 Everyone, Luke Marland from Legislative Council. I'm here today on S171, the proposed amendment of Senator Bray. And it has the indicated version 11. If you remember yesterday, we were looking at version 10 and this new version incorporates decisions you made yesterday and also some additional changes. The copy that the committee members have, the paper copy has highlights on it. The copy on the website is exactly the same, but it doesn't have those highlights. I'll try to always indicate what line we're on. So everyone can follow along. As to section one, you'll see on lines 15, 16 and 17, there's new language added. There was also language in the last draft about low to moderate income, which was taken out. So now those lines are reading services for residential customers, including those at the income level that's the same language as before. 10 projects that may result in larger greenhouse gas reductions. That new language about greenhouse gas reductions was added in response to some of the comments that were made yesterday about figures back from the bottom. Going down to two, lines 21, 22 and 23. There was language added. Any funds that are allocated to efficiency remod and VAT, comma, and this is a new language, as a result of operational efficiencies are not spent on or committed to another project in 2019 or 2020. So there was some discussion about parameters or guidelines. These, this language is added to make clear to people where that money comes from, and that is not money that would have otherwise been spent on another project. And any questions about those changes? Going on to... I think I have one later about taking money that haven't been spent from treating the ones from commercial industrial money that has been taken. Thank you. On page two at the top, B states in the once again we're still in section one, funds used pursuant to subsection A of this section where we just talked about shall not be used to supplant existing programs and services and shall only be used to supplement existing programs and services. C, efficiency remod, shall report to the PUC on one, how funds were spent pursuant to subsection A, and two, the costs and benefits of the programs and services delivered. So once again B makes clear you're not taking money from the program and it's only to use to supplement an existing program or service and C is the reporting back to PUC. So both of those are new, both of those are reflection decisions and conversations you had yesterday. Any questions about that text? Straight C is not making any changes to funds. All seeing the sense that they can access and use the carried forward or the unspent funds, you're correct, they still can do that. But it does get a reporting requirement that's new and does perhaps give some guidelines. Okay. Going on to page three. Now we're in section two, which is the Public Utility Commission proceeding. On page three, you'll see that in line one and two. There's a reference to furthering the objectives in 30 BSA 209 D3B. This used to be on line six or seven. The reference was there, it simply was moved up. That was a reflection of suggestion made by stakeholder yesterday. So to no change in substance, it's just moving that cross-preference. Going on to page four. We're now on lines 12, 13 and 14. This is the funding area that the PUC will have to report back on how to pay for. This recommendations as to one and two, 13, equitable was added, I'm sorry, line 14, equitable was added in. So it reads the commission shall consider and recommend how best to provide consistent adequate and equitable funding for, et cetera. Proceeding on to page five, B, on lines 10, 11, and 12. This is new language. And once again, we're still in the section about funding. These states in reaching its recommendations pursuant to subdivision A of this subdivision three, in other words how to pay for any recommendations it makes pursuant to one and two. The commission shall consider how any recommendation may affect the financial and economic well-being of remarks. Now going down to lines 15 and 16 we're in the process language. And you'll see on line 15, the language was added, the commission may use contested case procedures if the team's appropriate. Those are all the changes from the draft you saw yesterday. Are there any questions about that? Mr. Chair. We're making some changes here as to not do business as usual. We're gonna do less of one thing and more of something else. And I can see where the language is clear, what we're gonna do less of and what we're gonna warm up. And then we're going to take redirect money that used to be limited exclusively to electric efficiency work that was distributed by fees, homeowners, dwellings, and spending to do work which was previously not permitted under law to do weatherization, thermal work in those homes. So we're reading this jump right out I don't know if that's what we're doing but I don't see that, but it just seems to be. Let's look. I think it's in the council can help that I hear. We'll come to the cross-reference. So for instance, the cross-reference. Okay, so on line 13 of day one it says that so that what they can do that's cited on line 13 is the process rules of efficiency work that will include weatherization. These process rules of electrical efficiency that's the category under which they carry out the life of weatherization work. So we're saying that they can use funds to carry out the programs decided by the USA joint one. And then for what funds you try to develop and this code age, these are funds that actually follow the order of efficiency program versus the amount of water in your application. That's the point you're back to the weatherable efficiency charge program. So that's, it's, models, the ones to use those funds to do the programming that they currently deliver to their region and for capacity market dollars. So