report on the strategy and timeline described in subsection A to the House and Senate committees on government operations. The section two of the bill is the effective date and the act is in effect on July 1st of this year. After the bill passes, the title would be changed to an act relating to the study of divestment of state pension funds for possible fueling taxes. So the report was due January of 2023, January 15th. They've already done as you know a huge amount of work. Yes. Okay. Is this language that Tom covered work? It was sent to everybody. All of us participated, Tom and Beth, actively participated with Chris and Anthony and Kasia and me yesterday. The language that Tom presented or suggested. Yeah, and that we all. Part of that in accordance with sound investment criteria, just to see if I can share it out with you, so that's what I'm saying. Part of that that Tom gave. Yeah, that's why he stops sharing to see if they hadn't come yet and they haven't. Good. So this is language that they. Yeah. We got it fairly late last night and I haven't heard from them, but I also haven't had any information. So I want to answer my question. I just want to make sure I understand the kind of term of art decarbonizing our investment policies. That seems a specific as opposed to like decarbonizing our investment. Right. And I would really like us to get rid of policies and just say decarbonize our investment. That was a comment that. Yeah, we have that from Tom yesterday. Oh, yeah. I don't know if it has a significant. Right, I was like, oh, my comment. Yeah. And I am noticing that in the trade, I'll just refer to the investment. So I don't know if that should be changed to the study of decarbonization. And carbonizing our pension funds. Yeah, I mean, I guess I just want to say this over completely a reasonable word. That what New York did was an overall timeline for decarbonization with phased divestments to achieve decarbonization. So they, you know, this requires them to just work back on the strategy and timeline, which I suppose will then have. And you will update on divestment, but I don't want to get rid of the word divestment because it's along the path to be carbonized. Absolutely agree. I agree. Thank you. Besides, if you want to keep the title. Yeah. And we could, Keisha, where would you add that with? Or is it just, I think it's with the timeline. So soon, the phase in, I mean, I think that's part of the strategy. It could be like in developing the strategy and plan, the committee shall devise a devise the phases of divestment. That's kind of what New York did is like create an immediate schedule of divestment and divestment. So should I consider the feasibility of different decarbonization strategies and phases? Well, it's included in divestment. Is it included in divestment? I think one of the strategies would be phased. Phased. So I think we can leave it simply like this. But it would be great to have. But so I think if we're trying to keep it. We could say shall recommend divestment phases. And recommend. I don't know that we need to tell them to do it at phases. My guess is that that's part of the strategy. That would be part of the strategy. But I think I do have a comment on line 12. On the first page. Line 12. Yes, there is no line 12, but I think that one of the things that I heard Kasia say is that get rid of the investment policies and what might make sense here is to develop a strategy and timeline for policies of the state to decarbonize the investments. That's mine. So that you're asking them to develop a policy because you do want them to develop a policy and they're not. It isn't the policy that is going to be decarbonized. But it's so and timeline for let's see how did I read it. Timeline for the state policies. The policies of the state. Yeah, for the policies of the state to decarbonize the investments with an S of the Vermont state employees. That's good, I think. Because I think that might. Because what we're asking them to do is to develop some policies here to move us in that direction. Yes, there. That's and we're not suggesting the timeline or anything. And then they'll bring that in January. I guess the other thing for me is I don't know if states have articulated how you continue to measure sound investment criteria against approaching climate failure. Or, you know, like, I wonder if the states that set this in motion said something more than what would currently be considered sound investment criteria because. Well, sound investment criteria would not have you invested in these huge liabilities. This language actually was from the main legislation. OK, OK, I just was he said. And I think we want to be careful not to prescribe to be the prescriptive here and and the and the pick and the Treasurer's Office also have. What is it called? ESG or EGS policies that what energy sounds. Whatever that is, Tom will tell us. But those are called. What are they called? Tom. With I guess I'm missing the question. What I just said that we don't want to be too prescriptive here. And so and that in because you already have some policies around moving in that direction. And I couldn't remember if it's ESG or some letters like that that you have. Well, yeah, we have a we have an ESG, which is environmental, social and governance policy. OK, we also have a proposed carbon policy, which has been referred to our ESG subcommittee. So the carbon policy would probably be a sub some policy of the overall ESG policy that we did at all. If I may, Tom, I think we wanted to call it a carbon reduction policy. That's correct. Yeah. So I'm going to suggest here that we we suggested a change and see what on line 12 on page one. That so it would say develop a strategy and timeline of state policies to decarbonize or to a timeline for policies of the state to decarbonize the investments. So that you're you're we're asking you to develop the policy. Yeah, I have one question on this proposed language, and it's a little confusing, is are you asking the Joint Public Pension Oversight Committee to do this? Are you asking BPIC to do this? Because it sounds to me like you're asking them. It says here, we're asking them to do it. Yeah, we're in concert with us, which is fine. I just wanted to make sure that this isn't a BPIC directive. It'll be directed by the subcommittee. OK, thank you. Yes, yes, I think it is