 I think the first thing before Senator Brock gets here is maybe we can walk through the section by section, see what then we can, there's some jurisdictional issues and then we can walk through Senator Brock's amendment with that. But it's been a little while since we've been through this so I think it might be helpful and then committee we can maybe decide if any of these things, if we can't agree on the findings, I think I'm gonna call it quits and go home now. So, let's see where this goes. All right. Okay, great. Maria Well with legislative council. And so I think there were some questions that came up within the last couple weeks about the state's authority with respect to, there are three specific issues. One, regulating based on radio frequency emissions. Two, the potential for any kind of state deployment. Moratorium, and these were both in the context of small cell, 5G technology. And then the third one was the state's authority with respect to broadband data collection. Maybe go through those. High telecom issues and issues, jurisdictional issues in particular between the state and the FCC are particularly thorny, to say the least. I'm gonna, I know that you're probably tired. I'm gonna try to stay out of the weeds as much as possible. We've really went over this down as much as I could and also try to touch the main points so that there's some clarity. So with respect to the issues pertaining to small cell wireless deployment, under the Telecom Act, there's always been this notion of dual jurisdiction and communications act, the major federal law that regulates telecommunications with the state having authority over interstate telecom, the FCC having authority over interstate. With respect to wireless services, that cooperative federalism is also manifest. And what I mean by that is on the one hand, there's an effort to facilitate broadband deployment by removing the state's ability to regulate the entry of wireless. Providers into the market and removing the ability of the state to regulate the rates of wireless providers. At the same time, there is an effort to preserve state and local authority, particularly with respect to transit conditions of service and also more significantly with respect to your question with regard to sighting, okay, you know, zoning. However, there are limitations even with respect to the placement construction improvement telecom facility, wireless telecom facility sighting. And those are, the state cannot unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. The state or local government, local subdivision, cannot prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting service. And finally, there are other limitations I'm just hitting on, kind of the major ones that are relevant to these discussions. The state or local authority cannot regulate on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that facilities comply with the FCC standards. So the FCC adopted guidelines in 1996, with respect to what is an acceptable degree of exposure. It had not been updated since then. There have been concerns raised about those standards. And I believe there are, I think, kind of a docket number, but there have certainly been, I'll say some secondary sources, many local subdivisions interested in challenging the FCC to go through the rulemaking process and look at those emissions standards and determine whether or not they're consistent with contemporary scientific data, whether they need it to be expanded to include non-fermal potential effects. Main takeaway is that because of this broad preemption there is very little that the state can do at this point. So we could not say no 5G shall be hung or no preparations for 5G shall be hung. As I understand it, again, we do have more broad authority over sighting, right? We do. And so right now, if somebody wanted to hand this out over 50 feet and go through a 248A process, right? So right now, the way that it works, if Act 250 is triggered, it's above 50 feet. Act 250? Act 250, 248A is an option to Act 250. So you don't automatically go to 248A. There isn't a, really, there isn't a small cell permanent process in statute because that's only an option if you trigger Act 250. My understanding is some of the providers are going through the 248A for small cell employment, but it's that low predated for small cell technology, so. That's helpful, but the trip and the point is 50 feet. Right? Right. For some process. Right. So would there be any problem with us, I don't know if you would say, or 10 feet, or just say any deployment of a microcell would be required to go through? You could establish a permanent process with all the small cell deployment, as long as it's consistent, the other FCC requirements come with tithing and so on. You could certainly do that. I think that would be challenging, we aren't going to do that to see. Right, and I think there was discussion, I think the issue of possibly having a moratorium on deployment until you come up with a permanent process that might have been one of the topics I think of that I think would be inconsistent with the federal requirements because you're basically eliminating the ability of the providers to enter the market. Also there was a recent FCC order in August last year, basically saying in the FCC between any such moratorium is preempted under the Communications Act. It's a very clear statement. I should also say though that that interpretation is being challenged in court as well. Almost everything I'm saying is being stated. So that's a big qualification. Maria, there's also a title issue that if you use siting and it was shown that the reason that you use siting to do a restriction is because of your underlying concerns about health or environmental effects, that too would be for the end. Yes, there is actually a second circuit case where a local county zoning authority going through the permitting process, it became apparent that one of the factors that they consider possible health effects of a wireless facility, they had two other factors that were perfectly legitimate. But the second circuit held if only one factor is related impermissibly to radio frequency emissions than they are in violation of the federal law. So other circuits have been a little bit not so expensive in the branching. More likely to say if it was the sole factor for denying the permit, but in the second circuit, it's really like it's a factor. And I assume these are 5G permits because we've been told they're only in Chicago and Los Angeles and... I don't remember, but that particular case in Southern District of New York was from 2009. Yeah, so it was in 5G. Then the other, this issue also, this perspective of siting and radio frequency emissions, I think there was a suggestion that perhaps through the state's coal attachment authority that you could impose some requirements and do not think that's consistent with the federal act. As has been mentioned, Vermont is one of 20 states that have opted out of the federal coal attachment rules. We have a PUC rule 3.7-0-0. We regulate rates and terms, but that regulation is really between the attaching entity and the coal owner. Those rates, terms and conditions, there isn't within that reverse preemption provision where the state has control over coal attachments. I don't think that that overcomes the provision of this communication side that says you can't regulate based on radio frequency emissions. Okay, so no matter what we do, we can't regulate that either any real level or effective level. Now the only case that I could find where there was some form of regulation had to do with more of a consumer protection mandatory disclosures of cell phone providers and then the one case that I looked at, it was not being preempted because it was basically asking the man, so a manufacturer to disclose what they were already required to do under the federal law, what the standards of the federal law are, there were no additional. So, but that's about the only thing, there are other cases, what's going to happen in torcal. So you said you had to notify the public that you were putting up a 5G cell. No, I don't think that because that might be considered an unnecessary burden. Yes, no, I'm saying that would be that even that we couldn't do. It's your very constraint. We don't want your, I know that's ours. Okay, all right. So that unless we let it conjugate, but I think that's pretty much pulled the rug out of most of the things. I think so, I just wanted to be perfectly clear, there is the other avenue and this is an area that is right for litigation is when the state is acting in proprietary capacity as opposed to as a regulator. So there was one instance in New York also where a school district entered into a lease agreement with a wireless provider to put a facility on the rooftop of the school and they required in terms of the lease to have a much lower emission