 Okay. I will call to order the transportation, energy and utility committee meeting at five oh six. And I would entertain a motion on our agenda. I would move the approval of the agenda as we're. Second. Is there any discussion? Do I have a copy of the, please? You're welcome. Is there any discussion? None. Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. And so we have our agenda also here are the approval of the minutes from our 725 and 81 meetings. Right. Motion on. Yeah. I move the approval of those minutes as. I would second that. Okay. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Approved our minutes from last two minutes. So next on is public forum. Before we start public forum, I just wanted to sort of go over some ground rules for public forum. I'd like to limit public forum to the ordinance that we're discussing tonight and not other topics. And it also, if you spoken to us before, if you have something new to say, then please say it tonight. Otherwise, we have it in the record. And if you haven't spoken to us before, we're glad you're here to talk to us tonight. And I'd like to get through this entire meeting in 90 minutes, if possible. So, be as brief as possible to give us your thoughts during public forum. And with all that said, we'll move on to public forum. The first person I have on the list is Dave Keltie. Yep, both of them. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead, Dave. So, Gideon, thank you. I'm, my name's Dave Keltie. Keltie. I'm with the University Health Network here on behalf of the University Medical Center to provide a couple of little comments about what our perspectives are on the proposed ordinance in terms of what we've seen. We've been working very closely with the Provence and Electric and others. I was memorandum. I think it was distributed. You guys got that. I won't go through that in detail. There is a graphic that I had associated with that. I did want to spend a little bit of time on that and only a brief amount of time. So, let me start off by saying is UVM Medical Center has a commitment to sustainable building and design, rebuilding. We have a number of these old buildings. We've been practicing sustainable design for the last almost 20 years. We won a number of awards from Practice Green Health for green building. We're very proud of our record. In fact, when we build buildings now, we are seeing energy consumption less than 50% of our comparable peer hospital. So, for example, when you take a look at our building, the newest building that we completed in 2019, the energy consumption there is pretty close to EY of about 100, which is exceptionally good for many hospitals are closer to 200. The other thing I would say is that Ms. Grapp kind of highlights is we have a very complex system. And we just point a couple of things out under that little cartoon bubbles that you see around there. Those are systems that we do not have installed, but we're considering and we're actually trying to understand the context of this proposed legislation as well. But on the left-hand side of that diagram, you will see that's our energy inputs and they're largely, or if not all, metered utilities from growing to the electric, which has obviously got some wind, the hydro power and the big deal plant in terms of biomass. And we also procure energy from Vermont gas, straight natural gas and renewable natural gas as well. And as you can see, when those enter the campus, they're metered. And one of the things that I was picking up on the last discussion of the last meeting was a discussion about renewable gas. That's something that's not metered from source to the medical center. That's procured on a contractual basis for Vermont gas. It's blended to their overall gas and the amount that we buy. So when we get our gas on the campus, there's no gas molecules we could identify are natural or renewable. Why I bring that up? Because renewable natural gas will likely play a large role in our ability to achieve net neutral thermal energy on the campus. Obviously the high degree of reliance on the Burlington Electric District heating that we're evaluating and having conversations now, trying to understand what the economics of that is. So between those two thermal sources, we think are probably a key for us to make some good inroads on insurance from carbon neutrality. Now, what's interesting here is when we, those utilities and systems come off of the campus, we, they go to our central plant that may distribute all the other orders and that little pink area in the center kind of represents our central plant, where yes, we may consider electric boiler in the future, we have traditional water, our fire tube boilers and water tube boilers currently there. One thing I'd point out is some of those boilers we have on the campus are close to 70 years old. So these assets that we buy, we take very good care of and try to get as much life cycle out. I would urge caution in terms of the way that the fees may be assessed to make sure that you preserve the abilities and incentives for modernization of combustion equipment going forward. I mean, a 70 year old boiler is doing the job and we would continue to maintain that. In terms of I believe the tax provisions are if we were to change that boiler out, we'd be subject to that carbon tax. So there's a lot of incentives for us to keep that equipment running for a very long time. The other illustration I have here is with a reduction level is steam absorption children. That would be, we have had that in the past and we're considering it into the future. That would be blended with our reciprocating and centrifugal children that we have on the campus to produce chilled water or space conditioning. Now what we're in the memo addresses us what we're trying to understand is in terms of the carbon tax assessment and if it's based on connected MMB to thermal capacity, how all that works together because on the far right hand side is equipment that we have in our buildings. For example, ventilation, heating, air conditioning duct system, which has thermal capacity. So when we build a new building we may not do anything to the central plant. We're just gonna plug into it and build our hospital building and use those utilities are there. So we're trying to understand how that carbon tax would translate to that because we're not sure whether we build that building it will be a tax assessed against the thermal energy that building would use through that equipment. We're trying to figure out how that works with steam absorption chilled water and how that works with a boiler that you may buy to power that thermal steam absorption shower. So there's three pieces of equipment. There's the generating piece, which is a boiler. There's the chill water generation, which is the thermal, the absorption shower. And then you have the end use which is the mechanical systems. So where's that tax assessed? How is it accounting for you buy the boiler? Do you pay the tax on that? But then you have the same energy is being consumed by that water and shower. And that energy is still being same energy being distributed by that air handling system. So we wanted to understand that was unclear on how that would work. I call it energy accounting. I'm an energy engineer by my trainer and I'm trying to figure out how you account for energy and those relative costs. So very interesting that. I think our memorandum kind of summarizes that I won't get into it. You didn't ask me question three, right? And your memorandum. Yeah, I wasn't really going by my questions, but yes, it is. Thank you. The other piece that I want to point out is in terms of boiler electrification. I gave an example in the memorandum with 100 horsepower boiler, which equals one megawatt of electricity. Our total service entrance from the medical center is about seven and a half, eight megawatts. Our mercy generation is about three to four megawatts. So a boiler horsepower of 100 is a very modest amount of boiler steam capacity. In fact, we have 30 times that capacity in our central plan. So if we went to electrification and wanted to replace all of our steam generation, for example, it would be 30 megawatts. It's, we're wondering whether that is doable given our service entrance and the capacity of the overall Burlington system that 30 megawatts would be more than probably half the generation capacity of the people. So I just wanted to point that out because that is a very expensive to beef up your electrical systems for electrification on a institutional scale. I think it works really well, residential. I mean, I wouldn't water source heat pumps in my house, for example, but a large scale, high intensity use like a hospital may not be feasible. So I wanted to point those things out and just have you be aware of that. I think the memoranda provides an overview of the other elements around temporary heating systems and systems where we may need to make modest investments to get us through the next five years before we chair a building now, understanding how that lifecycle carbon tax assessment would be approach in that scenario. So that's really all I wanted to cover and I wanted to appreciate the time to give you that information and we're certainly going to be responsive to any questions that anybody has, so thank you. Thanks, Dave. The next person is Carol Danzi. Yes, I'm Carol Danzi and I recently moved to Vermont to live closer to my family who lives in Berlin. And so I come from New York State, all the way New York and I'm not clear about how you're making decisions and the input, it seems to me that you've gone down a certain road with biofuels and I'm here to say that I do not like biofuels as a solution to climate change that we have to get the carbon out of the air and as I understand it, bio means of nature. So I don't understand how wood pellets would count as a green source. I don't think it is, it's burning wood and it's adding to the climate change. So I guess I'm diametrically opposed to the general idea and in front of me, but I'm just renewing here and I just wanted to keep my... Thanks, Carol. Yep. Next, I have Elizabeth. I'm gonna put you your last name, Paul Chek. Paul Chek? That's okay, bye. Hi everyone, I'm Elizabeth Paul Chek. I'm the Director of Sustainability at the University of Vermont and my comments will be somewhat, what Mr. Kelty, is it, said? Yes. I think he illustrated very well that the technical considerations in moving a campus or an institution like UVM Medical Center or the University of Vermont to clean energy renewable heating systems. I submitted a letter that I think is part of today's materials. What I'm gonna say is largely that we released a comprehensive sustainability plan in April and in that plan, we declared a goal of carbon neutrality by 2030. So our goals largely support the goals of the city to become net zero and to decarbonize. I think we're in strong alignment there. How we're gonna get there is complex and extensive and crucial to us that we have as many tools available as possible for renewable natural gas like the Medical Center and perhaps district heating are things that we are considering very seriously. So the deletion of those solutions as has been proposed from the carbon impact fee we think would be to the detriment of the ultimate goals of fast decarbonization of our buildings. We're actively working on an energy master plan and developing a road map so that we have a better understanding of exactly what we need to do but what we fully understand is that it's very technical and it's very complicated. And so taking any of those tools from the proverbial toolbox at this point we think would be really challenging and make the effort more difficult. I think, oh, I'll just say that we were one of the stakeholders involved in the discussions