 progress in lowering the cost of doing business in Vermont. I'll now invite Commissioner Pichek to elaborate on how we were able to see such significant decreases. Thank you, Governor. Thank you. Well, thank you, Governor, and good afternoon, everybody. I'm excited to be here with you today to share some great news that relates to Vermont employees and employers and explain some of the great work that our department staff has done over the last five months or so. As you may know, the worker compensation system in Vermont traces its origins back to 1915 and operates under three fundamental principles. That employees are injured on the job, should be compensated reasonable medical expenses, and also for wage replacement. That employer compensation system is the exclusive remedy for employees that are injured on the workplace, and that all employers must cover their employees with worker compensation insurance. Now, this last prong is particularly difficult for smaller businesses and new businesses and businesses looking to expand. The cost of worker compensation insurance can be prohibiting, particularly in some iconic high-risk industries in Vermont, like dairy farming and log hauling. This is why the rate reduction that went into effect this week is such welcome news for businesses across the state. This year, the department took a fresh look at the rate filing. We hired a new actuarial firm that brought new perspective, brought new ideas that our department vetted and in most parts accepted. As the governor said, this resulted in a 3.7% reduction in voluntary loss costs, additionally a 7.6% reduction of voluntary market, but that 7.6% reduction of voluntary market was supplemented by an additional 6.7% reduction due to an elimination of a surcharge that are actually recommended and our department approved. So in total, we see a 14.6% reduction in that voluntary loss in that assigned risk market. And the reason that assigned risk market is so important is because that's where individuals that can't get insurance through the voluntary market, they may be new businesses, started businesses, they may be small businesses looking to expand, or they may be these businesses operating in high-risk industries. So these are people that are gonna get serious relief from worker compensation insurance costs. One of the things that we wanna highlight beyond just the $10 million that we'll save this year is that when you combine with the rate reduction from last year, Vermont employers will be spending $30 million less in worker compensation premiums than they did in 2016. Mentioning these high-risk industries for a minute, our work focusing on logging and some other high-risk industries this summer, along with Sam Lincoln, who did an excellent job presenting these issues to us and advocating for the logging community. The governor mentioned a dramatic decrease in the log hauler class code. This was from the great work of our department and our actuary. They discovered a way that we could combine the log hauling class code with a larger trucker class code that would mean that Vermont was able to rely on our own experience, that we didn't have to rely on a melting of experience from national carriers, a national industry. And because our experience was so good here in Vermont, that's what resulted in this dramatic 24% reduction in log haulers. So I wanna thank the great work of Deputy Commissioner Tris Rulo, Kevin Gaffney, and Phil Keller, as well as Jill Rickards here from our department, who worked very hard on the Worker Compensation Study and also worked very hard on this rate filing. A special mention, and Sam will mention this, but the Worker Compensation Work Group is something that was also established in the last few months. That's looking at ways that we can improve workplace safety in these high-risk class codes, particularly in the logging class code, non-mechanized logging, the sawmill industry as well. We'll take what we've learned from other states in Northern England, like Maine, where they have seen dramatic decreases in the Worker Compensation Premiums due to much safer work environments. So with that, I also wanna thank NCCI that worked with us during the process. I wanna thank the VIAA and Mary Eversol and her agents and her members that do a great job of educating businesses as to their responsibilities for Worker Compensation Insurance and ensuring that workplace has become safer. And at the end of the day, that workplace safety is the key to reducing the rates in Vermont. The Department of Labor has done excellent efforts in this regard, both with their enforcement efforts and then also with their project work-safe efforts. So with that, I wanna invite Commissioner Curley to come up and explain a little bit more about that. Thank you, Commissioner Pichek. As both Commissioner Pichek and the governor explained, safe and healthy workplaces contribute greatly to the reduction in workers' compensation insurance costs. Current data shows, on average, workers' compensation insurance companies pay out nearly $60,000 per claim in wage replacement and medical expenses over the life of a claim. In the past few years, in Vermont, we have seen a decrease in the number of first reports of injury, as well as the number of lost-time claims filed with the Vermont Department of Labor. The decline reflects a growing commitment on the part of Vermont employers to put in place effective safety and health management systems in the workplace, emphasizing a cooperative management and workforce commitment to preventing injuries. Enforcement and consultation also play an important contributor role in helping to achieve the reduction in serious injuries. In addition to the commitment of employers, which is an important tool in the declining trend of worker injury, the state's Occupational Safety and Health Administration Program, or VOSHA, as most of you know it, has proven another tool that has greatly reduced the number of work-related injuries and fatalities occurring in Vermont. By