 Good morning. For the record, Chris Cole, commissioner of buildings and general services. Thank you for the invitation to come and testify on the electric field. I believe that's why I'm here. Yes. And I'm going to let, so I'd like to introduce Harmon Wilder, who is the fleet manager for the state of Vermont. Harmonie. Harmonie. Oh, somebody's saying you can talk on it. Yes. Which is why I'm going to take up very little of your time and allow Harmonie to be in the seat because she can get into the real nuts and bolts of how we are planning to expend this $500,000 for further electrifying the state fleet. As you know, this is an important investment for the state of Vermont. We haven't had an investment like this for quite a while to really jumpstart the electric vehicles. These are not the only funds we will be expending on electric vehicles. So the normal process of purchasing electric vehicles, we have two types of vehicles in the state fleet. We have motor pool, which is a pod of vehicles that state employees can use for business related trips. Different departments and different agencies can use a motor pool. It is the most efficient use of vehicles. Then we have fleet vehicles that are assigned to departments and agencies. And those vehicles are assigned based upon the number of miles a department needs to use the vehicles. And right now, I believe the number is 11,000. But it depends on the special use. There may be a special use that demands a vehicle less than that. If you're less than that, there may, as Harmonie said, be special considerations. But just on a cost basis, it's cheaper for the state of Vermont to assign a vehicle for a state employee when they're regularly going to drive 11,000 miles or more in a year. Sometimes for safety considerations or the nature of their work, they'll get a fleet vehicle assigned to them whether they reach that 11,000 or not because of the programmatic needs of what they're using the vehicle for. We're going to focus on the motor pool. And part of this program is going to do two things. One, it's going to dramatically decrease the cost of the state of Vermont in terms of fuel usage using the EVs. Two, it's also going to expose state employees to electric vehicles that they don't own themselves. Thereby, lessening some of that EV anxiety or range anxiety that people may have when changing different technologies. So we see dual benefits from this. The other way we're going to introduce EVs into the program is through Harmony's regular purchasing power in how we purchase EVs currently. And this program is set up with an internal service fund. So it's a fleet fund. It has a positive balance in it. But the liabilities we owe the treasurers, the way fleet program works, we borrow money for the treasurer. We purchase the vehicle. We charge the departments and agencies a rate for the use of that vehicle. And then we're paying off the treasurer over time. Eventually, we sell these vehicles. And so Harmony is one of our top managers at BGS. She runs a performance-based program. She has all kinds of data. When I arrived five years ago, she presented me with a five-point plan on how to increase the efficiency of the fleet program, which we have been working on since then. One of the things that she's changed is we have telematics on the vehicle, which is a data-gathering system. So we know how many miles the vehicle has been driven. We know the fuel economy of the vehicle. We know where the vehicle is gone. We know underutilized vehicles that are a waste of taxpayer money if they're not being used to that 11,000 miles. And so we're actively managing the fleet to generate savings for the state of Vermont. And the way the fleet program generates savings is we provide the employee's mobility. They either use their own car and they charge a rate or we provide them a vehicle. Our decision-making is what is the lowest cost to provide state employees with this mobility. And so for some departments, when they have high-mileage drivers, meaning they're getting reimbursements at a higher rate, we would have saved money with a fleet vehicle. We're constantly in communication and sending them notifications of those reimbursements. And on the other side of the coin, when we have a fleet vehicle that's assigned to a department that's only getting 3,000 miles of travel in a year, we eventually will take that vehicle back unless they change how it's operated, because it's not the best value for the state. So we're not always the most welcome in these conversations with other state agencies and departments and pointing out the data-driven reality of the use of these vehicles. But I am in charge of making the hard decisions and pulling vehicles away from departments when they're not being effectively utilized as they were intended. So with that overview, I think I will turn it over to Harmony, who will get right into the deployment of this $500,000. Thank you. My name is Harmony Wilder, and I'm the fleet manager for the BGS centralized fleet. So I tried to anticipate some of your questions today, so I have my own little sheet sheets here. As we deploy these vehicles, we're really focused on sedans, because as of right now, those are the EV vehicles that are available. So we really drilled down into our sedans. We looked at at least the assigned vehicles, and we looked at the motor pool. We have complete control over the motor pool. So we can decide what vehicle's going to fit in what location. The assigned vehicles, we work closely with the department, but they do help make that decision by providing us the data that we then review and provide them with the vehicle that we think best needs their programmatic need. But the motor pool, we have complete and total control over. They're typically used for short term travel. So if an employee needs to go to a meeting or a client visit, site visit, that kind of thing. The assigned vehicles are more to meet a programmatic need. So whether that is transporting a ward of the state or inspecting a farm or things like that, it's a programmatic need, typically, that we would look to assign vehicles. The way our program works now, we have motor pools available at eight different locations. However, only five cities or towns are represented in those eight locations. So for example, Montpelier has three locations. Seems kind of unfair, but that's actually where the highest travel is originating from. So we look at mileage reimbursement and we say, OK, where are people leaving from? What are the originating travel? And we said, that's where the motor pools need to be. So then once we designate an area for a motor pool, we put vehicles there and then we allow them to reserve them and use them from those locations. We are interested to expand into other areas. Some of the considerations that we look at are, we need a partner. So we're looking to agencies and departments to partner to hand out the keys. So up front, I'm looking for a partner. I'm also looking for parking spaces. I'm looking for a vendor to help us maintain that vehicle, to repair the vehicle. I don't have staff in the broader world running betting. So I've been to find a lot of partners. Sometimes that can be challenging. Part of our plan that I presented to Commissioner Cole when he arrived is developing an automated motor pool. So it would be similar to like a hotel reservation. It would have a key kiosk. So you would go up and you would either swipe your badge or you'd have a pin and it would present you with the key. So take away that face-to-face. It would allow them to reserve the vehicle at their leisure, not during business hours, and as well as pick up the vehicle after hours. If they needed to leave for a meeting before, you know, our office opens, then they would be able to do that. So that's part of the plan. Introducing electric vehicles. So we have currently 27 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and our motor pool, well, 25 in our motor pool, two released to agency transportation as an assigned vehicle. And those are fully electric. The two that the trans has leased, they've been a great partner with us. They're leasing it to an agency or department requires that they really manage it closely and make sure that folks are educated and know the limits of the vehicle as well as when they should be using it and ensuring that it gets used. So then the 25 vehicles that we have that are plug-in hybrid in the motor pool, we have them located in Waterbury, Burlington at the 108 Cherry Street parking garage and in Mount Pilier at Green Mountain Power Drive, which is where our office is located. They are, we have a one-to-one ratio of charging stations. So when they return at night, they plug in and then they're always insured, the parking space and the charging station. As we get going, that may not always be required. Certainly for the full electric vehicles, we would look for a one-to-one, but maybe with the hybrids, we wouldn't always need a one-to-one, but that's where we're starting. So the fleet management program purchased those charging stations, paid for the installation of those charging stations. And we were able to do that without additional funding up front because we looked at our motor pool rate, which is currently 40 cents a mile. And so there's also a minimum charge, so if you use it for four hours or less, it's a minimum of $20. So if you travel less than 50 miles, you can get a little bit more than 40 cents, but 40 cents is the standard rate if you go, you know, you get 100 free miles and then every mile after that's 40 cents. So we looked at our rates and we said, okay, we have some, yes, absolutely. So that's what you charge? Agencies and departments. Yeah. So we looked at those rates and we said, okay, we have some room, we can either lower our rates or we can use the fund, the additional cushion there to start purchasing the electric vehicles and in that infrastructure that's required for that. So we did that in Waterbury, Burlington and Mount Pilger and we purchased the 25 electric vehicles. Without raising our rates, we were kind of at a point where it was gonna be like one at a time. And of course, installing one charging station isn't as cost effective as installing a bank of charging stations. So we were really kind of waiting it out until we were received work that we may receive $500,000 and that'll allow us to really start moving again to deploy these electric vehicles. And with the 500,000, we think that we can purchase 12 fully electric vehicles. That would be our goal is fully electric vehicles. And charging stations, which actually more than what we need because from our own funds, we would purchase some plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to go all along with that. And we would be looking to expand to Rutland. We would like some charging stations and motor cool electric vehicles in Rutland. One in Springfield and Berry, ideally Berry just by kind of looking at the again, the travel that's happening and we know some, there's going to be some shifting of departments. We think that we could support some motor cool vehicles there. You have questions or? Yes, what would be faster? I think I am. And I think I'm hopefully prepared for some of your questions. Can I ask a question? Are you thinking about offering a different rate? Oh yes, absolutely. So the funding that we receive, of course, how our rates are calculated now as we take the depreciation of the vehicle, the anticipated depreciation, our projected maintenance and repair, our program administration fee, and we take that and make it into a rate which is 40 cents a mile. Since we won't have to pay for the vehicles, we're going to use this outside funding, we're going to remove the depreciation from our rate and it's going to allow us to charge, we think about 16 cents a mile. So we really think that'll be some incentive for agencies and departments to. So depreciation is a major rate? The depreciation is a major part of our rate. Okay, Mary, Barbara and Pax. Have you chosen what a fully electric vehicle you will probably purchase? We have gone up, we will have to go out to bid. So I'll make that clear. It really hinges on which manufacturers bid. So while I would, I have a list of the vehicles that we would like to bid, I can't guarantee that they will. We think for the electric vehicle that the pole is going to make the most sense for the Leaf S plus. So either of those two, if you look at the range, so what we did was we took the MSRP, we divided it by the range and we got a cost per mile and we thought that one of those two vehicles would work. Hyundai has never bid before on a state contract. So they have some great vehicles offered, but they have never bid. So I don't have a lot of hope that we would get that participation. I know you folks are coming over to see us at our office next week, and I've asked if Hyundai will be present and we're not sure if Hyundai will come. And so we're not sure if Hyundai will come, but if they do, I plan to say let's please bid because the more bids we get, the more competition, the better the prices for the vehicle we think, more options we have. But for electric, we're hoping for the bolt. The bolt was on contract before, so I'm pretty sure we'll get a bid for that. We're also hoping that the lower rate that's provided to departments for an EV compared to a fossil fuel vehicle being as cash strapped as most departments are, that they will opt to send their employees to electric vehicles rather than cash. And it will also be lower than the reduced mileage rate that employees can currently receive to take their own vehicle. So if they elect not to take a state vehicle that's available right now, they can accept that reduced rate, which is 18 cents a mile. So if I can offer a vehicle for less than that, then agencies and departments may be inclined to say, no, you're still not gonna take the reduced right here. We have a more economical option for you. Well, I appreciate that you've spoken to the economical options of why you would not consider the depreciation rate, but I am concerned that this makes this a one-time investment, that these will appreciate, they will need to be replaced and you now have not funded their replacement. So, well, yes. You're just trying to have the regular. Right, so when I go to replace a vehicle, I have to replace the vehicle. So I would, I'm hoping, you know, we keep the vehicle six years, sometimes a little longer. If it hasn't reached 80 to 90,000 miles, it might stand the plate a little longer. I expect the range of these vehicles to really increase in six to seven years. They have already, when we were purchasing these vehicles back in 2012, I was getting a Prius hybrid that got 12-mile electric range and now I'm looking at, you know, an all-electric vehicle that's getting 151. So in seven more years, I think that the, I think you're gonna see the cost come in line with the combustible gas engine vehicles and then it will be economical. Then we take away. Right, I don't think that really answers my question though, because what I was saying is that you're spending 500,000 buying vehicles and you're not going to, as you charge them out, think about that $500,000 replacement value. So if you're not considering a depreciation of the vehicle. So we actually buy the vehicle first. So we don't collect money to buy a vehicle. We buy a vehicle, then we collect the money for it. So that comes after. So if I buy a vehicle for the motor pool, I haven't pre-collected any money, even as it stands today. So if I decide, No, go ahead. No, go ahead. An employee is driving more than 11,000 miles. I've not taken into consideration any depreciation. I've not saved for that. I borrow the money from the treasurer and then I collect a rate which will allow me to pay off that vehicle. So we can still do this with the way the regular fleet program works. We're looking at this half a million dollars of one-time money. Exactly, that's what I'm saying. This is one-time money. This is not base money. We're looking at it as an opportunity to really get a slug of vehicles and charging stations at one time which we otherwise would not be able to do. And then we're going to incentivize the use of these vehicles. So one of the hurdles that we have to overcome is humans. And they're dislike of change. Dislike of things new and technology. So we're working against humans to bring them on board. And so this is something that we deal with every day. And to incentivize, so just as the governor recommended an incentive payment to get the private citizens purchase EVs, we need to incentivize state employees to use these vehicles through offering a lower rate through their departments. That's the beauty of using this one-time money. In the regular program, the EV would have the depreciation schedule and there is no incentive for its use. So that's part of the brilliance of the program for us in that we have to get a carrot out there just like we have to in the private sector to get state employees to make the change to learn the five to 10 minutes at what the operating difference is on it. I think that that's just what I was trying to really clarify is that it is a one-time job rather than in hand. It's not altering a portion that you would normally be buying. It is an additional for that one shot. But I would be buying the vehicles anyway. I just wouldn't be buying. So these vehicles that I'll be taking in the 12 are gonna replace existing gas vehicles. So I'm really saving, I already have the money tucked away to buy those vehicles. And so you don't, yeah. So I don't have to spend that money today. Sure, they, yeah. That's still there. So I just- Well, certainly the charging stations are an investment. Those are an investment. I mean the charging stations are the real constraint to program. Right, yeah. Because in order to expand the number of electric vehicles in the fleet as a percentage of the fleet, you have to first invest in the charging stations. And I guess I would just take one more second and say I'd like to plug in for the fact that there's a lot of Vermont north of Burlington and St. Albans has to go to the state office building that's attached to a very large garage that the state made a bunch of investment in. So it might be worth looking at least as far north as St. Albans. So how many looks at all the locations and we make decisions based upon- It is new. So we turn on investment to the state of Vermont. This is a data-driven decision-making process where are we gonna get the most value for deploying vehicles? And eventually when we have enough vehicles in the fleet that are EV or plug-in hybrid, you will certainly see- I would suggest that if these are intended to get people to use them, St. Albans might be a great place to start because you're trying to get someone just looking at a longer commute to think about the fleet and to think of it as practical and think of it as functional. And so if that really is the intent to use these to jumpstart the recalcitrant population, you might want to start in St. Albans rather than in Burry or Montpelier where everybody's using them anyway because you're here. I want to thank you for that answer but nevertheless I would suggest that you remove from one that's in Vermont. It's smaller than St. Albans. I'll put in a plug for something south of Montpelier. In relation to that nothing south of Montpelier. And there's a whole heck of a lot of the state south of Montpelier who drives a heck of a long distance to get to Montpelier in a Burlington. Oh, sorry about that. So what can we talk about heck of a thing all the way about Brooklyn, and then to you, or the Netherlands, and Rutland and then Springfield would be the two south. And speaking of the charging stations, where are you suggesting they go and how many are being installed with this line? So, well, I don't want to, I probably not. I'm hesitant to commit yet because we really need to do a cost analysis. And without knowing how much these are going to cost to install, I can't commit completely. I would like to do the Rutland parking garage. And I want to say we complete throughout Rutland two dual ports. So they charge four vehicles. And Springfield, one dual port. Berry, one dual port. And six dual ports in Montpelier at 134 State Street as they do not have any current line. And these decisions were, this is the first initial screen, which is based upon driving data. What we haven't screened yet are the electrical capacity for the particular building. What kind of power are they bringing? How easy is it to bring that power to the preferred location? Are there, is there a ledge? Are there environmental issues? I mean, once you start digging into the dirt, you start coming up with a whole other range of issues. And so, since we have limited funding, we're going to prioritize the charging stations that don't present the most challenges. Well, that just gives us a lot of advantages. Yes. So that's what I've presented to my commissioner and said we please put your project votes on us and get me back some of these years. