 Thanks so much. Good morning, everyone. This is an evidentiary hearing in case number 22-2233-PBT, which is the petition of Vermont Gas Systems Incorporated. We're starting to 30 BSA section 248 high for approval of an out-of-state renewable gas purchase contract with a term exceeding five years. My name is Daniel Burke, and I'm a staff attorney with the commission and a hearing officer assigned to this case. With me today is Andrea Pappini. She's also a hearing officer with the commission and a utilities analyst. I also saw that Joan White, who is a staff utility analyst, is also on the call today. She's not participating in the hearing, but she will be observing. I sent out last week a procedural order with instructions for participating in hearings remotely. I first want to ask for any of the parties. Do any of you have an objection to holding this hearing remotely on the GoToMeeting software? No. No objection from BGS. No objection from the department. No objection. And I would like to proceed then to take notices of appearance. Could we start, Mr. Porter, with the department? Sure. I'm Jim Porter on behalf of the Department of Public Service. With me today is our witness Adam Jacobs, who is a utilities consultant analyst. And for BGS? Good morning. My name is Owen McLean from She-He Furlong and Beam. I'm appearing on behalf of BGS today. I also have a few other witnesses for the case in the room. We'll be today Todd Lawless and Greg Morse. Jill Fennig is also with me in the room. And then one of our witnesses, Tom Murray, is remote. And so he'll be available for cross-examination in that manner. Thank you. And Ms. Bach, can you introduce yourself? Catherine Bach, Rosé. And I have my witness, Dr. Emily Grubert. And before we came on the record this morning, I discussed with the parties the witness order for the case today. Dr. Grubert, the intervener's witness has a time constraint that's available this morning only till 9.30. So we are going to start immediately with cross-examination of Dr. Grubert and then proceed to cross-examination of the BGS, potentially the remaining intervener witness and then the department's witness. So we have not discussed evidentiary stipulations, but do all the parties agree to stipulate to the admission of Dr. Grubert's pre-fail direct testimony in her exhibits? I have no objection to the admission of Dr. Grubert's testimony in exhibits. There's some background noise, and it looks to me like someone CK has got the mic on and maybe a couple others. I'm just getting some road noise. I am seeing someone with the name of Carolyn Kuebler. I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing your last name, but Ms. Kuebler, if you could turn the microphone off on your computer, I think that would be helpful. Be quiet. Be quiet. So I think we can proceed. And Mr. Porter to follow up, do you have any objection to the admission of Dr. Grubert's testimony in her exhibits? The department has no objection. So I am going to, for the record, note that the pre-fail direct testimony of Dr. Grubert is admitted, and that is Dr. Emily Grubert, excuse me, and her exhibits that are marked as intervener EG-0, EG-1, EG-2, EG-3, EG-4, and EG-5 are admitted to the record. And Ms. Bach, absent any further testimony you need to elicit from Dr. Grubert, I think I'd like to call her to the stand first. So Dr. Grubert, could you turn your microphone on, please? Yes. And your camera. And before we get started, I think, yes, I can see you. And I will swear you in. So we will need to do that at the outset. And so before we get started, Dr. Grubert, do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. So Mr. McLean, I believe we are ready for cross-examination. OK. Good morning, Dr. Grubert. How are you? Doing pretty well. And yeah, thank you for accommodating the schedule. Absolutely. Mr. Burke, do you want me to show? Can I have my, can I share my screen so that I could show Dr. Grubert a couple of documents? Yes. Mr. McLean, I should have just made you a presenter and let me know if that did not work. Let's see. One second, it's circling. And I can see your screen now, Mr. McLean. OK, great. Dr. Grubert, can you see my screen here? I can, and the PDF is zooming into the middle right now. OK, great. So I'm just going to show you a couple of documents and ask you whether you're familiar with them, OK? OK. So this is the document that's been marked VGS Cross Exhibit 1. Is this, and I'm going to zoom out a little bit from the document so you can kind of see the whole thing, but we can zoom in to see the text if you need to. OK, so just let me know if you can't read anything. Does this look familiar to you? Is this one of your discovery responses in this case? Yes, it is. And I'm just going to go through a couple of them so we have them all up. So the second one is been marked VGS Cross Exhibit 5. Does this, same question, does this document look familiar? And is this one of your discovery responses? Yes, it is. And then I'm going to just show you Cross Exhibit 1.7. Same question, does this look familiar? This is one of your discovery responses. Yeah, the verdict, yes, that is. And then I think finally, this is Cross Exhibit 1.12. And do you recognize this as one of your discovery responses as well? Yes, I do. OK. And then the other thing I'm going to open up is your testimony so that you can see it. And I just have a few questions. And then we'll let you go. So I'm going to scroll down to page 8 of your testimony. So on page 8 of your testimony outline 2, you testified petroleum-related CO2 emissions open to rent. The only other fossil-related CO2 emissions reported by the Energy Information Administration for Vermont remained essentially flat during the recent period where natural gas emissions have been rising, suggesting that the natural gas is not to put that the natural gas is not displacing more emissions-intensive fuels on an absolute basis. That's your testimony, right? Yes, that is. And this is based on your review of data from the Energy Information Administration regarding CO2 emissions, right? Regarding energy-related CO2 emissions for the state of Vermont. Yes, that's right. And you also draw this conclusion that it's unclear that the R&G and its petition will be displacing fossil gas emissions. Is that right? On an absolute basis, yes, that's correct. Absolute basis, right. And so just turning back to cross-exhibit 1, we asked some questions and discovery about that conclusion. And in response to question 1b, question 1b asked about emissions in the residential natural gas sector, right? Steve McClane, I'm sorry to jump in. The text on my screen's appearing quite small. So if you have an opportunity to zoom in a little bit, I think, for people who are watching. Yeah, sure. Dr. Gruber, can you read this? I can, yes. Thank you. So the first question asked you about some of the trends in the residential sector and natural gas, right? That's correct, at least 1b. 1b, right. And your response to 1b was that you object to the interrogatory on the basis of it being irrelevant to my point that absolute natural gas-related CO2 emissions in Vermont have increased since 1990, correct? That is correct, yes. And you also state, I did not review sector-specific documentation. Correct, I looked at statewide emissions trends, which is, I believe, what the Global Warming Solution Act is most relevant for. Yeah. And in response to, here, let me scroll up to 1c. In response to 1c, which asked, identify and describe