standard than what the FCC required. And there are a number of other issues that came up in the case, but with respect to the ability of this public school to require a lower standard, a lower threshold, that was upheld by the court. And the reason was because they were acting basically like another consumer like in that capacity. And that issue came up in the context of net neutrality where the state is acting as a consumer by an internet service like other consumers and opposing whatever conditions it deems appropriate for the state. I have to also follow that up because in the September FCC order, the declaratory ruling which attempts to establish the legal framework going forward, there is very clear instruction by the FCC that this proprietary scope of state authority has been significantly narrowed. I'm sure that's going to be litigated if they're guidelines. So there isn't a specific case that issue, but the guidelines are that you can't do with any kind of proprietary capacity that's been a frustrated interview or with the federal objectives, and that's okay. Getting rid of that. Is there a deep litigation though right now that's pending, particularly that's going to the public level that goes through the issues that concerns have been expressed about here, that we can at least monitor to say, are they reasonably parallel to the kinds of things that we might think about, Jordan? Yeah, so what has, so I know there's been a challenge to the FCC ban on state moratoriums with the plan. That is something that's being litigated. Like I said, I believe the federal RF standards are likely to be litigated and looked at more closely. The state's proprietary authority, I'm not sure if the state has taken a position and enacted a law that's been most likely to be challenged by the providers. I'm not sure that I can. All right, well I think we started out trying to do a broadband bill, which we have been told has nothing to do with 5G, and then we're trying to find a way to give some comfort to people that are very concerned about 5G. But what I'm hearing is, we're short of spending a lot of money to go to litigation with an iffy chance of success. There isn't much we can do. And I would like to get this bill because on the other side, we've got all kinds of people saying, you know, I need to have broadband. I want to come, I need to work from home. My kids need to do their school work. I need cell service, so if the electricity goes out, I can call 911. So I'd like to see if we can't resolve broadband. Put 5G, which it sounds like we are not gonna resolve to anyone's satisfaction. And see if we can get that done. So what I've asked Maria to do is kind of just give us a section by section, see where we've got, where we're comfortable and where we're not comfortable. Senator Brock, you can tell us what sections you've got changes coming in so we can mark those. I've already said that if we can't agree on the findings, I quit and somebody else can take this over. I'm sure, can I just ask you a question? Yes, on the findings. No, just before we finish up on 5G. I'm sorry I came in late and I'm not sure I understand this, but several people came up to me and just said we don't want anything in this bill which promotes, we just want the bill to be neutral. Can we just, can we say that? I think actually we may have already said it. There's a provision in my amendment. Okay, so it is neutral. That is not the intent of this bill. This bill is really looking at fiber and getting, it may say copyright, it may not anytime we're finished, but it is to get better and some broadband to everybody. It is not my goal to spend any kind of public money on outdated, you know, lines. I would have a hard time feeling justified putting copper out there at the public expense, so. So under section one measure? Yes. We're assuming that these findings would be correct, reasonably accurate. I would assume that Maria did some research on the findings and that they are reasonably accurate. I did. And they are. Okay. Section two. Section two. I think that the one that's put in the envelope, this came from the public service data about who's covered by what's being. And that has the only finding that summarized on the section by section summary. And that's because we gave a sense of what the landscape is like currently. But that came from the DPS. Okay. At least, yeah, and that one is kind of enough. Okay. So then, and so if you want me to just keep walking through this section by section summary, is that? Yeah. I think so. I'm trying to find like, I've got a long, yeah, that's why it's like that. So, that's it. So the sessions two and three pertain to the Vermont Universal Service Fund. This is the fund that's financed by a 2% charge on the telephone bills, primarily. It raises about $1.5 million annually and that money goes to specific programs such as the Lifeline Program, and the Low-Equival Assistance Relay Program, which is for hearing and care. E-9-1-1, I'm sorry, it doesn't raise $1.5 million. It raises about $5.8 million annually. I'm just looking at the rate increase. The rate, I'd like to get my file out of that cabinet so we don't need to kind of move the camera. Okay. E-9-1 is probably, absolutely draws the most amount of money on the fund of the $5.8 million raised from the charge, $4.8 million just gone to E-9-1. The rest of the money, and I'm just going, doing an overview of current law right now, the rest of the money after all of those programs have been paid for, goes into a connectivity fund. And that fund funds two broadband programs, basically. A high-cost program and the connectivity initiative. And let me know if you want to go into further detail or if that's sort of the programs that are funded. I'm just going to go into the brief chat and see if you can work it out. Given the slippage over here, it's not impactful and it was here in truth. No, I heard that. I'm just looking at the slippage. Okay, so the fund in H513, as passed by the House, is to increase the 2% charge by half a percent. So it'd be 2.5 to 2.5. And that would be, it's estimated that that would raise an additional, at least for next year, $1.5 million. What could the impact be on the average phone bill? It depends on the phone bill. Right, I'm just saying the average. Gosh, I read, Sam Young actually looked at his phone bill and added it up and I do. Okay. Maybe a dollar or... Okay. All right, we'll grab on that. That'll be out so. And I can certainly get that. Yeah. So of the money that is raised by this 0.5 increase, up to $120,000 under this proposal would be set aside for a new position within the Department of Public Service, a Rural Broadband Technical Assistance Specialist. And that person would be really available to communities who are exploring their own broadband solutions, whether it's communications in the new district or some other project. So. And it's my understanding that that position has been funded in the budget. However, I seem like most other things that's presuming that we raise their funds. Did, I seem to think they just appropriated the money. Yes, they did. But they didn't create the position. Okay. I was told it was covered, but. I'll find out. I'll find that out. But that all presumes that we raise the funding. We do this way or some other way. So the rest of the money would go to the High Cross Program and the connectivity initiative as the statute really required now. And I have read flagged the section assuming that we're gonna wanna come back and talk about it. So then the next two sections, section four and section five, they are in here for similar reasons. They adjust the speed requirements for eligibility for funding under the High Cross Program and the connectivity initiative. Right now, under the High Cross Program, you have to provide speeds that are at least four one. The house raised the speed minimum to 25, three, and did the same thing for the connectivity initiative, which is currently set at 10, one. And then you raise that. All right. So it's now for both of those programs, the minimum speed requirements are 25, three. I'm assuming we will have some discussion about the 25, three. Okay. So then sections six and seven, also with respect to the Universal Service Fund, this has to do with the collection of the surcharge on pre-paid wireless telecommunications service. You'll remember that several years ago when you opposed this surcharge because there isn't a filling mechanism set up in place for right-wing aid, you chose to impose the fee directly on the provider, which would be calculated on a formula that the PUC establishes to basically approximate 2% of their revenue that is from pre-paid wireless sales in Vermont. So that's existing law that's been effected since 2014. There was a change in federal law last spring that likely could be interpreted as pre-empting that collection method. So now the proposal is to go, what's