basically the services they go to use for capacity of 30 dollars are with what are pointed out by 1.13. So we're saying they can use funds to do this and what funds, the funds that can now be used in that way come out of their electrical efficiency charge and that's the best pointer than one. Just because a point of line 20 is carried forward. But what you're saying is correct, which so the first cross-preference, Senator McDonald, is there existing ability to do thermal efficiency programs? That's why they are saying you can do that, but it does not listen any more specificity. You are correct. I have a one-line complaint about contracts that have a lot of small print and they'll come out and say, well, it's happening, it's not happening. I'm seeing reason why people can't have some of the greatest and know what we're proposing and have to say we're proposing to do the following and then you will only find it by going to the law books and doing the cross-references. If we're making a policy change, why don't we say that? Can I ask, is that normal? I mean, is this the sort of normal part of a field of gravity? Maybe I'm missing something. I understand what you're saying. You want it clear, but I don't know any, none of my constituents are going to say, I'm going to go take a look at the bill they're going to read about it. You know, sort of a summarized version of the press or somewhere else. That's the part that I'm just trying to understand. I also believe we intend for money is used for as well as we now have the next period of months perhaps the rest of this year that some of those might use to create more people to engage in activities or being authorized. It doesn't say that or it doesn't clearly say that. But maybe the cross-references can be interpreted by some board to do what we haven't said explicitly. Like a distance of surprise, so usually a little bit more. Well, let's move right forward. The law is carefully crafted, implemented, the PUC, we use it, they have to bring a plan forward and an introduction plan, get approval, deliver performance measures. So we're trying to be precise by wiring this shift of policy into the programs that they already have. What are the reasons I consider them? I mean, I agree it's not that readable to go through. I mean, a more user-friendly part of it is to say, in my 14, we're basically a letterization services for residential customers. And then we specify income levels. And then we add, what you were talking about yesterday, projects that may result in larger greenhouse gas reductions. So it's not just about a kilowatt hours that we're talking about, are we just seeing emissions? Priority is showed up, that's what I can say. Too cute. No, I've never, okay, too cute. Okay, too cute. Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay. First, so why do we choose a route which you have to examine around microscope and asphalt to explain that for us references when we're saying we're taking money from here and we're gonna spend it there. And we think spending it there provides more benefits. And then you say, and then we talk to people, what we're doing. The only, yeah, I know, I was just, yeah. This might be for another time. I'm not, yeah, that's what I'm talking about today. I mean, the only thing I can say to dislike that is maybe the finding or a purpose where there's a merit. Right, but I think we can discuss it. I know you have a lot of rights coming. So I appreciate that. And maybe we'll find a way to communicate more clearly about the policy changes, I'll tell you. In terms of the tools, we're wiring it in very carefully. We're, it all really is effectuated. So, does anyone in the committee have any concerns about that dispute or that dispute? Okay. Any questions for council? Thank you very much. So let me pause before we go on. I know that Mr. Springer's here to talk to us about this draft. Is there anyone else in the room that has a concern about any of the attitudes made from yesterday to today? Okay, that's, so what can I do like to just bring back to what you just said? I have a question. I missed your hand. That's okay. So for the director at Abbey Way, efficiency Vermont, this is a department of public service and efficiency Vermont have a question about a section one, subsection A one and two. Wondering, and please TJ jump in here, but with section one without the dates, does it imply that the carryover could be used in this way in perpetuity? And is it implied there that both one and two are needed together? Well, they're handed, right? So that's just some, we wanted some clarity on that. That's required that they would be taken together and that there wouldn't be a scenario where the funds would be used in that way. Right, so if one, you know, my counsel, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting, one says that you can use balances and then two says, but for calendar years 19 and 21. And the explicit timing was to be complimentary to the receipt so that while we're doing this interim program, it is strictly interim and then the proceeding will conclude and there's gonna be a ongoing change that we use the recommendations out of the proceeding and that the legislature will sit down and rewrite in order to make it a permanent change. Search and test for next year. We'll get an interview. So how long begins in 2000? That's okay. So are you all set with that? Yes, I think we're good. Let's go for it. And then I have one additional comment by the way. So under again, section one, section A, last line 1617, the reference to greenhouse gas production. You're on section, so you're section one. Sorry, section, yes, section one, section A, line 1617. Thank you, yep. Just wanted to point out that for a practical purpose, this may be difficult to operationalize because we don't evaluate homes and we don't prioritize projects and homes based on GHG production. And