with BEG and the development of the carbon impact fee and while we've recognized that it's gonna be difficult for us, we were largely in support of the ordinance as it was written and as it was voted on. So I'll close my comments there, thank you. Who's next? Dylan. Oh, Dylan. Yes, please. Hi, everyone. I'm Dylan Giambattista, I'm the director of public affairs for BGS, it's Vermont Gas. Thank you for the opportunity to come again. Here we are two weeks later and there's been an opportunity now for all of us to review the amendments that were put forward to catch the meeting on August 1st and I just wanna start by saying we appreciate not only the chance to weigh in but also the chance to consider this proposal and going back sometime, wasn't long ago that the charter change proposal was brought through the General Assembly down in Montpelier and we testified at that time, this was when you were discussing things such as the carbon fee and concept and whether or not it should be for the voters and we did flag that with all the changing policy at the statewide level with the Global Warming Solutions Act and requirements to reduce emissions, that there was a concern that any attempt to impose a fee above changing statewide policy would result in higher costs but that said, we were encouraged that after the voters made their vote in March, everyone came together, there was a process to hear from stakeholders and impacted community members and the proposal that was developed and brought to this committee in concept, we are pleased to say aligns in large part with the emerging statewide thermal energy policy most notably Act 18, which is the Affordable Heat Act that's the new law that lawmakers adopted that will transition the thermal sector in Vermont in line with state requirements. I provided some comments which were in email form to Chair Barlow, which are now on the page of the committee but just to summarize here, I presented last week about our interest in seeing alignment with state policy. We think that's the best interest of the city and also of meeting our statewide climate objectives that the state has set out. Specific to some of the amendments that were put forward at the last session that have been made available, I do just wanna call out a couple areas of concern with those amendments. The first would be this concept of adding this language to the effect of from exclusively renewable non-fossil sources. While we appreciate the intent of that, under the state law, the Affordable Heat Act, all energy sources are going to be put through a life cycle analysis. This is one of the most environmentally progressive policies of low carbon fuel standards in the country. And that process will compare on an apples to apples basis the relative climate benefit of a given fuel type or a clean heat installed metro. I bring this up because here in Burlington, the policy that's been developed provides some flexibility in it in that it provides a variety of pathways for large building owners such as the ones who have spoken tonight or new building owners in the future to achieve compliance with this act such that they are not penalized by the carbon impact fee. And at the same time, they'll be choosing a fuel type that lowers their carbon footprint aligned with state policy goals and also the city policy goals here as well. I'll just say that the exclusively renewable non-fossil source language would not align with state policy. And we have a concern that an energy user, as we just heard, they use multiple energy types. So there might be scenarios in which an energy user wants to have a hybrid blend of energy types to meet their thermal needs. In our instance, we might serve biomethane renewable natural gas through our system. They might choose to use a 40% of that to service their load. The other 60% under the ordinance currently as introduced could be serviced by advanced wood heat, biodiesel or some other blend. That would contribute to the climate goals. This language would prevent that. I also just want to call out there was discussion about deleting fuel or compliance pathways that was put forward specifically renewable natural gas, rehydrogen, biodiesel and advanced wood heat. You know, on the standby level, the Affordable Heat Act is going to very likely provide credit for those types of energy sources because it will be shown that they've reduced greenhouse gas emissions. That law looks at the entire sourcing of all fuel types under it. It includes the production, transmission and combustion here in Vermont. So as we look to align with state policy, I'm not sure why you'd want to delete fuels or compliance pathways that are set out in state law for transitioning thermal sector. Also, I'll just call out that there's a statewide greenhouse gas accounting inventory. So as Burlington sets out policy, there's also been talk about adding a physical delivery requirement. That policy, as I called out in the submission that I made, it's focusing very closely on what Burlington can do, but it's not aligned with the state policy context of all of this. The greenhouse gas impacts of these fuel sources are going to be accounted for, for impacts beyond Vermont's borders. This is really a North American wide and global wide policy framework that the state has adopted. So adding a physical delivery requirement within this policy would not be consistent with statewide policy. We think it would drive up compliance costs and would not fit in that emerging state energy context. The final thing I'll just say, thinking about the needs of new development, new buildings, the users of those in the future and existing building owners who would be impacted by the carbon fee ordinance. There was talk about deleting the early action provision that would award actions that these buildings take early that reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the climate policies, the city and the state. And we think it would be important to allow for those early action credits to provide a pathway for these organizations to transition. So I'll leave my comments there. That's a substance of what I had to say that's new. I want to thank you for the opportunity to weigh in. If there are any questions specific to our system, I'm happy to answer them through the progress. So thank you. Thanks, Don. Next up is Nick Percentiari. Hi, Nick Percentiari. I live in Ward 2. I strongly support the proposed elimination of lines 52 through 65 which would eliminate green hydrogen advance would sustainably source biodiesel and renewable gas work from the permissible types of systems because those types of systems will not help us to reach our climate goals. And I'm not going to repeat what I said before about those measures, but I just wanted to refer you to position papers on those types of systems that I submitted and 350 Vermont submitted which are in the materials for the July 25th meeting of this committee. I support elimination of the language that Dylan just mentioned. The language in line 35 exclusively renewable non-fossil fuel sources such as, but I think that language should be eliminated for a different reason. I think it creates a circular, and I don't think this is what's intended, but I think it creates a circular definition that would define a renewable fuel which reduces greenhouse gas emissions as any system that relies on thermal energy from exclusively renewable non-fossil fuel sources. And so that would read literally include any renewable source regardless of its fossil fuel, regardless of its greenhouse gas emissions, including the things that you're proposing to eliminate. So I think that language even needs to be struck or to make it clear, maybe change it to exclusively renewable non-fossil fuel sources which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And I would strike the such as language, maybe say something like particularly instead because I think that we should prescribe with certainty what's allowed and then if you're gonna allow a catchall for the elect for burning for the division of permitting to allow some other type of fuel on a showing that it reduces greenhouse gas emissions, that's fine. Let's limit this to a prescribed list with that catchall if we're gonna include the catchall. And I don't think we should even include the catchall. Finally, as I've explained before and won't repeat it, we should not try to aim for incorporating verbatim language for the affordable, from the Affordable Heat Act. I submitted something in writing on that. The Affordable Heat Act has designated measures that may be eligible for cleaning credits. The legislature is going to decide how much credit each measure is entitled to. That process hasn't been done yet. And our ordinance is fundamentally different than the Affordable Heat Act. The Affordable Heat Act is going to include a sliding scale of credits based on how effective a measure is in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So if they were determined to determine, and I don't think they should, that renewable gas sucks. And in contrast, our fee is all or nothing. So it's just a totally different system. All right, thank you. Thanks Nick. Next we have Phil Merrick. Hello, Phil Merrick. We're in four now. And yeah, I'm here to basically show my support for Nicholas Persampieri's views here. I've studied some of these issues and I can tell you I've studied some of them in depth. I'm gonna tell you it's going to be hard for all of us. Sorry that they're at the medical center and you're having trouble figuring out how to make my house net zero, aren't we all? And I'm not being sarcastic at all. We are in this together. We need to cut the carbon. I don't care if it's wood chips, I don't care if it's wood pellets, it's carbon. We've got to cut the carbon. This is a climate crisis. I don't know if you people who are using regulations to figure this out, stop it. This is a climate crisis, do the right thing. It's not going to overcome this crisis by waiting for those above. There's a fight that will only win here as the combined result of individuals and small communities all across the world. This is not just Vermont, this is not just Burlington. We need to take meaningful and bold action really, really meaningful and bold action. We don't have time for the cumbersome movement of federal and state governments. I know Dylan would like to go by the state, but they are slow. By the time they figure this biomass thing out, how many more floods do we need to live through here? We can't wait for the politics and financial interests to iron themselves out. We already know what the problem is, it's carbon, carbon in the atmosphere. This is not a wait and see situation. Each individual community needs to act as quickly and fully as we can. We can't be experts at everything, but we must rely on those like Nick, like many other people I know, they're spending their days, their afternoons, their evenings studying this stuff to tell you experts what's really up and it's called carbon. There are too many fronts and too many battles as you are all well aware. None of us can be everywhere at once. When you throw in political, financial, and special interests and all the rest, the change is far too slow. But there are those disinterested people with the only goal being to save us from a full climate disaster and we must listen to them like Nick. Nick is one of these soldiers. He has reviewed the issues in detail. He has an honest drive to make the difference, trust his recommendations. We need to take this lead here in Burlington and we need to do it now. We don't have time. Thank you. Steve, good kind of business? There's no mic, I probably should be here. You're welcome to speak loudly or join us closer to the front. Hannah, can you hear Steve? Steve, good kind of a former city