the Joint Pension Oversight Committee working with the straight the state treasurer, the chair of the of BPIC and interested stakeholders. So they are the ones that are charged with doing it. OK. So is this. Would that change? If that's what we people's needs. To move it forward, I think it does. I mean, well, the two comments I have on it, I know the title of divestment, I thought we were going to call it decarbonization or the decarbonization policy to be consistent. And then the second thing is I really suggest you add a line item for dollars for this Joint Public Pension Oversight Committee to have at least at the outset. And that would be my my two comments that I think you say the second one again. I would suggest adding a line item in here for the Joint Public Pension Oversight Committee to have some some dollars to actually perform this function, whether or not we've got to hire people or whether I would bring people in or bring in further consultant work, because there isn't anything in the budget, at least the proposed budget for fiscal 23 for this with BPIC. And I don't know if that's you have any in your budget. But I know they cut out a person in our budget. So I just want to make sure you should list some dollar amount that they could have at their disposal, whether they use it or not, or whether we're able to do this internally and work with them better. I think it's important to have something there. What would you put? I put about 50,000. Because it costs us about 40 to 60 when we did it in 2017. So I'd put something like that. If I could, I would suggest a little bit more because it was between 40 and 60,000 and that was 2017. So you might want to go up to 75 or something. You don't want to have to come back. I know the task force, for instance, got a little little tight on money as it finished its process. You want to give it some room so that you can hire folks that can provide the professional expertise you're looking for. Can I? Yeah, so so the more money we allocate, the more prescriptive I feel like being that this can't achieve the same result as 2017. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding your interpretation of the organization versus divestment and that we're not just going to hear. A majority of shareholder activism again, but that this language moves us toward a timeline for divestments that are phased that lead to decarbonization of the portfolio. Could I respond to that, please? Yes, please. So I think that the idea here is to look at a strategy and determine what the right strategy is and not to predetermine what the process should be. I mean, what the result will be. And again, I think you need professionals to help us and to work through this. You don't want to get in a position where you don't have sufficient dollars. We're talking about developing a strategy. We're talking about developing a policy. And before we determine what it is, we should actually take the time to do it right. Yeah, I mean, I'm always leering of studies that have a presupposed outcome. I'm just leery of a repeat of 2017. And we're here because there is a growing number of people who don't believe that that is an acceptable outcome for this. Well, I'd argue, though, Senator, with all due respect, is that the 2017 outcome resulted in significant changes to be taken at the time. And we've made significant progress since that time, including investing over 200 million in a low carbon index fund, which at that point, we never even had the opportunity. And BlackRock came to the table because of our efforts. So I think there have been significant progress. I think this proposal would help us identify the issues within VPIC that could be constraints on timeline and could maybe define that timeline in a better way. Because if it comes back and says, if you do this immediately, you're going to jeopardize certain issues of the portfolio, which we'd have to then revalue, I'd be very concerned. So I think, to me, it would be a very helpful study to further our work from 2017 and not to diminish the accomplishments that I think best office performed in that study. Because I think we've accomplished all five of the recommendations that were recommended at that time. I guess I'm just still curious how you're defining the difference between divestment and decarbonization. Well, divestment to me is you don't have any stocks whatsoever after a certain point. And I view it more as a timeline of implementation as, because quite frankly, we may not be able to get completely divested given the current strategy of Vermont using index funds. And so, for example, our low-carbon fund still has some, somebody could define it as, it depends on how you define that term. Some people view complete divestment as getting out of ExxonMobil. Some view it as getting out of the top 10 reserves. Some view it as the top 200. I think part of this study can help define that. And then you can have a roadmap to what are benchmarks of success. New York pushed it out to 2040. Hopefully we wouldn't have to do it that far, but. New York pushed it out to 2040, but they did set a timeline for divestment. That's much more imminent. From Exxon, from shale oil, from, so yeah. And I think a report could help tell us, if we do that, this is what it will impact in regards to a budget for VPIC. We may have to add five people because we will no longer be able to index in the way that we've been doing in the past. And it may identify changes that we would have to over time structure into VPIC. It can identify the issues that we brought up between direct or indirect holdings. I think we're, I think we're getting too far into this. What this is asking is for this group to come up with a study that has those timelines and what we need to do and how we need to approach this. We're not going to come up with that sitting here. I just want to get rid of the word divestment and I want to understand what's happening. What's the difference between divestment and decarbonization? If I could talk to that, Madam Chair, I think that when we talked and had this discussion, we talked about decarbonization as a policy and working forward. Divestment in this bill, you have some discussion of fiduciary responsibility. I think, as I said earlier, that we should beef that up a little bit and I have some suggestions on that. But we do have to manage our