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so there were a couple of things I just wanted to clarify, which is that we, I think we're getting a little confused on a committee with some of the questions around what the vehicles are actually used for in the fleet today. Because I think that idea of like using them for commutes, my impression was that that's not what's happening. And I heard that in the comments from my colleagues here. Just wanted to clarify that. And I also wanted to ask when Chris was talking about the kind of hump you have to get over with changing the behavior of the folks driving. You know what happened? In fact, I happened to work at a company that has been transitioning our fleet over to EVs. And like almost to a person, people are like they're more fun to drive. This is better once they kind of get over understanding range, understanding where they can plug in. So do you, is it your impression that there's just kind of a hump of changing habits, learning the vehicles and that they'll basically be as good or better to drive for people after it? Would that be a fair assessment of what you'd expect? Really about education and exposure. So we even found with the plug in hybrid vehicles that there was fear. They don't understand that it switches over to gas. The sum of them thought they were fully electric already. So what we did was we took our reservation form and we modified it to say, is this your first time ever driving an electric vehicle? And if they answered yes, we sent someone out with them with the vehicle and said, this is how you plug it. This is how you plug it in. No, you won't get electrocuted if it's raining. All of these questions that they have that are serious concerns that they have, we are able to answer that and we know who it is that hasn't used them before. So that's really, yeah, it's education. And then the first few times they use it, you're right, they come back. Some of our customers that were hesitant now specifically request them. They are more fun to drive. They're quiet, they're comfortable, they're higher quality. I mean, they have heated seats. I mean, some of them love that heated seats. So I do feel like it's really education. And it's a great opportunity for the state because we are exposed to potential consumers in their private lives about EVs. And I think being employer that is diversifying your fleet. And if I could follow one thing. The other thing I wanted to talk a little bit about is, I think we've been in the committee as we've been talking about EVs a little stuck in the mode of thinking about charging like you think about stopping at the gas station on the way to informing places. And our experience of electric field shows us that consumer behavior is a little different. As the range increases, I can see someone taking out a fleet vehicle in my pillar to go and do something in Brattleboro and come all the way back on one charge pretty easily. You know, that'd be about a 240 mile round trip. And you could do that in a bolt on it if you weren't doing a bolt EV. And if you weren't using the heat in the dead of winter. So I'm wondering what the, if you could give us a sense of if there's a limitation with the charging infrastructure that does exist today of us rolling out more than electric food, other than just at the main places where you do need more charging, that it's not really the charging out in the world, but it's the limit. It's when we need to fill up the batteries at home. Right, that's the difference. And it's a little challenging even to get our drivers to plug in if there's one nearby. So even if they know there's one, two blocks down the street, we honestly don't think that they're going to plug in. So we're gonna try to encourage them to stay within that range for two reasons. One, because we can't guarantee that they'll plug in and they, if they're passive aggressive, they're gonna run out of charge. And two, we don't, we want it to be successful. We want it to have a great experience because the news, bad news travels much faster than good news. So if we can have, make sure everyone has a really great experience, they're telling their family and friends that it wasn't so bad. And we're exposing thousands of state employees. We have the potential to really expose thousands of state employees to this technology and make sure that they have an experience. So we're gonna be conservative with the range and the trips that we, that's another positive to the motorcycles, we can match their trips. So when they reserve the vehicle, they tell us where they're going. Now we know which ones to give this vehicle to versus this vehicle to. So that's really helpful. Whereas when we assign it to a department, we have to rely on them to make those decisions. Whereas we, we're the go-between. So we get to make those decisions and make sure that they have that great experience. Make sure we go outside with them into the vehicle. So that's, you know, it's not just about cost savings. It's, it's really also about providing a really good experience to the drivers. Well, thank you very much. And it's very encouraging and impressive that you guys are doing it. But Harman, the reason I wanted you guys to come and talk to us was because we had heard from all the manufacturers, and everybody calls it the California Compact, but it's not a Compact. We're a California state, and a lot of good things, the one of 13 states that do that, you probably know about this. And so they need to, they're required to sell increasing numbers of electric vehicles. And so we thought that the state's a good place to, to help with those sales. So looking into the future, from a blogger's point, when we don't have this one time shot, and by the way, the $500,000, is that both credit money? No, it's okay. This is general fund one time. All right. Revenues that exceeded projections from FY 910. So not FY 20 money, it's current fiscal year money that, or 18 money, I think. You didn't exceed the projections or it's money that wasn't accounted. Yeah. Certificates? Yeah. Not baseline. Right. Accumulated surplus. Stop, stop, stop. It isn't about only money we will be spending on electric vehicles this fiscal year. My question is, shouldn't we have a goal or goals or a policy of phasing in electric vehicles? And an expedited rate? Or, so that's one question. Let me get to the second question. Tell me why we couldn't just have a policy that says something like this. Whenever we're purchasing a vehicle, we will purchase an electric vehicle if it's practical. If it's practical, I mean the distances, how many need to go within the range of the electric cars. And, well that's, that's a very important point. Why not have a policy that actually works? What I think you already do with the policy is that you purchase the most fuel efficient vehicle on contract that's costing to head, right? So that's already a policy. And when we say cost is credited, are we lifecycle cost? Yeah, lifecycle cost. So we already do. We need to get more of these dealerships to bid because if they don't bid, I can't buy it. So that's kind of one of our hurdles is that I, you know, I'm a little more belly forward. They sell the most EVs, they don't bid on our contracts. So I phone up and I say, why not? And they say, it's easier to sell the person on my door than it is to fill out a 50 page document and send it in and not even be guaranteed that I'm gonna get a bid. And then there's some perception of they think hundreds of vendors bid. I can tell you there's probably buy that consistently bid on these contracts. So that's one of our hurdles is I can buy the most fuel efficient vehicle on contract that's costing to head, but if it's not on contract, I can't buy it. So that's a hurdle, we need to figure out a way to get these vendors to be bidding. And it's getting ready as much red tape as you can. Yeah, and then secondly, it's, I have to have infrastructure. So I can say to an apartment, the most cost effective vehicle is this plug-in hybrid EV. Well, who pays for the infrastructure? I don't really have the funding. I'm an internal service fund. So whatever I spend, I have to get back from the agency department and I don't have control over their budget. So they may not have the funds to install this car decision. So that's a little bit of a hurdle too. We just need to overcome. Once these charging stations come, the future's bright because the charging stations are already there. Now, everything after that is easy. This is an important fact that Armin just put out there. Her entire program is funded through internal service funds. Rate setting to other departments that pay for the vehicles after the fact that she buys them. So she has a little bit of a cash flow from the treasurer who goes out buys a vehicle and charges the department the rate. We're not dealing with real cash that goes through the budgeting process. We're using the state treasurer's short term borrowing amount in terms of cash surplus to operate this program. And so we can't just go out and build charging stations because we don't have the money. That the funding for the treasurer's for vehicles, it's not for charging stations. And so this is an opportunity for us to build infrastructure to support the vehicles. We can go out and buy the vehicles as the most fuel efficient vehicle using the treasurer's money to buy the vehicle. We just need a charging station to play it into. So that's our constraint in your question in terms of accelerating the development and the deployment of these vehicles. It's really the charging station infrastructure which we need cash for. Should we maybe have done more on that than purchasing to our vehicles? Well, we don't have enough fully electric vehicles. The governor was very adamant that he wanted full electric vehicles not plug-in hybrids for the exposure to state employees. Each of those agencies has an apartment. So selling them on an infrastructure investment without ever exposing them to an electric vehicle, they're hands up. If their employees are already driving the electric vehicles and they're being exposed to them, now it's a little bit easier to sell. This is going to be successful. We've demonstrated it in the moral pool. You can do this. It's just a small investment. It'll be a little bit of easier sell than if I don't have any EVs and I'm out there trying to sell them, investing in some infrastructure at their locations. Well, as usual, I give it to the governor. You, Molly, in America. Can you use the portion of the 18.7 million Volkswagen settlement that's set aside for charging stations? If you have that public use, so where is it? It's a different program. So that's a competitive program for charging stations that I believe the private sector will submit grant applications for different charging applications. It's not... Can't, they can't. No. It's not how the program is set up. Mary. I assume that charging stations are talking about a level two. Yes. Is there any way of encouraging the drivers to kind of fill up at some level three that they're going by on the highway before they come back so that they could be... Certainly. I don't know of very many, but once they are available, absolutely. It won't even be an option. If we know they're driving by and they didn't stop in charge. I mean, we have some lovers to say, you gotta do this just like we do when gas, right? We don't let our renters come back and then empty tank of fuel. That's not respectful to the next renter. So we certainly give them feedback when they do that. We will do the same type of thing. If you didn't fill up before you came back, you had an opportunity. Because we have telematics, we can see you drove right by it. So that would certainly, where we become more available. Yes sir. Quick little point. Can I share? Places that, when you're looking for a place to put a charging station, if you only have to bring in a level two, virtually every building in the state is already allegedly equipped to provide service for that. Not all. So I tried to install, there were multiple requests coming from the legislature last year for charging for legislator. So I tried to install some charging in the legislative parking lot behind the pink lady. And in order to do that, I would need an entirely new sub-panel. I would need new, just doesn't have the capacity. So it's normally $8,000 for a charging station. We were looking at 30 to 40,000 to just upgrade the property so it could handle charging stations. So that was an investment I didn't make because of one I didn't want to. Maybe someone you and I can walk around the back of the building. Sure. But it's the point that Harmony was raising earlier. She has a plan for deployment based upon data of mobility needs. But we may go to easier locations depending upon what we find when we get there. All right. Well, thank you. I think it's great that the commissioner has a lot of transportation experience. Someone who told you we first came here with transportation, that's why he came. His first job. I was thrilled to have it when I heard. And it sounds like you are just the perfect person for this job. Hope you know me. Thank you. Thank you. It's exactly what I said. Thank you. Oh. I'm about to do this. Yeah. There's some working on. Never to get a little bit of this. This is how it is. I don't know what I'm saying. I don't know what I'm saying. Or later on. And that's where it's going to happen. This is how it is really important. If you're getting low, it's a lot of them have the technology. Stay from the speed to get this one up. Which one? Barbara Jonathan. Welcome back. Thank you. I won't try to manage to get through this. I saw the doctor yesterday and he said, it's viral. Not really. Barbara Jonathan for the record, public transit program manager. And I was asked to come and talk about language for legislation study. Specifically, what just did you study? No, I think in agencies. I have agencies. Okay, that's very different. I'm trying to write myself back. So, I thought I would just bring you up to the studies that we are in the middle of. Because that may be the answer that you are looking for. V-trans is well into its public transit policy plan, which is the modal plan. There's one for air. There's one for radar. There's one for transit. And we are in the middle of updating it. We've done almost all of our outreach already. And one of the things that this study always does is it identifies gaps. So, the gaps, you know, we'll find out more when this study is concluded with home until the fall. The other thing that we're in the middle of is we're working closely with a group in Wampiria called microtransit, which is a four-new home and way to deliver transit. So, we're working closely with them and we've gone out for an IFP to get information from various groups that provide this kind of transportation. We had previously, a number of years ago, looked at Rovington and what was then the, which I have, but they've gone out of business. A number of these projects have started in bigger cities. Some have been wildly successful, so it failed completely. So, we're looking at how would it fit in Montpelier as a fairly dense, walkable community, fairly walkable community. Or in the middle of that. What is microtransit? Microtransit is basically an on-to-man transit. So, you would sit there with your smartphone and I'm at the state house and I need to go grocery shopping. And we put it in just like Uber and Lyft and the bus would constantly adjust its route to pick you up and take you there. There have been a number of... Yeah, it's interesting. And nobody's quite found the right formula yet that didn't cost a harm in life. It's been tested in a couple of European cities. It's big test here was in Kansas City, which I don't think the demonstration was well done. So, it didn't work for a number of reasons. Where was that from? I think it was Kansas City. So, it's an emerging way to deliver transit and we're sort of waiting to see how it comes out. But there's a very active group, which at nine o'clock we're testifying before the Senate Transportation Committee on that actual project. We also have some public forum scheduled and there's one in Cambridge, Underhill and Milton to explore the same idea and another one in Stull and Norrisville. Stull and Norrisville is more about employment access than the others. But we're in the middle of those things. And we also just completed the mobility on demand project that we won competitively from the feds. And it was, we completed it. We are the only one of the competitive winners that actually delivered what they said on time and under budget. And so therefore they put us, you can see our little cowbells, on the cover of their recent report on our innovative projects. And this actually represents what speaks to what you were looking at. We worked closely with our consultants with Google Transit to create what are called Google Flex specifications. Normally you go onto Google Maps and you say I want to get from here to there and I want to get there on transit. And if there isn't transit within a quarter mile it won't show. However, this will go much farther so that maybe in the next town and around here you can get your mom to drive you or to get them out on the highway or something. But it shows you what's actually available. And you can get that on our overall site. We've had a lot of interest from other states in that innovative project. They would like to expand that into their states. So we've got a lot going on right now. I'm not sure exactly what you would be looking for with a study other than generically increased ridership. The other project we have going on is our ADL, which we are almost completed rolling out. And what ADL is Automatic Vehicle Locators. So you can say I took three buses to get to high school when I was a kid and the big thing was did I just miss it? Or is it still, you know, is it two minutes late? Because back then all you could do was, you know, go down the street and it was pretty cold. And so that project is now, we did three pilots over the last couple of years and then we went out to bed and those are the ones that we felt worked best based on our experiments. And we have started rolling that out across the state. So eventually you'll be able to get it wherever you are for fixed route in Vermont. And then if you want to know more, then you go to Govermont and get the wider Google Transit specs and you can see what else is available. So we have a number of activities that we're doing specifically to increase transit and increase transit ridership and information about transit so that people can see what's out there. And being in the middle of the public transit policy plan, starting another project to research on increased ridership, I guess, for myself, this is an official V-trans position because we haven't really had a chance to talk about it much, is I'd like to see what comes out of that modal plan before we move forward to my people. Okay, personal thoughts? Well, I guess I would just say that we just haven't crossed this line yet of serious ridership on transit. I would say even in only one link that's got the kind of ridership that will bust what it has. Other runs do not stay. Even the five or six people don't fully see us. And that's our... Some of the runs are... It doesn't touch, what I'm saying, $500,000 to widen the modal lane on the interstate. Chippin and County really is a macrocosm. It's like a big city. There's places you can stand on the old batch and you can look down at Bumper, Bumper, as far as we can see with the big cities, but the traffic is becoming increasingly reminiscent of those places. And that's just one of those. Pine Street down the interstate, Northbound, that's a couple of hours of foot by shadow, Bumper, the buses are in that traffic too and that's where I see it from. So even we're somehow getting people to know down my line it can work because as we've talked to you about how quickly people form carpools and how people do it and kind of enjoy themselves just because they're filming themselves, they're somehow not doing it. I want to see more traffic coming into the state house and probably be a friend who drove buses and she was young and went to school but now there's a lot of stuff her way. I guess I would just ask if there are places where traffic does work that aren't so urban? And I think sometimes that means looking at Europe, Denmark, we do those places that are urban but they're not all urban. I've spent six months in the south of France, people drive buses there at decreasing numbers I think and they've become more, but it's rural. Very recently for ridership trends across the country and where it's been successful and where not and I haven't had a chance to read the entire book. It's just came out. But one of the things of course is going to come up with images and we'll write back to them in Europe. I know our friends, I have some friends that live in Scotland and when they've bought a house they have no children, they have no plan to have children. They're not of the age where they could have children but they weren't actually allowed to buy a house in an area unless there was room in the schools. So if you compare that to the way we could just go buy this farmland built house it certainly makes trends easier in places with more strong land use controls than we have here. But there is this recent study and we will review it at the state and then one of the things that happens when we do these policy plans is they reveal a gap, they reveal a potential and we often follow them up with a study directed to that specific potential. The first one was done I'm going to say 98, it was before my time so I'm totally guessing here. But one of the things I pointed out was the need for more transportation for the other way of the disabled. And so then there was a big investment made now for $4 million just for Beatrice, not necessarily from the agency Human Services in transportation for the other way of the disabled. The next study which was five or six years later exposed the need for more commuter transit and that's where the links were born, that's where the transportation and the white room rejection from the insurer came out and so one of the estimates we had in there and then the most recent one was inner cities and we followed that up with another study that specifically looked at inner city. And so I think, I guess my preference is simply to see what does it say we need more transportation just for work? Does it say we need a better mobility management system so any one person can call right now they call me because it's kind of a homie line and say well how do I get from here? And often what I hear is oh I didn't know there was bus and I mean I've even hired people and say well you don't even have more transportation here until they get a job that requires them to look at it but there's buses everywhere. So I'm kind of waiting for that and to see what's in this study and to see what we do next in innovation and how our ABL works because otherwise that he would be kind of generic I'd like to have more focus but that's just what we care about. I just would really like say I support what Barbara's saying I'd love to have a good conversation that we can have communicating what is happening because I think you do have really good pulse and you're looking at a lot of studies already and I would just hate to spin your wheels on something because we're not really sure exactly what we're asking of you and you've got something that's kind of forward that will potentially give us some answers to ask a question from I think that would be really helpful. One of the things that's been happening nationally as the crisis has passed us down and a number of other factors are called is ridership in the cities has been going down and that's followed with our own city that ridership has dropped I'm sorry but our rural ridership has blocked the trends and that's been going up and I think that's some of that's because of time to get it but hopefully I think I think a lot of it is cultural and also the price of gas which is going up and you know it's like and I know I remember you know when the price of gas went way up ridership really increased a lot I'm not sure in the last two so it's a challenge but I think there are ways we can maybe try to incentivize public transit in a certain way and I'll be interested to hear what comes out of the plan and the gaps Is that a hammer? Yeah, I know that there are two things that I'd love to hear your way in on one was we had heard some great discussion about the development of the software and you know I've been kind of torn around by and go over mine and seeing could I get from St. Alden and it would take about two hours and one interchange but I could totally ride both of those and get back if I timed it right and when I think about using the folks and the folks who can do from St. Alden to Burlington on the bus like my friend Jack down the street he would really love it more times so that if he did get stuck late or had a child care pickup from school issue that he'd be able to make a choice from a couple of different buses and I know that having that one service back and forth it creates that kind of anxiety about using the bus on some days and sometimes in a year so it's a part of the thinking around especially those commuter routes planning for that so I'd love to hear your feedback on will it go over my data if I go on Google and I say how I get from here to here with the transit for calls that are there can I, will I be able to get those routes soon on especially some of the buses because some of them are in there and some of them aren't now well I'll go and talk about it because I thought they were all in there but one thing certainly if you give me their name we can contact them but if they register and go over mine they get the emergency ride home so if your friend gets a call from school and they say we're not leaving this kid here they're infecting everyone coming at them they can, there's a couple of options they can get a taxi they can get a state car or they can rent a car that will then be reimbursed up to I think ten times a year but just knowing that that there changes everything especially for parents that's an idea at my old job I used to carpool and when one of us got death lay out the rest of us were just okay find a problem but that doesn't work well most places so that's why we have the emergency ride home and so you can either just tell them about registering with going on or you can get us the information and we will contact the child that's great okay any else from bottom is that Michelle you're going to do this yes the musical chairs Ronik setup coming put the record on Michelle boom Howard the director of policy planning and intermodal development which includes rail the brahmah agency of transportation I'm here to testify this morning regarding the committee's interest in looking at a further technical analysis of the use of diesel rail cars rail network before I get started on my testimony I'd just like to take an opportunity if it's okay with the chair to recognize a few people that are in the room that are not typically in Vermont for these types of hearings and would that be okay yes maybe everybody can do this okay so maybe we'll start sure Charles Hunter maybe Pete Doudin prepares for Genesee and why I'll make a point on such a route Jerry Vest Senior Vice President of Government Industry Affairs for Genesee and why I'm here thank you for allowing us take care I'm Natalie Vice President of Operations for Genesee and why I'm here everybody, I'm Nick Charrick I'm with All Right for Avenue I'm Peter Yonath I'm here for Montreal No, I am frequently in Vermont Rumor has it that President Morris with Morrison and Mech Canika Donahue with Beeper Costa Pat is the agency transportation planning section Jim Dandana with Kermit Becker-Eggison and Kramer I was asked to come before the committee today with a proposal of language for taking a look at a further feasibility analysis of the use of DMUs, diesel multiple units railcars on Vermont railroad tracks I guess I would first distinguish that we have two principal operating railroads in Vermont