 Good afternoon. We're all here today to outline another important step with our all-in efforts to improve our waterways. As you may recall, in April, we officially launched the Vermont Invasion Phosphorus Challenge, or V-PIP, at the Vermont Farm Show. This initiative is a new way of tackling a very challenging issue, looking for solutions to reduce phosphorus in our lakes and streams. The problem we face is balance. We have more phosphorus going into our watersheds than we can take out, resulting in the excess of phosphorus in our environment. Currently, we're focused most of our efforts on just one end of the issue, working to address runoff in our waterways. And this must continue, because we have farmers engaged, working with our regulators to tackle this issue. And we've seen some progress. V-PIC is seeking proactive solutions, rather than relying only on active efforts. This is a new way of thinking about phosphorus and a new opportunity to solve our nutrient issues by removing phosphorus from the land before it reaches our waters. With the help of talented working group made up of scientists, business leaders, engineers, academics, and our team with the agencies of agriculture, natural resources, and commerce, we're now prepared to help move projects from concept to prototype. In just a few moments, we'll outline six proposals receiving state funding. The truth is, it was a very difficult selection process with more than 25 proposals submitted and a strong showing from Vermont-based entities. This impressive response shows the spirit of innovation in Vermont, and those willing to try to solve one of our most difficult environmental challenges. With this cruise, there is potential to reduce phosphorus loading to Vermont's landscape and waterways through innovative technologies and creating opportunities for new products as well. Just to be clear, the V-PIC challenge is in addition to ongoing measures being used in best management practices implemented by farmers and municipalities. These land-based practices will continue to receive funding. The V-PIC approach is a new way to think about and address excess phosphorus. We have to acknowledge phosphorus is still needed and it's valuable, but too much creates issues. By working with the private sector, this challenge is a win, win, win. It combines science, technology, and innovation. It creates a new model around phosphorus by promoting economic growth, environmental sustainability, and societal benefits. On behalf of my team, I want to thank those who participated in this challenge for your innovative ideas and commitment to helping address this complex problem. Secretary of Commerce Mike Sherwin will now share more on this reverse pitch approach. Very Sherwin. I think my role is to sort of outline what's different about this. The reverse pitch is the inverse of the way government typically does things. I'll observe that in the last year, I've been to a couple of different events kicking off things that were envisioned before I was born. This started in April, and it's coming to fruition in October. That's what's different about the approach. It's a much more entrepreneurial way of approaching problem solving, something that the private sector and small business in particular has embraced for some time. Traditionally, government puts out hundreds of pages of documents pre-prescribing a solution to a problem that we have identified. This is different because what we have done is put out on the street the problem and asked scientists, entrepreneurs, and innovators to come forward with their ideas for potential solutions and are embracing multiple potential solutions instead of just going down one road, which is the typical way that government responds to problems. So we're hopeful that this, one of the things that we've already noted is that the size of the organizations, the companies and partnerships that are being funded here is not the typical size of the organizations that typically get government funding. Usually you need an entire department that responds to requests for proposals in order to even respond to something that we put out. That's not the case here. Very short proposals were initially submitted. Science then backed that up and then we had an interactive process where there were presentations in question and answer period by a dozen or more respondents to the original set of proposals. So a much more nimble approach, a one that casts a much wider net for small and medium-sized organizations and companies to respond to and hopefully at the end of this process we'll have netted faster and more nimble and more affordable results from a lot of precarious tenants. And I believe this, I'm not sure if I can find them. Directly. Thank you very much. Anson Tepitz for the Agency of Agriculture. This is the part where we were going to announce the six recipients. Four out of the six are with us. We want to thank the governor for challenging state government to think differently about issues. I also want to thank the evaluation team made up of scientists and people in business and folks in state government as well. And a special thank you to Caitlyn Hayes. Caitlyn with the Agency of Agriculture. There's Caitlyn over there. Caitlyn is the project manager on this. Could not be done without her. Also, I think we have one member from the evaluation team, Eric is here. They're gently basing program. He was on the evaluation team as well. So governor, if you could sign the first check here. We are going to the first recipient for $45,000 is D.V.O. This is the University of Vermont. This