engineer and public director for Burlington. I'm going to key to what you said about what to not repeat so there's no mic support. Everything Nick is saying, but just to note that they're very strongly about the fact that we need language that would remove the need of them being one of the permitted sources of heat on here in New Orleans. I hear an institute showing that commercial people here are talking about how Jafil could be part of their decarbonization plan. Again, you believe they're saying, and all I can say is that that's the case. Maybe I have this meeting to meet and I don't really want to sell you. So thank you very much. Thank you, Steve. Kim Horner, Mary. Do they put you in your name? My name is Sheldon J. I'm Sheldon Horner, Marcy. I'm an active member of the Free 50 Vermont Burlington Node. And I just rise to say that renewable does not mean no greenhouse gas emissions. And we need to get to a point where we are recognizing that renewable natural gas is the same methane content as natural gas and that biomass is one of the most toxic and inefficient and poor things we can burn. We have to stop burning everything. There are many green solutions for heating. And the Affordable Heat Act is a study right now. There's no guarantees how that's going to end up, but we worked hard on that bill to make sure that they would look at life cycle emissions, renewable natural gas and biomass often have higher emissions than other fuels you burn, but we're not in favor of burning anything. We need to move to the green solutions. As I drove here tonight, I was listening to people who had lost everything in Hawaii. We have people who have lost everything right here in the state due to flooding. The man who was speaking had lost everything. And yet he was talking about wanting to serve. And so I thank you to serve the earth, to serve the living systems of the earth. It is mind-boggling to me that a university that has climate scientists and medical scientists all speaking the same language Nick and I and Phil are speaking and you are not listening to them. You cannot burn things. We have to quit now. We should have quit 25 years ago. We should have quit 70 years ago, but we can quit now. Please quit. Thank you, Kim. Is there anyone else in the room who's not signed up who would like to speak? I do know there's someone online. I'm going to put a bit for the online folks now. Oh, you're going to? Yeah. Anybody else? No? Okay. Maddie, who do we have online? I've got shorts. You should be able to unmute yourself. Hi, Rebecca. Hi. Are you guys able to hear me? We are. Okay, great. Thank you so much for hearing my comments. I'm a Burlingtonian and I live in the Lake Sidney neighborhood, so I'm Ward 5. And I'm really glad that Burlington has been taking so much action and there's so much more we can do to reduce our carbon and the pollution that's really blanketing the planet. So as Kim just said, we can really see and feel the tipping point. And I'm really urging the committee to be a leader, to be a really strong leader in bringing us to really net zero greenhouse gas emissions and bring that carbon way, way down. So having something be renewable is not enough. We can't change climate change with just language. We really need to incentivize and require that we not have more carbon, more things burning, more greenhouse gas emissions. So I really urge you to make the changes to bring us to a much cleaner and greener city and really be a leader that is making those hard choices. And it is challenging, but we gotta meet the challenge. And that's it, thanks. Thanks Rebecca. Jack Ayrton. Go ahead Jack. If you may be muted maybe, we don't hear you. We're still not hearing you Jack. We'll come back to you Jack. Who's next? Ashley Adams. Ashley. Go ahead Ashley. Hi there. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay. First I do wanna clarify the state of Vermont is not a leader on clean energy and heat. I find Vermont right now to be a leader in greenwashing and I really don't think that the state level is one to emulate at this particular point in time unfortunately. We know that we need to phase out all forms of combustion from our heating and power sources if we are to stand a chance of meeting our climate goals. It's not nearly about fossil fuels as Burlington's net zero energy roadmap suggests. It's about greenhouse gas emissions from every source as so many folks tonight have stated. No additional research is needed. We know that renewable natural gas, green hydrogen, biodiesel, advanced wood heat and McNeil district heat are heating sources which will increase greenhouse gas emissions and also have ecological and health implications. Calling something renewable, natural, green or advanced matters not from a climate ecological or health standpoint. These are words used by those in power to hoodwink everyone else while they go on polluting and making the earth uninhabitable. Please consider your fellow Vermonters who have suffered from catastrophic flooding and wildfire smoke. We're living in the climate emergency daily especially the poor and marginalized. Residents of Burlington who voted on the extremely misleading ballot item two that led to this ordinance thought they were voting to cut carbon emissions. We are all desperate for real solutions. You must enact an ordinance that achieves the spirit of what residents voted for. If you leave these fault solutions in the ordinance you will have failed in this critical task. So I applaud the idea of a thermal energy system ordinance but it needs to be one that takes us forward. Please do not include renewable natural gas, green hydrogen, biodiesel, advanced wood heat or McNeil district heat as permissible heat sources in this ordinance. These heating sources do not belong in any credible plan to meet our climate goals whether it's the hospital, UVM or the city. And I think you all know that. Thank you very much. Thanks Ashley. Looks like Jack has unmuted himself. Jack. Hey everyone, can you hear me? We can. Okay, sorry about that. Thanks for letting everyone speak. Appreciate it. As others have said, we are in a climate emergency and we're already seeing pretty severe impacts but really this is just a small glimpse of where things are headed with the impacts of the climate emergency. This is why Burlington adopted the net zero road map and declared climate emergency in 2019. It's because we're in this emergency and the state of Vermont is not solving the problem. The state of Vermont is failing to solve the problem. That's why you're in this room, crafting policy at the local level to try to reduce emissions. The net zero energy roadmap is clear that the goal is to eliminate fossil fuel use in greenhouse gas emissions in Burlington by 2030. Now, this policy just looks at a small segment of that overall piece. But let's at least get this segment there in terms of that 2030 timeline. Renewable, having Vermont gas supply new buildings or having existing large buildings invest in new equipment to take gas from Vermont gas is not going to achieve that goal. If you look at Vermont gas's website, their plan is to reach 20% of their supply coming from renewables by 2030. So you're talking about falling, reaching 20% of your goal by 2030. We're trying to get 100% off of fossil fuels by then in Burlington. Again, the fuel being delivered to buildings, the fuel being combusted here in Burlington. So that is not a viable pathway. And again, this is just looking at new construction and large buildings that are making new investments in heating systems. And so if we can't even do it here, how do we expect to get all the existing buildings that are hooked up to natural gas off of that? It's just, there's no way we get there under this framework. So let's at least make sure that these new investments are going to the right place, which we know is electrification and geothermal. That's where we should go. And if they can't do it for technical reasons, don't have them pay a premium to a fossil fuel company to reduce emissions elsewhere. Have them pay a fee to the city which was the whole design. This is why we spent years getting this authority as a city. Have them pay the city to decarbonize here in Burlington rather than having them pay this fossil fuel company to try to decarbonize elsewhere. Thank you. Thank you, Jack. Peter Duvall? Peter Duvall, go ahead. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Can you hear me okay? We can. There are a couple of assumptions in the room right now. And the first one that has brought this very complicated interlocking scheme between the carbon impact fee, the S5, and the steam pipe, the steam transmission pipe proposal. The assumption throughout the process is that there are a lot of things that can be done throughout all of these things that are interconnected is the bad assumption that biogenic emissions are carbon free to climate neutral. And it makes all three ideas fatally flawed. There's another assumption specific to the action tonight and that is the assumption that there needs to be some carbon impact fee ordinance or any ordinance at all. That's not the case. You are not required to create an ordinance. And it's just really a major setback to make such a backwards move as this ordinance. And the other two aspects of this whole scheme when you're not required to create an ordinance or a scheme, when we know that there are some pretty straightforward things that could be done that get so much accomplished, so much more in the right direction. And I'll point out again that it would be a very simple thing for Burlington to adopt Passethouse zero building code with alternatives such as lead zero or living building challenge which is in its fourth generation, it's the best. Those would cover all buildings and all new construction. That would be a far superior way to create a built environment that is ready for not the future but the demands right now of buildings that operate with zero energy and don't need massive infrastructure. Now, they're shifting a little bit. The economics of this are terrible and there's just no way that the system is just no way that the city can assume that McNeil will continue to operate. Looking at the 2020 INRS economic analysis of the plant it operated at over a $4 million deficit. That's money coming from ratepayers every single year to pay to subsidize the operation of the plant, just the operation. And on top of that, ratepayers in Connecticut are paying over $7 million a year and did in 2019 for a total of over $11 million per year subsidizing the operation of McNeil which generates the most greenhouse gas emissions of any stationary source in Vermont. I can't emphasize how upside down this is that Burlington is conceiving to continue to pay way above market price for electricity to generate this electricity to have this high cost generator which doesn't actually supply electricity to the city just as there to burn wood chips to do that and not assess the risk that the ratepayers in Connecticut will figure this out and they are, they have, they're not going to subsidize the plant any longer. It's going to, you got like a couple of years left in this and that Burlington landowners and large building owners aren't going to figure out that this, that taking on the subsidy that's been provided by Connecticut is a really bad idea. You need, before you move anything out of this committee that risk must be identified and quantified and it's the same risk with all of the other biofuels that you've been talking about because all of them have been assumed to be zero emission in their combustion and that is just such a wrong assumption. I hope you'll, I want to thank, this is the end, I want to thank Nick for putting so much effort into trying to repair a fundamentally bad idea and ordinance, but I'm sorry, it's a turd and it's just, you can't polish a turd, it just doesn't work. So. Thank you. Thank you Peter. Thank you. Yeah. You know, almost an hour of public comment, we still need to deliberate on this ordinance. So, Maddie's informing me we have what four speakers for the remaining speakers, if you could keep your comments to the ordinance and be as, as terse as you can, but still give us your complete thoughts. I would really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Who's next? Ben Gordeski. Ben Gordeski. Ben, go ahead. Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. I have a bad echo here. It'll do my best. Okay. Actually. We just lost him. Lost him. Yep. Cheryl Joy Lipton is next. Cheryl Joy Lipton. Go ahead and we'll come back to. You've heard from me before, but I'll be, I have new things to say and I'll try to speak quickly and be really succinct. And it does have everything I say has to do with this ordinance. And I'm. An ecologist in Chester. And this affects me also because. You know why. I agree with the many of this previous speakers. That are. Not in favor of this ordinance as written. And agree with the changes. That Nick. Persempieri has. Suggested. Though I also agree with. Peter Duval. That we don't need the ordinance. In the ordinance, whatever is not going to require. A fee will be more desirable people. So it's. It's use will increase. So the problem with increases. And biofuels, including the continuation of it. McNeil. And especially that is the impacts. To the environment. Increased wood and biofuel use. Cause decreases in healthy, old and mature forests. It'll reduce the forest that's recovering. And really. Continue to add to the biodiversity crash in addition to adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Biomass burning is now known to be incredibly damaging in many ways. Many of the things you've heard already. And you've heard tonight. And you've heard in the past. Another point is that net zero is really not going to help us right now. We need to have really zero emissions. And we need to have zero emissions. We need to have zero emissions. And using biomass, including from McNeil, eliminates the very things that are removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. While also it destroys the carbon storage in those things. And puts that right into the atmosphere. You all know from past information given to you that burning wood is not carbon neutral. It's more carbon emitting than all fossil fuels, even worse than a coal plant. And carbon is not the only problem. And important. Burning wood causes air pollution and directly harms human and ecosystem health. Carbon loss is predominantly due to far forestry, not development and cutting trees for fuel. Regardless is it if they're. One of the arguments is using low grade wood. And the other argument is, regardless is it if they're straight for saw logs or bent crooked branched, et cetera, any other form of being low grade releases more carbon. And then if they were continuing to grow in the forest, or if they're dead to recycle carbon into the soil. The UN states that biodiversity is our strongest natural defense against climate change. The conference caught 15 in Montreal. In the past, there have been a number of issues that have been raised, but there have been a number of issues that have been raised that have been raised, that have been raised to decline in nature as a result of human activity. And then a million plant and animal species are now threatened with extinction. Damaging natural forest ecosystems is part of this problem. And there's less than a 1% of forest. Old forest remaining in Vermont. Vermont conservation design. The goal is to increase the percentage of old forest in the same goal. Increasing wood burning will decrease the percentage of old forest, not increase it and exacerbate, exacerbate declining species diversity, increase general species like deer and raccoons, deer include and the tick problem, which is getting worse and worse and decrease all growth in interior forest species, including the insects, pollinators and all the species in the food web that support others, including humans. Cup 15 ended in December with an agreement to guide global action on nature through 2030, including restoring at least 30% of degraded ecosystems and reducing harmful government subsidies like wood burning subsidies. And which you're talking about here essentially in this ordinance. By default, continuing to decrade forest health by burning trees is not sustainable and exacerbates the biodiversity crisis we're experiencing. A crisis with equal importance to climate change, with equally devastating consequences. This ordinance will act the same way by encouraging biofuels and biomass, wood biomass use. Also from enhancing flood resiliency from Vermont state lands in 2015 after Irene, they say in light of increasing storm frequency, intensity, persistence and magnitude, management for enhanced flood resiliency on state lands will require greater emphasis on forest health and stewardship of forest ecosystem services, including water retention, infiltration and filtering. I just want to make one little thing that they are talking about state lands, but really this goes for all land. Quickly, or if you have longer comments, you're also welcome to submit them in writing and we can add them to the meeting record. Okay. I will do that. I have just a little bit and I really want to, it's not a couple of sentences. Yup. Okay. Because we have other speakers who are waiting to go still. Right. In degraded ecosystems, we are going to have worse problems with flooding. And. Increasing wood burning will degrade the forest and the headwaters and streams and cause these worse problems. And this ordinance will increase wood burning and biofuel use, which also uses up land that we need to be supporting us. So here's an important point is that two groups formed by the Vermont climate council. In 21 adding 22, both deliberated extensively and heard scientific and policy testimony. And they both recommended phasing out biomass burning. Burlington should. Join a large scientific community that rejects the burning of biomass and biofuels because it's not a solution to either the climate or the biodiversity crisis. And it harms health. Thank you. Vanessa. Vanessa role. Right. About. So I'm, thank you for letting me speak. I'm the lead organizer and co-director of three 50 Vermont. And I'm here representing thousands of Vermonters across the state who will be impacted by your decision today. Because the climate crisis knows no borders. I moved to Vermont from Massachusetts 12 years ago. And as someone who began working on climate in 2007, I was thrilled to hear in 2014 that 100% of Burlington electricity was renewable. I was really glad to have moved to the green mountain state. And at that time, I assumed that biomass was a good thing for the climate. We've since learned that biomass and other biofuels are in fact, not good for the climate. And it turns out that my old state Massachusetts knows this and doesn't allow it to count as a clean heat source, nor does New York state. And we cannot have Vermont trail behind. This summer, we've all witnessed firsthand the alarming progress of the climate crisis. I don't need to remind you that Burlingtonians in particular suffered from the Canadian wildfire smoke. The science is clear. We need to stop burning things as quickly as possible and not just fossil fuels, but biomass, liquid biofuels, renewable natural gas and hydrogen. This is well documented. Proponents of these fuels invoke the life cycle analysis and experts from Cornell University from the Institute for Policy Integrity and others testified in the state house to why the carbon intensity score models are deeply flawed. And I hope you've reviewed this information. This is why Massachusetts in New York do not consider these renewable climate friendly fuels. And it makes complete sense why Vermont gas, which has ties to an international gas company and utilities like BED would be championing these fuels. Biomass, biofuels, RNG and hydrogen are the alternative product that they depend on to keep their profits going. These companies are not designed to benefit people on the planet. They're designed to make money at any cost to their shareholders. And their voice is way too loud in this process and their interests the wrong ones. And unfortunately this process is completely inaccessible to regular people. The deck is stacked. We need real solutions, not ones that make us think we're taking action, but in reality exacerbating the problem. We must invest in truly low carbon future, now in the form of energy use reduction, weatherization, low emissions, thermal energy networks and electrification from solar and wind. Thief D. Vermont wants to thank the Burlington City Council for all the work you're putting into addressing the climate crisis by finding alternatives to fossil fuels and passing a clean heat ordinance. But those efforts will be for not. If you replace fossil fuels with equally polluting and ecologically destructive fuels, not only are you going to continue accelerating accelerating the climate crisis, but you will reduce our ability to adapt and urgently build resilience in the face of climate catastrophe. We have no time to waste on false solutions. By allowing biomass, biofuels, RNG and hydrogen to count as renewable, we're digging ourselves a deeper climate hole and delaying and making more expensive the energy transition we must make if we're going to have a livable future. We're going to have a livable future. When I started this work in 2007, my kids were three and six years old. They're not now 21 and 24. And I don't know how old the children in your lives are. But when I started this work in 2007, I thought about what the world might look like when my kids would be my age if we didn't act. And I thought we could do something. And I know now what the world is going to look like. And I know it's going to get much worse than hell on earth if we're going to have a livable future. We're going to have a livable future. We're going to have a livable place in the hands of corporations that have caused the problem in the first place. That's why you are so important and why people like me and so many people who can't be here tonight depend on people on you for leadership. You are the last bastion that is going to prevent us from, from really not having a future. So I really hope that tonight you're going to take the time to talk about this world, not just Burlington. Their interests should be put over BEDs or Vermont gases interests and corporate interests. And I would ask you to remove the McNeil district heat, biomass, biofuels, renewable natural gas and hydrogen out of the clean heat ordinance. Consistent with the changes proposed by Nick Percent, Piedi in his comments. Please don't join in making Vermont the green wash mountain state. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So we're in an hour of public comment. I would ask the committee if they would be open to closing public comment and maybe instructing any remaining speakers to. Submit their comments and right. I would move that even though I have been an advocate for vigorous and long public caring, I'm willing to stay beyond the half hour, but it would be most helpful for us to get into our deliberations and to solicit comment in writing and at our next meeting, which is next week. And therefore I would move to close public comment. I would second that. Okay. And all those in favor. Hi. Hi. It's further for the speakers who are online who didn't have a chance to speak tonight. This ordinance does not end with this committee either. It goes on to ordinance and then we'll have a hearing before the full council. So this is not the end of this ordinance. Just one stop along the way. So there will be other opportunity if you didn't have a chance to speak tonight. And if you submit your comments and writing, we will add them to the meeting record, which has has been our practice throughout these hearings. So thank you. Which brings us to the main event, which is more deliberation on this ordinance. I was hoping that we would be able to conclude tonight with this. This is our third meeting on it here in two. And we know that ordinances, like I just mentioned is also taking it up before as to the council and who knows how long it will. It will be deliberated on there. So one of the things I would like the committee to agree to is, you know, what, what our work product is tonight. We had spoken in previous meetings that if we had unanimity on certain amendments that we could perhaps agree on, we would maybe add those to the, the draft that was referred to us. And we could mark up that copy. If there were things that we did not have consensus on, if there was unanimous consensus on that we might, we might forward our comments or provide that information to the ordinance committee. Now I did, I did try to reach out to the chair of the ordinance committee today and I have not spoken with them. So I don't know what they, how they would like to receive our work product. So, you know, the, it may be written narrative, it may be a joint committee meeting where we could convey what, what we've done and allow them to ask questions of us. But it could be or all of the above. So I'm open to ideas about how we move forward. So. So I have submitted amendments and I would like our committee to consider those and vote on them if we have, I think that I would prefer that if we, if they pass even if it is two to one, but clearly if it's, if it's, if it's unanimous, I would like that to be reflected in a draft that would go to, to the ordinance committee. If it is a two to one, I think that it would be helpful to have it reflected in a draft, but to make sure that the ordinance committee sees the minority report so that they get the full, you know, benefit of what we do. And if my amendments and anybody else's amendments fail, then it doesn't get marked up or changed, but the, you know, there'd be an opportunity to present that the amendment was, was made, it was defeated. And then if, and perhaps this could be done, I have done some written explanations that I haven't shared. It's been more oral things than, but that we maybe take some time to be able to provide our reasoning and that would include if, if an amendment passes and obviously I'm not the only one who can and maybe will produce an amendment. So that's the way that I would like to proceed with the text. I also would just like, I think that the medical centers questions were great. I think they're absolutely essential for us to be able to answer clearly. And I think that there are many answers that the many questions that can be answered. You deserve that. Everybody who would be looking to install the system, change, fix the system needs to understand that UVM in a similar state. So I think that somewhere along the line, we should provide those so that it's part of the record. I'm not, and those things then also would get transmitted to, to the ordinance committee that way. You know, we're, we're not for, you know, our work isn't wasted and it's not like it, it's not going to be meaningful to them. So. Yeah. I think that's good. Do you have thoughts on this? I think it's fine to do it the way that Jean just presented. So, so, so I'm clear. So we would, we have, we started with the referred ordinance and we do a red line markup that would reflect the amendments and the, the various votes on those amendments. Yes, I think so hand that in its entirety to, to the ordinance committee. I would think it would be important for the ordinance committee to see those things that fail as well as things that passed and whether they were passed unanimously or. Yes. On. On. Or otherwise. Yes, I agree with that. I think that they should get the full benefit of the committee's deliberations. Cause we're just three counselors in the council of 12. And we shouldn't assume that you're the last person. Absolutely not. Okay. That seems, that seems good. I have not looked at your amendments and I'm assuming they're along the lines of the ones we were discussing last week. I made some very few what I consider to be tweaks that were posted that are posted for those who can go online. They're, I didn't, I haven't seen them online, but Maddie tells me they're online and they are very consistent with what was done last week. There are, and I tried to be to the extent to which they reflect some sort of changes based on comments or proposals or questions that were, were raised. Darren provided things, Nick provided something like Porter provided something. I read the VGS where we're doing is behind the medical center. I read the medical center. I read the UVM papers. So I tried to consider them, although it's not likely that the exception, the biggest one has to do with the certification. And a piece on 145 through 154, but it will, it's got some extra things to it. So Darren, I'll highlight it. So I had, I had prior to the meeting looked at the various correspondence that weighed in on different parts that we had deliberated on in our last meeting. And so I've come into this meeting sort of with sort of a framework of the way I'm going to, I'm just going to tell everybody up front how I'm sort of leaning on most of these things. I don't want to say the fact that once enacted, we're joining a small select group of cities that even places of beyond carbon. So we should be proud of that fact regardless if we get all of the, all the things that, that people want. I also want to recognize that the draft that came to our committee is the result of significant stakeholder engagement, including institutions like UVM and UVMMC were here tonight that have significant thermal needs and are potentially significantly impacted by that. So I'm mindful of that and, and appreciative of them being here tonight. The draft that's come to us has also been aligned well with state efforts. And, you know, we've heard differing opinions on whether or not that there's, there's merit in that or not. I believe that there is. And so I, I like that we're aligned with the state and we're not totally forging our own path. So that's sort of where I'm at in a broad way. That said, I am open to some of the technical changes, how this will be paid for. The, the administration will be paid for. And I'm also open to prioritizing the use of revenue that is collected in the thermal sector as we have discussed last time, recognizing that, you know, as a second, you know, if at all use all the money there, but if there are capital needs for fleet that we sort of consider that a secondary use, and I am not sure how that line should look. So that's generally in a broad way, the way I'm thinking about this here tonight. But that said, I'm happy to, if you want to lead us through a discussion going through from shore and to back. Sure. Okay. So let me get it up here. And perhaps many, you could post the, the latest edition of my amendments. Is that what? I think it's, that's this document. Yeah, that is that document. That's the one that's on the, the two page meeting for tonight, I think. Yeah. Yeah. So the only thing just so what I did was take the prior, you know, like summary, so to speak, or, you know, like just the actual changes. And to the extent to which I added something today, it's in bold and underlight. So then just quick question before we get started with folks like some lights on that here. We're for energy efficiency, but we can turn some lights on Chris. You might just on the back panel there. There's, I realized we have a lot of people. Yeah. No, I appreciate that. My eyes are getting old. We should be able to, these are LEDs very efficient. There we go. Thank you. I don't know, Maddie, if you can go back and forth between this proposal and then the actual draft that came to us. So that we can see. I can pull them up both side by side. It's just going to be small. Yeah, I know. I mean, maybe back and forth. Be good enough. So as you can see, the first proposal that I have is virtually the same as what was proposed and many people have commented on the deletion of line 35 and its replacement with thermal energy from exclusively non-renewable, non-fossil fuel sources. That, and then this is new from today, that reduced greenhouse gas emissions. And that is to close the inadvertent loophole that I think that we created by not doing that. And that is consistent with what Nick had pointed out. And that's such as, so that is the first. And Maddie, can you get the, there you go to line 35. I don't know. Maybe you can, I have, I can have it too. Other people better. I mean, for the public. I would like to ask, I guess, GM springer weighed in on this in a communication to us, which I think is on also on the two page. Could you weigh in on, because there's a, this, this notion of exclusively renewable, which is a change from the line, which could you give us your thoughts on that? Yes, thank you. And, you know, preface any comments I offer by saying we did do a very extensive process leading up to the point of creating the proposal here, both two town meeting day votes, a number of reports to the city council and PA meeting, stakeholder meetings. So everything is informed by a lot of the process that really came before. I think the concern would be on this particular changes. I'm not a hundred percent clear how it impacts in the real world when we actually go to implement. And so I think that the current language talks about, you know, a system that relies on thermal energy from, and then it spells out what are the sources that we're talking about. And I think if we spell it out in terms of, you know, exclusively, I think there was even a public comment last time that suggested even electrification might have some challenge with that definition. And certainly electrification I think is intended to be one of the eligible uses here. So I'm not clear the language is needed to effectuate the policy. I think we're trying to spell out what resources here are renewable, non-fossil and count for the purposes of the ordinance. I know there's subsequent amendment that would debate those sources themselves. I think the, so the language could potentially create some sort of unintended consequence. That was my concern that I already tried to articulate in the email. I have a question. I appreciate you bringing these also for us in this forum because it makes it easier than trying to go through the various pieces of the other recommendations that others have made in the discussed last period. So thank you for doing this. I just have a question. Do you, do you think of this amendment and the next delete lines 52 to 65 as being sort of a package or? I think they, they are a package and you read them as a whole. And I think that's the proper statutory construction as well as the common sense, which is also part of the structure. So yes, I do. I think it's just trying to get, get real clarity, which is why, like I said, I added the extra words today when I looked at it and realized that there is some ambiguity that would allow non fossil fuel sources that don't reduce emissions from being subject to. So as we discussed in here committee, we should be considering them, which maybe you should be considering them together. Well, I think you consider this as being the entire section. So if Maddie goes up on the, the actual draft to be right. I think that you read 32 a line 32 through all the way down to line 70 as a coherent whole. And the reason not to put it all into sort of one thing is because it's separated and it just makes it easier to say, okay, we just want to make this absolutely clear what is, what's appropriate for this proposal. And yeah. So yes, I do see them and we can get into. In part, the proposal to eliminate. I guess it is four through seven. As you know, if you want, but I, I, I think you can that this can stand alone as an amendment. And so it is offered as a standalone amendment even though and yeah. I do think that this language, this proposed would be consistent even if you did not eliminate numbers four through seven. I don't see that creating an ambiguity because in fact, that's sort of what it is, is doing anyway. But I know I got a lawyer on the other side of the table. So, so I'm not supportive of this change for two reasons. This is like the main change we've been talking about to a lot of the public comment. There's the one that the alignment with. No, you're talking about the four through the. Yeah. So I, so I though I do see them as one. I think that they should be considered separately. 