all analyses you've performed in connection with customer growth in the residential natural gas sector and produce all related workpapers, you also just refer to 1b. I take it that you also just object to that question on the basis of relevance and that you did not review customer growth information in connection with your conclusion that natural gas is not displacing other fossil fuels in Vermont, right? On an absolute basis versus 1990, that is correct. Right, and so in connection with your review, you're not claiming, for example, that natural gas is not displacing more fossil fuel-intensive customer use, just that on an absolute basis, it's purely an absolute basis and a comparison, correct? That's correct because that's the legislation in the state, I guess. And so you don't disagree, for example, that when a large commercial customer that uses petroleum or diesel or other similar kind of form of fuel that there would be emissions reduction associated with their conversion to natural gas, right? Relative to whether they continued using petroleum potentially, but I think those prospective ones are not necessarily the actual thing that would have happened. So the counterfactual is not necessarily ongoing use of petroleum. Right, but just to be clear, in this case, you're not actually looking at Vermont customers or the extent to which they're changing their fuel use habits. You're just looking at the information you looked at is just the absolute emissions-based data from the EIA, right? That's correct, relevant to the law. And concerning that information, about how much time did you review the EIA data? I do this for my job, so I'm pretty familiar with the EIA data, but for this particular time I looked at that file for maybe an hour. And when you say that file, you mean the EIA data that you linked to in your testimony? Correct, the Vermont XLSX or whatever it is. And out of curiosity, did that data was rounded to the nearest tenth? Did you review that data based on the underlying numbers that were inputted into the fields or did you just look at the high-level rounded numbers to the tenth? Yeah, so that Excel file actually does go out to a large number of decimal places and I looked at those, but I think for the overall point of what the trend is, it's not that relevant to go more out, but yes, I did look at the further decimals. Right, but when you look at the data in more detail it doesn't actually show that, for example, petroleum-based fuels have been flat. Emissions have been flat, does it? Relatively flat, I think that's what I said, yes. And would you agree that for Vermont those numbers are pretty low? So when you say relatively, that's not for me. Yes, I do see, we have two people with your cameras on that are not participating and your microphones are both on. One of them is a name go-to for Cheryl. If you could please try to turn your camera off and then there's a gentleman who just says waiting for name if you could mute yourself and turn your camera off, that would be helpful. Mr. Burke, I'd like to move for the admission of EGS Cross Exhibit One, please. Ms. Bach, do you have any objection to having this discovery response admitted into the evidentiary record? No objection. Mr. Porter, does the department have any objection? The department has no objection. All right, so I will admit the exhibit. Just for the record, that was VGS Cross One. VGS Cross One, correct, yep. Ms. Bach, or sorry, Dr. Gruber. I'm gonna turn you down a couple of pages in your testimony, I think to page 10. But let's start at the bottom of page nine. And in this question, you posed a question to yourself about the Greek model carbon intensity scoring. And you asked, is this an adequate method for assessing the GHG emissions reductions under this contract? And when you say this, you're referring to the Greek model, correct? I'm referring to the specific score taken from the Greek model that I understand VGS to be using. Yeah, and the Greek model that you're discussing, that's the Argonne National Laboratory Greek model that VGS adapted for assessing the carbon intensity of the RNG under the proposed contract in this case, right? I believe so, although I believe they just adopted a single score, not the actual modeling framework. And your answer to the question, is it an adequate method? The answer was no, right? Yes, using a single score that was calculated for a completely different use case is not an adequate method for demonstrating greenhouse gas reductions in a specific context. Right. And we asked you some discovery questions about this conclusion in question one, seven, correct? And I'm showing you that document now. And I can see it, thank you. Yeah, and one of the questions we asked was whether Vermont, whether you were aware that Vermont doesn't have an approved carbon intensity scoring methodology, we asked you to admit that, right? In question one, seven, A. And your response was I'm not aware of whether Vermont has an approved model carbon intensity scoring methodology, correct? In part, yes. And I also wanna emphasize that whether Vermont has an approved model carbon intensity score is not actually fully relevant to the question of whether this is producing an adequate modeling of what's actually going on with the greenhouse gas reductions. Right, you object on the basis that it's not relevant to your conclusion and that you're not aware of whether Vermont has an approved model, right? That's correct. And we also asked, in the absence of an approved model, what existing model would you recommend to assess this contract? And you also objected to that question as irrelevant stating that it's just irrelevant. Is that right? It's irrelevant to the question of whether what was used was appropriate. And I don't think that it's my role as someone commenting on appropriateness to recommend an actual model, but this is something that people are required to do quite frequently. Yeah, and so you don't know about whether there's a Vermont approved model and you don't have a recommendation for a different model though, right? That was not part of the scope of what I was testifying about, no? Yeah. Before you testified, were you aware that the Vermont legislature passed a bill this last year calling for a, quote, schedule of life cycle emissions rates, and quote, based on, quote, transparent and accurate emissions accounting, adapting the Argonne National Laboratory Reap Model or an alternative of comparable analytical rigor? Did you know that that was passed legislation that has not gone into law yet? Not prior to working on this case, no. And on some part, E of the question, we asked you to produce all calculations, analysis and work papers, supporting your statement that distribution, metering and end-use emissions could be higher in the company's use context than in the California CNG context. And I take it the relevance of that comment is that the California CNG context is data that's incorporated into the REAP model and you're discussing the comparability of those two things, is that right? Not quite. So what's actually, I think what's maybe a little bit of a point of confusion here is the great model is a way to model different carbon intensities of, for example, RNG and a number of other things. I believe in this particular case, the company simply adopted the conclusion for the specific context of CNG in California for this particular RNG resource. The model is actually capable of doing things like evaluating RNG use across