our intent would be more to get the dollars out, drive volume of homes throughout the market going from 80 to 140 and then also using TDP across the country now to serve the full market. So that would be the priority. But you do prioritize in some ways, you mentioned yesterday when you get to a home right around, in fact, this is Senator McDonald's comment about how do you get the most, how do you prioritize so you invest in a particular area in a home so that you reduce the amount of greenhouse gases? It sounds like you do that already in a way, right? Right, for every home, we're looking at the maximum impact that we can have. And on reducing greenhouse gases or on? Right, I mean we're looking at a reduction and technically we're looking at reduction in air flow. So this is what I talked about yesterday. There's a, we're looking primarily for cost effectiveness and sometimes many cases, cost effectiveness is a good correlation to greenhouse gas reduction, but in certain cases it's not based on the fuel source that's in the home. So are you concerned that 1617 applies to sort of project selection process? Well I don't think it does with the May, but I just wanted to be clear around the way in which we would intend to operationalize the funds to expand the money, which I think is the primary. So as long as the May is there, you're comfortable with that language? Okay. But I wanted to just clarify that for the committee. Thank you. Okay. Obviously the whole chat makes sure that we're all, I think the words mean the same thing. Okay? Great. So there are other comments from the movement in large that I guess they're by Mr. Springer, good to see you again. Thank you for having me. Thank you very much. Darren Springer, general manager of Burlington Electric Department. Joined by my colleague, Chris Burns, who is the director of energy services and helps to run the team that does our energy efficiency utility work in Burlington. Prepared some very brief slides if I have a couple minutes just to walk through or we got a briefer, I'm happy to be more concise. I think the committee is familiar with Burlington Electric. First slide just has some background information. We are an appointed energy efficiency utility for the city of Burlington. So we are in the EU along with efficiency Vermont and Vermont gas. And roughly 95% of our service territory is also served by Vermont gas. So most folks in Burlington have access to thermal weatherization services and efficiency incentives through either through us or through Vermont gas depending on which measure. And we work very, very closely with them for the very few oil and propane customers in Burlington we serve as the EU for those customers. And I would note we've had no rate case since 2009. We're trying to go another year, hopefully. So hopefully when we're back next year we can say it's been 11 years without a rate case. Currently it's 10, we're trying to keep that going. So no cold lightning? No, no prudent management is the effort. The first slide just talks a little about our energy efficiency utility efforts. We've really been working on efficiency since 1980s and we really try to track our data back to 1989 because in 1990 we had an 11.3 million dollar revenue bond to invest in energy efficiency. So we always track back to 1989. And even with the growing community population growth of I believe over 12% and a commercial square footage growth that's a good bit more than that, we actually are using 6.1% less electricity today than we did in 1989. And that figure was fact checked by Vermont digger and found true, or mostly true. So take that to the bank. So and you know in thinking about the comparison just to give some context, statewide electric consumption is up 8.4% during that same period of time. Nationally electric consumption is up around 29% during that same period of time. I went back and looked at some data yesterday. I believe if my math is correct that if the United States had followed the Burlington trajectory and was 6.1% lower than the US was in 1989, you could essentially eliminate all megawatt hours currently produced by coal for electricity in the United States. I think we get about 27% of our electricity from coal and that gives some fair context into the accomplishment of decoupling the electric use from the economic growth that's happening in Burlington. In addition to those numbers, between us and our customers, we've invested over 70 million during that period of time and we are now saving for our customers on electric bills 12 million annually. And that's a factor of avoided wholesale energy costs, avoided capacity costs, avoided transmission costs and other savings. So a really good return on the investment for our customers in terms of energy efficiency. In addition to running the energy efficiency programs, and we are also recognized as one of the utilities in the state with a 100% renewable portfolio of generation, we are working very hard on reducing fossil fuel use in the heating and transportation sectors as part of a net zero goal that the city has a 2030 vision to move away from fossil fuel in the heating and transportation sectors. The renewable energy standard legislation that I know this committee worked on in others in 2015 has given us some strong tools to make progress in that area through tier three. I laid out on slide page four some of the programs that we're currently offering in the tier three space. We have electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid incentives. We have an electric vehicle charging station incentive that goes along with our EV incentive. So you can get $1,200 if you buy an EV or lease an EV. If you're low moderate income, you can get $1,800. And then in either case, you can get an additional 400 towards a charging station. And then once you have the charging station, you can sign up for our off-peak rate and