there's another small section up in the Newport area that I'll exclude from our discussions at the moment but Genesee and Wyoming are operating as New England Central Railroad is a principal owner and operator of major lines which carry the Vermont or Amtrak Vermont and has a robust freight network through the state as well and then Vermont rail systems represented by Peter Yonath today which leases the state-owned railroad in several parts of the state and assists in providing Amtrak service from Rutland through to New York City and that service will eventually terminate in Burlington, Vermont instead of Rutland with the completion of our current project that we're working on so I think the committee has heard before that the utilization of DMUs on Vermont rail networks is a complex matter I have Dan Delabora here and Costa Papas who have spent a lot of time looking at the issue of this matter in particular a few years ago when we prepared the feasibility study for rail system upgrades for commuter rail service for the legislature and this was published in February of 2017 this outreach for this study involved an extensive amount of public outreach and working with communities, regional planning commissions, the railroads the transit providers and went into quite an extensive amount of detail on the costs and a lot of the upgrade issues that would be involved to implement commuter rail service not the least of which is that any operation of rail service on the railroad owned by Geneseen Wyoming or leased by Vermont rail systems requires their permission before an operator can undertake an activity there's also quite an extensive distinction between commuter rail service which is something that the federal transit administration oversees and has a whole body of requirements including safety requirements accessibility requirements timing, etc and intercity passenger rail service which is what the federal rail administration oversees and what Amtrak delivers so I think that there was some criticism of the feasibility study for 2017 highlighting the fact that the analysis was really focused on something more akin to what you might see in the Boston area in terms of a commuter rail service and did not delve deeply enough into how we might look at a small scale version of a rail service enterprise for a Vermont scale activity the effort to augment the study to better articulate some of those issues was undertaken and the study was attended to reflect that however I think that what committee is asking for is a deeper dive on the particular analysis for what the implications would be for looking at the DMU service including first whether or not it would even be allowed to go forward by the operating railroads which are not compelled to provide access I think there's been some mischaracterization of a grant that was received by the New England Central Railroad under the Americans Recovery and Reinvestment Act a few years ago where a significant amount of federal funds just under a hundred million dollars with matching funds from the railroad to upgrade the Vermont line to provide more efficient Amtrak passenger service and they met their obligations for that investment through the agreements to upgrade for Amtrak passenger service. There are no remaining agreements in terms of them allowing any other public service rail activity to work on their lines so I just want to make sure that people are aware of that so the agency if the committee desires would be willing to take a deeper dive our estimates to what it would entail to look at the accessibility, the insurance the rail infrastructure requirements what a feasible operating schedule like what fares would be what underwriting of subsidies for passenger fares would need to be for operational service cost coverage who potential operators might be what impact this would have on providing transit to Vermonters some people might leave riding a bus in order to ride a train and that would have implications if we were to set up a commuter rail system and bus drivers were displaced on the transit network there are union requirements that FTA requires replacement of those sort of lost opportunities for transit drivers to be addressed so there's a whole complexity of requirements and issues that we would be able to delve into and help you better understand through undertaking this analysis we paid about $88,000 for the first feasibility study that we undertook we estimate that this deep dive to look at the issues and properly articulate them for the legislature would be about on the same scale from $75,000 to $100,000 and we would basically be able to undertake that within the framework of our planning budget that you have before you so we're not looking for any additional money to undertake this but undertaking this means we won't undertake something else I don't know what that is right at the moment but it will either slow down other projects or will display something that we had in the schedule so the language that we propose basically keeps it pretty simple in terms of recognizing that the service area that appears to be the area of interest and you can let me know if we have this wrong would be the St. Albin's Essex Junction, Burlington and Montpelier sort of commuter service area and we would report our findings to the House and Senate Transportation Committees we work in coordination with the Joint Fiscal Office of course and we would do this on or before January 15th sort of a standard reporting period we indicate we would basically build upon the framework that we used for this study and that you know we would basically be needing to be sort of referencing some of the things we already learned in this study but we would be taking the deeper dive relative to the DMU's this study as I mentioned earlier we had an extensive public process to it and was a more traditional planning study we characterized what we would undertake for you in this as a technical analysis not a planning study we would certainly make the public and municipalities aware that this study is being undertaken we would do that through the regional planning commissions we would do not hold public hearings and go through all of that process that would just add a significant amount of cost I don't think the we're trying to yeah yeah no it's a separate post on our website the committee rooms agenda page no go right down Maddie posted it's the okay but it's in there it's in that list if you go back to that list and if you were to incorporate it it would be in the area that's right I'm glad you were straight no worries you can pause for a minute I was needing to catch a breath okay I got it okay so being a feasibility study we would use our already engaged technical assistance and communications and outreach measures what we use with our regional planning commission partners to notify communities through their transportation advisory committees that we are investigating this we would work closely with stakeholders who have a specific potential interest in this including all our thrale business doing central and remount transit and any of the other transit agencies GMT covers most of this service area so that kind of takes care of that but and we would come back to you with the details I mentioned before so this is the framework we've come up with and I'm happy to pause here for questions welcome well I just have a question because I know we've heard a small presentation from all of Israel earlier and there was no actual operator so are we studying something that there really isn't a service available yet so that is our understanding we have not seen a proposal yet for a framework there is an interest by all earth rail and champ P3 which is an entity it's a nonprofit entity that was formed to look at public-private partnership activities which include commuter rail service and I think that you know this is the type of thing where if all the parts came together and you had an agreeable railroad willing to open up their lines for service if you had an entity that had equipment like all earth rail does and then if there was a proposal put forth to find an operator then you know maybe somebody would come forward I think that given the fact that our state resources are constrained using state funds to help underwrite an operator to deliver this type of service and potentially having to cut back on transit service which we've heard a lot about this session would be a tension that the legislature would have to investigate in terms of what their interest in what your interest in funding such a thing would be but the agency of transportation is not an operator of transportation services Barbara talks about the transit service we deliver, that's all delivered through operators we don't deliver operations we don't buy the planes we don't drive the trains we don't do any of those things and so I just want to make sure it's clear that the state would not be an operator of such an endeavor in any future we imagine Mark? I would say though that existing operator like great amount of transit couldn't add that service yeah it's quite often that a transit at the wordy undertakes commuter rail service I think that's the standard model nationwide under my observation sometimes there are special authorities that do rail only transit but it's commuter transit typically so I'm not discounting the fact that a transit operator out there willing to undertake this service yeah we have in the room representatives from new and central and from my real systems so has there been dialogue with them about anything to do with this if there hasn't are they willing to testify a little bit as to what they think about the possibility of this or is it impossible from their viewpoint I would sort of like to hear their side of the story a little bit if that's possible I think it is I'm happy to relinquish the chairs maybe you can answer the question to you which is our view so I think that the two railroad companies are aware of the fact that there is that all earth rail has purchased equipment and that there are entities out there who are interested in moving forward with this type of venture and I think like e-trans we've been the railroads have been listening and interested but have been waiting for a business plan waiting for at least we've been waiting for a business plan and waiting for sort of a framework of how this would work and so you know I was contacted yesterday by Champ P3 who wants to come in and have a dialogue about a public-private partnership proposal they've certainly given presentations of a conceptual model but I think that the state is still in a receiving information standpoint because we are not clear that the railroads would open their infrastructure resources to such a service and we've not seen an operating budget or plan as to how this type of thing would operate so we're still receiving information I mean it would be a shame to spend a hundred thousand dollars on a plan that it's not possible to implement it and so wouldn't that be logical that I'm not sure which comes first in chicken or the egg here but I'd hate to see a thousand hundred thousand dollars spent on a plan but it's not feasible to do that I understand we are stewards of public resources and we certainly we don't like to waste them okay so now you're happy to you're happy to stay close I'm assuming that somebody from agency in Wyoming and Vermont rail systems would like to speak to us for a few minutes we actually scheduled this for a couple more minutes everyone's looking at me you were in the room I'm happy to speak from here or take the witness to hear your name just a little bit from our mail and what you heard earlier Frank we're certainly willing to give a close look at any proposal once it's on the table we've had some back and forth with all the work obviously we've coordinated the movement of the actual blood cars along the system so we know there's interest we're waiting for proposal that we can look at closely as committee members probably recall the time of the authority for the operator for that project on that stretch of time a lot of things have changed in the 15 or so years there's a lot of detail to look at we made it clear that we're willing to give a close look when there's interest when the time is right to get those details in place that's probably all I can say without details so I guess before we next have to just say that I don't think we're going to get a business plan from the from the owners of the cars I think that company has bought the cars so hopefully it could be used to demonstrate that's been my understanding but certainly Nick represents in the room maybe would you agree with what I just said Nick I think that's a fair representation I mean it was you ourselves I think yeah yeah so without your cooperation we cannot go forward with commuterail in my answer we're willing to give a good close look to it there's a lot of detail I know that the agency has mentioned the insurance issues PTC issues there are a lot of details to work through any all of which could be significant if not very real to the operation yes PTC so if there is we are obviously involved in an effort now to bring the Amtrak service all the way to Burlington that requires coordination and securing exceptions to that requirement there's a lot of this in the 15 years since the Champlain Flyer operated there's whole other sections of federal regulations that apply or may apply depending on the nature of the service so we're ready to give it a close look and try to find a way to make this feasible but I can't tell you that there's a clear path ahead without understanding how they propose to address all these other various issues Vermont Rail was an operator this is before my time so I'm getting a little out of my league I believe it was Vermont Transit Agency Vermont Transportation Authority was what I invited as this monster but we did operate, yes Vermont Rail did operate the trains so you Vermont Rail systems owned the cars that were used I believe the state owned the cars and effectively the state operated the service didn't operate day to day but controlled the operations and put the bill for the whole thing our folks moved the trains but it was not where we ran it on our own so but this is going back sometimes the landscape has certainly changed in a lot of ways so as I said we've done it before and we've found a way forward and we're certainly going to give a close look to find a way forward if that's something the state wants to pursue I realize we have limited time but you said there were various hurdles that you didn't know you would be able to overcome what are some of those hurdles positive train control insurance coverage scheduling around existing freight service depending on the routes we have coordination cooperation with other railroads and I believe the folks from essentially prepared to give a more detailed list we have, if there's a lot of weeks to get into entire parts of federal regulations which we don't usually have to deal with and the regulatory environment of DC continues to shift to change so with that being said I would really hope that when you say and think or dive into this that's really transparently true because this is something that I hear, I'm in white reflection and although the study doesn't go that far south potentially this is something I hear time and time again from my constituents that they would like to see so I do truly hope that this is not um that this is not something that gets shelved because it's difficult because it is something that people are truly asking for and to be clear we don't operate between different countries so there are a lot of groups in the room we're prepared to give a close look and we've had the experience with the Champlain Fire to the extent it gets something that we can get behind and make work we're prepared to do that can I see my chair to the large attention first I don't know you want us to introduce ourselves through the record yeah well is that a comment to speak well it depends on the questions I'll lead it but maybe all three of us can reintroduce ourselves Charles, Senator, ABP Jerry Vest Senior Vice President of Government Industry and Affairs for Genesee John Connelly Vice President of Operations for Genesee so maybe I could just start with just a few comments and I know time is short but you all have some excellent questions to format the situation as we see it New England Central is a class 3 common carrier short line freight railroad and you can effectively think of a railroad like the New England Central as the first and last mile of freight transportation and we connect Vermont to Canada and New Hampshire, Connecticut and Massachusetts, Connecticut directly but more importantly we connect the communities and customers we serve to the national and so we give them access to markets and suppliers, customers that they do not always have without access to them our objective at GNW first and foremost is to do what we do safely our motto at our company is to be the safest and most respected transportation provider in the world and we have historically been the safest short line company in the United States and we strive to focus on safety and customer service because we are small companies we're made up of a bunch of small companies like New England Central our economics are such that we have to be flexible we have to drive for new business all the time so we acquired the New England Central back in 2012 when we acquired Rail America and Railroad and Mr. Hunter both came to us at that time we're very happy on both acquisitions but we came to Vermont with a clear understanding of the commitment New England Central has to the Amtrak real passenger service we came to the state understanding the desire to extend the service to Montreal and we also appreciate that there could eventually be a second round trip train we understand these understandings and expectations of the Railroad not just from the state but the Amtrak and we've worked very hard to be a superior host of Railroad for Amtrak we try to support that service everywhere we can and V-Trans has been a very active partner with us in supporting Amtrak service so you all know some of the criteria well and what it means for any state but certainly a smaller state like Vermont to support passenger service to the best of my knowledge there is not a passenger service Rail passenger service it covers its fully allocated costs and you all see that in the pre-state subsidy for the Amtrak service in your state it's going to be very expensive so we were first approached by CHAMP P3 last year we had an meeting with them John Connolly who is CHAMP P3? V-Con who is at the meeting is CHAMP P3 representative organization I'm sorry Mr. Chairman I can't give you the full background of the group but they represented as working with or having access to these rail cars and interested in starting this computer service across the world that is how they presented themselves to us so we sat down with them John was at that meeting and our senior regional vice president was at that meeting and he is the president of the New England Central and we had a primary discussion out of that discussion we made clear that we needed a much more detailed plan of business plan from CHAMP P3 in order to advance talks with them about the peace and stability of this there are things like let me just run down a brief list first and foremost we have concerns about the safety the proposed service would mix new passenger service by a third company a new operator in with current K&M and Amtrak services on our rail so anytime there is that type of co-manually we always immediately have a primary concern about how this becomes safer and that ties to a lot of different things the experience of whoever operated the quality of the equipment meeting all federal mandates and at GNW we pride ourselves that we view our requirements as a minimum and our operating standards often exceed the minimum federal requirements for safer operations as part of how we are as safe as we are there is a lot of attention that came up in this meeting last fall with CHAMP about positive train control as you all I'm sure know the Honor service now operates with a positive train control waiver this without that that service would be uneconomical and the reason why Amtrak would have the PTC equipment we would have to go through an entire railroad which the Amtrak service operates over and equip it for positive train control it would be millions and millions of millions of dollars and we I just wanted to clarify which is so I think we as a committee understand positive train control would be really expensive but I wanted to know maybe this is a question better for Michelle than you Jerry would the study that has been proposed to help us determine whether or not we could operate a DMC or service without having to make those a positive train in the end it will be a decision of the FRA on whether or not positive train control is required and Amtrak and us is the host and honestly we have not determined whether we would be comfortable with this new overway of passenger service and with the current services if we would be comfortable for that to happen without positive train control I mean it's there positive train control is created as a federal mandate for a very specific reason that we have for the Amtrak the monitor service is contingent on some very specific conditions and introducing a new service on top of that could fundamentally change this without going through a formal process it's almost impossible to tell but I would suggest the study should probably be based on the right ways of the positive train control would be important so if it's out there it would be hard not to implement it with this complexity of the operation I mean it would be exceeding what would be I have to be careful because we really don't know what the service is just what we've heard informally but it's highly likely that exceeding whatever it would be would be to trip into positive train control but I mean you all is a committee to think too again that is out there for a reason for a reason that is to ensure safety so it's just not and I'm not suggesting you're thinking of a way but it's not a cost just to avoid it it very well could be but safety is first and foremost we also have to look at capacity we have as I said a tenant freight railroad that operates on this line we have Amtrak and we have our own services our objective is to grow our business I mean we can help the line by handling more freight on our railroad it certainly would help the economy it would help the environment I tell folks that the typical company that we serve their employees who give life or family sustaining incomes out of them it's not like the readers that want them if those things exist but I heard they were doing way up those jobs so they should use that line but that is our focus is how we can help the economy and the environment of Vermont by providing safe and efficient freight services I think that brings up a good point when we're looking at the holistic aspect of transit in Vermont it's people in goods and so between your testimony and then an hour ago when we were talking about buses and things in our head to think about the fact that buses are good for people and if we could get the freight off the roads it might really assist with the jams that the chair was speaking of and the building capacity so I think that looking at each transit mode for what it could best provide to us is really valuable so even if it is that the mud car is transporting us on the same route that we're trying to get people to get on a bus for it might be just really maximizing the freight and getting that off our highways and this capacity point, the second point is significant especially for shoreline because the one way we maintain our profitability and thus our ability to continue to exist and do our mission is by having our assets size to the level that we need them we don't have the luxury to maintain extra track just for the sake of possibility of needing it so adding a new service and any passenger service will be time sensitive it will never succeed unless we maintain a schedule we understand that but it puts a whole new dynamic on your assets there's another element that was mentioned by the gentleman representing Vermont Railway and that is insurance and I would take that further to talk about indemnification I mean this is really a but-for situation with indemnification we're not seeking out a new passenger service on our railroad we have an established protocol that is in place for Amtrak but that is only for