providing compliance, assistance, education, and through our voluntary Project WorkSafe program, we've been able to work with employers at their request to provide assistance in identifying and correcting workplace hazards. Project Workplace provides safety audits, program development, chemical exposure, assessments, and noise monitoring at the voluntary request of the employer and services are free and confidential. Reducing costs, keeping a safe and healthy workplace can help increase productivity, improve and increase employee morale, and enable a company to win over and retain their employees. Additionally, as we look to grow our labor force in Vermont, investing in safe and healthy workplaces is an important strategy that will allow us to attract more families to our communities and the jobs that we have available here. At this point, I'd like to turn it over to Deputy Commissioner Lincoln. Thank you, Commissioner Curley. Workers' compensation, insurance, and Vermont's forest economy can be prohibitively expensive, with rates ranging from $19 to $51 per $100 payroll. From 2012 to 2016, those rates rose 60%. And thankfully, they plateaued at this time and are starting to decrease. This can cause those who work in Vermont's most dangerous and one of its most important occupations to work alone in our most remote places. Employers who have the insurance find the cost to be unsustainable, particularly when there's been a significant market collapse for low-grade forest products. Vermont is a small state with a small number of small businesses, and there are times that this can be a disadvantage when it comes to insurance. The change-to-log hauler class code addresses a complicated rate-making formula that has kept rates high for these employers, even when this occupation has had a notably positive safety record by implementing a common-sense solution, merging log hauling of contract trucking. We have this significant 24% reduction in rates. Our department has actively engaged in efforts to address the root causes of high rates for other occupations in the forest economy, including plans for enhanced safety training, verifications that the safe practices have been implemented at job sites, and ensuring that the contractors hold the proper insurance. Our overarching goal is to increase the number of employees under the protection of workers' compensation insurance, making sure they are better trained and working at safer job sites. When combined, these efforts will sustainably lower rates and reduce one of the well-known barriers to employment growth in this sector. The department has received support in this effort from Governor Scott, the other departments mentioned within the administration, the legislature, logger training programs, not just in Vermont, but from organizations in Maine, New York, New Hampshire, and all who have lent their expertise to us, and we are grateful to them all. I'll turn it back over to Governor Scott. Are there any questions about the issue of workers' compensation rates? I was going to have data showing that work sites have gotten safer either through in-mirrors or utilities. Yes, we do. Yeah, yeah. So I have with me Steve Monaghan, who oversees our safety workers' compensation safety division. We do have that information. We don't have it on hand with us, but we would be happy to provide that. But we do have data that's showing that the trend's coming down. So it's not just the administrative in-mirrors. Steve, Vermont employees are actually safer. Absolutely. We have data that shows that, for sure. And if we can continue that trend, hopefully everybody will jump on board and continue to help us bring those costs down. Other questions? Workers' compensation. I don't know if I'm going to go. The good news is it's fun. I know. I know. Yeah, they've worked really hard to provide for this. And I think our Vermont employers and employees have done the same. And I think that's really important to emphasize. So with that, I'm sure we're going to move on to some other questions, and you're free to move along if you'd like. Or you can stay right there if you'd like. Governor, your administration got a letter from the EPA concerning water quality. And it said, it's important that the state establish a long-term revenue source, since this is critical to successful and full implementation of the TMDL. So what's your plan for establishing a long-term revenue source? Well, again, I think you've read the rest of the letter. I mean, I know that's one point they made, but I think it was a fairly glowing type of letter saying that we're doing a lot of good things in Vermont. And in fact, they give us an extension in another area. I'm committed, as I've said, multiple times committed to water quality. But the details matter. We put forth, we have a plan put together that will a short-term plan that puts us through the next couple of years. I still believe that growing the economy, making Vermont more affordable, and growing revenues organically are going to give us the money that we need, the resources needed for continued water quality issues. But I don't think the knee-jerk reaction should just necessarily be to just add another fee. Maybe there's a way to reduce spending in other areas and incorporate another fee structure in itself or another tax. So I'm fully committed to water quality issues, including up our lakes and streams. But I don't believe that we have to put forth a fee at this point in time. Do you do it in the future? Well, possibly, but as I said, I believe that we have the means to look what we've done this year. Last year, we had a budget that didn't raise taxes and fees. I'm convinced we can do it again this year. And we, at the same time, are spending $82 million more in our budget through organic growth in revenue. And I believe that we can do the same. I also believe that we are not finished with the Massachusetts agreement through the conduit of renewable power through Lake Champlain. And I think they'll eventually come back to