charge between 10 at night and noon the next day for the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon of gas. So it's a really good deal for EV drivers. And one of the ways that we're working on demand management with new EV drivers is to try to incentivize off-peak usage so that we don't end up having to build more infrastructure for the grid. We also are working all throughout the transportation sector. We have two electric buses that we've helped to incentivize that'll be coming to the Green Mountain Transit Fleet this summer. We have an electric bike rebate program with a number of local retail bike shops in Burlington. And we also offer cold climate heat pumping centers for our oil and propane customers and are working on efforts to expand that to also cover our natural gas customers as well. I have a quick question on the EV rates. Absolutely. So do you know when your up-to-date rate is compared to the state-in-line average? On EV rebates? Yeah, and how many of you are in the energy program? Well, slide five has at least our numbers. I don't have a comparison for the rest of the state, but we've done 77 rebates since we launched the program on May of 2017. Three of those have been low and moderate income rebates. Obviously, we'd like to do more. And we continue to offer the program with the hopes that the growth will continue to be strong. I think the most significant moment we saw was when Nissan was doing a really good deal on the outgoing Nissan LEAF back in 2017. I think we and Green Mountain Power and other utilities are participating in that. The uptake was very strong. You could get $10,000 off the LEAF, plus a $7,500 tax credit, plus the utility incentive. So you could get a brand new EV at that time for around $13,000, which is a very good deal. A lot of people took advantage of that. So 77 rebates. We also, we have 14 public charging stations with 26 charging ports in the city that we operate, and we're going to be expanding that in the coming year. We're gonna be adding several new ports, new charging locations. I provided here just a one month snapshot, March of 2019, 875 sessions, 7.2 megawatt hours of consumption. We find that in a number of cases, particularly near the downtown, a number of the drivers are from outside of Burlington or even outside the state of Vermont who are coming through to stop, charge, and continue on to a destination here. And then just going to page six, really what we're here for today with S171, we're really focusing our comments on section two on the PUC proceeding with a request for the committee to consider language here that would accept us from the consideration of the appointment of new entities to manage an all fuels utility. With the reason being, as I mentioned, we're in a unique spot in the state where we're both the distribution utility and the efficiency utility. We're the only utility in that situation. We also are unique in that Vermont gas, which is also in the EU covers almost universally our entire service territory. And we don't see that there would be a need for an appointment of an additional entity to cover all fuels programs because we believe they're currently covered in the city of Burlington comprehensively either through us or through Vermont gas. And obviously running the efficiency program is a critical benefit for us. Chris and his team of, it's a lean team of six professionals, engineers and specialists, HVAC specialists and others work with our commercial and residential customers. We are doing all kinds of interesting outreach with multifamily units, rentals, new American communities trying to help get more access to our programs and our incentive and our expertise. And the proceeding, as I understand it, because it's a PUC proceeding that might consider the appointment of new entities would potentially have us focused for the next year or two on trying to defend our appointment essentially as opposed to continuing to make progress on our programs. So we would respectfully request the consideration of the language on page six for that reason. Well, and, you know, in discussions with Mr. Springer this afternoon, when I said, I asked him to come in and make a presentation on this. I'll lay out the position, you know, as I saw it, that we were opening a proceeding that was quite wide open as in, we were talking about changing roles for distribution utilities. We're talking about changing roles about the energy efficiency utilities. We've been talking about non-utilities and bringing to the mix S purposes. Exactly. So, and my, you know, so as much as I admire what you need to be doing and if you're doing great things, I just said since we're trying to create a level clean field where we're going to evaluate everything on the basis of what's best for the long term, I was comfortable with myself saying that I could see carving out any particular factor. You could or could not. No, okay, you know, that. So, I don't say that. I mean, you know, confrontational. Sounds confrontational. They know how I could say we're doing something different in the case of this one. So, that's the background for the meeting. So, I appreciate you, you know, sharing these nice reports you're already doing. I'm interested in many discussions about your interest in creating basically a carve out. And if I could further clarify, we are happy to participate in the proceeding. We would offer whatever value we could in the proceeding if that's desirable. Maybe that the model we have is something folks want to look at. Others may want to look at it. The reason for the request is, you know, quite simply unless there was going to be an effort to have our efficiency programs taken over by efficiency Vermont, there is no other entity that could credibly make a pitch to run the programs, I don't believe, in the city of Burlington. Between us and Vermont Gas, we already run them. We