known as a point of sale collection method. Anybody pre-paid wireless whether getting a card at a Walmart store or other retailer. And this goes into the Amazon, the Verizon selling card on launch. So wherever it's being sold for a Vermont ad address, you would pay the 2% at the point of sale. And there are requirements on the Department of Taxes basically come up with the, any necessary regulations to ensure that the retailers collect and remit to the Department of Taxes and so on. But that is, can I put a green check next to that one? I'm trying to set those off. Okay, good, I'll get a green check. All right, maybe so the only expenses that I think that came up had to do with the Department of Taxes might incur some more expenses just regulating and enforcing the collection. And I think the number is about $500,000 to $600,000. But Department of Taxes did testify in ways and means I don't think they were, I don't know if I want to speak for that, because it's a different, there wasn't a major concern. And I assume the next section is just allocating the funds that that, so I've got that red flag because it'll get tired at the first place. Yeah, and I should mention this section eight, this general fund transfer, it says fiscal year 2019 and that's how it passed the House, but my understanding is the money's in the big bill, I believe, just talking to JFO, but it's fiscal year 2020. Okay, so assuming you want to go forward with any of the appropriations that are in this bill, they would have to be updated to fiscal year 2020. So of that appropriation of $955,000, $700,000 would go to fund grants through a new broadband innovation grant program, which is in section 10. And so we'll go through that program, which is the requirements and purposes of our, 205,000 would go to fund grants through the existing connectivity initiative. So some additional monies into that program, in addition to whatever amount is raised by the 25% increase in the University Service chart. And then $50,000 would go to the department of public service to do a feasibility study related to electric companies using their infrastructure to provide broadband. It's just a study, it's $50,000. Okay. And each of those will be, we'll know the first and then the last one will be revisited in the subsequent sections. Section nine is an appropriation of $45,000 to the Think Vermont Innovation Initiative, which was established last year in JCCD that supports small business growth. Business growth. This money would specifically be set aside for technical assistance grants for municipalities that are planning for broadband projects. So we need to find out if that money actually is in the big gap. Yeah, and my understanding is that the money is there consistent with this, just this year 20th. Okay. All right, we will absolutely check just to make sure the money's there. Okay. So with respect to the Broadband Innovation Grant Program, again, this is $700,000 available for this program under that prior appropriation. The purpose is to fund feasibility studies related to broadband deployment in rural, unserved, and underserved areas. In terms of eligibility, it's pretty broad. It includes a municipality, a nonprofit, a co-op, and a for-profit. And then the conditions for any feasibility study that must be met, you have to be looking at a project that would provide speeds of at least 25 free to potential customers. With the funding, the grant funding under this program, you have to produce an actionable business plan trying to ensure that the product is going to be something useful going forward. Grants may not exceed $60,000 each. And then up to two electric distribution utilities are eligible for a grant under this program. There's finally an annual reporting requirement back to the legislature on funding, what's funding, with the status, and so on. Can we, Section 11 just does that electric company study and do we agree on that? Yes. Okay. There are some changes to Section 11, the amendment that we get to that. Okay, but we, in general concept. The basic concept is the same. All right. All right. Section 12, this repeals an existing law that prohibits electric laws from using federal funds to engage in non-electric activities, such as broadband, because we agree on that one. So then again. There's an existing law that prohibits electric co-ops from receiving federal funds to engage in non-regulated activities. So if the co-op wants to get into the telecom business right now, they're prohibited under current law from receiving federal grants or loans. And that's from the year 2000. To do something that's unregulated. To do something that's unregulated. They keep making everything unregulated. Shhh. What's that? Don't it? It depends. Send to make everything unregulated and then you can't use money. I'm just trying to. I think that the concern may have been more to do with competition than what they were thinking of everyone to do. I'm sorry. I'd like to hear what your saying is. It's not a Bloomer thing. You guys have legitimate subject details. We're trying to figure out what we might get out of here so hot it's got its schedule staffing. Isn't the problem with them being unregulated is that there isn't a makeup efficient? In the telecom industry. So right now, the Vermont law let the co-ops have the authority to enter into non-regulated activities via telecom, home heating fuel. However, under the existing law, which was enacted in 2000, there was a provision that they can accept federal funds to engage in those activities. And I think we heard that there were quite a few federal funds as we started to ask how other states were funding this and there was quite a bit of federal funding available. I'm all for that. I guess I'm wondering though if there could be a need for language that makes it clear that we're not putting rates at risk or, the title kind of says it all, it's a subsidization provision. And it would not be my interest to have them do this work in a way that jeopardize rates or have an impact on rates. I don't see anything in here that makes that clear. Okay, that's electric rates, right? Yeah. Okay. That didn't come up, and they didn't have that language that we certainly could do that. I mean, I think that's where the current law comes from. Is that the case? That certainly is one of the concerns. And I think that under the PDC rate regulation, they would have to make sure the accounts and services are bifurcated, but you could certainly add one language to clarify that. Okay. But once we add that, can I assume for what the use that money? Okay, 13. So section 13, this section basically allows or clarifies, depending on your interpretation and statute, municipalities to enter into public-private partnerships with an internet service provider, such that that provider would actually own, operate, and manage the communications plant, which would be financed. Would this be allowing them to join like Central Vermont Fiber or would this be a private contract with Verizon or Comcast or? So this would be a contract between a municipality and could be a Central Vermont Fiber, could contract with a provider. Okay. Whoever the internet service provider is. That's right, they're a municipality. Okay. We don't have a municipality. Yep. Okay. And they can finance the arrangement with revenue bonds, which they're allowed to do. The issue was whether, could you enter a partnership where the municipality said basically that the ISP would own and manage the communications plant or does it have to be owned and managed by the municipalities? So. Okay, I think we're gonna do a little more because then we will be putting public money possibly into building a system for an international, a national carrier that could, Montpelier could contract with Verizon, provided Verizon owned, but Montpelier would be taking out the revenue bonds or Central Vermont Fiber. There was one, just speaking to that issue. So right now the municipalities can issue revenue bonds to build their own communications plants. The qualification that was put in here with respect to if the ISP is owned and managed, if it's a private company, they must guarantee the bond and be responsible for any debt service. So trying to protect potentially, yeah, but I mean. I think that says here the term to send partnership shots, that's a good one. Okay. I think they're gonna show guarantee the bond which shall be responsible for debt service. All right. Section 14, there was discussion in the House about allowing municipalities to have the authority to issue general obligation bonds, non-revenue bonds, NGO bonds, for communications plant, construction and more improvement. Ultimately, they decided to just basically do a study of the issue. So it's the Secretary of Administration in collaboration with the State Treasurer, the Executive Director of the Vermont Municipal Bonding. We'll make a recommendation