fiduciary responsibility in this process as well. And I would argue that New York has an, we talk about engagement and we've got to do more than that. New York has an engage, engage, engage, and then depending on the results of that engagement, make another decision. We have to have that conversation and look at it in the light of different strategies, how to do it. And we believe that the word divestment comes with a connotation that you've already had a self, you've already decided what the results are gonna be. We want to do the right thing on the environment. We wanna do the right thing for our employees. We wanna make sure that the right thing for our retirees, we have a fiduciary responsibility to that. And we've committed to a process of lowering our carbon footprint. And we would love to do more. But to put out there what you think the result should be, I think is premature. And I do believe the word divestment comes with that connotation. And we would rather have a process that brings in all ideas and all suggestions and look at what states in New York are made. And I would very, I would recommend that as a change. Alison. So I would propose the following title if you could live with this because I think you're looking at many of us who, and we compromised yesterday and came up with this proposal. And I would like you to consider compromising on the title. I would call it an act relating to the decarbonization and phased in divestment of state pension funds from fossil fuel companies. So I don't know how they feel about that. I'll just say it again. I'd like to decarbonization and phased in divestment of state pension funds. So I do think that, and I don't have a dog in this fight at all, but I do understand that what Tom was saying is that divestment, me, will we ever be able to say we have truly divested every single dollar of ours from anything that has anything to do with fossil fuels? Because if we use indexed, and I don't understand this there very much at all and my banker will attest to this, but if we have three stocks in some place that sells, Yeah, you're right, you may not. But we're saying here that it is, that that is what we're, and so divestment means full, not ever being full. Yeah, I guess that's what divestment means. It's fully moving. Two thoughts. One is we're talking about divesting to the greatest deal, to the greatest possible position. That isn't what this says. But I think that's logically what people would think. Divesting 100% or 90% or 80% of divestment is the greatest goal possible. The other thing is divestment seems to imply that total divestment you're predicting the outcome. Why don't we not feel the same way about decarbonization? Why don't we say decarbonization means it's 100% decarbonization? We're predicting an outcome. I don't see why we're assuming we're predicting an outcome when we use the word divestment, but we're not predicting an outcome when we use the word decarbonization. And that's why. So, I'm gonna go to Brian. Thank you Madam Chair. So, I feel probably as strongly about not having the word divestment in the title as others in the room may feel as strongly included. My question is, and it's for Beth and Tom, are there not other ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint that have nothing to do with divestment? Can't we invest in companies that, I mean, we don't know what technology is gonna bring in the next five years. It could be a company that all of a sudden comes on the scene that would help us reduce our carbon footprint. And I'll argue that at this point. Wait, wait, wait, Tom. Well, I'm just saying, I don't think divestment is the only way to reduce our carbon footprint. I guess what I'm saying. Okay, I'm gonna, if we're, this and that, Anthony, what you just said is entirely new to me when you said that we're talking about divesting to the fullest, greatest extent possible. Because that is not what this said. The original bill and said fully divested by 2027. That's what the original one said. So in this case, divestment means fully divested. It did not, nowhere in the bill, does it say fully divested? It doesn't say divested in the bill anywhere. And so why would it be in the title? Because our partners here asked us to. Yes, I realized that, but it, so if you wanna say to relating to decarbonization and divestment to the fullest extent possible, but I don't. I am okay. I just, I think we're arguing about, do we agree with the concept of the amendment? We can figure out. I mean, I will, I don't wanna speak to the group, but I think we are trying to follow a path that now exists in other states where they have taken aim at some of the most harmful fossil fuel extractions, new exploration, new pipelines, new creation of fossil fuel distribution and creation and activity and said, we want to divest. We do not wanna participate in new fossil fuel extraction. And then looked at strategies over a decade plus two decades that decarbonize the entire portfolio as industries decarbonize themselves as there are new choices to me. I just, I don't want to decarbonize to become a greenwashing word for like picking through some low carbon solutions. I think that I would like us to show a commitment to divesting from oil and gas exploration, companies that are continuing to be bad actors around environmental practices. I wanna open up ecologically sensitive area. I mean, when you look at what New York did, they started a process of digesting from some of the things that are accelerating climate change past the point of climate failure. And I don't, I just want that intent to live on because that is important, that's important to me. I get that all. But what this says is divestment from fossil fuel companies. So will we ever, ever, ever be able to say we are 100% divested of any investment into any fossil fuel company? That's what this says. Right, and I think that that is the challenge of this work and coming up in a policy and a strategy and a timeline to take us to the fullest point possible. Obviously, many companies still use plastic bags as they're made of fossil. I mean, you're right. As Tom has said, there are many companies that are using materials that are made by fossil fuels. Yes. You cannot possibly divest of everything that uses materials and some aspects of the fossil fuel industry. But you can fully divest from the major