have good history on them. There's a lot of infrastructure around that. So, unless there was a move for that, which I don't believe is the case, there doesn't seem to be a need to consider appointment of a new entity in Burlington, given that we already have coverage. I understand a little bit about, so if this language, we don't include this language, what's sort of the worst case scenario that might put you guys, or what might happen that you'd be concerned about? I think, given the language in section two, the PUC could consider and, you know, potentially recommend to the legislature to remove our appointment as an efficiency utility and replace us with a efficiency Vermont or potentially somebody else, but that's hard for me to see who else would have the infrastructure to run that type of program. And we really do see a unique benefit in continuing to serve the community. We were doing this before efficiency Vermont was created. That's why we have the exemption that we have. And there have been other places in law, including, I think, in the renewable energy standard, where our unique role as a distribution utility and an efficiency utility was recognized and granted some exemption from other processes like this. Do you want me to chime it down? Do you have anything? No, thanks. Thanks, Leifert. Leifert, since we have a fine idea, they just do not participate in it. These things are pretty boring up there. They'd like to work with us. This is our proposal of what we're going to do. 1-1-21 there. I don't want to ask to see what will take place beyond 1-1-1. Well, I think we're very happy to work with the committee. My understanding, and please correct me if I don't have it correct, my understanding was that the proceeding was to look at the coordination between efficiency Vermont and distribution utilities, how Tier 3 is working, how different programs on energy storage, the man-management are working, how the electric efficiency program is working, where there are gaps. And those considerations are quite different in Burlington given the setup that we have. These would be the rest of the thing to say. Do you see what we have in front of for the 1-1-21? Well, and you'd be delighted to participate in that discussion. We would be very happy to participate in the discussion. Senator, I'm wondering if the QC has anything to say about this or a position as to whether or not it makes any difference to any of you if we were to pull them out. I mean, honestly, in some ways it may have made sense to... I don't think we have any problem. I haven't discussed it, but they didn't want me to have the setup. You'd rather use your formal position on it rather than get back to me. That would be helpful. Inefficiency Vermont? Are you looking in your mind? No. I think the department's position on the study throughout is to not presuppose any answers to the questions you're trying to ask. And so, keeping it broad, we don't know what the answers are going to be, as Mr. Springer pointed out. It's had a long history of delivering a bit of programs and it has really pushed forward on the tier 3 as well. But, you know, we don't know what this proceeding is going to say long term. And so, I think the department made that we don't want to presuppose any answers and providing an exemption probably we would do that. If that language was in here, we probably wouldn't put a big objection to it. You know, but in further regard, sorry, TJ Watson, the department of public service. So, is it the chair, or may I ask, is it partly your intention of keeping it in, Herbert, not putting this in that, indeed, the PUC could come back and recommend that Burlington Electric not have the world it currently has as energy efficiency. I'm just trying to get a sense, is that I'm not presupposing prejudging any outcome, but we're really saying we're asking the PUC to help guide the next decade or two on providing energy efficiency services across thermal, well, we're talking mostly about thermal, but then across the variety of fields we use and we're not presupposing anything. And so that was, you know, as much as I appreciate the work that you've been doing, drawing the line that there's, you're not actually, you could mean we're not allowing the PUC to consider how they might participate in some sort of recommendation back to the legislature. What's coming back is a recommendation that we as policymakers would have to change the law and the status that the PED currently has is already established, but it wouldn't change during any kind of procedure. At the legislative issue. Did you testify that they wish to remain unstudied? No, and that will allow you to be careful, and that's what Mr. Spring said right here. The question was whether the recommendations could include a recommendation that would impact their situation. Are all recommendations around the table? Senator, I would tend to agree with the chair. I think you guys have done a good job. I don't think you're in any danger of losing that. I don't think the PUC is going to make a drastic change and say now you're going to let somebody else do that, or that's the recommendation. But I guess I would be concerned with naming one utility and carving it out. I think it's been fair in the stuff that we've asked them to do for us, and so I'm sure they're a little worried about it, but quite frankly, I think it will be a fair process and they'll continue to work as they have. I would not want to comment on that. I think honestly we've made a lot of points. Who are we trying to open any of the discussions? If I can respectfully with the committee appreciating the conversation, I do think it sends a signal when the legislature asks the PUC to reconsider the appointment of the efficiency utilities or new entities. I appreciate that they will run a fair process. We will participate in that process regardless, but certainly if this