Amtrak service and so we will be looking for a significant amount of insurance and also indemnification if any is incurred whatsoever associated with a new passenger service or an expert in this area I'm not an attorney but from what I've seen in other states that requires an act of the legislature to provide that level of indemnification so for a commuter rail service and then the final area that I just very high level just want to touch on is compensation I tell folks when I go into e-trans or state DOT for the first time I really mean this parallel between a railroad like the New England Central and e-trans we both own and are responsible to maintain miles and miles of infrastructure and having our speakers a person that previously in our regional railroad it's a black hole and you all know this the money required to maintain that transportation infrastructure network is endless I'm sure you all get into operations every year and it's a challenge and that's how well we have to do we have to manage our revenues and expenses so we have enough money to have enough to maintain all of these assets and are so capital intensive so we would be looking to do this for compensation if nothing else to put the railroad out and part of it is where it started that is if a passenger service can't cover its fully allocated cost no passenger service where is the money coming from so part of what we would need in a business plan is the financial durability of such a service to be funded this is a major undertaking that a study would require and that was part of why we asked Channel P3 for a business plan on front us understand does this have legs to pursue with them because for us to look at our assets, our capacities to get into discussions about safety and compensation we don't have the management capacity to do that personally they need to carry some of that themselves and they told us when we met with them that their concept would be privately funded and so it gives me pause that now they're looking for state legislature to provide the funds for these ability study I have a couple people that are expert on central and three of us can answer questions I have a couple of questions to really get the heart of the study I want to make sure that we're not confusing having the information in order to how to build that business plan with the creation of that business plan I think we heard from Michelle and I hope that you heard that if we took on the feasibility study that it wouldn't be the creation of the business plan for private entity and then the other thing Jerry you talked a lot about the jobs and the economic impacts of railroad and I'm the representative St. Albans and we deeply, deeply appreciate the relationship that we have and I see my own name and I see you are in the home there I've been hearing a lot about potential change of location of the real estate center and I'm wondering if Charlie you might be able to talk to the rumors that we've been hearing pretty consistently and say all things about that It's my understanding that we came to the state with an incentive and I'm sure we will follow through I mean our company follows through on its obligations and locations and there's been nothing I checked this morning before I came here because I thought the question might be asked there's been nothing agreed upon at this stage but there are exploring other locations that's a very old building that's part of the concerns is the maintenance of that building From an operating standpoint as GNW has continued to grow as you know St. Albans is our hub there's no intention of changing that if there is some exploration outside of that building I'm fairly confident that it has nothing to do with relocation of people or jobs outside of the immediate region I know our city manager and mayor who were very urgent with me and our city council meeting I'm very happy to hear that reassurance I think their biggest concern was that people who are located in the St. Albans area the jobs that you all have just by the center they're really good jobs to have this walk to Chipp County or some other location where does Chipp come from? we're not looking there I'll have an hour we're on they're here in all kinds of stuff moving the REC to Colchester or something like that so half an hour south I really appreciate that reassurance that building that you said it does offer some growth constraints because the more jobs I put in there or we put in there as a company eventually you start running out of space so looking for some panic space possible or options and we're always looking for options Jerry's one thank you very much a railroad dispatcher is a highly qualified position you know we have a great base of employees in St. Albans and as things are balanced out certainly that leaves the fact that those employees who live and work in St. Albans now balances that scale to the favor of what we want to change and how the balance is just in the age and you know I would just say and I'll stop getting a totally deep rail here Mr. Chair thank you very much sorry thank you for that so the mayor and other folks who brought this concern to my attention in anticipation of your coming we're very quick to say City and our partners have been doing a lot of re-evaluating work and if there is in the future any concern about that particular building but the desire to stay in St. Albans and keep that highly skilled highly trained workforce to work locally that we really love to have the lines of communication being wide open with people like our mayor to cement to find if it would be acceptable maybe Charles you could coordinate a discussion I mean if there's that type of global government leadership concern we should be sitting down talking to I'll be glad to sit down with you in town maybe get some of our management team the ARDC team very much okay anything else one thing I don't think this is going to seem for you to comment about is with this DMU project compete with MPRAC in terms of what it cut into to their ridership do you think that's a great question I don't have the ability I mean I think it would be a better situation to respond to so she's got the study in her hand without opening the crack in the study there certainly are people for monitors who use Amtrak in state to get around I wouldn't say that's a really large number I think most people are taking Amtrak for intercity long distance travel I would not suspect that this type of operation that we've talked about today would impact our Amtrak service that greatly I take it to the right way there's an extension in the best way think about a computer rail that can take you there whenever you want yes okay thank you so where we left off was with drafts of the T-ville you now have draft 4.1 and I believe Maddie has printed out hard copies for everyone along with this chart that will tell you what the old section was in the new section this was based on the request that things be regrouped so that it had a more cohesive flow to it obviously you've seen at least one handout today that had a designation for section 25a this afternoon you'll be seeing a bunch of once intersection 20 with little letters afterwards I can renumber at the end so that you've got sort of a normal flow to your section numbers I was planning unless the chair and the committee would like me to do something different to sort of walk through the changes that have happened since version 3.1 I have marked on my version a couple follow-up items that I'll report back to you on and I'll also comment on whether or not it's a section that Maddie has you have already sort of dealt with unless I'm not going to do something else as I asked so I don't know if we're going over that again today I was going to start at section 1 and go from there unless I was told to do something different alright let's think about any of those items on any of these sections we will entertain them I was just going to say Patty did say she wouldn't be able to be back until after lunch and if we did make any motion she would let the folks be all over for her so I'm going to start at section 1 okay where do we find so this is in documents and handouts for the house transportation page Wednesday March 13th 2019 everything I'm going to talk about is now posted under my name so do you have what's on the screen okay it's the very top so section 1 this is the standard language that says we're adopting the whole book except for how we're amending it in the transportation bill because the magic Lenny and his team came in and changed all your pages you're at your joint assembly we are now and they have the stickers on the side saying that they were revised February 21st 2019 I'm adding that in here so everyone's clear on what version of the book you're working off of that revised book has been filed with the Sarah so it will sort of travel with the bill as I always say you've got your transportation bill but whenever you've got the official version I think you need to imagine that the binder is attached to the back of it so it won't change on line 15 section 2 this is a lot of what you were talking about with Lenny yesterday this language is going to change that's why I highlighted it in the green this is very much in flux I know that Lenny and you know I've been working on some language so the hope is that we'll have section 2 for you to look at shortly but this is where you're moving money around to go to town highway A and taking it away from the tall V's I expect this to change quite a bit back to section 1 President are there any concerns, questions or opposition to section 1 I think just giving history for the committee this is one that usually we don't ever even talk about because we talk about the whole bill is to adjust what is in the weight book so this is saying weight book stands except for a lot of change and I was the one that had the heartburn that the weight book wasn't correct and we kept being told that it wasn't correct so I couldn't accept it so this is marvelous because it says it's now the revised edition and now this is what we're taking off of so I hope that everybody's good with section 1 I know lies are in the air is this the kind of section where we would vote on it last because in case there's changes that come up or it actually when we vote it's just sort of acknowledging that I'm bothered voting on it in essence because in the end when we vote the whole bill it's what we vote because all the others change anything we do from section 2 forward changes from section 1 exactly so okay so it's interesting that's when it was fixed that's when we received it correct thank you okay good so let's put a check on that one that's about oh yeah do you have any intention to amending the Tom Howard aid formula to explain exactly how it's supposed to work we've got a small they're just adding sidewalks and he's talking about the public law much like you're doing an essential garage it's not what I would say not before we get the jiggle out we want to get it across I haven't heard anything we want to do that no these presented before was a technical thing is about when you start that formula it wasn't clear the way it was we passed the last year he was saying he wants to make it clear it goes from the previous so I want to clear exactly how it's supposed to work in terms of the CPI in terms of what's included in what's included do you think we ought to do that yes okay please bring it up what section would we do that would we do it anywhere would be logical to do it related to where we're changing the money and we're adding in section 10a which is adding in the sidewalks word so that would be you're already amending 306 which is okay alright there's no line there's no line there's no line that was the only change we talked about but thank you Neal when we get to that section hopefully you'll be with us in a little bit of command why we were so this is in response to the conversation that you had yesterday I had it as a separate handout it's posted in the same place where version 4.1 is it's now up on the screen and this is where you're adding the word sidewalks after bicycle routes but the formula that Neal is talking about is earlier on in 19 BSA section 306 I slotted it in at 10a because that's sort of the end of the we're changing things for this year but we certainly put it in another place in the bill if you think it would glow better okay so I am sorry I didn't mean about section 1 it is posted to the committee page but it's not in the 4.1 version correct until I'm told otherwise I'm going to say this is the handouts so that's why you had a handout for Michelle for the rail creator study and why you're having a handout for the change you made yesterday the second part of this would be a section just like this as proposed which would be program development in which you're reducing T funds by whatever amount you want to do and adding federal funds and that's all you need to do and whoever has it on the floor I would avoid mentioning toll credits all you have to say is that the agency found some lower match requirements to treat up some T funds something we might think we're suggesting patrol roads it's always a nightmare whenever toll credits come up I thought it was a good dream okay so so I'll work with Neil and we'll get you a new language to go with the green language Tim that sounds good what about the I think Wendy said the toll credits were like 834,000 are you still working on we're going to do the 723 you know the formula base we're trying to get some money for the down we want to increase the amount let's try to this Michelle as Tim pointed out yesterday what many found is a little more than we need to stick with the formula on down highways so let's try to do ultimately 800,000 for sidewalks 421 has already been transferred so it's 800 minus 421 it's the downtown fund no so the transfer that went to the downtown transportation of our late capital improvement fund was 423,966 in the big bill so the difference if you want to make the whole pot the 800,000 would be 376,034 okay so Michelle if you need to change because you got extra what are you doing with the transfer to the the agreement with the agency's recommendations on that transfer the transfer of $400,000 to the downtown designated downtown it doesn't even appear in your T-book so what are you talking about now making the 800,000 that's the same pot no, she used the word it's not the same product oh okay that's one pot and we've agreed with the administration on that and also agreeing with the heart association they recommended bringing that number to 800,000 which is exactly what it used to be the committee did not agree with that because some committee members some committee going to designated downtown versus other so we discovered that if we do with the we also want to not hold not withstand not want to not withstand the language the county's language the formula for the CPI increase for the found highway program we talked about the same kind of thing at least the same day we talked about trying to get more money for sidewalks at least get to that 800,000 with what was already been transferred and then another program because you want to use that that first program that transferred to designated downtowns but yet I think a strong majority perhaps everybody did support trying to get some more money for sidewalks and how to do that where to do that and then we talked about why not do it right in town oh because Connie pointed out she has no sidewalks at all in her oldest 90-minute village of Concord I was thinking Concord must so it does you heard that you know I was thinking if you were feeling that you lived but she's got bigger problems than sidewalks and what seemed like a great solution was can a town use some of the town highway money that they get for sidewalks if they choose to and the answer was and she actually thinks they can I think Michelle said she thought they could when making it real clear by putting it in the law and into the list of things that a town can spend on money so I'm just asking Michelle to find the money to get us $700,000 we'll know tomorrow morning are you talking about a town highway going to 1.1 to 700,000? yes I think it was about an explorer going off so you're just increasing the town highway by 1.1 and that gets us what we did last year as well as adding going up to the 800 radically it's different pots what I mean is that some of that money doesn't have to be spent on sidewalks that's right you're right but it's our way of trying to address the issue of the Heart Association brought to us it's just having faith in the fact that our communities municipalities really could best determine how to use those funds for the transit of their it might stay it might have to share we can do this and it goes to everybody I'm not sure if Connie was brought up to speed on our discussion yesterday but I think it's important that she understand that we defended her and you're never here when we did that and it was a very tense situation well it's a you know I think the people that have been on the committee for a while understand the importance of defending your language it was a case of do we really mean it or are we going to just continue to be with stood and I think yesterday we said we really mean it and it's very important that we take a firm stand on this issue because if we don't it'll continue to be with stood infinitely and what happens over in the senate we don't know yet at least we will have taken a position and I think it's harder for the people that work here last year to maybe understand that feeling but I think it's important that Connie understand that we defended her in her absence I think we've all had similar feelings regardless of what can be skewed for Mike I just wanted to say Mr. Chair that I really appreciated your push back against some of the adjectives that were used yesterday especially the word in describing our even considering increasing town highway and kind of defending the role that this committee has in setting priorities that was a tense I think is a diplomatic description of the discussion that we had yesterday so I really appreciate you basically sticking up for the house transportation committee that was a really weird conversation I haven't really seen anything quite like that in the times I think and I want to get credit to Tim for really just drilling down and looking and persisting and I think again I think all of us and this is where we might write in trouble in the senate we are close to our towns and we feel that we're here doing state business but our towns are we're representing our towns and that's what we're here to do in part we're here strong about that that's something we can all agree on too I just want to compound what you said and when we say our towns we think of all of the towns I really have felt we aren't just your advocating we might use our towns as examples but we really do speak to it as all the municipalities that it's that level that we're looking at rather than just where we came from there is that kind of good old French pure representation really that dynamic I probably represent the most urban district in the state and yours sounds like it might be the most beautiful I really want to say I'll probably so people didn't notice why we so yes it might be odd that I don't have a car and a chair this can be but 32% of the households in my district have no urban so we do represent very different districts 30% of what? of the households not just the people but the households in my district have no urban 32% it's actually 31.4 you're lying and that's as of the last census if you guys didn't notice the census bureau has been down to state legislative districts it's incredible and actually I got some other things in there they don't have everything broken down by district but they have a lot a lot of transportation very interesting and in my district it's a necessity to have a car no car it's an awful long walk or bike ride I understand that your husband comes on the bus and say I'm saying jet that's because you got jet to say jet but I think it's great that he does that and I have a lot of friends that talk about it and they don't do it they drive all the way most pleasant to ride the bus or the the bus they have all the equipment I've ridden there once I thought it was great reminded me of being a poor country what we're trying to do is unbelievable efficient and there's no rules about how many people can fit in or on the vehicle attached to my daughter a chicken first time I took her on the bus and got them all I know the figure is incredible okay well, because actually I think we're fine with it and the details while that money all shakes out yes well, actually everybody agrees with what Neil was saying I think that it's going to be a big discussion because that's what we fought for that's Connie's language that's what that is I think it's a tech app and I'm looking at it as more of a technical correction we were just being more specific of what we wanted to do but we won't take them I don't know we need to see the formula yes like when 2B comes out yes yeah because well depending on how much that tree gets shaped for the other 275 so I guess that's a 2B determinant I was expecting that depending on how much money could be found it's possible that both 2A and 2B would come out the additional money for sidewalks would be in section 2 and then Neil and Lenny are going to come up with how to do transfer and that would be 2A if Lenny and the agency of transportation can't find additional money then that's when you would have a conversation about whether or not you would want to pull it through the maintenance part so it's almost a 2B determinant we have to leave them and by the way I did speak to Karen she's quite happy but this is over a year as much money as 460 cabs actually sidewalk I didn't go in not the money but the length the chain okay so section 3 nothing much has changed since version 3.1 except on page 4 the highlighted language you now have it there upon the request or concurrence of the municipality maybe through a motion or resolution adopted by the legislative body and this was so that there's something that the state can point to saying yes they really truly did want to cancel this and then you're also requiring that notice of the cancellation be included in the agency an annual proposed transportation it's a tad more work for the agency but Michelle I believe you guys are in agreement with this well I guess it just feels like more of a paperwork shuffle I think we would given the language and we talked about the soft line after this was presented just doing it like we do it now where we just put it in the book and we defend it it's kind of six one half dozen the other so rather than trying to track down and find all those papers and get them into the book at the right time in the right place I think given the option we'd probably rather just maintain the status quo which is that we would cancel projects and we defend them before you at the time of cancellation section three okay so for the whole section do you want to just take out this well no they were saying that we would overboard out of the dates so it would be all section three and then they would just do the following like they did in sections five and six you guys never did recommend section three at all yeah they did yeah so you're only talking about what are you doing yes that's what you're moving to take out no I'm going to take in section section three okay and just have the status quo because I would want this and they don't want that so so just take it all out because it's too cumbersome on that date they just want the standard process Michelle was nodding her head yes yeah I actually heard the problem yeah I mean we just brought it for us thinking it would simplify things because we're not going to cancel a project that the municipality has requested you know unless a municipality has requested us and I think we've done a discussion about the municipality that the select board approve it we're not going to do it without the select board you want a documentation it's like well just if something comes up we'll just come in and cancel it we don't have to remember and maybe chase down a letter and get it in the right place at the right time bring in the testimony okay there's a motion that section three come out entirely discussion if you were a town clerk what do you think how do you I'm sure I think you should probably customize it first I think that the concern and why we put in this language was that that's well and good but we've accepted projects and you won't know they aren't