companies who are the major actors in an industry that is destroying our planet. That is creating new fossil fuels. Yes. I think that I don't, I'm gonna step back here. I think we're arguing about one word. We're arguing about one word here. And if Anthony says divest to the fullest extent possible that's very different than saying we're going to divest. Well, but we're talking about a strategy. No, I'm talking about the title. You want? How about a new title? I think just from this conversation, what I would say and my marionette help is that we don't have a definition of what constitutes a fossil fuel company. What percentage of their activity is exploration and extraction of fossil fuels. There are lots of companies that are transitioning to being energy companies that are not fossil fuel companies. But we are asking for a phase out of investment in companies or activities that are majority fossil fuel extraction. Well, that's what this study will do over the summer. Right, I just think, I think we're not, we're hoping not to lose the word divestment as a more immediate way to no longer invest in new oil and gas infrastructure and exploration. All right, well, that isn't what this says. So may I ask a question, please? Yes. So if you're talking about everything in fossil fuels is there was a level one, two, and three. Level one is direct fossil fuels. Number two is where your company results in some fossil fuel indirect activities. And the third is everything else but that. So you're talking about supply chain, you're talking about all sorts of things. So I don't know if you folks have gone through that process of looking at those studies. We've asked companies to give us what they do on all those three. And I'm not sure the right term is stages, but there's a level one, two, and three to this. And if you say fossil fuel divestment from all carbon, do you mean everything in the supply chain or not? And I think we really need to have a carbon. I'm looking at the Comptroller's office and he's talking about in his summary of the next step in Comptroller-Denapolis Climate Action Plan, 2040 net zero admissions target, a commitment to transition the fund to a net zero greenhouse gas admission by 2040. Established interim trajectory goals to measure progress. Engage, increased engagement with portfolio companies to achieve net zero admissions, including working against directors at the companies that fail to manage climate risk. A review of energy sector investments like 2025 and transparency measures and annual progress report updates. What we're talking about is frankly, generalizations about this. What we need to do is get down to what our low carbon goals are and how we can reach them and still meet the fiduciary responsibilities of the VPIP and the retirement boards. Are you saying that, wait, let her finish? I'll stop there. Okay, Senator Romp and so? Are you not seeing on that page that you're looking at divestment commitments because that is different information than what I saw from what came out of communications from that office that were specific five year commitments to divestment. So either we're looking at different information or it's just incomplete from what you're looking at. Well, I came away with a different understanding of New York's policies. And if we're going to make something based on that, maybe we need to check it out and have that conversation or go with a definition that allows us to flexibility within the decarbonization is divestment. Within the definition of decarbonization is engaging toward net zero. It is engaging companies. It's all of those things and it's comprehensive. And the goal is to get to the same place that you folks are. And I would suggest that putting the term divestment in the top characterizes it as a direction toward one strategy. And the bottom line for me is how do we get to net zero? How do we get to doing the right thing here? And how do we do that as fiduciaries? And I think that the title should be about decarbonization just as the bill is. Tom, you had your hand up. You're muted. Sorry about that. You know, I would agree with Beth in that the definition of divestment sort of differs from person to person and it becomes the issue versus where we're trying to get to. And I really hear what Beth's saying. Decarbonization incorporates strategies that we're already incorporating and we can probably get there quicker. Divestment says, get rid of things to me. And it says it to a lot of different people in regards to well, how do you get there? And if it's five stocks or if it's 200 stocks it's a big difference on the impact to the pension fund. And so that's why I think reviewing the deep decarbonization strategy and timeline is a more appropriate title. And it would really set the committee up for a really successful proposal for the legislature next year, I believe, because we could have those specific to file full benchmarks that we can look for in two years, five years, 10 years to get to maybe 20, 40. I personally don't think you'll ever get out completely as long as we have a passive index strategy. And I'll repeat that because there are going to be companies that are caught up in this that we may have a position that somebody defines in a way that we shouldn't have. I'll use the example of thermal coal which we got out of a number of years ago. We had $600 worth of it in one of our index funds and would have cost the pension trust 70,000 to get rid of it through this, the original divestment process. So I'm trying to prevent that type of situation and to have a process that we often live with so that we can be proud of whatever our carbon policy becomes and so we're willing to work with it but I just don't want to, I don't want to get lost in the title because that definition can be very inflammatory. So, Madam Chair, if I could, I'm reading now from the New York State Pension Fund set net, 240 net zero carbon emissions target. And this is developed, this is from the office of the state comptroller and it talks about the 2040 and it does say in here that they're going to continue to engage in a cage and divestment may, and the word is may, divestment is a last resort, but it is investment tool we can apply to companies that consistently put our investment, investments long-term value at risk. So again, it links it to the value of the portfolio and it does say that it may be a strategy. And it does say engage, engage, engage. So if you're talking about the press and how they, I think you need to take a look at the actual documents from the New York. I would recommend something that says decarbonization or sets a net zero carbon target or something to that effect and leave the inflammatory word out of there because it is inflammatory and it also predisposes a conclusion in the process. So that would be my recommendation and again, I'm reading directly from his document as of December 9th, 2008. 