us, and if not them, someone else. So that's another source of funding that I believe that we can use for Lake Lena. So what do you know about the power line that makes you say that? Well, they've, Northern Pass has done, as you, I believe, reported on channel three. So I believe that's off the table. I know there's another one that they have considered, but they don't have all their permits lined up. And we do. I mean, that's what I continue to tell Governor Baker. Sometime, you'll be back to us because we have all the permits in place. You don't have any knowledge. I don't have any knowledge that would tell me. You're still looking at that main project, right? That's right. That's right. You know what you're gonna sign on as the gun legislation and whether you'll do that? Well, again, technically, we don't have that bill or 221 or 422 at this point. My hope is that we will have those in the very near future. And then we'll have five days to move forward. My plan would be, if everything goes right, to have all three bills and have one signing of all three. Not be a public signing? Yes. Senator Ash is considering a tax on copia, the description of copia, to raise some money to repay for treatment and addiction as well. Does that concept make any sense to you? Well, I haven't seen any details. I've heard rumor of this and read about it through some of your sources. But I haven't seen any details about what they plan to do with the money that they're raising. As you may recall, a week or two ago, we had a bit of a press conference announcing a $28 million settlement with tobacco. 14 million of that is going to go to opioids. So maybe some of that money could go towards the initiative that they're trying to fulfill. As well, the federal government passed a budget that has included money for opioids as well. And we're not sure about the detail. So what I'd like to do is find out what they want to do with the money first, the goals. Maybe we can agree on the goals and find a source of funding that we already have. But it sounds like you don't really think it's necessary. Well, the opioid crisis is something that is on the front of the site. It seems like a significant tax. Oh, yeah. Well, I just don't know. I don't know. I just haven't seen any details about how much this would raise or what their plans are with the funds. And obviously, we don't want to just raise a tax for no reason. We want to make sure that there's a viable plan to move forward. But as I remember, we have 14 million that we plan to use towards opioids. I think the point would be to have an ongoing source so that you could actually establish programs rather than the 14 million is going to stop in a year or two or the houses proposed before. So that makes it hard to set up something that might have to go away in a few years. Again, we've been spending a great deal of resources at this point in time using Medicaid, Medicare, and as well with some of the money from the federal government that I'm not quite sure and I'm not clear as to where that money can go or be utilized for. And for the federal government to give us more latitude, more flexibility is going to be important. We testified on that fact just about a month ago. And I believe that Congress will react to that because we're not the only state. We're just a little bit further ahead than most. But at the same time, I believe that we've been doing a good job working together and trying to solve this crisis. How do you feel about sending Vermont National Guard troops to the Mexican border? There's been no requests for us to send any National Guard troops anywhere at this point to the border with Mexico. How do you feel about the concept? I mean, if you were a pastor, is that something that you would comply with? Well, we would consider anything, obviously. That's what we do. If there's a crisis somewhere, we would consider that request. I've watched this issue. And it appears that the four states that have been requested their help are right on the border. So I don't anticipate us being asked to commit any troops. I'm not sure that that would be something that we would be eager to respond to. You mentioned crisis. Do you think this on the border is a crisis? Well, they know better than I do. Obviously, we're fairly north of the Mexico border. And the other states are living and breathing that. So it's for them to determine. So if you said it's not something that you would be eager to respond to? Would not be eager to respond to sending our National Guard to the Mexico border. And why is that? Well, again, I think it's outside of our realm, our geographical area, when there are other National Guard troops that are much closer than we are. So you haven't been contacted by the Department of Mass or all that security or anybody else? We have not received. You said that there are coordinate encounters. Yeah, we have not received any requests from the federal government on any deployment in regards to the Mexico border. But back to the guns, do you think anything is needed beyond 55, 221 of H-402? In terms of the violence issue, the underlying violence issue, yes. I don't believe that it's necessarily the gun, that this is an issue that we're all facing. And it's going to take a lot of additional steps, which I'll highlight in my remarks at the signing. The Senate Judiciary Committee is talking about school resources officers, armed school resource officers. What, I know this may have spoken out before, but what would you ideally like to talk about? Well, again, in my action plan, after the averted horrific incident in Fairhaven and after Parkland, part of my action plan was to do an assessment on the schools that's been completed. I'm looking forward to those results. I should have them in the next week or so to determine where we go from here. And the legislature has been very cooperative in carving out some funding. $4 million on the capital bill. We'll find some other resources for the additional $1 million. So we'll have $5 million to do something sooner