different types of end-uses in different locations, et cetera. But to my knowledge, the company did not actually model that for the state of Vermont and simply adopted the California one. My comment that the distribution, metering and end-use emissions could be higher, which is a possibility, not necessarily a guarantee, is mostly based on the notion that compressed natural gas often does not actually engage those life cycle stages. So if you're producing compressed natural gas, you may not use the distribution system, you may not use customer meters and you may not have end-use emissions that are actually the same as what you would see inside of a household, for example. What we know from methane emissions evaluation is that those end-uses inside buildings tend to be a little bit higher on end-use emissions than we see in industrial settings. So again, it's not a guarantee that it's higher or lower, but because those life cycle stages are likely to be unusual in a California CNG context and are likely to be typical in the company's context of just noting that those are probably not included in the California CNG score, but greed, I believe, is capable of evaluating those if you actually do model the specific case. Mr. McPenney, before you go on, Dr. Gerber, I just want to remind you, we have a court reporter today, you're a bit of a quick talker, so if you could try to slow down a little bit, I think she would appreciate that. Yeah, yeah. Apologies. Thank you for the comment. No problem, I do the same thing sometimes. It should be easier, because I think my questions are fairly far more simple minded than maybe potentially you'd like your answers to be. My only question about this particular response, Dr. Gerber, was that with respect to actual calculating, actually calculating distribution metering and other end use emissions that could be quote unquote higher in the company's context than the California CNG context, my only question was that is to just confirm that you didn't actually perform any calculations or analysis or didn't produce any work papers that showed that that was the case. That's just something that you're speculating about, right? I'm speculating that based on quite a lot of research that I've done in the past, which I included as exhibits, but the kind of simple way to put this is, it's possible at the kind of lower end that for CNG, all of those emissions are zero and they're unlikely to be zero for the company. So that basis is kind of where this is coming from. But with respect to how possible it is or whether it's actually factually true here, you haven't done any analysis with respect to VGS's system. And so you're not commenting on VGS's system. Is that right? That's correct. But I believe VGS has also not done those calculations which are fairly crucial for actually evaluating emissions. Okay, so I'd like to move for the admission of VGS cross-exhibit seven, please. Ms. Bach, do you have any objection to the admission of this document into the evidentiary record? No objection. Mr. Porter, does the department have any objection? The department has no objection. So I will admit VGS cross seven into the evidentiary record. Please go ahead, Mr. McClain. Okay, thank you. I'm watching the clock, Dr. Gruberts. So I will make sure we will not keep you longer then. So on page 12 of your testimony, you testified that a future that complies with Global Warming Solutions Act, the Global Warming Solutions Act would likely require heavy use of pathways capable of achieving zero greenhouse gas emissions to provide the services currently provided by natural gas, such as electrification and further efficiency upgrades. Correct? That's correct. And in general, and in general, you conclude that this contract is not a cost effective means to meet the GWSA goals, correct? I make no claims about cost effectiveness, which to my understanding is not part of the GWSA mandates, but I do note that something can be cheap and not actually comply with a mandate. And I'm just gonna open up, sorry that the screen's getting a little busy on me. And I'm gonna, let me see, is this big enough for you to see what's been marked as cross-exhibit 11? I don't see any yellow marking, like I did with the other ones, but I can't see what's on the screen right now. I mean, by marking, I mean, like the label. Apologies. Yes, thank you. And in this question, we asked whether you had modeled different pathways to the GWSA goals and your response to that question was that you have not modeled compliance pathways and you objected to the question and said it was irrelevant, right? I did on the basis of basically asking to model the entire state is not really relevant to the question of whether gas emissions are reducing quickly enough to be commensurate with the requirements in the GWSA. Right. And so you have not modeled that and you have not produced any calculations related to that modeling. And you also didn't model the extent to which electric electrification and further efficiency upgrades could be deployed in a manner sufficient to meet those goals, right? Not at high level for Vermont. That's the type of work that I do. So I've done it in other contexts, but not in this particular case now. Yeah, absolutely. I'd like to move for the admission of exhibit VGS Cross exhibit 11, please. And Ms. Bach, do you have any objection to the admission of this document and to the evidentiary record? No objection. And Mr. Porter. The department has no objection. VGS Cross 11 is admitted into the evidentiary record. Thank you. Can you see what's been marked as exhibit VGS Cross 13? Dr. Gruber. Yes, I can. Thank you. And in connection with this question, we inquired about one of your, one of the statements through testimony, has Dr. Gruber performed an assessment of the cost effectiveness of GHG emissions reduction strategies, quote, constrained to solutions that deliver zero emissions. And you objected to this question and said that you had not modeled the relative cost effectiveness of various paths to Vermont's stated goal of net zero emissions, correct? That's correct. And I'd also like to emphasize that the law does not include a cost effectiveness metric. To my knowledge. Right, correct. So just for context so that we know what we're talking about. On page 14 and page 15 of your testimony, you answered and asked yourself the question, do you consider, what do you consider the best means for assessing cost effectiveness for GHG emissions? And then you answered, you think the best method is to constrain those solutions to ones that offer zero emissions, correct? Yeah, what I was responding to is what's the best method for assessing the cost effectiveness in the context of that being the goal. So essentially saying that modeling cost effectiveness of things that reach the goal is kind of required in that case. Yes. All right. I'd like to move for the admission of VGS Cross Exhibit 13, please. Ms. Bach, do you have any objection to the admission of this document? Objection. Mr. Porter, does the department object? The department has no objection. So VGS Cross 13 is admitted to the event entry record. Well, Dr. Grubert, thank you very much for your time this morning. Adi, curiosity, what are you speaking about later today? I'm on a panel about carbon management and the Inflation Reduction Act. Interesting, and where is that presentation? New York City. Yeah. Well, thank you very much. Apologies to the hotel room background, and thank you. No, thank you