language is not included, we'll participate vigorously and defend our record against any potential change. That will require a fair amount of effort, but I do think it sends a signal when the legislature puts language forward saying we're dissatisfied with the status quo and we want you to consider change. Our concern is that that can be interpreted down the road a year or two from now, potentially with different actors, in different places, differently. If there's a way to have a signal in here that there's not an intent to change the energy efficiency utility in Burlington, we would welcome that signal given the work that we've done. I would think that we are asking to look at all alternatives and perhaps there are entities out there that want to get into the game whether they want to compete with you or work for other utilities or what they want to do, but I think we as a legislature need to have all the options on the table and see who can provide the most best services and as I said, I think you guys have a good track record, you've got your foot in the door I think it's hard for anybody to compete in your area, but there may be other people out there that we don't know can provide these sort of services that I think we need to look at, no matter where from. Are you the only ones that did predate efficiency reform? Well, I believe other utilities were running efficiency programs at that time and I think, well, Senator McDonnell may quibble with my characterization of efficiency programs, but we were the only ones whose program I believe was credible enough to maintain our status, if I could say it that way. And we're public power utility and we have, I think, demonstrated that we have, even to our own revenue detriment, a commitment to efficiency that is strong and continuing. Well, as you know, so important, fiduciary responsibility when there's a legislator, we're a part of what's driving the whole sense of we, because we're through law, directly, we pay our dollars to future programs that we're going to go all the way payers and say, we're looking out for the low cost alternative and that could involve changes to the system overall. I think that we're asking people about computer merits and I think a person like you would have a very strong base in computer merits. But one thing I think I'm sorry to say that our signal, you can see the signal signifies dissatisfaction. I think it's not a signal around dissatisfaction. The signal, from my point of view around the electric control system has changed so dramatically in 20 years, but is it a good time to pause and say if we're looking ahead for next year, what kind of regulatory lens do you want to have that would allow us to do more work, more cost-effectively for more people. That's the thrust that's really positive and forward-looking not in any way specifically about past performance. No, I appreciate that and I think the concern again is we have different models obviously with the efficiency utilities and with Tier 3 consciously created differently. The utility model except for Burlington and Vermont Gas is a statewide program. There was thinking I think during the time when Tier 3 was developed that you could simply expand that statewide program to cover these new purposes and have an all-fuels utility in some sort and it would require more money but it would cover more things and the beauty to me of Tier 3 the way that it's played out is different utilities are trying different things. We are doing different things in Burlington for our customer base we don't have an electric clock. We don't have seasonal maple syrup producers who we can help get off of diesel but that's a great program that they're running in the Green Mountains running. We have buses that we can electrify which may not be as prevalent in other parts of the state so I think our concern would be we really do see a value in continuing to serve our customers as an efficiency utility and we would not want to be and I don't think there's any desire in Burlington to be part of the statewide efficiency and deliver good value and good service and I still don't have a clear signal as to whether that's in any way the not from the committee necessarily but whether there's going to be a move for that or not. Sure. I think that's part of why the language is also as new or existing we're going to align around any current set of actors and say we're not inviting anyone else into that workspace and pick anyone who's in the current environment. Right. Senator Perron, do you have any thoughts for any other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. So I think you have Mr. Burns with you. I don't know if you wanted to walk around comments or if you have any extra information you need. Exactly. All right. So let's take a break and John's here. Ryan told me we had adjourned. It's part of my strategy. We adjourned for the session. Go home. Go quiet. During the break Mr. Mountain approached me about talking about working the working thing. Am I saying you're listening properly? Yes. I didn't know. I'm sorry. I stick with those things. So we're going to spend quite a bit of time joining us at the table to get a proposal to run past us. Good morning. Thanks for coming back in. Good morning, Senator. Good morning. For the record, I heard Manca testifying on behalf of the Lamont and the Lamont Community Action Partnership. So thanks for the time. I won't take a lot of your time on the agenda but we had sent having reviewed yesterday's version of S171. We had some good concerns about section two paragraph three on funding and the concern goes to we have an existing dedicated funding source for low-income weatherization assistance program and our concern was that this funding source could end up in the mix of reconsideration by the PUC under this language. So we had sent some suggested language that would essentially