is a project that involves 13 anaerobic digester vessels situated statewide to be utilized with enhancements of solids controlled using dissolved air flotation and develop a Peacake. Peacake product that is high in phosphorus for potential nationwide resale that will have to be verified and significant value to agriculture. So congratulations to D.V.O. and the University of Vermont. One of the recipients that could not be here today is from Enosburg Falls, which is agro lab technologies. Their project involves the use of a combination of existing phosphorus recovery technologies, composting and drying equipment and associated best management practices to demonstrate the technical feasibility of stabilizing and added value to recovered Peacake and similar materials. So agro lab was awarded $50,000. Our next recipient that is here comes from Vermont, Brickport, working with rock dust. They are going to manufacture, apply and study mineral and mineralized biocarbon soil amendments, what's called biochar. It will be deployed in the field to manage solution reactive phosphorus and nitrogen loss through broadcast field applications, animal bedding, admixtures and filtration media. So congratulations to rock dust. They are here with us and they have been awarded $25,000 to go forward with the next project there. So rock dust. Digested organics could not be with us. They have been awarded $45,000 by using an ultra filtration system on a Vermont dairy farm to remove most of the present phosphorus, suspended solids and pathogens and liquid manure, producing a transparent liquid ideal for field application known as permeate or tea water and a concentrated fertilizer that is readily transportable known as UF concentrate. So they are going to be awarded $45,000 that are not here. Our next recipient comes from the village of Essex, Junction and the Chittenden County Solid Waste District and UVM in this for $45,000. They use proprietary pipe descaling technology to remove phosphorus and Vermont sized wastewater applications. This technology will use induced electric field of amplitude and frequency that can promote precipitation of crystalline minerals without the dangers in damaging adhesion to pipes, pumps or intakes. So congratulations to the village of Essex, Chittenden County Solid Waste District and UVM $45,000. They're here. And our final recipient comes from the Northeast Kingdom, Green State Biochar with $30,000. They will be using local renewable organic waste materials that are processed in an innovative machine developed in Vermont as a prototype machine that produces carbon product called biochar. This phosphorus capture system utilizes this biochar to act as a filter that efficiently captures the majority of the phosphorus while producing valuable soil amendment fertilizer products for local reuse. So congratulations to Green State Biochar from Barber. Outstanding. Many thanks to all our companies, our researchers, our scientists for stepping up and working on this difficult issue. We believe in you. We believe in your work. And we look forward to seeing your projects progressing along the way. To talk about the next steps, I'll introduce Secretary of Natural Resources, Dr. Moore. Good afternoon. So I thought I'd just say a few words about where we're headed to following today. So as the previous speakers have noted, Stage 2 involves a total of $250,000 of funding allocated to these projects for prototyping, business case development, and demonstrations of the proposed technology over the next several months. Individual proposals contain a range of activities, things like pilot treatments, bringing a demonstration unit of a particular technology onto a Vermont farm and running it for a period of time, grow tests, developing mixes that use the recovered phosphorus and to do identify the best mix in promoting plant growth and field demonstrations with monitoring. So the range of Stage 2 work is really reflective of the different types of projects that are being pursued, but all of this work is essential in making informed decisions about what approaches make sense to advance to full-scale implementation. Over the next several weeks, a team will be negotiating project-specific scope of work and timeline for each of these successful proposals, and we expect that the work may take up to 12 months to complete. Beyond that, Stage 3 selections will focus primarily on the estimated cost per pound of phosphorus mitigated, as well as the way the demonstrated approach will allow that captured phosphorus to be repurposed as part of a value-added product. We don't believe that there's a singular solution to the phosphorus challenges Vermont faces, but rather a toolbox and are just completely thrilled by the range of tools that were submitted to VPIC for our consideration. And with that, I'm happy to open it up to questions. Can somebody just say in layman's terms what these things mean, what are they actually doing? Sure, there's a whole different range of technologies, but at the end of the day, it's trying to extract phosphorus from a waste stream before that waste is ultimately land applied or before it reaches a surface water. So some of these materials, the biochar material, for example, have a real affinity for phosphorus and the thinking is in the rock dust material and that you should be able to bind that and keep it on site. Others of these processes are looking to actually scavenge that phosphorus out before it ever reaches the environment. So pre-treating manure or municipal biosolids that would otherwise be land applied and reducing the phosphorus