there and this committee's oversight ends up incomplete and that's why we were saying you can do it without the General Assembly's approval as long as you fill it's in and so if that part is difficult then leave it the way it is and so I would attempt that if it's difficult to figure out how to make sure we're informed then just leave it the way that because right now it works because they need our approval to do it and they still they cancel it I mean basically it gets canceled but it's in the book to let us know it's been canceled so if that's working then leave it and forget all the change but the one thing I did want to ask is there was also a change in to a physical committee with General Assembly's not in session so there was language about when we're not in session that might still be wanted Tim so really the piece that that we argued about is that except that the agency may cancel a municipal project it's like that was the part we were arguing might not fully fit all of our needs but I don't know that we've had any issue with when we're not in session clarifying who gets to hold it's all part of I can have our chair again Michelle or at the end yeah no I would all listen to them I didn't think that was more of a technical point so to provide some clarity I believe in the Michelle to go back to what the original version that was sent over from the agency the only thing they wanted added was online 14 to 15 except that the agency may cancel a municipal project when I was going through this and when the trapping option was going through this there was just some cleanup to make things more consistent and then I believe that's what Michelle just spoke to about them being kind of bad so if you want to maintain the status quo in terms of things like this sort of language being in the T bill for project cancellations but you want to have that consistency with reporting which it sounds like the agency is fine with you would keep everything that you have before you in section 3 now except you would delete online 14 where it says except to the end of the highlighted you would just put the period back after general assembly can you say that one more time so you would put a period at the end of assembly and then get rid of that since it's till it's time to highlight so you would put the period back here this period was always there everything in here that's new language this is new language that the agency wanted and this was what you said okay we're okay with that if yellow we're taking out what they wanted oh okay I understand thank you what are we leaving in section 3 everything else that is there the joint fiscal that sounds perfect that's your motion alright anyone have a question so the motion is to just get rid of section 3 no no the motion is to approve section 3 the south of line 14 up to the period after general assembly after general assembly I wish I could like delete stuff on the screen I don't think technology is very important north of Maddie inside the back yeah Maddie work on it okay let's just do a short hand favor section 4 specific project cancellations there are two of them and nothing has changed about this since with the agency draft section 4 or 5 I've moved to approve okay yeah they're just according to Maddie's notes you've already signed off okay it's good it remains we'll do that I'm sure it's involved okay so section 6 section 7 you heard testimony about this yesterday the comment that I had raised with you last week was I didn't understand why we were not withstanding the acceptance of grant language when in version 3.1 didn't actually say that you were then accepting the grant so we're now making it clear in both section 6 and section 7 that a grant is being accepted in section 6 there's going to be that change on line 7 to make it 20 million not 2 million and then the reason why in section 7 and I think Lenny provided testimony on this yesterday you're actually adding something adding a project is because there is a project to be added whereas for the 20 million grant acceptance there isn't a specific project to be added yet you just want to refresh our memory not withstanding 32 BSA but what are we now withstanding so that's the general language about the process that needs to happen for an agency for an agency to accept a grant and I will bring that up just wondering what we're now withstanding that's part of it it is chapter 5 we're jumping over to the government I believe 19 I'd have to fill it up is the reporting back that the secretary needs to do oh so they don't have to report back to the stuff so this is your acceptance of grants for language so I think we've heard why you need to do this if it was grant because he's got up the language so this is what would normally happen if an agency was trying to accept a grant yeah so Anthea why aren't we saying that when I was standing this morning was for this grant only but why don't I see the grant's number or something about like it's not even the grant except A because there's only that grant to be accepted well that's the answer to Bill Bill is the new federal grant program there's another one in which case you would need to either the agency of transportation would need to follow 32VSA section 5 or at some point in the future you're not giving them blanket authority to go around accepting grants it seems to me we are but it's a 20 million dollar bill grant that they've already been given that grant number is there a grant number that could be the name of that grant that's a particular grant you know what I'm saying Michelle yeah we could find a number or something I think otherwise we're saying you don't need to do this every time you go for no but it's in the amount of 20 million that they've already come for it's a specific grant award you're not saying they can always do grants in the plural sense we certainly can provide more clarity we can certainly put in a specific grant number I would suggest if you're going to do it in section 6 you do the same thing in section 7 as well so that there's clarity there so we would need grant numbers for both of them so section 7 already has an identifier which is the project number in the book and I think the trouble with section 6 is not in the focus so we don't have an identifier so I guess I mean I can give you a grant number I'm not sure if we want to get into the do we want to get into the process of including grant numbers in the bill as well as project numbers or do we just want to include a grant number if a project number is not available in other words do we need two identifiers or just one I think we'll for one go ahead for my comfort level I I'm more concerned that we're saying we'll accept a grant which is a lovely thing to get except it means we will be allocating state monies so I think that that's all met by what this language proposes because it's captain accepting the 20 million which we had a big discussion yesterday about how much commitment from state monies that ends up being and so that's the part for me that matters for the bill and the book next year will obviously once it's in it, it'll have a project number and it'll be in that part I think we should trust our lawyer because we're peeing here I think the way that you're reading the way that section six is drafted is it's a better utilizing investment grant in the amount of 20 million that is the grant it's been identified by its monetary amount however I think if you wanted to sort of have a belt and suspenders approach which we do all the time identify it in a more drill down way you certainly could but if you're going to drill down in section six by saying it's grant award number and then in section seven where you're also saying it's got this project number that exists now I think that there could be a little bit of confusion there when you're adding something somewhere getting back to my question, why are we now withstanding if the governor can accept it why do we need to accept why would they not withstand language from the governor accepting it I think that this would be a question for the agency as to what their normal procedure is well no they do go, I don't know if I really ask we just mean I don't have a problem with it but if the governor can sign off on it why do we need to sign off on it why would we not stand to stand the governor are you too much into that well we're doing this too the second one the 19 PSA 7 that's us we're not withstanding two chapters yeah well we can't be, yeah why are we now withstanding that because we are proving it now so we're not withstanding it what the secretary needs to do I'll pull that one out I guess I just don't understand why we're doing that withstanding I think this would be a question for the agency transportation as to why maybe this grant is different or what they normally do with acceptance of grants and I don't have any sort of institutional knowledge okay I appreciate the courtesy let us know but so what do we normally do for grant acceptance when the legislature is not in session well I mean to know that now withstanding 32 PSA it sounds like the governor has the authority to accept the grant so why is that correct at the end right now so why are we now withstanding your boss may not yeah my first responses were jumping the governor yeah I show if we could have again why you need this but that's just a minor point I would say 6 and 7 or 5 I think you know why yeah let's do something about that so I need marching orders am I okay well you mentioned the word A and I just don't see that word the same as you are I'm saying that word A is my problem because that sounds general like it's not a particular word it's the word the and maybe a date the grant that that grant and I'm happy to add in that language I just need information to fill in the blanks no more marching orders for me right I need marching orders from you because it's your bill and if you're marching orders or you want to change this language I need information from the agency to what goes in there you just said something that I think is really a simple fix and that would really I think from what you're saying that clarity is take out A in both 6 and 7 A to accept the consolidated real infrastructure and to accept the better utilizing investment grant in the amount of I don't think that changes the intent of what it is and I think it does like you say specify that one the army is a useful in your mind the word A I think A coupled with 20 million is clarified by where I would have a concern is if it said to accept better utilizing investment leverage development build grants right or I would also have a concern if it said grants up to but I think that based on the fact that this is a grant for 20 million dollars you don't get grants for exactly 20 million dollars all the time that are filled grants that you have identified it but you can identify it you know in any number of ways by date by its grant application number by its grant award number I see I think that so those are your words yeah I'm not sure it's good enough or just a build grant on 2019 because we already got it something like that I think we got it in 20 I guess it was fiscal year 2019 whatever the date is to say I'll build grant on 2018 for the senator okay okay anything else on those two we know it's about financial alright section 8 okay so this used to be this used to be that a handout that you had that was section 1919 A and 1919 B and this is where you're saying to the agency of transportation okay you can spend less money on central garage this year but we're still going to calculate the formula for the next year as if you had spent the amount you were supposed to do this year it resets the point that the CPI gets figured from yeah and the numbers, the right number were the pages the number came from Neal and he has paid to and the agency of transportation it was I believe this we had alright does anybody have a problem with that okay so section 8 is adopted section 9 no, not quite very close section 9 wherever you've been the one almost 39,000 for this one that was that internal service funding I think it's just an update I think it just there was an paragraph or something yeah I remember there was a mention of it that in the 2020 the authorized spending probably that is the introduction it was just it was an error okay do we have a problem with that okay section 10 that just resets the exactly that was three in any matter a lot of these do I really appreciate your work putting in the group does it float up a lot better than what we were chasing well some of that is just the nature of when you're working as a committee to build everything gets stuck again session you've left so nothing has changed here since the prior version I had as an outstanding question that Maddie had emailed me about on what would happen if section 11 was deleted so by way of just a refresher section 11 is where the agency of transportation is saying we really were supposed to repealed all of one all of little I whereas only part of it was repealed subdivision one where it says repealed so they come in and said delete all the rest of it and they told you about how it is that they're already calculating the formula for public transit funding so currently they are acknowledging that they are not complying with what the statute says and they would like the statute codified law to be silent on public transit funding formula if you take out section 11 you're keeping what is in the green books what is in codified law with the agency of transportation is supposed to be following what they've said they're not following if you keep section 11 in then codified law is silent on this formula and you sort of lead to the executive branch of the government to fill in the details as they've explained to you they're doing we kept section 11 in here sort of a placeholder because you'd ask them to come back with some sort of different proposal for how they were going to calculate public transit funding and I don't think I was here when they came back to talk about that so I don't know what is been provided to you I still have an open agency and I think that also it was like the error in the fact that it wasn't the first part was was done in 2003 so it's not as if it's something that we changed last year and we just didn't catch it and so my understanding on this was we were not going to take the action that's been passed and we were just going to have a deeper conversation again kind of going back to Tim's idea of status quo letting not taking this action until we know what we're replacing it with specifically because this is a very specific formula and it really speaks to populations that have requested public transit Yeah So what was the I know you've actually gone around this a few times but you just say that you shall do this and I guess you're not and I think we are not because our understanding was that in 2003 this event repealed and we never really went back to clarify that the language was rebuilt directly which apparently wasn't so we moved on to the new plan which never was codified in statute at this time and so that's why we're not following statute we came across this error we realized it was in there or you know sticking to having corrected and I had thought the committee was going to ask Barbara to come in the week before last with proposed new language apparently that didn't happen so I guess do you want her to come in with proposed new language? If that's possible let me see what I can do about getting her here either this afternoon or tomorrow morning Great Thank you So she's not using that as an excuse if she's unable to do with us it was pretty extraordinary that she was here this morning I think What is this? Barbara Yeah and I actually I still think maybe we had to I think we could She was fine You were comfortable with just appearing This is 3.1 and that never happened because I mean I think that's what's being said is we've been doing something for 16 years 15 years anyway so just you know let us correct it by modifying what we're doing rather than just removing what we were telling it should be being done Thank you Michelle Alright so perception 12 This is again we've got a bunch to put together 12, 13 and 14 are all on condemnation I have a follow-up question here from a representative point asking me to look into what is required to be filed what's the agency of transportation condemns if it's okay with the committee if we could bring this up after lunch I think just because that was something that she had been interested in and I do have some additional statutory research that I can point to on that 15 is the definition for Pp3 and 16 is the highway work minimum wages I have based on Maddie's notes that these are both things that the committee had signed off on I was 12, 13, 14 well it really only relates to the general concept of the condemnation so I'm sort of walking them together in my mind what I'm going to present back might not even change the language So section 17 this is what you heard testimony on that was the Pp3 and the highway work minimum wages 16 I have that those are sections that the committee had already voted on for Maddie's notes 15 16 So this is the junior operator you support the electronic devices this is what you had copied from the senior operator So this is the piece that had the two operations You're on Woo there we go So I asked two questions on this section yesterday that we're getting responses from Michelle she sent me an email back my two questions were would the increased penalty both financial endpoints deter officers from issuing tickets to junior operators the response was this would not deter our officers as they have discretion to issue a violation or a warning at the roadside the same discretion is used for adult operators so if I could go about that piece then the other question I had was since there is a higher penalty fee or not a higher fee but a higher penalty for school zones if that would change the way that enforcement was done by officers because typically the drivers that are in those areas are junior drivers and they responded with the VSP is a VSP is a data driven is data driven that is Vermont State Police so Vermont State Police is data driven about our enforcement and when data points to areas of concern aka crash data speed data or impaired driving they focus those efforts there and at times that there are areas of concern in school zones the officers understand the hazards associated with using portable electronic devices in school and work zones due to high pedestrian traffic and the probability of serious death or injury if an operator is not vigilant in those areas so once you're sure the schools will not be targeted simply because the penalties have been increased they'll use the data that they've always used so I feel good about both of those questions and I'm happy to my questions have been answered thank you I thought about this last night and my yesterday my head was kind of swirling trying to follow the discussion around this and in my mind there's sort of two areas of statute here there's one that's in our bill that talks about kind of making the same making it clear the same expectations for youth are consistent with what is expected of adults and that's what's in this bill and the discussion got wrapped into what's already in statute around how we treat youthful drivers and that statute was put in place before any of us on this committee had anything to do with it it's been there a long time and then I got thinking about why is it that we treat youth differently than adults and that's an important question that goes to the fundamental discussion yesterday and I thought about that and I thought about insurance and so does young people pay the same insurance rate as middle aged people do and the answer to that is no they don't and so the discussion yesterday would say well maybe that's unfair because they are being treated the same so you ask well why is their insurance rate higher and it's higher because they are a lot more apt to have collisions a lot more apt to violate the law and you know I could make a long list of things like they have no fear they don't listen well you know I could make a long list of those from my experience as a teacher with young people but they are more risky and that's why they pay a greater insurance rate and that's why they are treated differently under statute long to accept by people a long time before us is because they are more risky and we don't want to have them on the road if they committed a violation that indicates they are turning to be more risky we are saying the people previously that said that in statute are saying we are shutting them off and you know it's really not a lot to do with what's here what's here is just making a proportionality to what we expect from adults and we are as a driver and teacher I would be able to say the same thing to kids these are high risk areas we don't want you texting in these areas and the other thing I thought about is kids text a lot now they don't just call on the phone they do texting more than they do calling and that's an added risk and then I'll add one other thing that I've added that I've said many times in the seat belt debate if you catch a kid that's doing texting and they get stopped and they get punished by whatever is in statute here you've done that kid a favor you haven't hurt that kid you've done them a favor because they're not as apt to kill themselves or somebody else and have a lawsuit facing that maybe if they've hurt somebody or killed somebody I would argue you've done them a favor if they change their behavior it's well worth the fine and few points they get if they've changed their the same thing applies to seat belt stop somebody with a seat belt violation you've done them a favor if they change their behavior oh shut up rebuttal Dave, I know what you're saying but you can't separate those two you just can't if you're trying to do it but the actuality you do have a 10 day suspension you have a 90 day suspension I know you're saying it's a different argument but it's not a different argument because we're changing those points and those have direct effects on those kids and the insurance it could be a major headache but we've already punished them by those things that I just mentioned already now in my opinion we're just dropping the hammer on them and I just want to agree with that and when you come up with these stats that these kids are texting I'm not disagreeing but adults are too maybe we should have a 90 day suspension for drivers like us we want to be there maybe we should do that why don't we have 10 why are we special we just sat from the law enforcement that they issued for kids for these points from the insurance people because you know that I can testimony from law enforcement saying that the kids are so out of control texting that we need to increase these we haven't heard it we did it, I went clear and she just heard it in what was responded the state police testified Michelle testified that they're supportive supportive in having facts are two different things two different things I can be supportive of anything and the facts will pack it out I have a look at it when you first get a driver's license is it your own probation when an adult gets a job at the state government is it one year Michelle or half a year is it your own probation so during that six months you do not have job protection and some other you can't use a driver you can't use a junior operator's license in the course of employment it's against the law it's written into law you can't drive a truck on a junior operator's license for a living are we ready to vote on this section why not I don't even have more testimony but why don't we hold it open because I know Patty wants to be a part of the vote it's already after 12 and that really shows how much it is many people are going to I'm going to be working on it it hits your crack it hits your crack it hits your crack it hits your crack it hits your crack it hits your crack we had a left walk in the middle of a discussion on section 17 and I was planning on circling back to the condemnation but it doesn't seem like I was still in the area I have a little update on things that have been posted to the committee page since you adjourned for a watch that be helpful yeah it is if you put it in so you heard testimony from Neil this morning about a possible revision to the town highway aid formula so that is now posted to your committee page nothing is getting into 4.1 until you told me to do 5.1 I'm just going to continue doing these handouts until I fold combine it you should click on the second from the