carve out the existing funding for low-income weatherization run by the Community Action Partnership and their weatherization assistance programs in paragraph three, a small I and small two I shared that with Senator Bray and appreciate a moment of your time to speak to that. I guess I would start off by reminding folks that we've heard a lot of testimony about low-income weatherization for one of the major features I think of that testimony is to remind you all that it is both an energy efficiency program as well as a human services program and that it has been around for many, many years. It's been multiple vetted through studies. It's been vetted every few years when the funding sources come in for reauthorization by this body three years ago. There was a restructuring of that dedicated funding through the fuel taxes that are currently in statute and actually up for reauthorization as of July 1 and are being considered for reauthorization next door in finance in the revenue bill. So we would ask you to put language into those sections to make it clear that when the PUC does look at all existing and or new funding sources to possibly realign that that existing funding source be taken off the table for consideration. We have no objection to looking at ways to accelerate low-income and moderate-income weatherization. In fact, we strongly support it both but in terms of the existing funding source and what it raises currently through the two cent fuel tax on number two heating fuel and natural gas as well as electricity that be carved out. Program's been around, like I said, 30 years. It's been vetted multiple and to have the PUC basically take a look at a program that has this dual purpose of both energy efficiency and human services and look at it purely from an energy efficiency standpoint really I think would be it would be do it this service to the program and everything else that it does in addition to the energy efficiency that it provides for low-income verminers. The language we're modifying here and the proceeding we're asking for is that it's 30 and low-income verminization program is 33 so I'm not sure that the PUC would start reimagining how the statue outside the purview would be altered. No, I expected that the PUC would start but I agree it would be completely out of there. I'm just looking at the language in section in paragraph three on the funding where it's pretty global if you just read that then it's look at all existing potential future funding sources so that's where our concerns come in from. Understandable we're highly supportive of the program that's where we started on. Understood. And that's where we're going to end up closing so we've ended up so we've turned off on some moderate income organization programs and how efficiency will be able to use savings they've achieved through changing their program to do more work in space but also additional money bringing to the both certainly testified to that and floating all boats we would welcome that we're not sure exactly how that's going to happen yet but we'll stay tuned and we'll clearly welcome that. I guess with those assurances I guess we should get comfortable with that I would still say for someone that just reads section paragraph 3 on funding and looks at existing and new funding sources to better support existing efficiency conservation programs and services I think a plain reading of just that would lead someone to believe that everything's on the table. Part of the reason the language is so broad is because we realize that if we can't look at that if the board couldn't look at unregulated fuels then we would be constraining the discussion across the street in an important way. And we're not suggesting that unregulated fuels shouldn't be looked at for an increase and for both and for that increase to go as we testified multiply to go to both low income and moderate income weatherization so we're fully in agreement with the committee's intent on that. Any questions? Thank you very much. Sir, for the community discussion I think though it was a prohibition or a carve-out that we should go on for a long time. That's a good question. I'm looking at the vehicle for this is it going on its own or can you talk for a moment about that? Thank you. So how can the board discuss the next 17-minute pathway to that up this morning? So my sense is in terms of having a bill to move I'd like to see us just tidy up our amendments and hand it off to a committee which is I think it needs to come from here. So I'd like to for us to finish up once at one and then to go strike on 63 so we can still do the a cheat three minutes modification. So this would go on 63? And we lay it on 63. It also says new fuel packs so we're not that was because once everyone was introduced we included the two sets on new fuels. We're going to provide some moose and beer language in that bill too. Keep it exciting. Moose and beer language. We need to find both for that to ride though. We've got the to the signs. Signs, firms, that could become like a miscellaneous. So we would do that and then we would go it out because it's a for sure it goes down to all the finance. When it's in finance that's where I think the conversation about if you're financing a process with a conversation about finding additional revenues to bring to growing and more a little bit resolved. I'm not sure if finance might then say the best way of what we see is to take 863 is loaded out of the natural and put it into something else that 63 would be a career container for us to pass on to our colleagues. That's what I would recommend. In terms of our earlier conversation Ms. White brought up around how we read back on page 1 like 18 through 23 about money being generated and money being spent Council have a suggestion that we could specify the calendar years in the sectionary in the feelings of Eddie that says we're