regarding the use of general obligation bonds by municipality to finance capital improvements related to communications plant. That reports to the December meeting on that one. Yes. Okay. Now we get to the, how does it meet at this point? So section 15, this establishes a broadband expansion loan program with NVIDA, the Vermont Economic Development Board and these loans are specifically for startup and expansion that enable internet service providers to also broadband to unserved and underserved locations in terms of the policies that NVIDA needs to establish for the program and some of the program parameters. A loan shall not exceed 90% of the project costs. So the 10% by the municipality or other entity needs to be invested as well. Each loan, the maximum amount of a loan is $1.8 million. I think you've heard testimony about that amount. In terms of who's eligible to receive a loan, again, it's very broad, it could be municipality and non-profit or co-op oriented for-profit and then significantly with respect to this type of loan, the interest in principle may be deferred for up to two years. And I think we've heard quite a bit about the loan. I'm gonna just put, you know, we'll go back to it. I'm watching the clock. I'd like to get to Senator Brock's. And at five, no, it's after five. It is my intent, probably by quarter, six, six o'clock that we go first to the ed bill financing. See if we can get that out of here and then see where we are on paid family leave. And if we're ready to get that out, okay? So I think we'll just, yeah, let's move it, go on. I think we've got a pretty good handle on, we've heard about the bonds at least twice. We've got, and they don't seem, everybody seems to like those and they don't seem to be controversial. So we'll go back and look in detail. The pole attachments, I think, are more controversial. Yeah. There's a question coming up on this 25 up. That's one of the, yes. Down and three, that's throughout. That's throughout. I have it highlighted. I had a technical question. Okay. Some people were saying that there's nothing wrong with 25 down and three up, if the technology is capable of being upgraded to even 25, 25, no, they have the answer down there. If it isn't capable, I have one opinion on it. If it is capable, I have a different one. We'll have to find a techie. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So 16, 17, all relate to the visa program as well. Yeah. Appropriation and to reach moral obligation on the board. So sections 19, 20 pole attachments. So first, the provision requires public utility commission to revise its existing pole attachment rule to include the following. One touch, make ready policies. Measures designed to minimize delays and costs and promote fair and reasonable rates and the rapid resolution of disputes and specifications regarding when a make ready completion period commences and ends. So it's not very prescriptive about exactly what model one has made ready to actually make better. It needs to address these and it requires that the final proposed rule must be filed with LCAR on December 1st, 2019. Then the next substantive change related to pole attachments. This is by statute. So these are requirements that would take effect immediately. It requires, again, the pole attachment rule be updated to specify the following. The make ready completion period may not be extended solely because a pole is jointly owned. If a pole is jointly owned, the joint owners must notify the applicant which owner is responsible for timely completion of the make ready process. And it must allow the attaching entity to hire a qualified or to be able to hire a qualified contractor to complete make ready work, not finished within the completion period. Oh, one more on this page. It requires the pole owners and the attaching entities to submit a list of qualified contractors to the PUC so that information will be readily available to the PUC get the list hire the contractor if necessary. And then we formally authorize that position. That's the official authorization. Can I just ask about the ability for the attaching entity to do the work themselves or get that contracted? I have a note here, turn this into self-help. And I think that has to do with the lag period of when that begins. So can you just, so under this process in the house bill, they have to agree to some time and then if that closes, then the attaching entity can get it going. Is that? Can hire their own contractor. Is there a sense of how long that lag is or is that to be determined by the rule? So this just says if the May 30 work is not completed within the applicable May 30 completion period. So that period of time is prescribed in the rule. I don't know exactly what it is, but it doesn't matter. I think this is where I remember being pretty long. The anger's got the answer for it. The rule, the PUC rules now on May 30 prescribe a period of time for completion. It depends on the total number of poles the effect is relevant as a percentage of that total ownership of poles in the state. And the periods are longer if it's a larger percentage of their poles. The new rules change those deadlines slightly. They accelerate them some, but in each case, there's a specified deadline for any class of make ready that's of a certain total number of poles involved. And this self-help provision would cut in if that period of time has gone by and the pole owners and the other entities attached to the pole haven't done their work, then they would have to refund the money that's been prepaid to do the work. So this satisfies that. Yes. So that's, meanwhile the work's not done. Right. And there was another... So what happens next? It's not... Well, the work gets done. The work gets done. But if it doesn't get done. No, we were saying... If it doesn't get done then the attaching entity does it and gets refunded for that. That's what this says it is. Yeah. But you've got a period of time and again, if it's 10 poles or it's 2,000 makes a difference. There was a discussion about Maine has put in, is it a fine? But there has something happened in Maine and there haven't been any overruns since then. They put in a provision of this kind. Of this type. They haven't, nobody's had to invoke it. Okay. All right. Okay. So that's it. Senator Brock, why don't you... And then I think there's got one other that's coming to us. You, yeah, is this it? The agreement? No. Is there a lot of money? Okay. Yeah. The one that says draft. Just draft on it. Yeah. There's another two. Okay. Just to do a brief opening and then turn it over to Maria to go through the section by section of this. This is designed to address three things. The first is to address a couple things in the bill that you've just gone through that might need or that I would suggest that we could perhaps expand to also help us deal with some of the E-911 issues that we've faced. The second thing it does is it deals with the telecommunications plan, the three-year telecommunications plan itself by providing a little more specificity as to what the plan should contain and what its end result ought to be. And then also to add to a timing issue as to when a three-year telecommunications plan should be ended and completed, which is for years. It then looks at the issue that we talked about earlier today and that is the electromagnetic issue and there is a study that has been done by the health department and it makes reference to that study, the results of which should be presented on the literature, the state of the literature, et cetera, regarding electromagnetic radiation and report back to this committee and our counterpart in the house of making clear that any reporting done is not for regulatory purpose. We were quite careful in terms of the language we used to make sure that we didn't run into the preemption issue but at the same time to better inform the committee of the whole state of the literature. And then lastly, there's some provisions going back to E-911 to inform the E-911 board and the rest of us of the state power outages and other things that could affect E-911 service. This is preliminary to obviously dealing with the larger issue of service interruption, battery problem of E-911 systems. Simultaneous with this over in GOV-OPS, the GOV-OPS committee is doing some things preliminary to dealing with E-911 governance starting by asking the administration to come back with the plan or citing E-911 board within government and went back to us in January and then looking at taking that further but that's not in this bill, that's in what GOV-OPS is doing. So, the Senate GOV-OPS? Senate GOV-OPS, yes. Okay, so let's start walking through this. Okay, so let's see where we go. Are there two instances of amendment or they pertain to section 11 which is the department's feasibility study? No, Chair, just give several drafts around it. And I, 1.6 is the... 1.6. One