bottom addition on town highway aid version so this is the same language that you saw this morning in 306 AE where you're adding the word and sidewalks but Neil and Lenny have worked on a slight revision up in the top of this section dealing with the formula and it's year over year increase in the two most recently closed fiscal years as opposed to in the previous fiscal year and I think they probably can tell you a lot more about the logistics of that than I will ever do Neil is here expecting somebody thank you this is the thing where if we use the previous one and it's not closed we can't actually make a budget based on that I remember in the past this is a clarification of what we attended last year and it works right Neil yes it gives a solid figure to look at rather than trying to guess we have all the numbers was what we had previous what was the previous language that was actually possible to do technically yes probably not a good practice for us a legislation well then I have to say maybe we heard that last year but we were adamant we didn't care just to be fair okay Dan what did you decide was so this is this would be a revision this would be a new slot in for section 10A I'm not going to talk about there's nothing to update you on when you said inside box you mean the addition of sidelines I thought you were talking about money for sidelines no I just meant those sorts okay because they're still looking for money line 17 and the other thing that's newly posted is a revised central garage formula hold on before we leave this this is not in the central garage section no what are you this would be a new section on town highway this is section 10A okay so is anybody what was the age yeah no I've seen it all before we leave this maybe agree with this any objections or any concern okay so let's check that one would this be like in section 2A or 3A so I'm just saying to make the bill for so the way I have it laid out is you've got the things where you're changing stuff you're telling them you're modifying the transportation program you're adding projects or canceling projects or accepting grants and then I'm having after that the stuff where you're actually starting to modify the statutes or ongoing things so this will be the second of the we're changing stuff going forward it'll come after the formula for central garage so I'm going to put a check next to 10A the next handout will be one about this revised central garage formula this was something you checked off this morning but but Neal and Lenny have also suggested doing that same revision to most recently closed state fiscal years down at line then we see that line 10 it's a one page line 10 I must be on the wrong document if I go back to your document if you go back to the document page it's the third from the bottom revised central garage formula is everybody good with that so that is that's 10 and I should go back to documents and there's one more new thing that's posting since this morning the transit bucket so what after that you have that in? oh okay great you have an entire program criteria it's over lunch alright let's see it that's the fact that they've been doing it for 15 years that's what you've been doing so this was language that the agency provided that I just rearranged a little bit there are some things in here that I have questions about I was given this an hour ago I just had a very little time with it I'd be curious to know what these federal requirements are that they're saying that they need I would be curious to know who can apply for these programs this grant money it says applications may be accepted for regional services I don't know if they're trying to say that multiple municipalities can combine together for projects if it needs to be like a regional authority and then when they're using the criteria this is lines 8 to 12 saying how funds will be distributed I just don't know what a lot of this means and maybe it's something that you do because you've heard more testimony on it but I think that maybe there can be some revisions to this language but you're going from a very very regimented formula to something that's more things that are important to public transit are what we'll consider when we're giving money to public transit projects happy to relinquish my seat to people who know more about funding public transit projects and Barbara's here Barbara so you should go through one of the things that we were hoping to do and the language kept going back and forth in a very short time was refer to subsection 5083 which was the declaration of policy which is where the basic mobility act is for employment congestion mitigation and preserving of air quality economic development projects those are set already in policy in subsection 5083 and what I really want to do is just reference those so if for example the state schools change for public transit we would need to change the funding piece we would just change the policy but right now we just should be funding in a competitive way through a competitive process to meet those goals this is sort of covered by including congestion mitigation to preserve air quality but do you have any problem with adding something about greenhouse gas emissions reductions I guess my suggestion if you were looking for me would be to add that in the objectives 5083 because that in number three actually I I know you guys I was thinking the same thing and I was thinking she would go in that criteria so can we see can we see the one thing I will point out is the lead in language does have to implement the public transportation policy goal set for in sections 5083 so you are already saying the funding is good and now I am going to pull up in 5083 that is what I want to see you make it scroll in this criteria also expanding transit service, rural areas increasing ridership the last point increasing ridership can I add anything to this criteria take your lead in on this frustration I just want to say I don't wonder if potentially the reason the language didn't get stricter this is much more concrete the 52% would go where and that it was more guidance than this is because this is like rainbows you know this long good stuff what was striking is actually the reality of 10% of what is available is going to go here 10% is going to go here I know that we are hearing that that isn't what we have been but I guess I am not sure we have finished the conversation as to we actually want to go back and say we are going to be more concrete that whatever money is available a certain percentage will go somewhere so I think that this is a really big conversation changing this language I don't think it is something we can just toss a few words in and move on because I am not convinced we shouldn't leave the percentages that are standing statute at the moment what we are not doing yeah I mean it hasn't worked and I haven't used it and I do like getting some discretion this is such a super fabulous project I know I have not been into the 10% of the error in the 52% there I guess I am comfortable and you are going to have to come in and like setting up goals and assuming that very so from my understanding from Michelle said earlier the reason you haven't been doing the formula is not necessarily whether or not it was working but because you had believed in him and repealed in 2015 could you 2003 so I am wondering what the discussion was in 2003 that made it repealed I am close here I can't cut it out I can say I remember both two things what was the justification for why you thought it was repealed and then what was the discussion that would have in fact made it for repealed my understanding that it was put into place in 2003 on the basis of a public transit policy plan and it was never there and then in 2015 I had asked for it to be repealed and I had asked for section section one to be repealed but in fact what they ended up repealing was only I so I mean I asked for I I had asked for I to be repealed and they repealed just one which was I think it was just a misunderstanding one of the reasons that I initially asked for I wanted to not be in statute because we weren't doing it so it didn't seem like a good idea to have it in statute if we weren't actually doing it and when we looked at the effect and I have run a formula before so for example if we use 10% of the state of the money to go to the elderly we would actually reduce the amount of the pain right now and if and we did a region too so 10% in this area we may not come anywhere near meeting the needs of the elderly or based on population or the way it falls all the money could go to Jim County and so I've used one of these before every 10 years when the census came out we would rework this and we would need some help doing that because it's complicated depending on how the census is run especially since we don't have all the numbers we need from the census because of the way they do it in a very rural, low population state so if all of a sudden our population shifted from a large percentage over 60 to a large percentage under 17 we wouldn't really have the flexibility to turn around and say we need to do something about this and that's really been my only purpose in not we've had these discussions before where there were shortfalls in certain areas and I think what you said is validated by prayer testimony that we've heard before this committee so I think we just have to trust the office to manage that we can't micromanage it in legislation I don't think so I think we need broad goals and not specific percentages that end up having they might work for a year but another year there's a lot of elderly and disabled people in one part of the state or one transit district and a lot less and there had to be adjustments made who's better capable of doing that than you are who should be assigned to do that other than you make sense to me narrowing down the option with the general goals yeah I had no problem if you're reading the polls on this because I haven't other than I'm not even back to this notion if I'm not changing your interest anyway this is kind of this cute thing I'm staying out constantly but I think I'm not a single example of no other district that's complaining to me that they did not get a grant they forked their shit across me you know because shit didn't count at all you know I don't know what's broken here one of the other factors to consider is if we use a formula like we did there's a lot of kinds of formulas that can be geographic formulas and all kinds you have to justify to the federal transit administration why you're giving them out that way instead of a competitive program they prefer competitive programs some states take competitive to a different level than we do New York, for example sort of throws the elderly disabled money out there and the vehicle disabled and anybody can apply for it so one group might get a fee of one year and not get another one for 20 years and it's not a really coordinated system I like the way we do it for a lot better and we also don't have to justify the other thing about a competitive program is if we did a formula and we had a project for youth in one area it was a terrible project I mean it was really terrible we would have to give them money or if somebody else would have better projects that would actually produce more results in another area we wouldn't have the flexibility to do that well I'm really happy to see the language that we can ask for that just having this stricken and being told it's not how we do it left a gap where it was like okay let's put in statute what we're doing but if we're going to start changing that's the piece that for me is a bigger conversation so I'm good sticking with what's being offered and being able to say this is what we've been doing for 15 years despite what statute said and so let's say we want to be doing that and you know maybe in the next months or so we speak about these words but I don't want to just on the fly here start changing that well I haven't heard of any of them well you guys were offering some words to add to this traditions yeah that's what I'm saying that's changing I don't want to do that you're going to say air pollution so so that's all I'm saying is if we start changing this piece then I think it's often climate is left out and I don't think it's going to have a big impact you know that public transportation can be aggressive yeah some of the additions that I wanted to make for you if you don't increase ridership at least in one of the bus services you're increasing air pollution which is already in there increasing air pollution because an empty bus an empty diesel bus going down the road is too early to air but we'll have empty electric buses and they won't be broken not for that so I think my suggestions are consistent you're also consistent with staying climate going so let's have a show of hands you can do it one at a time show of hands for putting climate could I see the language before going away what I'd like to say is for a conversation to preserve would you like me to spend some time with the two reps who are suggesting language be it email or after you return I actually have something written up for tomorrow morning questions language in 509.15 to actually criteria to be considered or say that it should be consistent with the policy and then as 5083 changes over time the criteria that's considered for the competitive award of money would mirror that without needing to change it in two places so you're going to make changes to 5083 and it sounds like from what Barbara just testified to they drew the language to be included in proposed 5091 I to mirror what they're supposed to be considering under 5083 so if you reference 5083 and 5091 if in the future you add things to 5083 then they would need to take that into consideration of the awarding of money as opposed to duplicating it in some iteration of 5091 so I can work with the agency on that too well we're now also talking about title 24 so I'd like to hear some representation from Fomont League of City intent etc because this is the municipal and county government title so get them to come in and give testimony because I don't know what I'm asking what you're changing and I don't have what you're changing yet so I don't so maybe it could just get to Maddie and Maddie could connect it to the Fomont League of City and Towns I think it's more appropriate to do it for our committee assistant rather than us off wing mailing things we thought it was okay when I did that seeing a person just carrying on I think I asked Maddie to make that contact okay anything else on this thank you Barbara do you want me to do the condemnation stuff are we ready for you guys and there's some people over there yes so thank you we do never out point you the condemnation one would be the short okay I'll do that first okay be real quick on this so this is what we passed over this morning on sections 11 to 14 so that I have a response representable questions and you're actually here well we'll do that you wanted to know what was required in terms of the recording when the agency of transportation is condemning what so I'm going to pull up existing statutes so in this same section on condemnation we're in final 18 506 acknowledges the two different scenarios that you could have when the agency of transportation is trying to acquire land through condemnation one is there's a judgment it goes through the judicial process and the other is the property owner is willing to so 506 a1 right at the top says that within 15 business days the issuance of the judgment of condemnation so that's the one that's going to come from the court or of the preparation of a notice of condemnation and I'll tell you what happens for the preparation of a notice of condemnation the agency shall record and this is in Big A either of those documents along with the description of the property in the land records for the town so something is being recorded it differs depending on how it is that it's being acquired so the judgment language is in 505 505 C so this is what would be included in the judgment and you'll see that it also is including a description of the property authorized to be taken in little C towards the top and then for the instance where there is not a judicial proceeding we are in 503 E and this lays out if an interested person enters into an agreement with the agency what needs to be included in that and then to double up back in 506 the one we looked at originally it still had the language about how you need a description of the property so we're getting a description of the property needed to be in there a couple of times and then when you asked about plots that's the issue that house government operations is taking up with a subdivision thing but the agency is being told and I know Rob White's here the agency is being told in statute the recording is in 506 so 506 is referencing those two things the judgment which is in 505 and the agreement which is in 503 but either way in little A1 within 15 days of either of those things happening the agency needs to record the judgment or the agreement and they need to include those two things and they need to include the description of the property to be taken and I can show you what clerks are required to do if you're curious to we were waiting on this conversation so are there any other concerns in those sections 12, 13 and 14 and 4.5 and there have not been any changes from versions 3.1 okay I think you can check so that's okay hahahaha 17 17 17 why did you wait did you want to wait I don't know I'm going to let's not have that conversation we got people in the room are here for another we're going to put it up on that let Mike do it hahahaha this is Christmas let's get it you guys I'm going to take the receiver well I was going to actually drive so you don't plug the ipad you guys don't have to you guys don't have to yeah my anthic we had to just have the anthia stay because you don't have to see it so I can drive the alright yeah I'm going to surround the ipad so and this has been posted to the community page what's it called I think it's the last one it's ED incentives represents working alright okay so how do you guys manage the testimony okay representative moley brawlerow presenting on this language that we are calling a hybrid it's not an all electric hybrid it's not even a plug-in it's just a hybrid the word frankenstein was used several times we decided to drop that I want to keep hybrid now the witnesses for this came from I was very pleased to get the first draft of the two bill to see the electric vehicle demonstration and looking at it and wanting to really praising the demonstration for taking the lead on this and wanting to do more so I asked we included a higher price and we did the same and we came out with two separate bills so we were communicating about them you say price means higher so it was going to cost more than the administration said it's at 1.5 million so this was a higher a larger investment from the state an appropriation so anyway so that was in and representative McCarthy's bill was h400 and minus 4 h471 and we had a long phone conversation the other day about how we might what parts of each of ours seemed to fit and then we met with anthea and she did a really quick turnaround and this is what we've got so I'll just sort of quickly summarize what we've done and basically in the beginning we need to follow and if you want and the other run through in more detail but I'll just sort of do a quick summary and and so basically there's just a definition of what a leopard being going to plug in hybrid would be and then we took the legislative findings actually I should say this is not only a hybrid of our two bills but it's also a hybrid of the incorporated the governor's bill proposal as well so it's really three three things fit together and we really liked the findings of the in the the additional transportation bill it recommended incentive program talked about it transportation energy was being high talked about the first comprehensive energy plan for five fifty thousand electric vehicles by 2025 talked about how transportation transportation targets will help the economy how much was spent on gasoline in 2015 eight hundred and thirty million most of which goes out of state and if that had been comparable electric vehicles it would have been five hundred million dollars in savings talked about barriers to electrification the most prominent being upfront costs and said that a robust incentive would help to accelerate the program so a little bit more specifics about the purchase and lease public service department with the agency of natural resources and BTRAN will establish a new and used purchase and lease incentive program program will structure EV incentives by income and basically incentives of 2,500 this is the governor's proposal for households with 100 to 140 percent of median household income and additional incentives up to two times for households below that threshold would apply to vehicles now this is where ours differs the governor's recommendation was for vehicles of 35,000 and we raised it to 40,000 based on some prices that we know for example we said the bulk cost about 37,000 dollars we have taken some testimony in committee around the governor's which this very much is much of the same language a number of the vehicles that are coming onto the market that are on the lower end of the base MSRP with higher ranges are just outside that 35,000 limit and we looked at the limits of other states that have EV incentive programs and a lot of their limits are 50,000 so we thought the 40,000 would be a compromise that would include some of those low fully battery electric vehicles that are have the longer ranges like the bulk EV is where it was just outside that 35,000 cap so that's why Molly and I are suggesting the 40,000 from the program run until the funds are fully allocated be funded on a first come first serve basis would include possibly a level two home charger if the utilities are willing to do that subject to utility rate design and the utility shall help market the program public service department may retain consultant for marketing program development up to 75,000 dollars for that and it will be annually run public service department then next section we did all like section 20 and this is section 20C legislative support we want to make clear that we believe that we have like to be able to pay into the transportation fund we know that gasoline we have not been meeting all the needs that we have with gasoline and just wanted to make that clear consistent with the joint filing of agency of e-trans agency natural resources department public service with the PUC on January 9 they said that a mechanism should be charged to owners of the per kilowatt hour fee for AV charging and he phased in over time as adoption increases so at one point that would be it's not specified so the highlighted piece what is that is that what you changed? I just talked about the top piece okay but that you did change so in general the highlighting is a change from either any of the three that represented the effort pulled from so the legislative support section was talking about in 471 it was not in section 20 of the T-ville proposal and then this is still part of that the department of public service is in section 20d in consultation with EOT and the general fiscal officer complete a study issue report to the transportation committees before November 1, 2019 regarding steps to implement per kilowatt hour electric utility transportation fees based on vehicle charging along with the feasibility of using incremental revenue oh this is your section that's what happens when working at hybrid this is this is for Mike to talk about so 8400 which was the bill that I got up on the wall was basically the governor's program with the idea of implementing a mechanism that would acknowledge what we heard from deputy commissioner Alan in his testimony where there's the conversations going on right now about the what's the future of the addition of our transportation energy sector and that when we have more EVs on the road where the utilities become much more part of our transportation policy and what Bill initially was suggesting was that we go ahead and try to have a conversation about that and it is very clear to everyone that this Friday the public utility commission has a single workshop to talk about the feasibility of per kilowatt hour measurement of how much EV charging is going on how the utilities will measure the difference between EV charging and other electricity usage and so what we're proposing in our hybrid bill is a