52. Yeah. Right. Well, I, so. But I'm treating them as a whole because the, the language that they sort of, they're sort of all together. So I would be okay with treating them together, make it easier for our conversation. I would like, I haven't really talked about the, the deletion of it. So maybe you want to talk about. Yeah, let me just, let me just lay it out and, you know, so there's a lot been said about aligning with the state law. But the fact of the matter is that the state law is still in development. And I look at this, the metaphor that I've gotten with the existing is the, the letting the courses run free with the, the barn door being opened and then in a subsequent section, we may be close. It's to be closed. I think it is essential that we start small. And we look and see what the results of that state law. process is going to be. And I think that we need to truly look at that and then relook at this law and integrate what happens happening on the state level in, in a real and thoughtful way. That is going, they're going to come up with life cycle emission rates. It's a year and a quarter quarter away from doing, from even a draft, maybe it's a year and two months, right? From even having draft regulations. And I really see no reason as open in the barn door at this point in time for these sources. And I'm not convinced based on my conversations with folks that there is going to be a lot of activity. That will be foreclosed clearly not in the green hydrogen. We've heard testimony about that. I'm not sure about the biodiesel as, as well as being a significant source for the new buildings and the retrofitting that we're hearing. We might hear testimony to the contrary of that. And I have issues along the lines of what climate folks have said that I have serious issues with the continued support for the burning of wood and issues with, with the renewable gas as it relates to the systems. And there are some interest there. The medical center raised an interesting point about fuel cells that are, you know, fueled by natural gas. I think it's an excellent question to, to raise. And I'm sort of open to that, that conversation, but otherwise I'm, I'm just not configuring. I don't think that we should be incentivizing. So that is the basic reasons for my proposal to eliminate them and to have a coherent section that, that does that. Hannah, do you have thoughts? Um, I am not in favor of deleting the lines. I, I mean, I think later on in the ordinance, it literally says that we are going to compliment our policy with what the state decides. And so I think it's important to, to wait and figure out what they, they could very well decide not to include these. And, you know, it protects us already because it's in the ordinance. So right now, as it stands, I'm not in support of deleting them. I'm not in favor of either. And part of my reason is for, I already articulated about alignment, but also the, the, um, our authority is really around limiting fossil fuels and not, and not non fossil fuels. So these are not, these things would be, these things would be permitted because they're not within our authority to the current, the current authority we have from voters. Well, we have authority to regulate non fossil fuels. We don't have the authority to put a fee on them, but we clearly, um, and we can march down to see how this all works. Uh, as we march down, um, but we should not conflate the authority to regulate which we do have and the authority to, um, impose a fee. I mean, yeah, I understand that, but this is really about imposing this ordinance is about an imposing a fee and the framework for doing that. I am not supportive of these, but I appreciate it. Yeah. And, you know, I mean, fundamentally I would like there to be votes. I hear, you know, I, I know how to count one and two, but I, you know, I think this is an official thing that we get on record. Yup. Let's do that. Um, so we're voting on, uh, the first group, uh, it would be the delete line 35 and the delete lines 50, uh, the replacement of line 35 and the deletion of 50, 52 to 65. That is correct. Okay. Um, all those in favor of those? Aye. All those opposed? Aye. No. I guess. Okay. Gotcha. So that doesn't mean that ordinance may take a good time. I, I, I am good with whatever we do. I, you know, I think it's important for us to, to march through these. I agree. And, and I appreciate the time and the thought that people are giving it. The next one is just to correct a typo. Online 68. I would dismiss anybody who would oppose that as not being listening to somebody to be listening to. Okay. Yeah. That seems like that. One that I could support. I would hope so. Okay. So we are correcting a typo online 68 more. Yeah. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. Um, then the next one is actually a new one. It relates to the, um, the, um, the, um, Um, In 72, it is the disqualification. Um, of, uh, fuels that are, um, Deemed by the, the PUC to not satisfy the carbon intensity requirements of the clean heat standard or any similar state. Uh, a request for a change that pipe Porter. Raised today. And I think it makes. Perfect sense. I don't know why we would be giving the discretion. To, uh, the. Department of permitting and inspections when a, um, a fuel has, um, Failed to satisfy those state requirements that we are saying or, you know, Are so important that we need to follow in being harmony for. So, um, If you, if you let the, if you let the dogs out, But then you decide that they need to come in, You should be able and you should like make sure they get Back in the house and then you close the door and not let Somebody go up. Well, I don't know. So, um, this is a section we discussed in, I think last time, And I had asked about the necessity for this section. And, uh, Jim Springer had indicated, um, That this gave us that, that ability to disqualify. These fuels at when the, uh, the PUC. Said they didn't meet that carbon intensity. Yeah. Um, so the difference from shell. From me to shell. I mean, um, I would, I just would like to know your thoughts on that. I'm commenting on the fly here because I hadn't seen this previously, But, um, I think particularly if you're keeping the other sections, As you decided to do for, for now, and, you know, We would advocate for that, um, uh, as being part of a broad policy, Then, um, you know, You changed the made a shell. Uh, you know, you're basically saying, Even if a fuel was renewable, if the PUC process around the clean heat Standards ultimately adopted, Decides that the fuel doesn't meet the carbon intensity requirements. You're not going to allow it to meet here. I don't have a concern with that. Um, I think it will potentially, We'll have to monitor that going forward because it could create some, Uh, scenarios where our authorities and our policy is not quite aligned. Uh, 100%, but I think we have time to look at that in the future. So I don't have a concern about changing made a shell in this case. It might be, it would keep us. It would, it would necessitate that we stay aligned. Yep. You know, yeah, no concern. So I can support this. I'm supportive of it. Cool. So, uh, all those in favor of replacing the, Of the proposed amendment on line 72 to replace me with shell. I met unanimous. Okay. Now we're talking the next, the next. The next one is a mend line 73. And I think that we just did that. No, this is the next line. Uh, and this is just, I, I, to, to create, uh, to correct, I see this as a technical correction because, um, Really the requirements, this is, this is a definitions section. Um, Um, And so I'm not seeing that the reference on line 73 to this section is the correct reference. Um, That really it's the requirements of, uh, The section, um, 8 78, Which is that the application of this. Uh, we're looking to do. So I just think that was an effect. Um, maybe it was, they were thinking about it in terms of. You know, we're looking at the entire ordinance and thinking of it as one section with like maybe these subsections, but in, in fact, Uh, this ordinance is broken up into different quote unquote sections. So the way it's applied is in 8 78. The 877 set the section 877 is merely a definition. So that this was me just trying to clean stuff up. I'm in support of changing that. I think I am. I'm just trying to make sure I totally understand what you're doing. So there are, there are no requirements in this section. So referring to it doesn't make any sense. And we should fix stuff that doesn't make any sense. So, um, So I'm just going to make this bigger. So, um, all those in favor of. The, uh, the change recommended on line 73. And basically it's just, it really is just the underlying section of this is the same as from last week, which is really basically it changes. Um, So that leads this section and says section eight dash 78 for fuels that reduce greenhouse emissions. So all those in favor of this change. The next section is a, is the big modification. If you discount the mid big modification from last weeks. Um, a combination of responses that I tried to work through. Um, two comments that Darren sent, uh, in particular, regarding life cycle, you know, the, the lifetime, uh, contracts, which correct me if I'm wrong, you said, um, I talked about it in that regard and, uh, Darren expressed some openness and interest in an annual certification, which I had raised as being a level of administration that we just need to be prepared to administer. Um, but that, um, I just, um, I just wanted to do it and then try to just figure out how, and so based on what Darren was saying, um, I, uh, I crafted this. It's a little bit more complicated. Well, it does keep what, and this actually was first proposed by Jack Hansen in terms of the, um, delivered it really. Um, um, on the fifth line of the new language, uh, Jack had proposed and I am proposing the direct delivery to the building's, um, thermal energy system. So that continues to be in play. I did not, um, I just wanted to talk to Darren about his concerns on that. And I think Dylan, um, and BGF have expressed, um, concerns as well. Um, but so that stayed. Um, but then, um, the, there isn't a piece here. I tried to bring in language related to the annual certification and just made sure that a certification also has supporting documents. That's a little bit different, but you know, the trust, but verify. And, uh, for those who don't know, I was the code enforcement director for the city of Birmingham. I was two separate occasions and it was their attorney for 20 years. And I know how important it is that we get proper facts to support what people say is the truth. We can get them to just, so that's, that's, that's why, uh, documents, documentary proof is included on there. I just think it will make the