trying to make it to what not only for raising money but also for spending money to build suspenders and things that it does. Given some reallocation of the direction of expenditures of our grant even though it has to be a little different as we're doing. So if you could include that that would be more explicit yet. Thank you. And another question that came up earlier was around the relationship between the different providers. So I don't know if you both have a low implementation space who wish they could do more moderate work or I don't know if they should see their marks posted that as a result of these proceedings you'll deliver services in every city throughout the state. Coming back to the BD discussion is that sort of on the table from your point of view I'm not people are asking me so I'd like to just hand it to you part of our discussion prior to that. Sure. Abbey white efficient leader on is it our desire to serve every city in the state to know I think that or at least voices that you can say pretty much. Now she knows what we feel right. Is it really aren't I'm just so much fun more coffee please. No the work that Burlington Electric does is as they're testified is really nation leading. So it's always been our hope through the proceeding that we can find ways to improve the collaboration with existing entities. I've testified to that I think that we have as well should the proceeding determine that efficiency Vermont is not the proper entity. So but it's definitely not our intent to supplant any of the good work that's happening whether it's through Burlington Electric or any of the other utilities but to figure out how that can be bolstered and improved all of our work together. So anyone else who has a question about the version as it currently exists. Mr. Coyote. Matt Coyote of the Vermont Village Association disappointed about it yesterday. I'm not a lawyer but I'm trying to play one. I'm just trying to make sure that I know what hats to wear. We're going to be proceeding from the best all-fields and businesses to come along. When you look at public utility commission proceeding with unregulated fuels and fossil fuels as defined by 30 BSA 2093 and those three things. Regulated fuels, unregulated fuels and fossil fuels are on 2093 D, E and F F will be thermal fuels in your profession. Regulated fuels of course will be the regulated fuels and D fossil fuels which would encompass gasoline, diesel fuel, died diesel fuel. So it is just thermal but also if you use the word fossil fuels as defined by 30 BSA it could include diesel fuel and gasoline. I'm just trying to find out so I can know what the other represents. So we're not in 10? If you say we're that transportation right. I guess there's two thoughts coming to mind. Let's figure this out. One is we're not asking way in on older fuels or transportation fuels but there's not quite as bright of a line as I might think. What they're also looking at is low management over time in an environment where we're increasingly electrifying. We went on and say they can't think about electric vehicles because we're now trading on the new fossil fuel for transportation portion. So I don't know if those are the two things that I'm feeling are just co-organizing in a slightly different way. So I appreciate your question and I'm kind of sure that we're clear when we get to council I don't know if you are in position based on do you want me to try to answer this question? So as he indicated, this is something we just discussed previously. It states that the commission shall consider whether to recommend that one more entity should be appointed to provide for the coordinated development, implementation, monitoring, efficiency, conservation related programs and services as to does not limit by appeal. Then it has the indicated fuels, unregulated fuels and fossil fuels and it has cross-reference to that definition. When we went through a prior version as I mentioned that those definitions are also over each other. So would this include gasoline? Yes. Would this include all other fuels? Yes. Yes. It's all fuels. Depending what their recommendations are it could be quite good. Okay. Well given that the charge is coordinated development, implementation, monitoring, efficiency, conservation, implementation programs, it seems that we're steering enough from up to as far as the specificity. Anyone else? So thank you for raising it. Four more. With that then I would look or one with the command 171 as proposed and we're getting one more headed to it. And that was the additional section. Section one. Correct. So if we call that draft version 12 so then that would be version 12 so that would be the portion. And then that's when something went using version 12. Sorry I wasn't even just taking it out. Okay. So we'll be doing two years of strike law. Strike law. And well I think we'll also one section one is preserved that we have language on building energy based on where we're going the FPG sticker for building building energy labeling was already in there. We would be removing the fuels follows? Let's do the ending first. Then we'll start building. Let's start with the strike law which is through it as an addition. And then we'll have the whole thing assembled and then we'll pull the pieces out together looking. So do you want the motion to be withdrawn for now or are we No. We'll be amending to append this work. So get the further of it. Are you including the other strike law you were talking about before? Yes. Yes. Yes. We'll have a slightly overly big build so that everything that we've looked at will be in one place and we'll show things out. Mr. Chair, may I just make any sense just to a lot of things are happening just to get one more draft or I just think from hearing from others that maybe it might be confusing. So we we don't mind. As long as we have something maybe in front of us. Okay.