rather than later in terms of our schools. At that point, after we get through these signings, I committed, as part of my action plan, to providing for a task force that is going to look at these various issues so that we can move forward and determine other ways to keep our communities and our schools safe. Resource officers, it could be part of that. There will be a broad group of about 15 members with different perspectives. And we'll take a look at this. Russell Barb is his own deadline for the work for a sexual planning plan. Do you have any plans of doing this further? Or are you willing to sort of let it drop? Well, again, these are serious allegations that were made. I look forward to it doesn't mean that he isn't going to provide them, but we look forward to seeing what he has so we can determine whether to move forward with this or not. Would you make any efforts on your own volition to find out whether it's passive? Again, I don't think it's being passive. I think we look back and there was an internal investigation completed. It's a little specific trick, but not to sort of. Again, I don't know what we would be searching for. Nothing was turned up in our internal investigation. Bar and Mr. Barr providing any details. I'm just not sure what we'd be looking for. Back to the school issue for a second. Are you at all concerned that schools are going to be these armed fortresses and how that impacts the students? Well, again, I'm concerned about that. But my primary concern is keeping our kids safe. So that from my standpoint, we need to do whatever we can to provide for the safety of our kids so that as I've said at other times, they shouldn't be afraid to go to school and our parents shouldn't be afraid to send their kids or put them on the bus to go to school. So we have to do whatever we can in the interim to make sure that our kids are safe and then start addressing this underlying issue whatever it is that's driving the violence. How important is it to you that the next educational secretary have expertise in educational management as opposed to other types of backgrounds that they might come with? Well, having an education background is important, obviously, but as I detailed, the State Board of Education had reached out and asked that we provide, that I provide some sort of parameters. What am I looking for in the next Secretary? And from my standpoint, as you've seen, the way I've built my team in the administration, Secretary and commissioners, they come from all walks of life with management experience. And I think that that's important, particularly with education. It's very complex. It's the single largest expenditure in state government, $1.7 billion. I think we need someone at the helm that has some management experience. But state law specifically says education. Absolutely. And for those who don't understand the process, I think it's important to note, it's the State Board that is going to be interviewing and taking applications, so to speak, and resumes, and then determining what three candidates they're sending to me. And then I'll choose from those three or send those three back and ask for more. So I think what they wanted to do, and I appreciate that, they just wanted an idea of what I was looking for. And management experience, I think, should be part of that package as well as education experience. Are you specifically looking for someone with, I guess, a non-traditional background for that role, someone who comes from the private sector, or? Well, again, it could be. We're just looking for it. I just wanted to make sure that we looked broadly, that we made sure that we're thinking outside the box because you never know. I mean, you could have, like our AHS Secretary, who's doing a terrific job, who's a restaurateur, have a Secretary of ACCB, who has a master's in education, was a police chief, and was involved in technology, and now he's in economic development. I think that, again, having the right people with the right attitude, with some management experience would lend itself well. But obviously, in this position, it's by statute, have to have some education background. But I don't want to preclude anyone from being moved forward, that clearly, when I'm looking for management as well. And you're led into the legislature a couple of weeks ago, outlining the bills that you had objections to. S-260, the water quality cleanup bill, EU-listed, new tax or fee, and also separation of powers. Senator Bray, whose committee wrote that bill, has been seeking an explanation for that from your administration, has gotten one so far. He consulted with the legislative council and they said there was no separation of powers issue in the bill. So I guess, is there an explanation for that? Do you or any of the other people who have come over here? Again, I appreciate their counsel and their advice to their senators. But from my perspective, when a bill prescribes that you're going to come up with a fee, that would tell me that they're telling the executive branch what to do. And that's not in their purview. If they want to come up with a fee of some sort, just do it. They have a legislature, just pass one. That's not what the bill does though. I mean, the bill- The bill calls for the establishment of a funding and ongoing funding source for water cleanup, which could be a new fee, in which case it would come before the legislature next year. Senator Bray said it could also be budget cuts. I don't think of what I saw. And I'm going to let these two fine secretaries answer some of this. But I didn't see anywhere where it said it could be. I saw where it said it is. But I'll let them react. So in particular, in section four, and I can hand this to you afterwards, part B3A3 directs the Clean Water Fund Board to determine how a parcel fee or other fee shall be assessed to property owners in a manner that corresponds to the effect of their property on water quality. It may be that that's a Scribner's error under a heading with the flexibility you describe, but