notes, Senator, okay, please. I wasn't here, I just, no one else was there. I didn't want to, the start point. You've got the right one. And I don't know how to use it. This is a block you're talking about? Yes. No, I just said 1.3 in fact. Oh, I have 1.3 in fact. You should have just been handed out a new one that's 1.6. Well, I got two of them, so you know this one. I probably have it here. That's the next one. The fact that it's six shows that Senator Brock just didn't get the last one. Under his feet. No. As I said, well, we handed one out last night and he says, oh, that's about three behind. No. We all should have a new one. We all got one yesterday. This is new, all right. This is new. 12, 12 today, so. Okay. You have to open the last night. So under this feasibility study, we are doing to the Department of Public Service. Thank you. This is 1.6. Yes. 1.6. All right. So. So, yeah, so these are amendments to the study, the DPS study, the feasibility of electric companies offering broadband or using their facilities. And so the bold language is what's being proposed to be added. Okay. So included with their studies of determination, number of things, and then also a plan to maintain access to E-91 service in any proposed expansion of nonline powered voice service. So this would be the voice service. Okay. I know the commissioner would like to speak to this. I think it's a good thing, but I'd like to make sure that it's possible within her, just staffing and yeah. And that we have the power to regulate nonline powered voice service. Could I just add Senator Brock, I totally support what you're doing here, but I sort of feel like that's a different feasibility study or it's weird to, the opening line is health study and feasibility of my electric company to provide broadband services using electric distribution transfer mission infrastructure. So I guess I just wonder structurally if it should be not tacked on to the last paragraph of that study, but it's only kind of report back at it. Yeah, I think so. Jim Donningville has a report back in December. Right. And I'm open. I mean, I want to see if I'm not reading this. We're in the style at this point. Yeah, okay. I wanted to see how we structure it. Either way, fine. Okay. So can we all be clear that the recommendation may apply to report back in December or it may apply to the future planning solution? Did you ever think we're trying to do or something else? We will be as clear as we generally expect other people to be. Okay, you got it. And we will fail as often as other people fail. Okay. I'll be actually slow on those predictions. Let's move. So in addition, as far as a report back, I guess the commissioner in consultation with the PUC commission shall define a best practices approach for providing consumer information and conducting community outreach and for providing technical and financial assistance to consumers and the communities so as to reduce the risk of loss of voice and denigline service during the electric power outage due to the dependency of broadband technologies on the availability of electric power and shall propose the most cost effective and technologically efficient ways in which broadband providers or alternative entities can provide such information and assistance. Okay. So that's getting the word out. A plan to maintain access. I guess I'm not convinced yet that it is possible to always maintain access. It may not always be possible. But an example of the outreach for the week I think we're talking to this about the fact that their battery power required in Shrewsbury is an example but nobody really knew that that was an availability or something like that. And it wasn't available. And it wasn't readily available. Yeah. So I think that's... This would create a means to ensure that consumers were informed as to the problem and how to deal with it. But it doesn't compel any kind of compliance on it. No. No. At this stage, I think that this is really a study to figure out. Consulting would define the best practice approach and then... Okay. I think best practice to maintain access because I can see you just have to run double lines for everything but I don't think anyone could afford the phone service. So I want to, you know, I think a report on what the best practice is how other states do it. And there could be multiple approaches for dealing with depending upon the type of system there is. But nobody, I don't think anybody's really farmed through this whole issue. But our end result is that we have people dialing 911 in Vermont who are not getting through. And they're not getting through for a variety of reasons. They don't know they're not getting through. They don't have a battery in their system. Whatever the case may be. And I think we just need to have a logical approach that has been well thought out by the professional of how best to deal with this. Okay. Should they consult one of the consumers? No, we'll, I think we'll get to fine tuning the language. Okay. I just want us to know what the language is right now. I'm trying to get you out of here before you get hungry. Whoa. We gotta do the work. We gotta do the work. Should we do? So this is a long amendment? It is, yeah. So I just want to get through it so we know what it is. And then when we're more awake, we will come back and hash it out. Okay. And fine tune the wording or move or something else. And we'll hear from anyone else. All right. So we are still on. So same subject. Third instance of amendment. Just as in the loan program, the Vita loan program for eligibility in addition to offering 25 free. You'll see the new language. You have to ensure that the provider has a specific plan and minimize interruptions to E911 access. In terms of the plan, what it needs to address, technology and equipment, design and engineering, financing, installation, operation, monitoring and supervision of performance, any other parameters of the authority, and consultation with DGS, shall require to minimize interruptions to access to E911 service. And Maria, could you address the issue of preemption vis-a-vis this issue that 911 is exempt from some of the preemption? Well, so I think the FCC has itself issued in order related to this very topic and those requirements. I think I believe that the VoIP providers, Internet providers that offer the service, they need to give customers the option of buying some kind of battery backup that will last for up to eight hours. I think that's going to be extended. I'm not, I mean, for interpretation, it's not going to be in the works. So there are the scooter requirements that are required at the federal level. To the extent that this is consistent with those requirements, we don't frustrate them in any way. Believe it to be considered, you know. But the latest design, engineering, financing, installation, operation, now you're asking a Comcast to do that with a whole technology provision, I'm sure. Is this going to ask EC Fiber and Central Vermont Fiber or once we get up to East Overshoe Fiber to do this same kind of very technical analysis? Well, I think that's certainly an issue of, you know, these are policy cases to make, if you receive a loan under this program, this is one of the requirements you're being asked. And then the burden and the expenses, I don't know the answer to that, but I don't, you know. So you've switched from the December 1, or 4 to the Vita now? This is in order to get a Vita loan. You have to have all of these extra requirements according to the project. According to the project. According to the project. The proposed amendment now begins to focus on areas of Vita employees. Yes. Well, in terms of this issue of the requirement, if we say that E911 is important, then we're going to give money to an entity to create a broadband program. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask, how are you going to ensure that 9-1-1 calls get furl? And that's it. Irv, I'm going to have you come up next time. We're just walking through this. I wanted to correct you with a statement, Michael, again. The FCC requires VOIP, voice over IP providers, to provide A-hour battery support and offer for additional, at possible additional cost the option of buying 24-hour battery support. Okay. That does not help if you're out for three days, which the folks in Tupesbury were, but. Doesn't help you with that. But I, to me, trying to create a fail-safe system, which 9-1-1 never was, because even when it was, you know, copper wire only, snowstorms happen, trees fall down, and I don't want to stop or rule people out. By asking them to do the kind of engineering or expense that the competition who's already here hasn't had to do. I mean, I'm just, I'm trying to balance. I'm trying to find what's being asked for to determine is this reasonable and does it impose an unburdened on the provider? Because this is a balancing test. It is. Yeah. Okay. And I think that's what they do that. Okay. So let's keep opening. So the next instance of members before, for instance, added some new sections to the bill. So they're not bold, but these are all new sections. And then Senator Roberts explained this first one, updates and then provisions of the state telecom plan. Okay. And so page four, so the plan was provided overview looking 10 years ahead, and then kind of some more specific or great specificity of what they need to look at. For example, statewide growth and development as they relate to future requirements for telecom services, including patterns of urban expansion, statewide and service area, economic growth, shifts of transportation modes, economic development, ecological advances and other trends and factors that will significantly affect state telecom policy programs. Overview shall include an economic and demographic forecast sufficient to determine infrastructure investment goals and policies. And then section four, subdivision four on page five is related to state, state networks and systems. So an assessment with ADS and the agency of transportation of state owned and managed telecom systems and related infrastructure and in evaluation with specific goals and objectives of alternative proposals for upgrading systems to provide the best available and affordable technology for use by state and local government, public safety, educational institutions, community media, nonprofit organizations performing governmental functions and other community anchor institutions. And they include audio systems for playing farmers night in the state house. I was just thinking that. Okay. So then page six, this provision related to, oh, I'll just read it. A geographically specific assessment of the status, coverage and capacity of telecom networks and services available throughout Vermont and a comparison of available services for other states, including price and broadband speed, comparisons for key services and comparisons of the status of technology deployment. Okay, can I ask a question Maria? I had emailed you with a question about whether or not we could require all the entities that own broadband or infrastructure to submit to our GIS and you were right you were wondering if you were looking to whether or not we could ask. Is that what you're trying to do here? Just trying to get a geographically specific assessment? I'm trying, yes, I am trying to get a better understanding of what's covered and where and also how we compare with other states. You know, as part of this roadmap of how well are we doing, unless you compare it with something you're never really right on. Okay. I think we've been told to use the state of West Virginia because it's got our topography. Because it's a different issue. It is. Where people live. Senegal has cell phones. Yeah, on the continent. No warning water, but they have cell phones. Okay. Yeah, and I think the, I've heard the word proprietary information bandied about, you know, when we've talked about telling us what you've gotten, where it is because then my competition will know. So I think we do need to look into that. The issue is in the first draft of this, maybe the second or third draft, we did have much more specificity in terms of what we were asking folks to tell us about what's on the poles and so on. We took that out because of the concern that might well run into proprietary information issues. Okay. But just where you've got a line. But, you know, the other issue, I guess, is the concern, probably the bigger concern is we see providers, cell providers in particular, putting out maps saying this is where we have cell service and we drive around with our phones in a cardboard box and find so often that it simply isn't true. Right. And that, I think, is the longer states are here. And we're trying to get a better handle on, you know, when the carriers say that they provide A, B, C, and D, do they? And I think we've heard that other states are looking to us now because that just blocking that the FCC does and designates that their service there, I think all the folks with boots on the ground know it just doesn't work that way. So maybe in a flat plat in the Midwest where there's nothing to interrupt, but here it doesn't work. Who's that? All right. It's frustrating when you're trying to deal with this. Carriers don't have to tell you what's going on. When they do tell you or represent that something's happening, how do we know it's true? Why are you? Pardon? Well, that's why the department did the drive around last, last year, did they find out how true it was? They found out it wasn't true, it wasn't true. Did we work being trolled for what it was? Correct. Yes, that's what they did. So we know that. And we know that. It's a very fine print on the bottom of the map saying this may not be happening in all cases because there may be places on the back and on and on and on. Right. That the fact it's proprietary? Yeah. No. That's what we have. That's the public one. We have that one. OK, but we know we've got some proprietary issues, so let's keep moving here. So six, an assessment of opportunities for shared infrastructure, open access, and neutral host wireless facilities that is sufficiently specific to guide the CDC, the department, state and government and telecom service companies in the deployment of new technology. An analysis of available options to support the state's access to media organizations. Eight, this is specific to emergency communications and analysis of federal initiatives and requirements and other two specific initiatives referenced and how those activities can best be insurated with strategies to advance the state's interest in achieving ubiquitous deployment of mobile telecom and broadband services you want. An analysis of alternative strategies to leverage the state's ownership and management of the public rights of way to create opportunities for accelerating the building, build out of fiber of the broadband and for increasing network resiliency. Then in terms of the development of the plan, very specifically, the department needs to address each of the state's policies and goals and statutes and recommend initiatives designed to advance and make measurable progress with respect to each of those policies and goals and shall include identification of resources required of potential sources of funding for plan implementation. D, the department shall establish a participatory planning process that includes. I think there is a correction there. I believe that we get to supposedly change and see instead of the recommendation. I think it's also an important to know. Basically, we're not asking, we're concerned about making the department make a recommendation to us because of the issue that it may be inconsistent, for example, with instructions from an administration designed to cover costs. So what we want, we want to report the alternatives not necessarily a recommendation. All right. So the report of the analysis? Okay. All right. So in the actual process for adoption of plans, the department consults a variety of people so it's adding communications union districts and then page eight subsection E this specifies that there is first a preliminary draft that's published and the department must solicit public comment on that preliminary draft. The department's procedures for soliciting public comment shall include a method for submitting comments electronically. Then after review and consideration of the comments received the department shall prepare a final draft and this final draft shall either incorporate public comments received with respect to the preliminary draft or shall include a detailed exclamation as to why specific individual comments were not incorporated. That's an awful lot of like outcome. The department shall conduct at least four public hearings across the state on the final draft. Consider the testimony. Department shall coordinate with Vermont's access media organizations when you're planning the public hearings under this subsection. There's same requirement to have the hearing before the legislative committees join hearing. Then instead of the provisions related to the kind of major review every three years it now specifies on page nine that the department shall adopt a new plan every three years pursuant to these procedures. And any new plan shall outline significant deviations from the prior plan. What is the plan to be described here? Required to be some screening. I think that's coming. So in the next section it gets a little bit more specific about the current plan and then the subs of them with the dates are. So that's section 23. It is the intent of the General Assembly that regardless of when the 2017 telecom plan is adopted, a new plan shall be adopted on or before December 1st, 2020 in accordance with the procedures we just went through. So that's section D. And then the next