study that would allow us to come back and have a conversation next year with more information about the cost and feasibility of the utility equipment needed to actually do the gearing so what is it going to cost the utilities what does that actually look like and understanding of the economics of this transformation that we're talking about helping to facilitate with this pilot EV incentive program and what would it take in C to if the state were to make an investment in a further investment beyond this initial pilot in more electric vehicle incentives in the coming couple of years to try to get us to that comprehensive energy plane number so far away from now what would be the feasibility of using the incremental revenue or the establishment of per kilowatt hour fees or some combination of those in partnership with the utilities to fund the EV incentives in the transformation to help more demanders get these affordable vehicles that help us accomplish our current goals this is a study that we're asking DPS and the agency of transportation and partnership with GFO to collaborate on to give us the information we would need to really help to further understand what investments if any it would be possible feasible and what it would take to really move this pilot into something bigger for the next few years so that we can help to make this transition more affordable and cleaner vehicles Moving on to the next section in addition to the point of sale incentive there is also a section of purchase and use tax exemption and the tax exemption is proposed to be on the first $30,000 of the purchase price and basically the language doesn't tax should not apply to the first $30,000 of the cost of an EV plug-in electric hybrid and the statutory purpose is to improve the purpose and use of EVs and plug-in electric then there is a way that the should be tracked the DMV and the tax department shall establish a way to track the number of vehicles and exemptions during calendar year 2020 so this would be for the calendar year 2020 so they would be posted on the DMV website in two weeks and this would be repealed and also to along with the tracking in order to make the transportation control the cost of it was based on a cost of 1500 electric vehicles at a purchase price of paying being exempted 6% on a purchase price of $30,000 came to $2.7 million so the portion of that is $1,800,000 $800,900 from the general fund so this is general fund money go to the T fund and of that up to $899,000 sorry in addition $899,100 we go from the general fund to the Ed fund to make those funds hold and it would go on a quarterly basis in order to offset the loss of our vehicle sales and use tax revenues so I think all this money is proposed to come out of money for the incentive and for the tax exemption is proposed to come out of the general fund which is why we asked for the $4.5 million or that was my thinking we know that we don't know what we're going to get from that fund but that's not in our hands what happens there I would just say that we've had a great conversation with Neil he's done some analysis of what a purchase and use exemption would be and we asked him to consider the change in consumer behavior and how the higher sticker purchase price of the purchase and use tax is being applied to on electric vehicles is before the tax credits that are coming on the third side and incentives that that might be applied here and also doesn't factor in the lower operating cost of an EV so it could be that folks comparing a comparable internal combustion engine vehicle and electric vehicle would be opting to pay much more than that base of $30,000 and so we'd still be collecting a large portion of the purchase and use tax revenue for those motor vehicle purchases on EVs even with an exemption on the first $30,000 so that the couple of million dollars that would be foregoing if we assumed that we were losing all of the purchase and use tax revenue from those EV purchases because people would be buying ICP vehicles doesn't really factor in the difference in price that we're trying to address with these incentive programs so there's I actually don't think that the impacts of having a purchase and use tax exemption for EVs would be as big as just assuming that we're losing all the purchase and use tax revenue because we're trying with these incentive programs to drive consumer purchase that's buying a Model Tesla on our $25,000 price should they be exempt from the first $30,000 aren't they in the position if they're buying those higher end cars I guess we're done that's a great conversation I want to say also that if you remember seeing that you're coming here to talk about including regular hub grids in our program and really agree with our idea isn't it even better to just get people out of higher consuming vehicles into better gas mileage vehicles and it just got very complicated with everything we were trying to do and my feeling is we need to start the program somewhere with Mike's language and maybe possibly the state of Newson was attending that transportation climate initiative which would be a source of funding so I think that this is a program that needs to go forward we've got a goal of $50,000 in electric vehicles but I don't know what we've got can't just do a little public project whether this is going to be a good profit so I would want to include that but we also had a conversation with Sue just after lunch we had a program looking at our other funds in other ways so she's having discussions about how to fund some kind of program for her clients at Capstone Community Action so that made me feel good that she was sort of pursuing a parallel track in order to try to get our lower mileage more gas gasoline using user vehicles into the hands of other companies Timmy's point I have to agree years ago we used to have a cap on the use tax years ago after a certain after a certain value or a certain tax level and it was considered quite aggressive and we're actually talking about tax which is not terribly progressive so we're actually kind of talking about the reverse of that of saying if you're purchasing the less expensive vehicle the proportional meaningfulness of that is much bigger but I think the policy goal that Representative Burke and I have in mind here is trying to drive consumer behavior to meet our comprehensive energy plan goals and to electrify our transportation energy sector and so there's the two pieces the incentive piece where we're actually giving people some money off is income sensitized and we qualify under these parameters and I'll consider myself a very rich person but I made too much money to get back past point of sale incentive as this is structured but the to just rebut Representative Corcoran's comment the comparable ICE vehicle to the 120th of the internal combustion engine, a regular gas powered car the comparable gas powered car to the $120,000 Tesla really is like a $60,000 I don't know Cadillac it's such a big gap because of the batteries that go in there is that's what's driving the difference in price and what we're trying to do we should be given an exemption if they can afford it they can afford it so maybe something we should consider then is applying that same MSRP cap to the yeah we sort of didn't discuss that we got bogged down there I think that's a discussion that's where it happened for sure so Molly the only change I noted from what I was proposing but can you tell us what the other change is the purchase and use exemption and initially there were numbers there was a for 1,500 vehicles and there was a number of of the tooth initially my proposal had $2,000 for sale incentive for 1,000 vehicles and we decided to go with the governor's higher number of 2,500 and it was going to be you were going to by the fact that you had an EBT car or you were going to receive some kind of state services like three squares or heat subsidy or whatever but we decided to go with the 2,500 for sale incentive for 100% and above to about 240% of median household income and up to twice that amount of incentive for lower than 100% because that captured more lower income people that sounds like the administration's proposal I was saying we together said why don't we just stick with the governor's proposal and then make the tweet on the base MSRP number is really the only change we made to that and then the other change we made was we looked at page 4 number 4 is that the program would run until the available funds are fully obligated because we know that there's some question as to how much funding and so there was a specific dollar amount on the governor's proposal we as a committee asked for more money in our number to house appropriations and so that this language would kind of jive with all that and it helped us push us a little bit and the transfer of the 1.8 and that's coupled with the purchase and use incentive so we were just talking about I was just talking about the point of sale incentive the purchase and use exception I just want to say in conclusion there was state policy to move towards electrification that's been the governor's policy we know that can save people quite a bit of money and I think John is going to address that issue and we need to meet our climate goals and we need to do our part in terms of our missions have been going up this is one strategy of several or a number that were in the governor's climate action commission report and I think it's a very it's not a frivolous kind of thing oh we just want to help people get into electric vehicles just don't really need to drive and all that I think it's a really serious thing and I feel it merits looking into this policy I'm wondering if I misunderstood the purchase and use tax extension here because I saw the figure it looked like about 6% of $36,000 which is $1,800 so $1,200 and initially it was going to be used for 1,500 vehicles which came to 2.7 that was the cost so I think that was what that figure is so it can't be if you look at the very complicated effective data section which is at the very end it's usually an easy section it is not an easy section here if you look at section D along with page 13 into page 14 you'll see that the sales tax exemption so that's saying that the first $30,000 of the vehicle are not taxed that that will run for either two years or until 1,500 vehicles have been purchased and it's the one that comes sooner so the tax extension will only exist for 1,500 vehicles and if you assume that every single one of those vehicles is more than $30,000 it's $1,800 so 6% of $30,000 that's lost in tax revenue taken in for each vehicle yeah so I think what you're doing is you're saying up to that number that purchase is there's no tax right so if you buy $120,000 Tesla Model X with all the bells and whistles you would pay tax on 90,000 you just get it left I'm saying I'm thinking pay tax on all they shouldn't get the 30,000 on the other hand if you were going to buy if that was going to prevent you that $90,000 6% of that $90,000 to the fund I'm just I mean I'm not averse to your suggestion of tapping it but I'm just sort of saying they would be paying who knows what subsidy whether that or the purchase yeah I still agree with you so I think the difference in the way that I look at it is not that I want to do a giveaway to anybody who's got means but if we have a consumer that does have means and they step up to the car dealership and they could buy an internal combustion engine vehicle and they're going to pay purchase and use tax on the luxury SUV that same kind of vehicle if it has full battery capability and qualify for this exemption it's going to cost a lot more like you're foregoing that revenue by encouraging them to buy I understand that's not going to be the deciding factor if you had that money if you're getting the 16 or whatever the break might be but I think you know if you look at the other part of the the incentive part of it is meant to address you know people who are at 100% or up to 140% of the gasoline products would be raising the gap from 35 to 40,000 cars just discussing the purchase 1800 the other changes things that are different we just talked about the point of the single incentives that we raised the gap on the price and that is insensitive that stops when the funds that are available for it have been fully obligated so it doesn't have like it doesn't say 1.5 million anymore and it doesn't have the 4.5 million it was in my bill in the version of the electric vehicle incentive program that was proposed by the administration it said it would run for two years or until the funds are fully obligated so run for two years from the date the PSD makes the first incentive payment available or until the available funds are fully obligated so since it's a bit more amorphous how much money might be going to this program it just says it's until the funds are fully obligated so let's say that you get your full ass you get your 4.5 million and after two years only 2 million dollars in incentives have been used under the governor's proposal the incentive program would end at two years even though there's still 2.5 million dollars that was supposed to go to electric vehicle incentives it's just saying the money amount drives it it also addresses what representative McCarthy is trying to do with the study of looking for ways to have the program maybe fund itself in the future so if for example you got more money for this program in the next session it could continue without needing to have it no the governor's bill says it will run for two years from the date the PSD makes the first incentive payment available or until the available funds are fully obligated this is actually a compromise with what I proposed in my bill which was we should figure out a way to fund the incentive until we've hit that 15% of the fleet threshold of about $50,000 so what the proposal, the hybrid proposal that we're talking about right now just says the point of sale incentive runs until the funds are fully obligated and then I just have a few more changes I was just going to basically say the other there's a whole section here with that study in it that's different but if you're looking at changes to what's in the T-bill currently you're also, and this is on page 3 of your handout and it's highlighted it's the area that applies to both electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as you're defining them and as we've talked about a lot there is no definition section on electric vehicles or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in codified law right now so that's something else that the handout does that the T-bill doesn't do it's giving it a name the electric vehicle incentive program we keep on calling it that I stuck it in there I wanted to highlight something it's a good ad that on the very first page lines 5, 4 through 11 actually give that definition and I think that's critical and that is not in 4.1 it was in 4.71 but it's not in 4.1 some of the represented perks our perks aren't identified in the yellow so that's confusing because I thought we were comparing this to 4.1 so at the top it says it changes from any of the three I certainly can redo this that has it's fine I just wanted that that is a change and I think it's good to keep to pull that over those definitions if you're looking at the different components that comprise the hybrid version it's drawing the incentive program and legislative findings with a few small modifications from the T-bill the administration's version it's drawing the study and the report from Representative McCarthy's bill with some revisions and then it's drawing the legislative support and the tax from Representative Burke's bill along with the definition section so very little is new it's just been pulled from these three different locations so what is 100 to 140 percent median household income depending on which data site you use it's about in the mid 50s to the mid 70,000 100 percent yeah so 100 percent is in the mid 50s okay so that's what I'm trying to get at with somebody who's earning $15,000 purchase a vehicle that's right keep going to your Chevy Bull TV which seems to be the car that most people are purchasing in Vermont which is a $37,000 price tag even if we give them $2,500 will they be able to afford a car would they purchase a car that's my question is an incentive program that we're giving to low income people actually going to be used because they can't afford a car anyway part of why this implies to use vehicles as well so I would imagine that there are people especially given how attracted the leases are on cars like the Bull TV that are in that kind of income range that would go and lease a new vehicle like that and we took testimony before that the vast majority of folks are leasing these vehicles but on the use side you can get a bolt the bolt or you can get I've seen pricing on Nissan leaps from a few years back especially after there was that little bump of them here with the incentive program some of those are coming on to the secondary used market now at prices that are in the low teens so I imagine somebody who we advertise this program we explain how much cheaper it is to drive we're doing all the promotion we do with Drive Electric and the other things that we do promoting these anyways oh man this is a car that costs one third to operate I can get maybe $50,000 a year I can get a $2,500 or $3,000 or something also some federal incentives I think are still offered for certain models $7,500 that's just my point and I'm glad to see that but I'm going to go back one more time plus there's an hybrid electric which has an onboard engine could that be a power and onboard engine exactly also don't forget the facilities are cheaper it depends it depends on the model there's a wide so she was talking about what we do not include so what we intentionally after lunch discussion left out which are the fully gasoline cars that have an onboard battery which we all refer to as hybrids but the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle is primarily driven by an electric motor and then we'll often have an onboard gasoline generator that powers the electric to allow you to have extended range the other thing we consider is the addition to the $2,500 incentive is the 6% risk for the emergency how much is the whole charger I might ask so that depends so you can get a dummy charger installed I know that we put dual ports in it at work where we already have the lines run out for about $350 it doesn't have any kind of way of meter the amount of electricity it's just a safe the plug that goes into your car connected to your electricity so they get more expensive to install and service and I believe there's a representative in the room from Fremont Power who has a pretty robust incentive program that's referenced here that might be able to speak to that I have a follow-up question if we try to charge people by a kilowatt hour in order to put money into our key fund how are we going to do that some kind of measuring system how the question is the hot question right now and that's why I got off of my idea which is in my original bill of trying to say we really should be thinking about revenue and driving our incentive program and thinking beyond this little pilot right now to going really we need to study this and collect more information so that we can go back next year or maybe the following year after the Utilities and Public Utility Commission and a number of other stakeholders they're right now on Friday the Public Utility Commission has a big workshop that I believe Anthony is going to attend talk about that very thin and that is like the hot question is how if we all agree on the concept that we need to be measuring this and that's probably the most logical way of collecting the equivalent of what we do with gas tax now on a 10 per gallon basis we don't really know what is it cost to do that for the Utilities what kind of changes in equipment and experience are going to be there because I was even speaking with a representative from one of the Utilities at our meeting a couple hours ago and they said this was just going to be easy but we could do it with the existing infrastructure we have and it turns out from a technical perspective it's a little trickier so the language I have here on study is to help us come back next year and understand the answer to that question you know because I think I heard you say or somebody over there that 80% of the charging is going to be done at home so we better figure a way to keep the transportation funding transportation funding yeah that's how to deal with this we are going to go back to the tax exemption of up to 30,000 is that open ended or are we going to sunset that it says after the 1800 vehicles oh so it's tied with that 4.5 so we can get it out if it's suspended well it's tied to 1800 vehicles and there is a repeal section in the middle so would you be open to tying it to the 4.5 million and tying it to one's income of 50,000 just tying it all together once that program goes and the money is gone the tax exemption got them and then you don't have to worry about somebody making a million bucks by a $100 car that's getting purchased the tax exemption how like we're tensed big so we know there's the three levels of charging level one is in the helmet that's the only area that's actually a problem but I don't think it's so difficult to solve level two would be a dedicated circuit that could be needed and level three the problem there is the man chargers a couple of utilities from the man chargers at the time of day because interestingly Barbara has suggested that they're subsidizing magic cars actually most of the magic cars are subsidizing the grid let's have something else because they're charged during off peak hours and they're paying because they don't have time but well a couple utilities have time of day but for those that don't they're charging the same per kilowatt hour in the middle of the night as they are during peak hours so a person charging the 10 to charge or a night the slow charge that's going to use the car at night in the middle of the night and they're actually paying more per kilowatt hour for that charging than they would be if we had 10 kilowatts Barbara? I think that if you'd switch we're being told that Becca has a special program with her electric that she pays a very low flat compared to what she paid so I don't think that's great so she's it's a pilot there are only about 160 people participating in that and there are about 3000 vehicles so I think the whole landscape and the reason I'm really driving toward us trying to get as legislators a real understanding of what the future is is that there are these great innovative programs that the utilities are doing in pieces but the vast majority of people who are charging are just paying the rate of the rates today but there are some really there are these chunks of incentive programs and right now BED has one JPS another, one electric co-op is doing a different thing and they're all great and I think that's one of my policy that was driving toward our goals that was understandable to us as policy makers that would be the gold standard to me and I think right now we don't quite have the information but we're all seeing what's coming and I think the questions that Representative Berke you've raised throughout this EV discussion about fairness are really important questions that Representative Berke and I would like to say we know we need to have the fair payment of the use of the roads for EVs as we make this transition and can we couple that and so there's one, there's a comprehensive and positive and it all makes sense and holds together I don't know anyone, I don't know exactly what she's paying she would be very surprised in the cost of utility of off-peak power versus on-peak power but also you pay less when you're using an on-peak across the internet the utility is generally paying more than you are and paying less than you are during the off-peak because then how will they rate the utilities payment really hot day when you can go to the skyrocket and most utilities don't have electricity no, I'm not you left the industry but I would I would venture to say not knowing exactly what she's paying that she's charging at night and you have to if you're doing it right Berke? I can't do it well I can't do it during an event okay I mean an event would be a high use potentially but at least someday we'll see so I can't charge during an event but yeah it's true I may have muddied the waters a little bit by bringing up the specific program that I use but from my understanding the pilot program is in part