concentration in them. Does that help? Yeah, perfect. Okay. So do all of these recipients become part of stage three? They're not necessarily so. The vision is that two to three of them would be selected for stage three, but we haven't made any firm decisions on that. In large part, we're gonna wait and see what the results show us. We don't wanna over commit. If for some reason things need more work and we don't wanna under commit if we feel like the opportunities are really viable. And how much funding goes towards that? Again, we're gonna wait and see what the results of stage two yield. And if I'm understanding the timeline correctly, you said from now and for about 12 months you're estimating things to kind of play out and implement the prototypes and then after that 12 months, how long should we expect a stage three decision? I think in fairly short order, assuming there are things that look like they're really ready to move into that full scale implementation, our hope is to move aggressively with this. As the governor noted in his remarks, we face a significant phosphorus imbalance here in Vermont on the order of 1,500 tons a year. And so the sooner we can get at reducing that imbalance and trying to get back to closer to a zero sum game where we're using the same amount of phosphorus or bringing the same amount of phosphorus into Vermont that we're exporting in agricultural products, ultimately the better it will be for the water environment. So none of these would address the phosphorus that's already in the water waste or in the lake? Not directly, although the treatment designs that both rock dust and the Green State Biochar are proposing could be potentially used as an edge of field treatment to address phosphorus losses that are coming off of the land. Are any of these things offering happening anywhere? Some are, some aren't. I think there's some pretty innovative pieces that have been proposed here. There are some applications and frankly, we shied away from a number of them where they were either well under development or had other funding that was essentially intending to do the same work that we were hoping to catalyze through the phosphorus innovation challenge. So we've been fairly selective in picking things that we believe have direct application here in Vermont and we'd wanna prove out that by having the work done on the ground here in state. Some of these are private companies, some of these are municipalities, educational institutions. Does the state retain any ownership of these things moving forward or is it just turning over the cash to them and then whatever comes of it comes of it? Mike, if you're interested. Sure, those are things that we'll figure out once we determine what's viable and what the economic modeling is. Cost benefit analysis, what's the cost of deploy, how scalable is it and then there are a variety of different ways that the deal structures could be established but we don't have them yet so we haven't reached that point. Kind of related to that, is it up to the individual companies to show that there's a potential market for this or is the state as a whole kind of figuring out where markets are? In part, one of the things that we anticipate evaluating to move to the next phase is the scalability or the viability of the business model to sustain itself, not just the technology. So you may have a perfect piece of technology but the cost to run it and the ability to deploy it on a wide scale don't necessarily match. So there's a host of factors and a number of different variables and again, one of the things that makes this different is we haven't pre-prescribed all of these nuances at the front end. It's a very iterative approach so it gives the state and the taxpayers and the respondents and the folks getting grants a variety of flexibility at the back end to try to come together to find both select the best solutions and then create the best individual relationships and move things forward. Is it possible that the state could get into the phosphorus capturing business? We'd probably remiss if we ever said absolutely not. I don't think that's something we necessarily envision. That's why we've asked others to respond but I guess it depends how things play out in the next year or so. How did these different technologies, or I should say, did these different technologies as they are flying, how did they, everybody's proved that they all work, is that better said, even on a small scale or are some of these projects still in the theory phase? I think each project is able to make some demonstration of applicability so we have confidence that it's appropriate to move it forward. None of them are, in my mind, I call it sort of the crazy guy in his basement where they have an idea but they haven't actually formed it into a product. Biochar folks, for example, brought us a sample of their biochar, rock dust brought us a sample of their actual physical material and a clear description of how those would be incorporated into their design. So we have confidence that all of them are at the stage where it's really putting them on the ground and seeing how they function in the environment. Even at a pilot scale, that's really the essential to answering those questions. Those folks in the basement are called visionary innovators. Visionary, visionary, innovator. I saw it, there was a smile on all of their faces. I'd love to see a novelty check that said crazy guy in the basement. It was probably a t-shirt already. Now all these are addressing sort of point source, sources of phosphorus. So a lot of our