plan after that shall be adopted on or before December 1st, 2023. So at that point it should be every three years going forward. Here's a new plan. So what if we get to 20 December 1st, 18 months from now or whatever and they don't have a plan and that's when the capital punishment section will go to the court. Do we have any interim beatings that they place before we get into the court? I'm in favor of stocks in front of the court. There is another provision here in this paragraph that addresses that. I think it's frustrating, but there is a separation of powers and we do not have ultimate power. So we're depending on the good will of the department to have a plan to meet the goal that we've established. We do have the first strings. Right, and if we don't give them the resources and the people and the capacity to actually do this, then it's just empty and so that's my frustration is that we are asking them to do more and more and more. We're not giving them more capacity to do it. And it's not fair. This is actually the reason that this is my paragraph there. Okay, we got the next paragraph and we did get them more money at least. How do you get them more money? We are trying. So subsection B of page 10, if at any time it becomes apparent to the commissioner of public service that the department lacks the plan or the resources to comply with the requirements of the section of commissioner shall submit a report to the general assembly on what additional resources or time are necessary. Report shall be submitted prior to the adoption date and with sufficient time to allow for any needed legislative action prior to the adoption date. And the report may include a proposal for contracting with an outside entity to prepare the plan or a portion thereof. If so, shall include a suggested funding amount and source. The idea is that the plan year begins on January 1. Presumably, while the legislature's in session, the department should be able to assess whether or not it's got the capability, the time, or the resources to do the plan. If they don't, they have to come to the general assembly and make a request for whatever resources are necessary to contract with someone else in order to get this done on time. That's, as far as I know. They would come back to the general assembly. Well, we're in session that year. We don't need money. So, and then it's up to us to act to either provide it or not provide it. But that way, we don't get to the end of the year, find there's no plan and then ask what to find the work resources. Okay. All right, let's keep going. Just going through this. We're gonna give the commissioner a chance to comment and then we have lost our grasp on Family Week, so we will do that first thing tomorrow morning. My intent is we will stay here to get out and funding. When you say first thing? Nine o'clock. No, I've already talked to you. You've already talked to me? All right, I've said them and no. No, but we have a meeting at 8.30. We have a meeting at 8.30, and they know we're meeting at nine. Okay. Yeah, all right. Our committee's council for tomorrow? Okay. Well, I'm just trying to- No, I'm- All the moving parts- Yeah, I have a meeting tonight. Your conference committee meets at nine, so who's that for what meeting? You've got to have a meeting at 7.30. I don't know, we're on the floor. 11.30. Yeah. How do you expect to report from nine to 11.30? If we get everything out of here, you could- Meet at 11. Meet at 11. We're about to have one to get done today. Okay. All right. Okay. Oh, tomorrow we're going to have to do net metering 101, probably. First thing, not lost it. Okay. We'll try and get that wind up too, so we're prepared to, when we go into that committee of conference. All right. Back to this topic. Senator Brough, we spoke about this. This is a report by the commissioner of Pell, on possible health consequences from exposure to radio frequency fields used by wireless technologies, including cellular telephones and FCC-related transmitters. We're coming through the summary of available scientific data, as well as a comparison of what various initial standards and guidelines. And then the statement of the senator alluded to earlier, the purpose of this report is to provide policy makers and the general public information team significant by many homeowners. It is not intended that the information gathered in the report be used for the basis of the policies that are in place. Let's try it all off. Okay. What does that leave us? Knowledge, but no action. I don't say. Then you said you did clear this and they are doing a study. The health department is doing something else. Okay. So we are, they're doing it. We're just taking credit. All right. I'm trying to work out tomorrow. In Section 25, this concerns reporting the tower messages to the E-911 board. And basically requires the board to adopt a rule requiring boy providers to report to the board within two hours. Any outage in a system such that more than 10 subscribers lose the capacity to make a 9-1-1 call outage for purposes of the section is any loss of 9-1-1 calling capacity whether caused by a lack of function. The subscribers back to power equipment lack of function within the provider system or by any other factor external to the provider system including an outage in electric power system. Then that's with respect to the ISP. Then in addition, the rule shall require every electric company to report to the board any network-wide power outage affecting more than one service location within two hours of notice of the outage or as soon as practical. And then the deadline for filing the proposed rule to L-Card February 1st of next year. And then subsection B are these would actually similar requirements but they would take effect though 30 days after the effective date of this section. These are temporary standards and procedures. That's the idea being until the final rules are adopted there would still be some requirements. For two hours, we did modify that too. Notice of the outage or as soon as possible because as we talked to some of the municipal utilities they don't necessarily mean 24 hours where they learn about it from alignment and don't have the capability to get it in the and that's why we added the assume of practical language. The purpose of this is really just to collect the information you don't now have about the frequency of outages that they affect. So this is kind of the first step in what to do about it that's next year. No, we voted it but Bobby moved it to us on the floor today after we voted it. Is that true? Yeah. It physically came here yesterday. It physically came here yet? Fine. We'll move to approach. Don't tell anybody. We'll move it to approach. Because there's no one looking. Are you sure he didn't move it to approach? Oh, maybe he did that. I thought he moved it to finance. He can't move it to approach because did you take it up? Yeah. Oh, okay. Maybe he's moved it to approach. All right. We're done with that. We're done. All right. I'm trying to figure out how we get the rest of these bills done. Okay. For me on the website if you can look. We're moving. Okay. This section here 25 says that when coverage goes down within two hours, some people are notified there's no longer coverage right? Not the people. Not the people. Some of them. Yeah. 911 knows that they've got a problem up in these overshoes. Now they know that the problem isn't solved but right now we don't have centralized place where all this power outage stuff is even collected. So the first step of figuring out how to solve the problem is to get an idea of what the extent of the problem is and right now we don't know. Yeah. So this is the first of a two-part problem solution. Right. About 2,365 days ago and plus two hours we were notified the coverage cost went down. It's still valid. Okay, but all right. That was then this is now and some of us want to go home. Well, I would like to. Okay. I haven't even tried to deal with the coverage before we start to mandate in the future that we have to learn something within two hours when we don't do anything when we. We are here a minute. I'm going to. We're free to go. Okay. But I haven't got that schedule because no one told me about the menu. So we will do that when we get to this. I told the commissioner that she can make some comments if she'd like now and then we're going to go vote out the end bill. All right. I wonder if they centered practice for a part of this and these things are working. Okay. Okay. Center practice. Well, we can't change the past. Solving that problem last summer about a year ago. We can't change the past. We can try and make sure it doesn't happen again in the future. All right. And maybe the department has already figured out how to do that. So we will move forward. Commissioner. Well. Thank you. Chair and commissioner. Thank you so much for having me again on such short