to test out whether or not it is a feasible program I do think that we're going to see as Mike really well put it programs that do incentivize on the utility level that kind of lower cost charging but I do think we have to be really considerative we don't want it to be the concept of I'm paying less as an EV owner when ultimately the cost will be more by the rate payers when we're saying it's the exact opposite I think with a lot of these programs I'm really clarifying because it's not I mean fairness is always important but as my mother told me once upon a time as the youngest child that's not really the part that I can't do most about we're not going to have roads to drive on if we don't figure out how to pay for the roads and already the gas tax is not doing what we have expected in the past to do for us so I'm more concerned about how are we going to pay for our infrastructure as a collective, as people who drive vehicles I don't care what your vehicle is that's why that's why we put that section in the middle to say there's an intention to make a fair and we know and this is an opportunity perhaps we can really electrify and pay for the roads from the electrification beyond that it's saying that might not be even how we fund we need to not just eliminate other thoughts of how we might be able to travel I don't think anybody is making any assumptions about we're going to do it this way I think the intention was just to say in the process we want to make sure that this is not just a free ride to other vehicles I didn't see you sitting over there in the corner I was looking for you do you have any idea of how older people are charging other cars now I don't know how many are on a special a utility I don't know the answer to that Do you have another other? Did we ask Robert's office of GMP to go in? I don't think so so we have Are you guys finished with Oh yeah, we presented So did you want Robert to talk about it? Well I think Yeah, I guess for this It's hard sometimes to think of a sideline to not be able to jump in So to answer your question for all the customers I don't have a total number of customers who have EVs in GMP territory but I do know the 160 that are on our fixed rate but that was something we tried to see if that would help we learned we thought that pretty much would cover the cost of electricity based on the research that was done and how much juices we expected people actually are charging more than we thought so we discontinued the program and the people who are on it will live out the contract but the only customers we know what their kilowatt hour usage is are the ones that are on that rate and how we get that data it actually takes at three people in three different departments very manual work the first step is actually going out to three different sites to collect that data I don't know what sites it's going to but that's where it goes to get that data takes it puts it into a spreadsheet which then goes to IT what lifts it into our billing system it goes through quality control and ultimately goes to our billing department to be built to the customer the three people, the eight or ten steps to actually get it there so getting the data per kilowatt hour charged they're the only ones we can do it on because they have Wi-Fi and we have this program beyond that we don't know who's charging how they're charging level one, I was pointing out you can plug it anywhere level two though level two installed but there's no way of the utility knowing that you've put in a charger, an electric vehicle charger versus a we named the appliance so there's no way of us doing that the only way we know that is by participating in a particular program that we have where we need to access that data in order to do your billing correctly but that's a hundred and sixty out of probably thousands of people out of EVs in our territory so we have a ways to go for sure I like your thinking and we really do need to think more broadly because it's going to take some time I think before we can actually do the kilowatt hour charge we could do it on third party electric chargers that are out there they're going to be neater so that's going to be easy anyone who participates in one of the utility programs one of the things I want to be careful of is not to penalize them in a sense and tax them because they're participating in something while others who aren't participating are being taxed so there's those considerations as well right, Robert something I wanted to ask you to came up with is that we have heard a lot about from Dan Dutcher from Riley Allen about rate setting kind of conversations that are going around what's a future look like where we've got more EVs and a lot of good news and then at the same time we're hearing from folks from car dealers to folks who are a gyroelectric Vermont about how the real barrier to entry isn't the cost of the electricity even at normal rates it's still significantly less expensive so I'm wondering you know, if we as policy makers were to make a choice between the kind of clean sailing setting versus trying to incentivize things to rate setting after the limited experience you all have had with the pilot it seemed like one of the sailors had are we in the right ballpark? Yeah, but there's two objectives here so the one is how do you raise revenue for transportation and the other is how to get more EVs over so you have the research PACS report that shows that two to one the barrier to adoption is across on LEAF the dealership in South Wellington for selling three to one to 40 right, so it is about price so you're definitely on the right track with providing incentives for by the way I do like raising it to 40,000 around 35 because I'm just at the ball and I do agree in terms of low income folks you know, my father drove a Nova with broken windows in the back and that's the best we can do 10,000 dollar car, and that was so so how do we make this more available to lower income and I think opening the field to allow for high rates and using it as well and use meaning like three years old this still looks significant like that's a direction I think we should go on so I like that you're doing that and G&P has also been so all the utilities are very much engaged and this is one of the brilliance of this legislature around renewable energy standards, right the tier three you may have heard so the brilliance of that is you have the electric utilities now involved in trying to solve this problem and we're learning, right so this is still pretty nice for all of us we're learning, so you're going to see new rates, you're going to see new incentives coming out, so all of that is presently happening and probably this weekend you're going to hear about music that's happening and it's just waiting on the bill and we're all in that place trying to promote to help the state meet its carbon reduction goals that's part of the REZ requirement in the energy standard but also how do we bring in new revenues into the utilities that have been losing sales because of efficiency because of other issues so in order to help keep rates down so overall the state is helping from a great perspective so it's that balance that we're trying to achieve and REZ is there to help utilities do that reduce carbon, reduce costs promote these technologies so we're all on board and the beauty of all this is that we're all in the same direction we have some different ideas and we can't just put it overall we're headed in the same path and new and exciting things are going to be coming out of the utilities I'm sure and in terms of the team so I did have some suggested changes is that something that I just give them to you and then what we're going to talk about or is that a new day from this language from the last few pages regarding the utilities and we actually haven't made any changes from the administration I would tell you that Rara and Andrew Cohen that representative and I know that I made some suggestions from the by the PUC to that jurisdiction language that's in the future section and I don't think that we signed off on the PUC language because we haven't gotten that far yet in our T-bill so I'm wondering maybe if they send that into us if we could consider it tomorrow or Friday that sounds really strange my understanding was that it was tweaked and the PUC was okay with it and the PUC had sent us the original language the administration had signed off on it and tweaked anyway so hopefully everybody's on board with that so remember anyone that we haven't had this build out of here I'll send them right I have copies of what that was changing and I'm happy to come back okay thank you Rara and if you want to have our John I'm John Cobans I work as the program director for the Climate Economy Model Community Program in Malibu but more importantly for the Vermont Council on Rural Development in light of what your chair just mentioned which is your deadline to get the T-bill out I'm really sensitive to the demands that you all are under here so I don't want to take a ton of your time but I just for the Vermont Council on Rural Development and in particular we convene a group that's called the Climate Economy Actions it's business leaders and organizations around the state who really see a nexus between Vermont's ability to be a leader in tackling climate and Vermont's economic prosperity in other words what we have right now is a global competition about the models to build strong economies that are also carbon free economies the decoupling of economic health from how much fossil fuels were burning and for Vermont, I mean this conversation that you were just having with your utility partners about all of we are right now a Petri dish we're a laboratory for some of these things the fact that Burlington Electric Department has just unveiled a new special charging rate for electric vehicles the fact that Green Mountain Power piloted a program where you paid $30 a month as a set fee for electric vehicle charging those are literally pioneering efforts not just here in Vermont but nationally and internationally and what it means is that Vermont actually stands to really benefit because people see us as a leader in this space it makes us more attractive to people moving to the state it makes us more attractive for businesses thinking about locating in the state and so I just to me that conversation highlights part of what the mission of the climate economy action team is which is really to sort of leverage all of the assets we have here as a state and to capitalize on that to grow our economy and our rural development we are particularly focused on rural economics you all so many of you represent small towns and to be clear what we experience in our community based work is that our small towns are searching for the next economic opportunity they're struggling they're thinking about their downtowns they're thinking about the demographic challenges and what is their path towards ongoing economic vitality and why on earth am I talking about that when we're talking about electric vehicle incentives because we see those things really closely there the findings that you have in the language actually provided by the administration does a nice job of articulating that some 830 million dollars we're spending on a statewide basis to basically fill up the tanks of our cars and here's the thing about that 830 million dollars a disproportionate disproportionate amount of that money is really being paid by the rural Vermonters because they have to drive more to get to the grocery store to get to school, to get to the doctor's office and to get to work ironically that is the constituency that stands to benefit most financially from this move to electrification there's a actually I shared it, it's a handout that's available a recent Union of Concerned Scientists study that looks at the rural the impact of vehicle electrification on rural Americans and what that shows is that for somebody living in a rural area the potential annual savings from going to an electric vehicle versus a gas vehicle is about 870 dollars and by the way that assumes per kilowatt hour electric rate of about 14 cents which isn't too far off from Great Mountain Power's electric rates but here's the exciting thing when you look at the future Burlington Electric Department program future GNP program we're actually able to deliver much more competitive electric rates for any electric vehicle owner who agrees to charge at off peak times that is a really powerful part of this whole endeavor and as Mr. Dostos just talked about what you see for our electric utilities is actually their kilowatt hour sales holds flat or has been diminishing but yet they have the responsibility to maintain this massive infrastructure that we have for all those poles and wires and substations so the fewer kilowatt hours you have traveling over that means we all have to pay more for those kilowatt hours our rates go up in that circumstance the more that we are able to move our transportation energy needs onto that electric grid but here's the key part of it is to do it smartly so what we don't want to do is we're charging onto the grid at a peak moment because then you actually have to expand the infrastructure to support that EV charging you want to do it in a smart way so that you're training your customers and building a system such that they know they charge all the night when you're at a low demand point because there's literally no demand on our electric infrastructure and in fact what we're doing is we're using our electric infrastructure to pay out those expenses across more Vermonters so weirdly and it's counterintuitive that actually means somebody who doesn't own the electric vehicle actually realizes some benefit from that person who does buy an electric vehicle and by the way we're not even talking about the air quality benefits of that choice and the climate benefits of that choice for the Vermont Council on Rural Development this really comes down to an economic an economic calculation for the state of Vermont how do we position ourselves as a leader within this realm of electrification and I guess in conclusion the piece that I really appreciate about what Representative Burke and Representative McCarthy have brought forward is that there's really two elements to it and I think this is important one is really targeted to low and sort of middle income Vermonters because frankly as you highlight if you're in that $50,000 a year household income that bull at $37,000 that's a stretch and so especially if you're low income in that under 100% it makes sense to do an incentive of $5,000 because maybe you're going to need that for that low income Vermonter but at the same time we also think there is value in having a universal tax credit or tax waiver for all new use EV and plug-in EV purchases in the state of Vermont and there's two reasons for that part of it's what we've talked about here you all have talked about which is the value in that point of sale incentive in changing consumer behavior but also I would I think there is real power in simplicity there is a clear market signal coming from the state of Vermont so that waiver of that purchase and use tax that applies to all new and used EV purchases to me has a real value both from a messaging standpoint so that Vermonters hear that signal from the state of Vermont but it also has power from a branding standpoint for Vermont as we look to capitalize on this transition I guess the final point that I would make is that as folks know agency of commerce and community development just had a grant round for EV charging infrastructure it was using VW settlement dollars they had $400,000 that they put into that grant program and they had $1.6 million worth of applications for that $400,000 and those applications came from over 45 different entities around the state of Vermont applying for that money only 9 of those were successful I tell you that because what I experience in my work is that Vermonters are actually hungry for this transition you have Vermont communities all over the state actually hosting EV information events because weirdly right now car dealers are not doing a great job of selling EVs the best people to sell EVs are EV owners so literally you have communities around the state hosting events where they bring in electric vehicle owners in their cars to connect with people who are just curious and that conversation what we find is that conversation is really effective in changing people's thinking and I guess to leave you with I think by creating an incentive like this to give Vermonters another tool to take part in a transition that what I'm sensing is they're really actually hungry to take part in so you would have towns touting that and I think there is some real value I guess so that's my very quick explanation for why we're really supportive of these incentives and really supportive of that two pronged approach which is a targeted program for low income Vermonters but also the value of having the waiver of the purchase induced tax such that all EVs see some of that Dave? Yeah you said nine EV charger builders took 400,000 how many charging sites are individual charging outlets that those nine people built? I don't I would say a few of those went to what are called level three chargers and as we've talked about a level three charger can almost fill up their vehicle in about 30 to 45 minutes whereas a level two charger it takes 68 hours let's say but level three chargers are much more expensive than your unit but there's some value particularly from a transportation corridor standpoint in having good accessibility to those level three chargers on the other hand we also see real value for our small downtowns in having level two chargers because there is a value in attracting people EVs into downtowns they plug in their vehicle they do their shopping so how are these people getting paid? are they independent people or were they government people that got the 400,000 anybody was eligible for that program Dan can speak a little more specifically so I think there was private entities there was definitely public entities as well there was institutions, towns were applicants they were building a new parking garage in Montpelier I think that was a candidate that was successful so it's a mix of public and private you mentioned the value of the incentives and we heard from the product manufacturers of a an interesting case which I think says a lot State of Georgia do you know what it is? I don't know they had an incentive of $5,000 I don't know about was it income incentive program what I read is it was simply by a vehicle there was low and then no admission and it was $2,500 that's right and they when they were doing that they were number two in the country second behind California and then they dropped and the sales got to making a state about midway $2,500 do you know what any other is? you know I I I'm not one who has sort of that sense of what the national landscape is a great resource on that is either drive electric you've had Jennifer Laws brother in here from the USC but also Nescom folks may remember Elena Grady who worked as the air quality and climate division chief she heads up Nescom which is a regional air quality she's got it I think she's yeah they are an excellent resource on this question they have a good sense of what other northeastern states are doing in terms of incentives I guess the other piece of this though is there are many EVs that don't necessarily go to all states in terms of what dealers are offering and part of what dealers look at in terms of where they send those new electric vehicles what are the incentives on the ground in those states so an example high young guy makes me ionic it's really a competitive hybrid right now a very competitive plug-in hybrid that high young guy ionic and it's hard to find those in Vermont at this point so in other words not only does this incentive just make it more affordable I think it also increases the number of vehicles that we receive that's a good point because Georgia is not a California state in terms of the ZEV I think you're probably right I would be surprised so in the California state the first pressure on manufacturers and dealers to sell more electric vehicles that's right and so in fact we are a member of that ZEV memorandum and so we do have that advantage but an incentive, a specific incentive as an addition Georgia did well in the past $5,000 now even having that it's just an incentive I shouldn't say just an incentive when I drop the incentive the sales go up I heard GMP when GMP had that incentive for Nissan Leaves the Nissan dealer in Vermont became the second highest sales of Nissan Leaves in the country so talk about putting Vermont on the map not just on the map for Nissan, all of a sudden that gets Nissan's attention but it also puts Vermont on the map in terms of this being a leader I think just in raw numbers of vehicles yeah more than a Nissan dealer in Los Angeles I mean second I see nods I'm glad to see nods it was California anything else for John I'm really thankful I'm wondering if you had any response is that the one piece that was like darn I love the fact that we're putting in these income limits but I would hate that that would limit people's ability to guess this I think the illustration proposal was sort of silent on that but I would definitely how that would be and Theo said that sometimes there are certainly maybe Michelle could answer that to say up to $80,000 $85,000 for somebody to administer the program so that could be you could go to that person and you get a stamp that you just take to your dealer and the dealer doesn't have to address it so Michelle will power the agency a program that would be run by an entity which has experience with administering electric vehicle incentive programs I will say in Vermont where electric Vermont has administered those I think there are other entities on the national basis who are looking to break into this market in the northeast and other places and so we would have to go through a competitive process to look to obtaining the right administrator for this program and then either the agency of transportation or public service department remaining towards the agency's public service department is fully extended in their staffing right now would oversee the administrator's contract but the day-to-day activities of working with the dealers and doing income verification etc. would be done through that administrator. We have through the the acronym the heating program the CEDF which is Development Fund Clean Energy Development Fund for heating weatherization assistance has a model for income verification and so I think we could replicate those systems that are already in place and that's what we had talked about prior to the session before we introduced this with you know trying to find out to think about what the best way to administer an income sensitivity based program would be so we have put some time into thinking those things through and making sure that in particular the point of sale piece will work effectively and efficiently because that's really where the consumer benefit is going to be found Okay, I know you wanted to comment tomorrow so I want to I'll just say preliminarily because there are a lot of folks that may not be back tomorrow. I think the work that's been done by Representative is a great advancement in terms of this dialogue and you know trying to work through the nitty gritty details of how we would administer such a thing I also in listening to the testimony throughout the weeks we've been working on this you know I heard and recognized that the manufacturers suggested real till price for the value of a vehicle we would include in the program that probably been set a bit low based on the technical we heard and so the $40,000 on level I think is probably appropriate and captures just a few more models that would be helpful in the program I think that we just want to go back and take a look at other parts of the bill and pencil out some of the other recommendations and then we'll be prepared tomorrow to give me some additional feedback on that. So no more questions on the show. Thank you. Well good job, good job and down to things that not so far from what we've been talking about so it's all there except for the money except for the money small figure of three million here there but of course we don't do the money I guess what I mean is it was all in what was presented to us from the administration that we wanted to add in order to whether that would be that's the big issue. Any other questions for me since? Alright, thank you.