2008 and what? 2020. So I just, I think that if, and divestment does mean you're no longer there. I don't understand why, how you can say that that is not what divestment means because if we're saying that we should divest it means we're no longer investing and we're taking all our investments out. So if only over time, it doesn't say it happened so many years. But I will, I have a very small retirement fund. It's handled by Fidelity. I have no idea if they're, if they invest in. Do any of the rest of you know exactly where your investments are? No. Yep, pretty much. So you don't have any indexed funds? Yeah, we have some, but we're pushing hard to get rid of them. Divestment, the action or process of selling off subsidiary business investments or investments. Yes. So it's an act and process. And that's what we're talking about here in terms of a strategy to get to net zero. I agree with you, Beth. Net zero is a good, useful idea. So, you know, we can work on a title. I don't think we need the worst investment now but we could work on that. We have to, we have to pass this out today or we're not gonna get it done. It has to be done today. We have three more bills that we have to deal with. And so why don't we say an app relating to moving toward a net zero carbon output? I don't agree that the word divestment is a inflammatory. I think that's just weird. Okay. All right. You know, I don't really care. I don't know that anybody pays attention to titles or not anyway, but... But I think we should include, we should say that we want to divest to the greatest extent possible. Yeah. It obviously means that we're not gonna do anything ridiculous, undermine the fiduciary responsibilities or tank this pension funds. Nobody's gonna want to do that. Okay, then say to the greatest extent possible. I know you said it a few times and then we will keep arguing. No. Yes. Did you agree with that? I have actually written it down. I have an app relating to the decarbonization and phased in divestment to the fullest extent possible or possible. Okay. It's fine with me. I don't care one way or the other because it's been. Is that, is that, does that, is that okay with you? Probably not, but we've got, where are you going to pass this to? We're not going to get it out. It's not going to happen this year. If we get the funds to do it, I'd be in favor of that title because I think you really need the professional opinion and timeline that marks down to the complete. That's what this is about. That was the original argument is I'd like to, it's a chicken egg. Like if we're going to get the funds, I'd like to make sure divestment is very fully on the table to the extent possible. So yes, I think we're in agreement. I actually think Russia's an example of exactly what we're talking about. When everyone divested from Russia, what anything invested there became worthless. The only way to keep oil and gas exploration from being so lucrative in the future is to divest. There is no other way to stop valuing the destruction of the planet. I agree with you on that, but that fossil fuel companies, there are companies that my guess is that engage in fossil activities that involve fossil fuels that don't do exploration. So this is not just talking about exploration or new investments. This is talking about all fossil fuel companies. And that would mean any, in my mind, that means anybody that has any product or does anything with fossil fuels, which includes plastic bottles and I don't know what else is made. These pans that I have on are this closest thing to the oil that you can get. A couple of pans for a ton. You get it, you get it. So I don't think that, so let's use Anthony's language here. Okay, that works for me. I wanted to just comment to say that when we, years ago, we still decided to sell off tobacco stocks, we divested from tobacco companies that it wasn't inflammatory, it was just the right thing to do. I want to point on that too, because I think the committee needs to understand the complexity involved. We have tens of thousands of positions and all of them could have minute impacts or reflect some part of fossil fuel infrastructure. And so it's not as easy as just looking at the portfolio and saying, let's just sell ox on mobile. The complexity of Vermont needs to be evaluated. And so I- That's why we do the study. Exactly. That's the point of the study. See, we get into this thing sometimes where we were talking as if we're doing a study, but have I read all those documents? No, I have not, because it's not my job to do the study. My job is to say that a study should be done. So Madam Chair, if I could, two things. Number one, the tobacco was done by policy of the retirement board after a study was done by then treasurer Douglas's office looking at the value of those and the litigation that was coming and they made a decision. And again, I'm going to emphasize that's called procedural prudence. They took a look, they exercised their fiduciary responsibility and then made a change. That's the same thing that we're going to be doing here. No, you're not. No, you're not. I'm assuming that these people who do the study are not going to take those things seriously. Can I finish- Nothing in the outcome is going to be something that's negative. May I finish, sir? Sure. Thank you. So when we did the study in 17, the study was to look at the issue and make a decision, give us, the study was on divestment. And the answer was that's not what you should be doing and because of cost to the system and concentration risk. Now, if you do a study now and that changes, I'm all good with it. But the point I'm trying to make is that that study did have the word divestment in it. That was what they were looking at and they came up with a conclusion. Whether you like the conclusion or not, that's the