notice. I'll try to keep it very brief. And to the point based on the discussion I just heard. I recognize in Senator Brock's amendment proposal that there is a desire to revisit the plan for telecommunications. And I also am fully cognizant of this. Certainly based on my nomination vote that there was a displeasure with the product that my agency has supported. Generate or at least that's what I've seen to be about the facts. I had tried to find out. Happy to speak with me, so I didn't also talk to you about that. I would urge the committee to slow this down a little bit. So I've spoken to Senator Brock about this. I think that a plan to be affected should have the volume. And this committee has not had enough time to take testimony with us. They've all stayed holders and don't have the volume. You're talking now about the telecommunications plan. In specific community amendments that would challenge the telecommunications planning process. There are also other elements in the amendments that are similarly affecting that matter, Senator. For instance, the proposed amendment about bad impacts. I too was aware of the problems that they've had at Trusbury. And as I think that committee is aware, my department petitioned the PC for an investigation of this bad impact issue. And that investigation is underway as we speak. The amendment proposes that I do this work in consultation with the PC. But in my opinion, you have a process in place now when the PC needs that kind of investigation. The department was participating in that. And I think that is a measured way to go about achieving what you want to do. That is where a technical record can be developed about these things. It will be done appropriately cognizant of the jurisdiction limitations that we have on the issue. We do have to remain mindful, and so I'm trying to find out that bad impacts in the life are recommended by the FCC. And we're talking about back and forth services not strictly committed to state jurisdiction. This is why this body created the PC, and I would strongly urge you to look into their expertise process in terms of the ability to meet such sort of experts on matter in order to help with those practices that you're talking about. Recognizing though that when the enemy can't compel adherences to those practices. So that's the kind of thing that you can legislate now this way, but not even have parallel processes. Can you see any investigation, and you have me consulting with them about something that they're invested in? And that, to my mind, risks an over-commitment of resources that are scarce. That's an example of the kind of thing that we're doing. The only thing I would comment on is that for the past four days, we've been consulting with your director of policy and plans, was seeing this graph, and this is the first we've heard of this. I was a way of doing this, sir. Well, again, the fact that your department and your key person would not have provided the information that there's a PUC investigation that's being done, that any part of this would conflict was just amazing to me. Sir, I'm happy to discuss this with you. A point in front of people in the nation. I can't sit here to do anything to this. I'm just pointing out that there is a process underway in the community. I gotta notice, I thought people did about the Shrewsbury thing and that there had been a request to open a docket. Yeah, in fact, this is a little bit of that effect. So it may just be that I got a copy, but I didn't know that there was something going on. The son of this point is that my person's been dealing with him and clearly there has not been a good over-commitment. He did in fact have been consulting with the director of the bill. Understood. Okay. And he's supportive. Is that okay? Yeah, all right. I saw in comments from the department that have been incorporated here, this was not one of them, nor was it even mentioned. Okay, but time goes on, people, things percolate. And it might be more helpful, commissioner, if you could just give us some written comments and we could, or specifics that you would like to see changed in the bill. Alternative suggestions, I think we're trying to come up with a telecom plan that is meaningful. And this is my point, and I'm sure that to do that, it would be better to have a process this summer where you have the senator and others interested at the department and other stakeholders to participate in designing what that telecom statute for planning should look like, as opposed to doing it in this way, where there's been very little stakeholder input, certainly not through testimony. I'm not aware of what other stakeholders, for instance, have been telling me about what can and cannot be done with. Well, they maybe knows nothing. So I think. Thank you, senator. We have not been involved in the process at all. So I think that we're trying to find a way to move us forward to have an effective plan in a timely fashion. I think we recognize that you have been short-staffed and that we have a responsibility to make sure that you have adequate staffing to do what we expect you to do. Madam chair, there's really only one point I would make tonight on that very point. To the extent that the USF charge has increased the new revenues, 500 to 600,000 of those revenues will be newly consumed by the tax department to administer the point of sale to this party. So it's not as much money as you think is coming down. Okay. Increasing the risk. The tax department will get most of that money. To administer the fact that they now have to regulate point of sale collections of that money because of the change of federal law in Israel. The thing with the cards. Okay. We just heard the opposite. No. Maria said that no one objected to that. No one objected, there is a money. I'm just pointing it out that we. No one objected to get the money. There's the direction of the money. Maria has come from, personally I come up next here. Okay. The second one, I think it requires that the personnel additional costs become universal service funds. Right. So whether there's. I think we just need to know what the needs are. And similarly, when we were talking earlier about how we're getting them new money, it's important to point out that new money, if materializes through an increase in the gross receipts tax or in the fee bill, it is needed to pay for existing expenses. We already have an $800,000 deficit this year. So as Senator Bell was pointing out, these new obligations which are battling for good things to do, are things that are going to get done above me on what we're already doing with resources that are short and I just wanted to bring you aware of it. So we need to, we may need to decide, because we've got two major studies in here. Precisely. One is the electric co-ops and electric companies. Precisely. That is one. And then the other is a new telecom plan. Precisely. And we want that telecom plan by next year. You want it in 18 months. We are going to have to start immediately and that might as well be the notes right now and then we'll need more resources. Okay. And I'm not in the position to identify for that. Is there anything that we should do? Okay, I think that would be helpful if you went back and talked to your folks and found out what you might need and how long things would take and we can figure out then what our, what realistic expectations might be along with any way we might find your race and money. And the last one I believe we can do with the ride is many of the initiatives in H.I. 13 are outwards of proposals the department made based on the telecom plan that we prepared and given to you. Right. So the present plan has generated a work product that I'm proud of and it is reflecting the practice of what it was, significant support for the children and the experience they're trying to spread to. I think we have come to realize that riding around with telephones in a box is actually an important study and is getting us a national recognition or appreciation. And despite when we started saying, okay, unfortunately sometimes that's the only way to do it, very primitive and hands on. Okay, yeah, I will let you just go through it, write us some comments or make some edits that you would like to see. The committee's just heard this for the first time. So this is Sunderbrock's proposal. I've got another one coming from at least one, maybe two from Senator McDonald. And we'll take those all under consideration. And I would be here, I'm complimenting Sunderbrock on the direction of the ideas and it really is a question of how we're... I think we all want to go in the same direction. I don't think anyone wants people not being able to get 911 service. I'm not sure we have an easy fix to it, but we can start. I'm assuming I would do... Your excuse. Thank you very much. Anyone can walk with it. Okay, committee, we're gonna do the ed bill. And then...