problem with phosphorus is non-point source. How much of our problem can these things address? So I would say actually this really is essential to getting it at non-point source phosphorus. One of the things we know from research that's been done is that there is a strong relationship between how much phosphorus there is in the soil and how much phosphorus is lost as a result of non-point source pollution. So to the extent that we're able to scavenge some of that soil phosphorus or scavenging from materials before they're applied to the land, we are addressing non-point source pollution. And so I think this represents a really exciting opportunity to get to what is, you're correct, is 95% of the problem when it comes to phosphorus pollution here in Vermont. You also got in Vermont, like some of these things have to do with farms and we have a lot of farms. How feasible is it to put some sort of phosphorus capturing mechanism on enough farms to make the difference? So one of the entities that we've made an award to today, DVO, is operating digesters on 13 farms. But I believe those 13 farms and represent 20,000 cows or upwards of 20,000 cows. So we're able to have a disproportionate impact on sort of the total herd here in Vermont by working through that outfit, which was part of what appealed to us, frankly. And then we have some smaller scale technologies that are more maybe applicable to particular critical source areas, places where we have a significant phosphorus concentration and in close proximity to a surface water body. So we've tried to pick a mix of technologies to get at the full range of conditions we see here in Vermont. What does biochar look like? Do you have an example? Do you have any with you? Would you like to explain to me what it is? It's just charcoal, it's all good. So do you mind just explaining what it is and how it works? Let's stay up here with you. Thank God. I thought I could have your basement loose. Yeah. I wasn't afraid of that. Everybody looked in our direction. It's just wood with everything going out of it, but the carbon. The process that can't get oxygen in the process and that's what makes it a nice charcoal. So it looks like charcoal, it is charcoal. Correct. And then phosphorus binds to it, is that? It's very porous. So there's lots of pores in that biochar. So when the runoff is going through it, the biochar is absorbing all the phosphorus. Yes, exactly. And so this would be applied to agricultural fields? Well now you have this biochar enriched product, which is with phosphorus, and yes, it can be used on multitude of applications. Right now we have a lot of people interested in once it's absorbed all of its phosphorus. Hemp's given me a big thing up my way. We've been contacted by a lot of hemp farmers that are interested in that product. So you apply it in some way to a field, but then you have to go back out and get it? Yes, it's basically applied like a filter, like your household charcoal filter, it's the same way here. But then you're putting it on the ground, you wouldn't go back yet. Then it becomes a fertilizer on the ground, so now you put back fertilizer that you captured so you're reusing fertilizer. So everything you lost, you still have? Right. Yeah. Perfect. Yes. Can we get your names? This is Roger Peon, Luke Persons, and I'm Donald Peon. How do you spell Peon? P-I-O-N. Thank you. Like I said, that brings me to a question. I'm not sure who it's for, maybe Secretary Sherman. There's a lot of phosphorus out there, and the challenge. I would think the challenge is as much funding markets as it is developing technology. Are there markets out there? You're right, that is one way to look at the challenge. We haven't narrowed the focus of success just to finding a marketable solution. The first challenge is how do we positively impact the surplus of phosphorus that we're putting into the watershed on an annual basis? So sort of like first get to zero while we're simultaneously trying to clean up what's there. So that is a measure of success. The marketingness is the extra special bonus. We can positively impact the problem and at the same time create a set of businesses that thrive in Vermont, create jobs, create revenue, and recycle the phosphorus or do something else with the byproduct. That's the extra special bonus. One of the things I mentioned at one of the earlier press conferences is the layperson in all of this from a scientific and agriculture perspective. It was interesting to me to find out that I knew that phosphorus was essential to growth of everything on the planet but there's a finite amount of phosphorus and one of the things I learned was as it makes its way to the ocean, it's lost. So at some point the planet will run out of phosphorus. We have no idea when that's going to be and in part because some of the biggest suppliers of phosphorus in other countries don't let on how much they have in their reserves. But so recycling it actually becomes an eventual imperative for the planet. That's something. We'll all be gone by that point but we might as well start thinking about that as a piece of the puzzle as well. So Governor, you had said that this phosphorus capture needs to be done in conjunction with existing ongoing water quality efforts. So based off of that, I'd be curious what your proposal is for long term. Well, we're going to continue along the same path that we're working on right now. There are a number of initiatives that we put forth as you know over the last two years. We've had a 70% increase in the number of those projects that are being implemented again as