for your time, and I appreciate it. I have no further questions for Dr. Grubert. Have a great day. Thank you. You too. Ms. Bach, I'll have one or two questions for Dr. Grubert, but why don't you do, well, actually, Mr. Porter, I should ask, do you have any cross examination for Dr. Grubert? My apologies, Mr. Porter. Thank you. The department has no questions for this witness. Ms. Bach, why don't you do your redirect of Dr. Grubert first before I ask my question or two? Mr. Grubert. Do you have anything to add? Yes, Mr. Plaint. Okay. Mr. Grubert, can I just remind us that redirect is for the purpose of questioning within the scope of the cross examination, correct? So it's not an opportunity to ask you questions or to ask questions that I hadn't asked questions about, right? Right. That's correct, Mr. Plaint. Thank you, and we discussed that. So, Ms. Bach, please go ahead. Thank you. This is just a question. I want to be sure that I understood it correctly. And you were asked if you did calculations using the GRIT model, and you said that you hadn't. But my understanding is that VGS in writing this proposal should have done those calculations. Is that correct? My, that's correct. So I did not do any GRIT calculations for this case. I have used GRIT in the past and have performed calculations with GRITs and I'm fairly familiar with the model. And yes, my overall point is that it's a model and using one answer from the model is not appropriate, but the model is available for use for a specific case. Okay. Thank you. You were asked a number of questions about various things in this case. Can you please explain why you did not think it was important to do the things you were asked about? You know what I mean? Yeah, particularly pertaining to pathways for reductions and that sort of thing or yeah, yeah. So essentially the law states that there's a requirement for reducing emissions relative to a 1990 basis by 2030. Because of that, I was using that as an overall constraint. And so kind of determined that my modeling, how to actually get there was not particularly relevant for answering the questions of whether this is consistent with those goals and those mandates specifically with the 2030 target in particular. Okay. Well, I'm not sure if we talked about this, but the environmental attributes, could you explain how they're given to the VGS by this contract? We didn't ask any questions about environmental attributes. So I mean, I object to the question, I guess it's beyond the scope of cross. Ms. Bach, you clarify specifically what you're asking about environmental attributes. Cause I will have questions of VGS's witnesses about this later today, but maybe it can be a little more specific with Dr. Gruber. Well, the fact that VGS will be getting environmental attributes for selling some of the renewable natural gas as transportation fuel. And that is the way, but that's in your proposal. So we haven't really talked about it. Maybe it's better that you ask her. Let's see. Do I understand that response that you're moving on to a different question? Just Mr. McClain made an objection and as a hearing officer, I also know they have to issue a real question. So I guess I have no more questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Bach. So Dr. Gruber, I do have a couple of questions. I think one of them might actually be germane to what Ms. Bach was going to ask you. The first question I have for you preparing your testimony for this case or preparing for this hearing, did you look at or review the Department of Public Services 2022 comprehensive energy plan? I did not. I reviewed specific paragraphs of it that I was looking at, but I did not read the whole carefully. Did you read the sections on the comprehensive energy plan that discuss renewable natural gas? A little bit, but not enough to talk about that as kind of a core input. Okay, fair enough. And then on the same vein, did you look at all at Vermont Gas as current alternative regulation plan that was approved by the commission? I did not. And so, and I do have a question. I'm gonna ask BGS's witnesses about this as well. There seems to be some disagreement about potential environmental attributes that would be connected with a theoretical carbon capture and sequestration storage facility at the site in New York. And can you speak to your testimony about why it's your opinion that those attributes would not be connected to the gas that's acquired under this contract? Yeah, so essentially the way that carbon capture and sequestration works is that you're talking about CO2. Landfills produce both CO2 and CH4, which is methane, that's what we make into RNG based on the testimony that I received and the definitions that are referenced in that testimony. My understanding is that BGS has a contract for biogas which is defined under, I don't remember the exact thing, but it's in my response. One of the CFRs basically showing that biogas is actually defined as a hydrocarbon. That means that the right is actually to the methane component. So my assertion is essentially that I think BGS actually needs to prove that it has the right to the environmental attributes associated with CO2, which is not a hydrocarbon. And from my understanding of what was actually filed in the contract is not part of what they have the rights to. So having the environmental attributes associated with methane is independent of having the environmental attributes associated with CO2, I believe unless further specified, carbon capture and sequestration would only affect the CO2. And so if there's not actually a right to the CO2, having the environmental attributes associated with the biogas in this case defined as the hydrocarbon does not necessarily mean that the environmental attributes of the CO2 are also present. Further, I believe that I would actually like to see the company kind of positively confirmed that they have those rights because as I noted in my testimony, and I believe in some of my interrogatory responses as well, carbon capture and sequestration, especially of biogenic CO2, like you see produced from a landfill is an incredibly valuable resource. As such, I think that without proof that the company actually owns those environmental attributes, again, associated with the gas that I don't believe they have a contract for because it's not a hydrocarbon, that is something that I would like to see positive confirmation of as opposed to just assuming that it goes along with the methane. And so if VGS were able to demonstrate these to your satisfaction or ultimately in this case the commission satisfaction that those attributes are attached to their rights under this contract and the CCS facility actually comes online as projected, would that in any way change your opinion on the overall scope and benefits of this contract? It's an interesting question because I think one of the side comments about this is that that still would not actually affect the climate impact of the RMG itself. It would mean that the company essentially had rights to negative emissions. And so from a net basis in purchasing rights essentially to carbon dioxide removal, you end up with an overall net lower emissions profile. Nonetheless, that does not actually reduce the emissions associated with the RMG. And like I mentioned, because carbon dioxide removal is so valuable, I think that starts another set of questions about whether this is the highest and best use of these very scarce resources. But yes, on a net