that's certainly not the way it's written in the bill as past the Senate. And we flagged that as a concern. This is a copy of the testimony I provided to House Fish Wildlife and Natural Resources yesterday, outlining those concerns, and also sent a copy yesterday morning to Senator Bray. So he has them in his possession as well. I think it's also important to note that S260 has left the Senate. It's gone out of committee. It's gone out of the chamber and it's now over in the House. And now the House is dealing with it. So we're focusing on the House. So, I mean, Senator Bray's point is that he believes that since the Senate passed this bill unanimously on a roll call, both the Senate deserves an explanation separate from what's given to the House. And I guess we won't see it that way. I can speak to that, John. And I saw your earlier email as well questioning why you were not speaking publicly about, the question was why weren't we speaking publicly about our concerns with the bill. I do want to clarify the record. S260 was started in Senate Natural Resources. Both Secretaries, Secretary Moore and myself and many resources of staff across state agencies testified on the bill introduced in Senate Natural Resources. It then passed out of that committee and was committed to Senate agriculture. And that was the first time where we had an opportunity to testify about our concerns of the Senate Natural Resources version of the bill. And we testified in the Senate about our concerns of separation of powers and the fee that was in the bill. We reached an agreement compromise with Senate agriculture. They introduced an amendment on the floor of the Senate that we were perfectly fine with and happy with proceeding on. And that amendment was pulled. The current iteration of S260 has been passed. We didn't get an opportunity. Neither Secretary Moore or I were asked about the final version. We are now in the House. Senator Moore testified yesterday on S260. She's provided written testimony that was given to Senator Bray yesterday morning at 9 o'clock in response to his request to me for our reason. He was told on Tuesday I would not be appearing in his committee until S260 was committed back into the Senate. So we've been speaking very publicly about our concerns with the bill. Thank you. But I just want to follow up. You said the bill to the RECC to do something. But the legislature does that. Any number of times a year they order the court. So you have to complete all kinds of things. So how is this different? Directing for a tax or a fee is much, much different. They're asking you to come up with a concept of how it can be done. They're asking you to come up with a fee. That's what it says. And I would offer you to take a look. And just furthermore on that, if you look at the Senate passed version, it totally changes both the composition and the charge of the Clean Water Fund Board, which is made up of five cabinet members currently, whose charge is to allocate the Clean Water Fund across projects across state government. The further separation of powers issues in that bill is that it now has five cabinet secretaries reporting directly to the General Assembly on how to budget that money and completely turns the budgeting process and the constitutional process of the governor to present his business to the legislature on its head. Thank you, Queen Water. Governor, do you have any updates about the phosphorus innovation challenge thing? Is that something you can do? We do have a few days. Sure. So we've continued the Agriculture Agency, Agency of Commerce, Community Development and Agency of Natural Resources have continued to work together to develop what we've termed a reverse pitch. We expect to release it within the next two weeks. That initial solicitation will give folks approximately two months to submit their ideas since we first talked about the phosphorus innovation challenge. Secretary Shirling, Secretary Tevitz and I have been out doing informational interviews with project developers in Vermont to understand what technologies are sort of under development here, where those opportunities exist and we're really excited about the prospects. Our hope would be to announce the stage one award, so those successful applicants later this summer and move quickly towards the prototyping and ultimately the construction of these technologies. As you may have seen, there was a report from UVM earlier this week that specifically identified the phosphorus imbalance in our watershed as one of the challenges facing us when it comes to water quality, making the phosphorus innovation challenge even more timely. Can you remind me, does the legislature need to sign off any funding for that program? Not for stage one. Stage one, we have funding to cover those costs. If we get to the stage of actually standing up these projects where we may want to make a capital investment, we'll absolutely need to come back to the legislature for that conversation. That hasn't been addressed. It has not. You had a meeting yesterday with Richard Piebie of Coverage Co. Any comment, reaction to that and where does that issue stand in your mind? What do you want to see happen? Yeah, Coverage Co continues to be an issue that we have great concern about and the loss of cell service broadband for those in the southern most part of the state. It was a good meeting, had learned a few more details. They have some resemblance of a plan that they'd like to, there's details in the plan that would have to have considerable work done in order to complete that. But as well, on the other side, and I'm not, I can't announce anything at this point, but there are two others who are working on this as well to other private companies that are going to help us out in the interim. So we should have some details on that the next two to three days. I think they were supposed to testify today at the far house committee that came in at close time just to write her last. Coverage Co. Well, I think it's somewhat unfounded in some