we speak. So Julie probably could give us a few examples of that but one that comes to mind is the eventual aeration of Lake Carmi focusing on that. And then there's other initiatives that were, that are really capital projects that are being utilized right now. I sort of meant more the long term clean water funding is still has been a question for the past few years. I was curious. Well again, I've committed to that long term funding. We're going to come up with a source. I'm looking at existing sources right now ongoing and I'm not ready at this point to divulge that. We're right in the middle of campaign season and I'm afraid that anything that I propose at this point might not be well received for all kinds of different reasons as you might expect. So I'd rather get through the election and then let's work at this together so that we have a viable source. But I think as it is. On the other hand, I have a secret plan. That's not a secret plan. I mean, I've said that I'm going to be looking within the budget to utilize an existing tax structure because I don't believe that we have to raise another tax. I've been pretty clear on that. And I think there's examples that we could, we're looking at the fundamentals and making sure that this is going to be viable but I don't wanna propose something that just gets shot down out of hand either because it's too important. Another question. Okay, that's about wraps it up. This is the point of the press conference where you might not want to answer some of the questions. Be behind me when some of the questions come up. Feel free, if you'd like to stay, you're fine. Pick up your check on the way out. What's your reaction to the ethics commission's ruling this week? I was disappointed to tell you the truth from a number of different perspectives. First of all, that I'd offered to come before them, offered any information they might need to arrive at whatever decision they were going to make but I thought it was important that they understood the issue and what steps we've taken and so forth so they had a good background from that perspective. They rejected that or didn't respond whatsoever. Secondly, I felt as though from a courtesy standpoint that before I had to read it in the media that they might reach out and let me know what their decision was. So I was disappointed on a couple of different levels. I still believe that this has been litigated a couple of times, once during two years ago during about this time during an election. I made the commitment to sell my share of the business. I in January after being sworn in, I had a press conference, had many of you here today at the press conference and was fully transparent and showed everyone what had transpired, what I was going to do. So there's nothing that hasn't been laid out and so now we're litigating it again for a third time at the 11th hour, kind of an October surprise during an election year. What information had you offered to provide them? Anything there was? And they rejected? They didn't ever respond. So the commission says they don't have the authority to do that. Is this the fundamental problem? I gave them the authority. I said, I have all the information, at least listen to what I have to say and I will make it available to you. But their statutory authority says they can't investigate which means that's a ridiculous statement. Isn't it fundamentally just a broken thing? No, it is not. I mean, that's why we do things in Vermont. You know, if you want information, you at least ask for it. I mean, there's somebody to offer it but I offered it to them. They don't have the right to subpoena me but if I'm offering it to them then I don't understand what the problem is. So my understanding is the statutory, the statute that created the commission says they can't investigate. They can essentially accept a complaint and look at that complaint and weigh in on that complaint. Without, they don't have the authority to look at what you're offering. Which, why I'm saying, isn't it broken? Shouldn't we give them the authority to actually look at- I think they could have taken them. So you don't, but we shouldn't change the commission structure? I'm not saying that because I think it's fraught with danger. I think think about the implications of this. If that's the case when you have a complaint and all you have to do is make the complaint and the next day the headlines are someone who's unethical. Think about the, what's going to happen to politics in Vermont as a result. But that's what's happening now. Believe me, I'm living it. So, yeah, no, this is fraught with danger. And it's going to be utilized by all sides. This isn't going to be one party. It's just- So we should kill the commission? No, no, I think you should improve it. How do you improve it? Listen, they're the ones that came up with this. I think they'll understand, the legislature will understand this isn't exactly the way they had thought this thing through. And I believe they'll change it. How do you think it's gonna change the structure and its powers? Listen, I'm gonna let the legislature work on this. This was their idea, their concept. They worked on it for a number of years. And I think they'll continue to work on it. But at the very least, you had information, you wanted them to review. They didn't, so it's not a good place to start with. Well, again, I think the commission, as it exists today, could hear this, at least hear me out. And or listen to anybody that I've offered anything they need. But at this point, I'm not sure it matters. Do you see their argument that