basis, purchasing negative emissions or having the rights to negative emissions would actually reduce your overall legal responsibility for emissions. It's kind of the principle behind net zero, but I do wanna stress carbon capture and sequestration will not actually physically affect the RMG component at all. It's a completely separate gas. Thank you. So those are the questions I had for Dr. Gruber. Mr. McLean, do you have any just quick follow-up on the questions that I had for Dr. Gruber? You are muted right now, Mr. McLean. Yes, just one. Dr. Gruber, did you review in connection with preparing your testimony a publicly filed exhibit along with Todd Lawless's testimony called Redacted Confidential Exhibit VGST L-2 which is the Long-Term Transaction Confirmation? I believe so. I don't remember the exact title, but I did look at a contract. And you reviewed all of the terms of that contract? Yes, and I believe that's the one that actually defines biogas via that federal definition which is the one that defines biogas as a hydrocarbon or something produced by anaerobic digestion which excludes CO2. Okay, thank you. And Ms. Bach, likewise, do you have any questions to follow up on my line of questions for Dr. Gruber? Nope, thank you. And Mr. Porter, same question for you. Do you have any questions for the department to follow up on my questions for Dr. Gruber? I don't, thank you. Dr. Gruber, thank you. We are getting you out of here 15 minutes early, so if you can get a copy. Thank you. And again, I really appreciate everyone starting a little bit early very much. So thank you all. Have a great day. Thank you for making it today. So we know it's a little bit of a commitment for you as well. So thank you very much. You're excused. Thank you so much. So Mr. Porter, Mr. McLean and Ms. Bach, I think we can have just a little bit of a sidebar discussion here. So I think I'm ready to move forward with the discussion of Mr. McLean's motion to exclude testimony. And then I think it might also make sense to do with evidentiary stipulations beyond that going forward. So we don't have to worry about having each witness going forward have their exhibits admitted separately. I think that will make Joanne's job a lot easier putting the transcript together. Does that work for you all? And so with respect, okay. Yeah, sorry that that makes sense to me. So. I didn't use that what you just said. Oh, okay. Sorry, Ms. Bach. I'm sorry, forgive me. I need to remember that you were a pro se representative here. So what I think what we're gonna do now is I will address the substance of Mr. McLean's motion to exclude your witness's testimony and your response, which I did receive yesterday. So thank you for that. And then what we'll do after that is address the admission of all the other prefiled testimony that's been filed in this case. Because when testimony is filed to EPUC, it doesn't mean that it's admitted into the evidentiary record. I as the hearing author, sir, have to affirmatively admit all those documents into the evidentiary record for them to be considered as part of the final order of this case. And since no objections have been filed, I'm going to presume that all those documents can be admitted into the evidentiary record, but we'll discuss that separately after we discuss the motion to strike. And so as I noted on the motion to strike, this was filed by Mr. McLean last Thursday and Mr. McLean on behalf of DGS filed a motion to strike the testimony of Jeffrey Gardner. And I understand your motion, Mr. McLean, to strike the testimony in its entirety. And Ms. Bach filed a response to that yesterday. Mr. Porter, before I dive into the merits, does the department have any response to Mr. McLean's motion? I mean, I think all we would say is as we've done, as the PUC has done for years, being an expert tribunal, you have the ability to weigh as to weight the evidence that you receive. I'm not sure that Mr. Gardner qualifies an expert witness. That said, we don't object to any testimony that the PUC might find it helpful to hear. Thank you, Mr. Porter. And Ms. Bach, I appreciate your response. And I think one thing you flagged in your response was that the rules of evidence do apply in commission proceedings, but section 810 under the Administrative Procedures Act also relaxes the rules of evidence, the applicability of the rules of evidence and some proceedings. And specifically, that section, just to read in the record says the Vermont rules of evidence as applied in civil cases in the superior courts of this state shall be followed. When necessary to ascertain facts not reasonably susceptible of proof under those rules, evidence not admissible there under may be admitted, except we're precluded by statute if it is a type commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent man and the conduct of their affairs. And I will say with that section, it does still keep the reasonably prudent man standard, which is a bit anachronistic. So you all should call your legislator about that this next coming term. But I think in line with Ms. Bach, your response to Mr. Porter, the department's position, I am going to admit the testimony. I'm going to deny Mr. McClain's motion. And Mr. McClain, part of the concern I have there is having reread Mr. Gardner's testimony. I think your motion is overly broad. There may be portions of Mr. Gardner's testimony that do rely on scientific knowledge, but there's certainly extensive sections that are not purely scientific or technical. They do very into opinion and they do rely in some extent heavily on hearsay. But in this case, I will note that Mr. Gardner, to the extent he does proffer scientific testimony, he cites to Dr. Grubert's article. Dr. Grubert has been a witness in this case. So you did have an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Grubert. And I'm sure if you need to cross-examine her on those scientific facts, we can go back and try to have her back. But as Mr. Porter also noted, the commission standard is usually when we admit evidence, if it's the type of evidence that would not otherwise be admissible under the rules of evidence. It does go to the weight of the evidence. Ms. Bach, I know your motion acknowledged that. So when a witness is relying on hearsay, I'm not a jury. I'm not going to be confused by the source of the hearsay, but it does go ultimately to the weight and to the value of the evidence when I'm considering all the evidence that's filed at the end of the day. So I am going to allow Mr. Gardner's testimony into the record and we'll deny Mr. McLean's motion. But Mr. McLean, your motion, it's on the record. Any issues related to it are preserved going forward. So unless there's any further commentary from any of the parties on that, I think we can move forward to stipulations on the remainder of the evidence. Mr. McLean, do you want to add anything or respond? No, thank you very much. All right. So we have also filed in this case, Ms. Bach, you had your own testimony on top of Mr. Gardner's testimony. Mr. McLean, you filed the testimony. Mr. Murray, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Wallace had three exhibits and then Mr. Morse had rebuttal testimony and my apologies. And Mr. Porter, the department filed testimony from Adam Jacobs. And there was also an exhibit from Mr. Gardner as well. Ms. Bach, you had two exhibits. Do the parties stipulate to the admission of all those filings to EPUC and to the evidentiary record? Are there any objections to the