respects. This is utilizing a process as being utilized by most every other New England state and right across the country, as well as even teachers. So this isn't, I think the state employees have utilized another approach over the last few years this is just bringing it into the same approach that we're taking or others are taking throughout New York. So I don't believe that it provides any undue suffering by any of our state employees. Do you think it will cost employees? I don't know that it will. In fact, I think it's going to cost less in the long run with reduced costs for health care. That's what we discussed this a lot in this building. How do we produce the cost of prescription drugs? And now we found a path forward to doing so. And I think it will have a benefit in the future by lowering the cost of health care throughout. So I failed to see where I'm not sure that I completely understand what the concern is. These are generic drugs that are replacing the ones that are stipulated. So one of the concerns that I've heard from the community and I have not verified it is that not all of the pollutants have a generic drug to match it. And that I think is where some of the major concerns coming from. You've got to bring it there. I mean, I know it says either a generic or a therapeutic alternative, but I think hearing therapeutic alternative doesn't give people much comfort knowing that there isn't a real drug to match what they're taking now. Commissioner, a few resources here and she can fill in them. Hi, I'm Beth Bastigie, commissioner of human resources. And with respect to that question, there would be a process that employees would go to to work with the pharmaceutical company and their doctor for an appeal. And that's a practice that's also happens nationwide. And overall with our current pharmacy benefits manager about 70% of those appeals are actually approved. And the other ones most likely are that they move on to an alternative and that works for the employee. Diabetic test strips? So diabetic test strips would obviously be available to all employees. A particular brand might not be available. So while we might be not providing the employee Kleenex, you might provide them first opportunity would be the Hannafer brand. But if that doesn't work for them, then be a puffs, you know. So it's kind of the same alternative. So employees would obviously be able to get diabetic test strips. I mean, the list that I saw just didn't say but brand of diabetic test strips just said that test strips and the machine goes with it. Yeah. And that list is a standard list that was provided to the VSEA upon their request. It's not actually the final list that would be that will be the list January 1st when that plan goes into effect and people with diabetes will be able to have test strips and test that and test it for whatever it used to be used for. Governor, the house is now considering the minimum wage that was afforded. Is that a non-starter for you? Is that something that will be coming? I haven't seen anything that's improved the bill. I still have significant concerns about the overall effects on our economy. I think it will have a detrimental effect on our economy, particularly in the rural sections of Vermont and through on the Eastern border of our state where we are day in and day out, they struggle to compete with the Hampshire. This will not help. So from my standpoint, I want to see more for mothers make more money. I think that's important, but I think as well that the supply and demand will provide for that and that this is just artificially raising the cost of living for Vermonics. Will you be feeling it? I would say that if it doesn't make substantial changes between now and then, it could see a veto. So are you willing to consider some increase and not what they've done right now? No, I'm saying, I think ratcheting up this and I've been part of this. I know I've talked about this in our press conferences, but I remember when I was in the Senate and we had this discussion, this debate and we had the cost of living approved and some of the debate was, we'll never have to go through this ever again if we pass this bill. Well, we've gone through it once since and now we're going through it again. So I believe I'm very concerned about the small businesses of the state, particularly the mom and pops and there are many. I think the figure I saw was 80% of the businesses in Vermont are under 25 employees. So this will have a detrimental effect on the businesses as well as the overall economy of the state. What would the substantial change mean? I mean, put it back on the shelf. That would be a substantial change. And what are you saying? I would take that. Again, what's a real change? This is my idea. And I believe that if we focus on growing the economy, making Vermont more affordable, that we'll have organic wage growth. And that will be a positive aspect of doing so. So let's focus on how we can make Vermont more efficient. And let's look for cost savings throughout government so we don't have to raise taxes and fees. And we'll see wage growth. It's been a long time since we've had, I mean through good times and bad over the last, I don't know what it is, 20, 30 years, there's been the lower, the working and middle classes have lost purchasing power. What makes you think that the economy will suddenly step up and start paying people living wage? Well, some of it is in regards to the demographics of our state. We are losing our workforce. We have fewer people working today than we did seven years ago. And when that happens, and you can see it at job fairs, there's a lack of people in Vermont, lack of workers. So when that happens, it's a supply and demand issue. And so you have to offer more money in order to get the employees that you need. But that doesn't seem to be happening. I believe it is happening. Can you conceive of a change substantial or not? I haven't seen one yet, but we'll see what they come up with. Thank you very much, appreciate you coming in.