administration straightforward and much more simpler. And, um, the very, the original proposal in it, virtually, um, eliminated a section that, um, said that the, um, if the, if the applicant failed to provide an annual compliance certificate, the applicant will be assessed to an alternative compliance, carbon pollution impact, the equal to a pro-rata share of the remaining expected life of the thermal energy system. That was actually this, basically what's in the ordinance now, but in the proposal to delete, it got eliminated and make that makes no sense at all because that is something that we have to prepare for. So I tried to put it in that. And then there was, um, a comment that Darren made related to the liquid or gaseous fuels being used in, in like dual fuel, dual fuel appliances. And, uh, he, certainly he suggested a new line in addition to some other lines. And I just cut and paste that and put that in the bottom. Because I think that, um, that closes a loophole in that. So fundamentally, this is a proposal to make sure that the, the appliances are getting the fuels, uh, directly from these sources. I think it does create issues with the renewable natural gas, for example. But, you know, my position on renewable natural gas, so it's not even consistent with that. I know what the committee has done with regard to that, but I, um, continue to, uh, to propose it. This is probably, and I'm not going to negotiate against myself. So I'll be quiet. Um, I wish we could tease this apart a little bit and maybe we can. Um, but like, so the directly delivered the issue is, and please, uh, I'll look to Dylan and Darren to correct me if I'm wrong. But the fact is the renewable natural gas is going to have some component that's a fossil gas and some component that is renewable based on, um, based on the, I mean, it's basically going to be how the, the end user buys it, right? Will they be able to buy one kind of renewable natural gas? That'll be a blend of, and I'll ask this, I guess, to Dylan since he's here. Yeah, sure. With regard to renewable natural gas, um, there are two options right now. We have a voluntary program where a customer can talk to buy a percentage. They are paying a premium for that product. And so doing, just so you're aware of the state level, the way that our regulators have done it so far, we procure volumes of renewable natural gas. We have in-state sources. We have sources from out of state. We have a North American gas grid. It's interconnected. Those projects, the molecules from either the biomethane source, whatever it might be, are injected into the pipeline. Um, but it's co-mingled. The molecules of that gas are there with fossil gas, uh, sensibly. However, a customer can opt to purchase a volume, which we have a contract, uh, with that individual, and we have a contract with the source, or who's providing that gas to us, where we buy volumes of it. So, in terms of the gas that moves through the meter, or it's at the burner kit, um, it's really dependent upon the supply mix at a given point. So, this requirement isn't consistent with the way that sort of a grid-based energy system works. You cannot track a molecule, but we have a requirement, and now we have it involved, it would be for the EDAC, where we have to account for both that attribute and molecule, if we want to claim credits. And we have done that. That's been on practice so far. Thank you. Um, I also know, we heard testimony from UVM, EBC, that this is part of their, uh, their strategy, um, is to have renewable gas. So, this would seem to, to undermine that as well. Um, but that's, but, so the directly delivered part, um, it can't be supportive of, um, some of the other compi- annual compliance certification, um, and I've talked to Darren about this. It seems like we need to work on that some more anyways. And there are some scenarios that, uh, I mean, it's hard because it isn't the tax, um, that you're going to pay every year. You have to pay it once. Um, and so that, that creates challenges. Um, even in the, in the, in the list of questions that, uh, UBMC sent over, they had asked what happens. Um, in a couple of their scenarios, one was with, uh, temporary systems or they upgraded systems. So I am not, um, I am not sure if this is the right language or not for the, um, compliance certification. Um, but I know that that's an area of this ordinance that it seems like we can still use a little bit of work on. So, I mean, my suggestion, I'm sorry if I cut off, but would, would be that if there is a piece that, um, they're, you know, that it is clearly objectionable. That there be like a, a motion to delete something and then there's a vote on that. And then if it is deleted, then you can work through. I do think that this process does need more work. Um, but it's easiest if we can at least, you know, figure out what needs work and what doesn't. So that would be the, I think. Um, so I would then move to strike just the directly. Um, the word directly, because that would return it to its original form. I would second that. Okay. I will vote against that, but. So that passes passes to two to one. And then we're still considering the rest of this. And I would like, um, I'd like to hear your thoughts because you've given a lot of, um, you've done a lot of thinking on the, uh, the compliance space. Thank you. Um, I agreed with removing the word directly. I want to confirm that we agree that being delivered to the building's thermal energy system still would. Kind of include that great compliance that Dylan was suggesting. And I would offer that where we have the words kind of, but not limited to a contract and invoices, we probably want some language in there that talks about tariff because the way you subscribe to renewable gas is through a voluntary tariff at the moment. And I want to correct, you know, something from earlier, you know, and I've said this before, we're municipal public power utility. We don't make profits. We're not a corporation and we don't sell renewable natural gas. So our interest in this is not, uh, in that way, but it's really just in ensuring that there are options for affected stakeholders like the medical center, like UVM who may need this as part of their broader effort to get off of fossil fuel. Um, so we support having it as part of the mix. Um, so I would offer that as long as being delivered to the building's thermal energy system is understood to include, you know, a voluntary purchase of renewable gas, knowing that that's not a molecule, but that's a tariff provision. Um, that would be one piece that I would flag. Would that, if I could ask, would I, would the language of a contract cover that? Or with you, is there a need to be more specific in terms of using the words like tariff? I think we could, because I don't believe it's a contract necessarily in some cases as a, as a customer, you can subscribe via a tariff. Um, and then the annual compliance could be that we get demonstrated compliance because the customer or the fuel company is able to show us that the customer paid the tariff for the amount of fuel necessary to offset their annual usage. And there's a document that, that was like labeled tariff. It could be, it could be their bill that shows that they have a line out of tariff. Uh, so the invoice, but I think with what I was trying, that was the language that I was trying to use, uh, I'm in favor of this working. So we support, we support the compliance option. Yeah. This approach. So if there's, if there is a language that just will suss out what things may not be covered by a contract and invoices. Maybe I would add to contract and invoices. Um, and you're saying, including, but not limited to, so obviously the department has additional options for looking at compliance, but, um, perhaps add, um, you know, uh, participation in a, in a tariff program or something to that effect, um, that, that would probably cover it. But I'm not typing it in, but I, I, I mean, I think that, uh, once, once you've let the door open to doing this, you want to make sure that the system is going to work. Um, and from my standpoint that this then is the assurance that that is continuing. Um, that we can have annual compliance. So, so might we add, um, after the, the word invoices and, um, uh, subscription to tariff. Yeah. A subscription or participation in a tariff program, I think would be, there you go. Maddie, Maddie is typing that. And participation in the tariff program. So I think that means deleting the, the and in between contract and invoices, putting the comma that then putting the and. I'm sorry. No, it's good. Okay. And voices and subscription or participation and a tariff program, or do not use subscription. And, And which one would you like? Is it there? When to do a contract in voices and subscription or participation in a tariff program. participation so that that's all one concept. Participations in the term. So with that change. Panadio thoughts. I would be fine with making those changes. Well then we have these changes and all those in favor. Me. Hi. So that group changes passes. Are we on to the next one? The deletion of lines. 156 through 160. This is basically to. Not not exempt those folks who have already done. But they've done something in their buildings. And. And the way reward them. That the compelling reason. Is that we just need to do a whole lot more. And I don't. This is. If they're exempt, then. They're going to be able to put in whatever systems. They want this is going to go into effect. Now I don't know how many buildings. It will impact before it goes into effect. It's a fairly. I think. Short window. And. Buildings that are. Under permit. Now. Or already. Not subject to that. So. It just. Makes most sense to me. That we not encourage. More. Fossil fuel use more greenhouse gas emissions. And I think that. This is not the incentive that. That we want to give. I think it actually is a sort of a perverse. Incentive. Incentive. Yeah. The concern here. I believe that we've heard articulated is that it would. Take away an incentive for building owners to take early action. Is that, is that an accurate, accurate characterization? Yeah, we're very supportive of retaining the provision. And it was a product of a lot of those stakeholder conversations. And we are dealing with stakeholders who may have. They may not be able to do that. And I think it's a good project to this ordinance because they're not. At the square footage threshold, perhaps. But they may be part of a portfolio buildings owned by a single entity. And we are reaching beyond the. Founds of this ordinance in a way with the early credit provision. To say, if you're taking steps beyond what we're requiring you to do. There's going to be a value. And if you were a portfolio manager for that. Entity. You might say, well, I've got a building here. It's going to be really hard to address. I'm not going to do other things in this other building. That's going to reduce more quickly. Because maybe their compliance isn't going to happen for seven years. They want to build up some credit. If we're of the mindset, I've heard this articulated a number of times that the. Action within the next. Seven years is important from a scientific standpoint. This incentivizes action. Now, as opposed to waiting for somebody to have to pull a permit. And that's why we're strongly supportive of it. You know, I could understand from the standpoint, if you wanted to change the date from 2023 to 2024, given that we're, we didn't know when we were going to be taking this up when, when we were originally looking at this. And so obviously you're not going to impact things that happen in January of 23, but you might impact things that are going to happen in January of 24. If this takes effect, then I could, I could certainly understand that