admission of any of those documents? No objection. No objection. Mr. McLean? Yeah, but the exception of Mr. Gardner's testimony, we have no objection. Understood. So for the record, I'm going to read in all the evidence that we are admitting into the case that has not already been admitted. And that includes on behalf of VGS, the direct testimony of Thomas Murray, the direct testimony of Todd Lawless, exhibits VGS TL-1, TL-2 and TL-3, and then the rebuttal testimony of Gregory Morse. On behalf of the interveners, we have the direct testimony of Catherine Bach, exhibits CB-1 and CB-2. We've already admitted the prefilled direct testimony of Dr. Grubert and exhibits intervener, EG-0 through EG-5. And also noting that over VGS's objection, I'm also admitting the prefilled direct testimony of Jeffrey Gardner and exhibit GG-1. And then finally, on behalf of the department, we have the direct testimony of Adam Jacobs. So that is those testimonies and exhibits are all admitted into the evidentiary record for this case. Can I ask a question? Yes, please go ahead Ms. Bach. Did VGS's first responses to the DPS discovery, are they entered into the record? So discovery responses that are filed if you see are not admitted into the evidentiary record unless a party asks for them to be admitted. So when Mr. McClain did his cross-examination of Dr. Grubert, he pulled the specific discovery responses that he wanted to ask questions about and asked for those to be admitted into the record. So if there are discovery responses in this case that have been filed that you would like to be admitted to the evidentiary record, you'll have to ask for them to be admitted. And usually the best time to do that is during cross-examination of the witness that is responsible for that discovery response. But are there specific discovery that you would like to have admitted into the record that you're aware of? Well, I have them listed with my questions. So I go through them. There's like four of them. Are you planning to use them when you're cross-examining a witness? Yeah. I think it may be better to just use the documents when we're going through cross-examination unless Mr. McClain or Mr. Porter feels differently and discussing them now. Okay. Mr. McClain, Mr. Porter. And these are just the discovery responses that were filed by parties in this case. Actually, it's the testimony. What's the testimony? Okay. The testimony. The testimony, right? We've admitted the testimony. So if there's any responses, discovery requests that you would like to have admitted, those would need to be treated separately. Okay, but they're only if I'm going to be using them otherwise they can't be admitted just to have them on the record. You could ask to admit them and have them on the record. Mr. McClain and Mr. Porter would have the opportunity to object to those. All right. I think I'd like to ask for that. Are there any specific? Are there any specific? Well, first of all, I should just ask, have you shared these documents with Mr. McClain or Mr. Porter? The discovery responses? Yes. They've had the opportunity to at least see the documents. These are not new documents to them. Is that correct? I don't think so. I think everybody's seen them. And so specifically, which discovery responses would you like to move into the evidentiary record? I mean, just, can I? Yeah. Yeah, so just to be clear, we would be, we're talking about Vermont gas's responses to the department's first set of discovery and VGS's responses to the department's second set of discovery. Right? Yeah. And in connection with that, there are narrative responses. We're talking about the narrative response, Ms. Bach, where there's a question and then there's a written answer. Yeah. And obviously, we're talking about the same versions that were filed in EPUC. Yeah. Yeah. And so to the extent those are the two documents that we're talking about, Mr. Burke, I think we could admit Vermont gas's first set of responses to the department's first set of discovery responses into evidence. We would have no objection to that. And I think we could also admit into evidence Vermont gas's responses to the department's second set of discovery responses. So those are two documents. They each have EPUC numbers on them. And we would have no objection to the admission of both of those documents. Thank you. Mr. Porter, does the department have any objection to those documents? No, the department has no objection. So I'm gonna read into the record and make sure we are all on the same page here. There was a set of responses that VGS filed on August 5th, 2022. And that was in response to the department's first set of discovery requests. And then there was a second set of file on August 15th, 2022, that includes VGS's responses to the department's second set of discovery requests. So are we all on the same page that those are the documents that we're discussing? I believe so, yes. Okay, and what I'll do is I will admit those. I will call the first one for the record. I will just call that, and this is the August 5th, 2022 responses. I'll call the intervener cross one. And then it will be admitted as such. And then the second document, which was the August 15th, 2022 discovery responses will be marked as intervener cross two. And we'll admit them under those names so that all the parties are clear which documents we're referring to if you wanna cite to them in your briefing. And just to be clear, this does not include the discovery attachments, nor does it include any of the confidential material that was included in the discovery responses for the parties that had access to them. Is that clear? Yes. And Mr. Porter, you're okay with that approach as well? Yes. Thank you, everyone. That was remarkably easy. So next, I think we are ready to call VGS's witness. We've been going for about an hour. I'm fine to keep continuing, but if any of the parties would like to take a quick five minute break, I'm also fine with doing that as well. A quick break to make sure, I can get my witness set up. Do we know what order you wanna call these witnesses, Ms. Bock? I'm happy to call them in whatever order or have them testify in whatever manner is easiest for everybody. Yeah. The order doesn't make any difference to me. Okay. Why don't we start with Mr. Lawless? Do you have any questions for Mr. Lawless, Ms. Bock? Yes. Okay. So we'll start with Mr. Lawless, and then I think we can go to Mr. Murray after that, and then we can go to Mr. Moore. So if we could just take two or three minutes, I'll get Mr. Lawless set up in front of a camera, okay? And Mr. McClain, I'm gonna ask some questions of witnesses, and I'm not sure who the best one from BGS is about, issues related to rate impact, and I don't know if that's Mr. Lawless, Mr. Murray or Mr. Morse, but maybe I can ask this of Mr. Lawless first, and if he thinks that there's another witness who's better prepared to respond to that. No, it's not. Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm talking over here. I'm gone, I'm gone, please. I think you'll be, I think the witnesses will be in the best position to tell you whether they or someone else is in a better position, so I'll defer to them. I'll get Mr. Lawless set up. Do you wanna take a recess? Mr. Berkey, you just wanna give me two minutes to get him set up. Why don't we all take five minutes, go refresh our drinks and take a little drink. So, and I'm great. Can I ask something? Yes, please go ahead and just back. So, I'm gonna be asking him to read from his testimony. Is it enough that he just has his testimony or do we need to put it on the screen? Cause I don't know how to do that. It's fine if he reads from his testimony from my perspective, so, and for those who are watching in the public, you can get copies of all the testimony from EPUC directly if you'd like to follow along at home. So, thank you. So, why don't we reconvene at 935? And when we're on break, I ask that you mute your computers and turn your cameras off. Thank you all. I did not complete swearing, Mr. Lawless. And so, Mr. Lawless, before we get started with your cross examination, can you swear a firm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Mr. Lawless. And so, we'll start with cross examination and Ms. Bach, you are gonna go first. So, you can ask Mr. Lawless questions. Okay. I have three questions. The first one is referring to your testimony. Please see page seven, question 12. Please read the sentence at line nine that begins while RNG. Sure. So, the answer I gave to the question, have you considered this contract in light of lease cost planning obligations? Well, RNG remains that are premium to conventional natural gas resources. This contract is a lease cost means for VGS to advance the state's renewable energy commitments and GHG reductions through our supply choices. So, I wanna be clear. What was that? Is it your testimony that the terms of this contract provided cost effective and lease cost means for VGS to meet Vermont's climate requirements? Through discussions with many RNG providers over time, yes, it is my testimony that this contract provides the lease cost means for achieving the state's clinicals. Thank you. You're welcome. My second one, referring to your testimony on page seven, question 12. Please read line 11. Starting with additionally. The volumes at the price. Oh, okay, yeah, starting additionally, the volumes at the price agreed upon under this contract are consistent with the modeling in our 2020 integrated resource plan which show potential rate impacts of increased blending of RNG into our overall supply. And then a little further on at line 14, the sentence that starts with the IRP. Sure. I'm sorry, the IRP modeled three scenarios with the overall rate impact of RNG varying for each scenario, depending on the price of the RNG, but generally that the increasing overall RNG usage by 2% of total retail sales each year results in an average incremental annual increase to overall rates of 2.6%. So then it sounds like it's your testimony that under the terms of this contract, the rates paid by all VGS customers will actually increase by 2.6%. The modeling is that we did shows potential increase, but the optionality of this contract, which allows us to sell into the transportation market as well as increase our volumes or not increase our volumes if appropriate may not result in an increase. There's a lot of factors moving forward to ensure that, but the modeling and the work we did now shows it, yes, is less than 2.6%. Okay, so the modeling is not really completely finished. You haven't, it's not been possible to calculate exactly what will happen in terms of prices. Well, the modeling is based on current market conditions. The modeling is finished. Okay. What markets change over time? So my last question is, in considering this contract, did VGS evaluate the contract's cost effectiveness compared to the cost effectiveness of any scenarios that do not involve substituting RNG for fossil gas? I'm not sure I understand that question. Could you repeat that one more time for me, I apologize. Yes, in considering this contract, did VGS evaluate the contract's cost effectiveness compared to the cost effectiveness of any scenarios that do not involve substituting RNG for fossil gas? For example, what would the cost be of just leaving it the way it is using only fossil gas? So, yes, we did do that analysis. So we're constantly looking at other alternatives including district energy, hydrogen options. And the comparison in our rate impact analysis is based on the difference between using conventional natural gas as well as natural gas in this contract. So the analysis was done based on the alternative of using conventional natural gas. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, I have no more questions. So there's a little bit of an echo there. Ms. Spock, did you say you have no more questions? What? Did you say that you have no more questions? There was a little bit of an echo on my end. I didn't hear the last thing you said. Right, that's what I said. Okay. Mr. Porter, does the department have any questions for Mr. Wallace? We have no questions from Mr. Wallace. Mr. Wallace, I have a question and I'm not sure if you are the right VGS witness for this and this may actually be more of a legal issue actually for briefing from the department and VGS. Have you reviewed Mr. Morse's rebuttal testimony that he filed in this case? I did read it. I'm not sure I'm the expert on it, but you can go ahead and ask the question. Yeah, sure, I'll try. And if you want to pass this off to Mr. Morse, I understand. So he has a proposed condition that's in response to a recommendation from the department that I'm summarizing very generally here that more or less ties the performance of this contract to the social cost of carbon. Are you aware of that proposed condition at all? I have heard of that condition, but I would suggest that Mr. Morse might be the best person to answer that question. Okay, that's great. That is fine by me. I will bring that up with Mr. Morse, who I assumed was the best witness. I just wanted to make sure that you had these types of chance to talk about that. But that is the only question I have for Mr. Wallace or would have had for Mr. Wallace. Mr. McLean, do you have any redirect for Mr. Wallace? No, I don't. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. You are excused for the day. Mr. McLean, would you like to move forward with your next witness? Mr. McLean, you're muted right now. Oh, I apologize. Mr. Murray is available. I'll call Mr. Murray as the next witness, Mr. Burke. Thank you, Mr. McLean. And Mr. Murray's direct testimony has been admitted into the evidentiary record. And before we get started, Mr. Murray, I'm gonna swear you in. So do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Mr. Murray. And Ms. Back, you are free to cross-examine Mr. Murray on his testimony. Okay. This question will be similar that I'm gonna refer to your testimony. So in your testimony on page three, question four, would you please read the sentence on line 15 that starts with the purpose? Let me just, yeah, line, page three, line four, they're on the right page here. Well, question four, line 15. Question four, okay. All right, thank you. Question four, line 15. The purpose of my testimony is to describe the certain aspects of VGS's contract for the purchase of RNG with RKA Energy Marketing LLC, the contract and how the contract aligns with the state and VGS climate goals in a cost-effective manner that benefits VGS customers. Okay, so is your testimony then that the contract aligns with the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act? Yes. And by a line, do you mean that it meets the requirements of the GWSA? You know, achieving the Global Warming Solutions Act is a journey basically and it's a journey that's gonna involve a lot of different solutions. So I think this is one tool to achieving those goals and Vermont Cass is working