there's a possible appearance of conflict here? And if so, do you find that to be an issue? Again, this is a fully transparent process. I take the unprecedented step, stepping away from my business, selling my business, as I promised to do. I believe that with the process we have, with contracting in Vermont, everything is transparent. Everything is bid. And then we can see the results of those bids. I don't understand, I personally don't understand it, but I accept their findings. I mean, based on the complaint, that's all it takes is a complaint. We'll see what happens in the future. This isn't the usual political argument that we see in Vermont. It's talking about ethics. It's talking about integrity. It's talking about you as a person, essentially. Is this different for you? Well, again, it seems suspect to me that a powerful political organization makes a complaint during October of an election here. Well, they made the complaint in, I believe in August after the Ethics Commission adopted, adopted its ethics code in June or July. After the code, after the election? Well, they couldn't make the complaint until the Ethics Commission had a code. Right, and the code that they adopted was after the election, correct? The code in this summer? Right. We're saying it doesn't take effect until after the election? No, I'm just saying that this is a new code that they came up with on their own. I don't think it went through any rules process. I don't believe it was, there was any oversight by the legislature. This is something they came up with. A rule of commission? I think there's room for improvement. The Senate moved forward with the confirmation of Judge Kamenach today, there'll be a vote. Sometimes weekend, should he serve on the court at this point? The vote's coming, should he serve? Again, from my perspective, I've said all along that they should take as long as they need to, to make sure this is a lifelong appointment. They should take all the time they need to make sure that they feel this is a good process. They had the information to arrive at the decision they need to make. I think, again, seeing the polarization we're seeing throughout our country and the partisanship that obviously exists in the close balance in terms of numbers, I believe the process needs to change. I believe that they should adopt our process here in Vermont. I sat on the judicial nominating committee for a couple of years, two or three years. It is a membership of both parties. Senate House, Vermont Bar Association has three members, two at large, and we sit for a week or two weeks going over applications, fully vetting those who are seeking judiciary appointments. So at that point, they forward names to the governor and you pick from that list of names, fully vetted by a bipartisan commission. That seems like a better process than what we have right now in Washington. I think they should consider changing that. Did they take the appropriate time to figure this out? I mean, there's gonna be a process. It doesn't appear that they did. I mean, there's complaints on both sides and in some respects, that's almost immaterial but because if you come to the conclusion that it's such a close balance of power there. And obviously, there's going to be many people who aren't happy with the decision either way. So it's unfortunate it came to this. Will you be happy with Justice Kavanaugh? I would be happy with a fairer process that fully vets the candidates. And I would be happier if there was a bipartisan nominee that came forward and it was done on a bipartisan basis. I mean, this is just too important. Did you support Justice Gorsuch? I wasn't in the Senate at that time. No, but I mean... I mean, did you see somebody that you thought was a good pick that should serve on the court? Hi, listen, I didn't follow it but obviously, again, it had a process. I don't even know what the vote was. Whether it was a bipartisan vote, I just don't remember. If Judge Kavanaugh was going through the Vermont process, he's not, but based on your experience of the Vermont process, do you think he would've gotten through? I mean, you're saying that Washington should adopt a process similar to Vermont or at least consider it. If so, would we be where we are now? I have no idea. I just know that the process we've taken from Vermont, it's a rigorous process. You fully vet the candidates and it's done in a bipartisan way. And I think that's what the important part is, that the names are agreed upon just like the Green Mountain Care Board. They're agreed upon by a committee. So then they're forwarded. So it takes out the partisanship. So do you think this process was unfair? I think it's become unfair because of the polarization partisanship we're seeing in Washington. So I don't think it's working anymore. What do we know so far about the foliage season in terms of the economic development? It's here. How early do you get indications of whether they're leaving their money here? Oh, okay, that's what I was thinking. I was looking at the truth. They're changing. He's all about the case. We likely have a weekly update, but we likely have a weekly update, but I don't have it with me. We get them on an ongoing basis. I didn't anticipate that particular question. You got me. Where's the money? But it appears, I mean, we've had a challenging week in terms of much needed rain, but it's going to be beautiful for the next week or so. And we haven't hit peak foliage in all parts of Vermont. I think it looks positive. I mean, it looks like people are traveling. So I think it sounds good. Thank you very much.