rationale. And we would be okay and supportive of that change, but retaining the. Provision here is important early action instead of in our view. Thank you. I think I would like to keep it at least for now. That's just me. Hannah, do you have thoughts on this? I also am in support of keeping it. And really my reasoning is because I think what Darren has presented to us is compelling, especially with the fact that they have said that this could end up helping reduce emissions at an even greater impact than originally intended. So I think that's important. Okay. So, um, yeah, could you repeat what the date change. So here it's offering credit for renewable fuels that reduce greenhouse gas and used for any thermal system in place since January 1, 2023. I think it could be a very rational change to change that date in January 1, 2024 if you'd like to under the rationale that the ordinance hasn't been in effect at the timeframe, you know, you don't have to reach back a year. You can start when the ordinance goes into effect and incentivize action there if you prefer that approach. I think that makes sense. That would be preferable. I still think, you know, I know money is important in things when all of a sudden done. But folks who are going to be doing it on those other buildings, there are a lot of good reasons for folks to be doing that, not the least of which are in the smaller buildings, the ones that are easier. Not the least of which is all of the supports that we're giving to people to do that work. It's sort of like a double gift. Yeah. I'd ask you guys to reconsider, but if you're not inclined, then I think moving the date would be, would be important. I would be open to moving the date. I would as well. 2025. I think it was four. I'm sorry. That was just a cheap shot. So, um, so the change then, um, it's not the deletion, but just the change from 2023 to 2020. All those in favor? Hi. So. Yeah, I'm going to, I'm going to. Well, I'm going to vote yes in favor of the change to January 2024. So, because that's the only thing we're changing. I'm going to vote yes. There you go. You got to be unanimous. You have unanimous. Yeah. When we can get it. When we can get it. Okay. Uh, the next one is. Um, adding, uh, to line 163 except those funds needed to administer this ordinance. And we had this. Um, conversation last week. I'm supportive. So all those in favor of. Amending line 163. Hi. Hi. The next one is, uh, the, come on, stop doing this to me. Is to amend. Um, I don't know. Nine 70 174 175 by adding the word city of Burlington after the word site and before the word on the purpose. Of this is. Basically, this is good credits. For business for building owners. And we wanted, I think, to have a, uh, I think the best way to do this is to make sure that it's, to make sure that it's not going to hurt themselves. This is a fee that's been charged on Burlington properties. And it should sure serve. Burlington owners and renters. This is a point that make me. We had just overlooked. It opens a door, which is, I think way too far too. Too much. So all those in favor of adding the word City of Burlington up with the word site. Aye. And the very last one is a deletion of line 191 which is the allowance of the fee of the clean energy fund to be used to subsidize the cost of converting the city's vehicle fleet from fossil fuel to electric. I am in favor of doing that if the but I don't I think it's premature and this is a building fee and it's meant to assist people with buildings to do the work in the buildings and the residents and low income folks and at least at the very onset of the development of the ordinance but we should not be converting that money to the city's capital needs so that is why I propose this. I've been supportive of this in the past and I've heard the capital committee tell me the reasons why it's needed but I'm also in support of this if this revenues being raised to address the thermal sector carbon goals we have we should use the money there so I could be supportive of this I think we'll hear otherwise once this gets to ordinance and maybe even beyond but I'm supportive of this right now. I am too. So that completes my list of amendments. I thank you for your indulgence and I actually thank everybody here who has been waiting on stuff that's really helpful you know like it's not often the government works and that means we've got to sit down and deal with the details and I say that I don't know if we have the time or the desire but I do think that answers to UVM's questions questions need to be done and perhaps we could ask the ED staff to take a stab at that and provide something in the next you know for our meeting in terms of a written communication in the next week or you know if that's too ambitious. I guess well I was curious because I had assumed perhaps that some of the concerns that were raised might be kind of considered in ordinance so I didn't know if we wanted to try to address some of the items there if you're sending the item to ordinance we'd be happy to work further in the committee to try to address some of the very good questions that were raised. I would love for us to understand this this is about the mechanics you know I was a staff person for ordinance for a really long time and so I gave a geeky with this stuff and the fact that it's here is I do suggest that before we pass it to ordinance I would at least like to see it and be able to weigh in I'm not sure that we need to do that I'm also not sure that ordinance is ready to sort of jump if you know it hasn't got a hold of it we got the joint committee going on but I at least want to be able to see and then comment and provide instead of just like okay here you guys do it you know you've got it you know take care of it. Could I well I think a week is a little too quick just giving some of the other workload that we have I'd be interested to understand and if it is going to be a two-coordinates meeting I know you described earlier or not I'd be happy to work up some responses and share them with both committees I would not want to hold you up from formally moving the item if that's what you're inclined to do but I'd be happy to work up written responses share them with both committees and obviously all the committee members are going to have additional opportunity to further weigh in and amend if needed. I just don't want to hold up the process knowing we want to have this well in advance of implementation in 2024 if possible. I mean I don't have any more amendments I think everybody I mean you know has weighed in in the public and you know we know where people are standing we've had these votes so I'm not in favor of holding this up for what we've got having a new set of questions that implicate the provisions that we've looked at and the process. You're talking about things you've been mentioned about. Yeah yeah you know is something from and those are clearly on one hand more ordinance related but this committee has jurisdiction over basically the way that the city is dealing with climate change and it's a it includes the administration of it so you know I'm weird a place that needs to make sure that this is all working systems are working. We certainly commit that you know even if you want to move the item to ordinance or process standpoint we'll provide written responses to to and ordinance and of course you'd be a medical and if there's further refinement that's needed as a result of that we would pursue it both in ordinance and at the full council as needed. I'd be okay with that. I would as well like one of my concerns is that do any of these questions point out areas of the ordinance that is incomplete needs to be to be filled in like the even like the one around if you're running renewable natural gas but provision around the way also to meet something about primary systems or something or you know how do we do the accounting around those things so I'm keenly interested in the answers to these and how they may or may not affect the audience other ones I think are fairly straightforward like where the fees for permitting to be applied that seems like it would be building permits not zoning so that some of these are obvious others are not and ask in present other questions for the ordinance itself so I'm interested in how that goes. I have also don't want to hold it up. But but definitely I'm wanting to see how these progress so as long as we can get answers like you had suggested and I intend to attend some new ordinance meetings as well. Hannah do you have thoughts? I'm fine with that timeline that you both just talked about. Okay so with that would we move our I don't know what work product been in ordinance once whether we need to package everything or just send in our amendments. I would ask that we have a document that has a markup with the work of amendments and they would so that they can get what was first read and sent to us there's a that's a document this would be a second document that with the amendments by this committee after deliberation that they can get the minutes that would reflect the votes and the discussion that would be really helpful. And then we've got a memo that have come to them but also to us related to these implementation. I think that you know that plus the minutes that detail the you know the three many three meetings we three four three minutes. If they get they got all that they'll not look at any of it. They may not. I mean they'll just look at the document that we are sending them now if I were to bet. But if we have all the good back of work that has been done by others, I would encourage them to point them to that. I'll discuss with them the best way. Obviously we have to web page that we can point people at but there may be another way to sort of index that for some of these. Some of the issues. Would you like us to work with the city attorney's office to make a red line draft of the amendments. A red line draft of the ordinance with with as amended by as proposed to be amended by us. I think that that would be really helpful. Okay, we'll do. I took notes as well. I know that it will coordinate. Okay. I mean it. There weren't that many changes and they make it. Yeah they make it really clear. I mean, I don't want to. And this is a starting point. Doesn't mean that this won't get revisited. You know, with another. Another. Another time for the voters to weigh in to see if they want to. Yeah. Make things even more. Stripped or, or to make other changes. Yeah. So do we need a formal motion on this or. So I move the referral to the ordinance committee. Of the ordinance. As amended by. This committee. Along with all of the documents. That are pertinent. To that minutes. And the like, I guess that is it minutes. Maybe a just. And a. Communication that lets them know that. That we have on our website. Lots of documents. It links to the three. Both of the two. So I move. Move that. To the. For submission to the ordinance. I would second that. And all those in favor. Hi. Well, I guess. Does anybody have councilor up? Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Well, I guess. Does anybody have councilor updates. Tonight. I'm tired. Yeah. Next meeting is currently scheduled for 22nd, which is the next Tuesday. The only thing on the agenda at the moment is. Make from the airport. It's going to talk to us. But I'm talking to change in tomorrow. So. And with no further business. I'll adjourn us. And no objection. 45 minutes late. Sorry. Sorry. But we're way shorter than last. Would you. And you're looking at. Look at the ordinance with regard to whether. We would want to have. A provision for regulations. Regulatory regulations, you know, rules that would help them to make this, you know, like, you gotta, if there are little changes. You want to have the authority to make them.