conclusion that they came up with and we developed a five point plan based on that. Now we're looking and saying, how do we expand on that and do more? And we're looking at a way to do that within our fiduciary responsibility. And that is what decarbonization is all about. You know, we're looking at that predisposing the answer. And I keep hearing that is a violation of fiduciary responsibility because you haven't done the analysis and looked at the options available to you and that's just not the way to do things. You have to take this and look at the potential strategies and make a rational choice based on that. You're gonna get all of the information on January 15th of 2023 so that you can make an informed decision. To determine prior to that, that divestment is the best strategy as opposed to, again, engage, engage, engage and then consider divestment or whatever it might be. That's have an opportunity to look at it, make a rational decision based on procedural prudence based on doing your studies and then coming up with the appropriate strategy for this state to achieve both a reduction, a carbon-free portfolio if that's possible. And again, your point is well taken. The cup that you have has, that you're using right now probably was developed with energy and we have to have the discussion of the proper process. The investment assumes a conclusion and I don't think that that's appropriate and I think it runs contrary to our fiduciary responsibilities and frankly, yours as well. I'm gonna call an end to this discussion. Okay. I'm going to, so part of me says we need to move in this direction. I mean, all of me says we need to move in this direction but part of me says I don't know where we'll get. I don't know what the best strategy's are gonna get. And actually to say that 2017 resulted in nothing is not right because it did result in changes. So we did make changes there and we will certainly make changes now and changes are continuing to happen and they're not happening fast enough for people and that is true. But I also wanna say that this is, we have to do the best that we can for the climate, for our funds, for our retirees and for our current employees. And if we don't do that then we're making bad decisions so we need to take this very seriously. It isn't just a matter of saying we're gonna be done with this. We're gonna, we're done. And I don't think that's the right direction to take because and if the study in 2017 came up saying at this point, it would be detrimental to our funds to go in that direction. What if the study in 2023 comes up and says the same thing? What are we gonna do? And this is not, and we had this room full of 350 people a few years ago saying you need to divest right now and you need to do it right now. And this is not a political statement. We're not doing this to get kudos from the people out there who are pressuring us to do this. If that's why we're doing this then we shouldn't even be doing it. I just needed to say that because I think that sometimes we tend to think of whether we're doing something because it really is the very best thing to do or if we're doing something because we're getting pressure from advocacy groups. So. That's halfway in the intent of your colleagues. I'm not talking about us necessarily. I'm talking about in general that there is a big push. I'm getting, I can't tell you I'm getting emails that say you have to divest right now. That's what I'm getting. And people don't. Yes, Senator Rotman said on that I think we're gonna end this. We're gonna have the new title and then we'll see if it passed. So we never had anyone from the comptroller's office in New York which I think makes this challenging but I don't want us to disagree on things that appear in black and white to be factual about the direction that New York is moving in. And when New York announced its 2040 decarbonization plan it announced immediate divestment from 22 coal companies. It announced that same year divestment from tar sands and then it announced over the next four years divestment from shale oil and gas, integrated oil and gas like Exxon and Chevron, all oil and gas exploration and production firms, fossil fuel service firms and fossil fuel transportation and pipeline companies. They started with an immediate divestment plan from companies that focused specifically on the development and transportation of fossil fuels and then set a plan to decarbonize the rest of their portfolio. I think what the three of us are asking for is to move in a direction where we think of the immediate ways that divestment will help devalue companies that are focused specifically on creating more fossil fuels, more carbon emissions as their sole focus as a company and then decarbonizing the rest of the portfolio. But to take the word divestment out is I think a big disservice to the really critical need to devalue what will happen in the next five years that will be make or break for this planet. It is not me listening to somebody else that is not hyperbole. This is what scientists are telling us in a very real way in consensus around the globe and it's already here. I do agree with you. And I think that's what the study hopefully will do. That's not what we're doing. Right, I just wanna clear the record about divestment is core to this. Okay, and I think we did decide to leave that word in divestment to the greatest extent possible. And I make one other kind of suggestion which may or may not work to argue it, but being at the top stage too, it says that should consider the ability of different decarbonization strategies and review models to some other states for decarbonization. Could we say used in New York and other states for decarbonization because we talk a lot about New York, they seem to be out of a way of phasing it in. That makes sense. Why don't we just make it more clear that we think New York is a decent hall. Sure, I like that we can add New York in there so that it's very clear that New York is a hall to look at. Yeah, I think that makes sense. Okay, so we have to give these notes to Becky. So what? And review models used in New York and other states. And the title will now read and that relating to moving towards a net zero decarbon net zero carbon output and divestment to the greatest extent possible. From fossil fuel to things. Yeah, of state pension funds. I'm gonna explain it. I don't know whether your grandma was the best. I see like a clunky sentence. It was a clunky sentence, but yeah. I just wanna make sure that, I wish we had an expert in the room about net zero versus zero emissions. I think that's zero. I think net zero means like you can mess around with. How about an act relating to the decarbonization and phase in divestment to the great fullest extent possible from fossil fuel? Yes. Okay. Of the state pension, divestment to the great fullest extent possible on the state pension funds from fossil fuel. Okay. I'll just make it simple. Yep. Okay. Okay. I will type this to that. And then adding New York. Yes. And the 50,000 and the change we made here on lines 12 and 13. And we had asked Tom, remember yesterday we had talked about the money and said that you could add it in the house because this will be going to the house and they will. Well, it's in the original bill. It would be good if it's there. You know, there's two ways of approaching this. The governor took out an employee that we had requested for all of the other reports that had been asked from Act 75. And so the original budget request had an employee. It's either, I think we could do this either with an allocation of 50 to 60,000 or we put back in that extra person that we had asked for to help Eric. Yes, we should be advocating for that anyway. I'd love to have an extra person. Eric would love to have an extra person. Tom, would you send the $50,000 language to Becky? 75, we're doing 75. Okay, yeah, I'll send the 75,000 language. And they can spend that. Maybe it is hiring an extra person. I don't know about that amount. It's too low, I think, so. Eric told me the 100,000 was the amount they took out of our budget for the all-in expenses with salary and benefits. And I'd love to get that back, but that's a different discussion with you. I can send you a language for either one. You sent us a language for what that work would entail? Sure. Because we'll have to, yeah, but 75,000 is I think what our chair just said. Okay, we'll put that in. I think that's what Beth suggested. Yeah, Beth suggested that. All right, are we, have we come to a decision? Are we gonna try to vote like that? Do you want to wait and see how much work we're gonna do? We better not have any more discussions of it though, because we're out of time. Right, we'll get a new draft tomorrow and hopefully be able to look at it about one o'clock, 1.30 when we're back in here. I was actually hoping that this would have taken about five minutes today. Well, we're getting there. I've been telling folks 145. Okay, are you aware of that? After 145, if you go on the floor at 11, and it's two hours, and that's in one, I don't know if you're gonna take around lunch. No, we're gonna bring it down here. We're gonna start 10 minutes after the floor. Okay, no, because we have to get done. Okay, so, okay, so we'll get that from, that language for Becky, and thank you. Thank you, and I'm sorry if I got a little testy here. Okay. I just seemed arguing about one word was making me a little crazy. It often comes down to that. Not to you all crazy, but to one thing, two words. Okay, so we've spent hours on May and Chow. I was hoping that we would have had a new amendment for 176, which is the water thing that I thought he was going to do something about. No. I've heard from a couple of colleagues, and people have been hearing from other colleagues, but this, yes, no, yes. I have heard, but this is really tough on the city and that they would, where they are now is they're really wanting very much to have an agreement between the town and the city with the town basically paying an affiliation amount. I can't, I can't argue. I think the representatives of the house are feeling very much like this is not a great. Right, they wouldn't take it up in the house for three years or two years or something, but I thought that what we were saying was that all we wanted to do was say that no town could impose a property tax based on appraisal of property on the residents of another town. I thought that was as far as we were going to go. We're not going to say they can't have an affiliation fee or, but they can't impose a property because that's what they're doing is a, it's basically a property tax on people that aren't in their city. And if you can do that for this, then why shouldn't Dumberston impose a property tax on the people in the village of Putney because their closer, Dumberston is closer to the village than the rest of the town. So you don't kill your library to put a property tax on little sex to use the library. And you can do a user fee right now, but you could also do a property tax on the people in little sex. Yeah. I heard what Allison said as well. And I think the solution we're talking about should be, I guess, benign enough in terms of our part. What I had heard that could certainly is that this, it might escalate a situation where the city's threatening to cut off water to people, which I don't think is legal. I'm not sure, but, you know, it, I wouldn't want to contribute to escalating a situation that we can't resolve and this water is involved. When we talked to you a couple of times ago, we had this guy from the city who was testified. He basically said, oh, they wanted to, they wanted to not use our water, they don't have to use our water. He was like really kind of arrogant about that. He was the city manager. Yeah. I had to start his attitude. It was kind of like daring to do it. Like it's implying that, you know, water. Well, they're probably just off the user fee. They're not that safe. I mean, wouldn't that be kind of logical? No, that's, as I said to Mike McCarthy, I said, you know, he said, well, we need the money. I said, well, charge is used. Charge to our user fee to surcharge. Well, they could also. Property tax. I think the town manager isn't his name. Dominic cloud, something like that. Didn't he also say that the town of St. Albans could pay the city $100,000 a year to cover, and then they wouldn't impose that. True. So it does seem to me that, I don't know. So maybe this is, maybe we don't want to do anything with this. I think what I lost track of is that this was at one point in our legal process, like a court process. And it feels like a new law is an over alignment. What's what I'm looking for, like kind of a reaction of some sort to something that should be a court dispute. But I lost track of if court became a dynamic for them. There was, I don't know if it still is or not. I think that the, the problem that court parent brought up yesterday, which I thought was a good one, is that this is right now a dispute between the city and the town. But it could be unless there's some kind of resolution that other towns could start putting property taxes on residents of other towns as a way. I mean, most towns could use more money. And so the Burlington could start putting a property tax on people in Shelburne because they drive on Pine Street. Right. Yeah, the roads, the fudder. That's y'all we could go back on Burlington for different reasons. We could have everybody's, you know. Yeah, and currently towns pay town's property tax. Like we have property, the town of Putney, part of the town forest is in Brookline. We pay property tax to Brookline, I believe. Because we own property there, but that's different than imposing it on residents. And for water usage, which our property taxes don't use sugar or water usage. It's getting darker, isn't it? I don't know if the lights are on either. But the screen is, oh, are we, are we still? Oh, well, I guess we haven't heard from Tucker yet, have we? No. So what else do we need to do as your committee? Let's figure out the remainder of our time. What I have on the list for tomorrow is 251, 250, 229, and 176. What's 229? That's the length of choice. Oh, that's right. And I haven't heard back from... Condos. Jim Condos or Wilson. Well, I think it's Condos that's gonna need to come in. He's the, I invited both of them. Okay. We may have to, Senate rules is gonna be needed. We may have to ask for a session on that one. Generally, it's an approach. Well, I think that's for some, when we first talked about it, the Secretary of State said that it's very complicated and the way he was done now this, and that it could wait till 2023. But now he somehow has a path forward for it being very simple if it's just the presidential election. But, so I don't know. Mm-hmm, I, but I still think I... That was my understanding, is that he had a simple path forward for the presidential. That's good, I heard too. Well, so tomorrow at one o'clock. 145, she said. No, I just, I can't. I, Gail said 145, I said one. Are there optimists there? 10 minutes after the fall of the gavel. Okay. Yeah, if we're gonna get anything done, we're right with you. We're your team. Okay. So 10 minutes after the fall of the gavel, we'll first do 251. If that's done, then it'll be over. And I won't say a word, except. You can say as much as possible. Does anybody wanna offer a motion? That's what I'll say. Are we selling one? Yes, ma'am. Yeah. And then, so we'll do 251. And then we still have some sections of 250. And we were going to start, we were going to do section eight. I believe, I'm pretty sure you said that was the, because there was a lot of agreement around that one. That's the, how do you say it? I've been saying giglio. Giglio. Giglio. Giglio files. Giglio. The second G is silent. Giglio. Giglio. But it's both people. But it's both people who pronounce it. Giglio. Giglio. I mean, that's what they, but okay. Yes. Didn't you say there was a lot of, There seems to, I mean, there seems to, that came up at judiciary last year. Again, law enforcement said, this feels redundant. The AG's office supports it. When he went through it, I didn't hear strong disagreement. So there's a piece about discovery and there's a piece about it being a registry or publicly available. And Julio would have to articulate the value of the registry and how it would work. I suppose that was their proposal and I wouldn't want that to happen. That's the Julio registry. Yeah. Sure. I cannot show this. Right. He will not be here. Thank you. And then who has access to it. Yeah. That might be a longer discussion, but I just think this one is more important than people realize because it's about how you document misconduct and misconstitution of information that keeps someone from being credible on the witness stand and credibility is a huge part of policing. So let's do that. Let's do section eight of 250. Great. And then maybe it makes sense to try and look at the false information and interrogation language tomorrow. So there's a great matter now. Oh, and I did talk to Toad Sears that I was gonna explain in further detail to him about going into, even if we just did the study, I know you had three things, not applying it to juvenile. The court and everything like that. And not applying it to juveniles. The two other points on their, I can't remember what they were not. They were recording all in here. Oh, recording all in the office. Right. And not, I don't know. Oh, it's strange. Strange, strange. And I don't know that you can tell, but I think what you can do is say that it can't count toward their, continuing education. Right, right. Just disincentivize those kinds of things. Yeah, the counsel can say that because they determine what's acceptable and what isn't acceptable. So they could say that. So even if we don't put that in here, we could ask them to review how they would word that so that it's maybe not just that training, but how they would, they would have to determine trainings that seem to use false information. Right. And maybe, I mean, Julio was the only person, I mean, we didn't have CJC in yesterday, but maybe it's like in concert with the AG's office, they figure out trainings that are, and encourage the use of false information. But that one was very obvious and I wouldn't have known that existed in the trial here. No, I have to go. I have a meeting to talk about it. Well, what time is it? I can't. It is five. It's 4.55. Oh, see, I can't see the clock now because of that screen. Yeah, the screen is. I think I can move that. So I didn't talk to Ben. No, it's okay, Brian, don't talk to me. I did talk to Ben this morning and he said that he would have something drafted up by tomorrow. Right, okay. Yeah, I just didn't know if we wanted to close the loop on that before. Yeah, okay, let me. And then study the whole thing about how you use evidence and how you obtain conditions, right? Okay. And then, and then 229. Okay. And just in here to just tell us what is simple. Yeah. Solution is I have a question about Bill, but I could wait to ask for it.