on a variety of other tools, embracing beneficial electrification, working on geothermal and district energy systems, as Mr. Lawless mentioned, helping our customers weatherize their homes. That's really the primary thrust of that. So yeah, I think this contract contributes to that, but shouldn't be seen as the silver bullet to solve all the problems. Okay, thank you. The next one is referring to your testimony on page four, question six. Would you please read the sentence at line 15? I'll just move under the weather. I have a little under the weather, so I'll give me a second here. In order for VGS to contribute to the state's Global Warming Solutions Act requirements and achieve our own climate goals, the company will need to purchase and sell upwards of two billion cubic feet or BCF per year of non-fossil gas, RNG green hydrogen by 2030. Thank you. Is it your expectation that VGS will continue to sell methane gas between 2030 and 2050? You know, there's a, once you get, apologize, we're doing a lot of work in the hydrogen space. And so there is a world where probably after 2040 or 2045, there may be a world where our system actually has a hydrogen system. There's a lot of work being done around that. So I think, but certainly in the next 20 years, you know, we're gonna be using CH4 in our system, but we're very interested in seeing how we can evolve our pipe to a completely decarbonized solution. Thank you. So referring to the same text on page four is substituting one or more alternative gas fuels for fossil gas necessary for VGS to achieve an 80% reduction in emissions from the 1990 levels. Excuse me. You lost me at what your reference was, man. The same text that you just read on page four, question six. Yeah. And what was the question again? Is substituting one or more alternative gas fuels for fossil gas necessary for VGS to achieve an 80% reduction in emissions from the 1990 levels? We believe so. It's a key part of our strategy along with in-home solutions as I talked about helping support beneficial electrification. And then also weatherization as an efficiency utility. We are leaning in on efficiency as much as we can. Okay. So just for, I wanna be really clear. So you're saying that substitution is necessary to meet that 80% reduction. Is that correct? In our modeling, yes. Okay. Thank you. Does VGS plan that its current system of transmission and distribution pipes will be in service to deliver methane fuel of some sort in 2050? As I stated earlier, I think we shall see on that. I think as we sit here today, we have a lot of customers that have a very difficult transition to full decarbonized solutions. And so whether that's, even if you're leaning on the electric grid, we know in the winter months, electric grid is heavily powered by natural gas and there's not a foreseeable way for that to transition easily over to renewables given the stores needed and things like that. So as I said earlier, I think there's a world where we've shipped over to hydrogen, but I think there's a time we'll tell on that. So I think there's a question mark about that as I either probability what we know today, more than likely, but we certainly won't leave the door open for the technology advances. I just incidentally, I just looked at some numbers related to the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act related to the policies that are finally in place for green hydrogen and renewable gas. Green hydrogen in particular, the investment and production tax credits start to bring green hydrogen down to a price that is somewhat comparable to natural gas. So that's pretty exciting and we're gonna watch that closely and we're doing some pilots in state to start to work with that technology. So that's exciting. That allows our system to actually support the electric grid by taking excess renewables when they're not usable, like we see in the Shia region up in Northern Vermont. So our system complementing the electric grid just like it does today, there's pretty good chance that system will complement the electric grid in 2050. It just may have different things flowing through the pipe. Thank you. My last question is, has VGS evaluated any scenarios for meeting the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act that did not involve substituting one or more alternative gaseous fuel for fossil gas? We have various scenarios related to how we can help achieve those goals. Some of those, they're in pipe alternative. So that's in the space of our energy and hydrogen. But as I said, we're also looking at models to do geothermal and selling and offering clean air source heat pumps and et cetera. So we're looking at a variety of alternatives. So yeah, we've modeled all sorts of alternatives, frankly. Have you done any actual path comparisons to pathways that actually meet the requirements of the GWSA without substituting renewable natural gas? So you compare something. We're looking at pilots specifically. So we're looking at pilots specifically to do a geothermal project over here. And so have we taken a aggregate look at the large statewide objective, not in the context that you're asking. That's true, that's your question. Okay. Thank you very much. I have no more questions. Mr. Porter, do you have any questions for Mr. Murray? No questions for Mr. Murray. I do have a couple of questions, Mr. McLean, before you do any redirect. And again, Mr. Murray, if you're not the right person to answer these questions, feel free to let me know. And also, once again, these might be more appropriate for briefing, Mr. McLean. But I have a question for you, Mr. Murray, about the scope of this contract, which from my perspective is relatively large for BGS, the R&G world, but we're operating sort of in a legal universe where unlike the electric utilities, you don't have a firm mandate yet. You don't have a renewable energy standard equivalent for the gas industry here in Vermont. And ANR is currently in the process of working, or presumably is in the process of working on rules to implement the GWSA. And we may end up with a clean heat standard in the future. What happens if, whether through ANR's rulemaking or through some new clean heat standard or renewable energy standard analog for BGS, if there's a legal requirement that you can only claim attributes if they're created in state? I mean, I just wonder, I guess my question is, is this a premature to invest this much into a contract with uncertainty as to what those legal mandates are gonna be? So, I have to apologize. The, again, the optionality in this contract gives us the flexibility. So we have the optionality, as we talked about, if something were to change on the policy front, we know this R&G is valuable in these wholesale renewable transportation fuel markets. There's other markets developing. So I don't envision a scenario where we, Vermont gas can't move this gas in a direction and probably actually generate repair benefit. But as we sit here today and as was contemplated in the clean heat standard legislation, this pathway or deliverability was the, I think the term that was used as it related to our renewable fuels. So this would have aligned with the clean heat standard. And frankly, we were talking about this contract as the bill was being worked on there and we're optimistic that bill could be revived this coming session. So I don't see a significant amount of risk. I think we will be watching all that and actively engaged in that as we go forward. But Vermont's a small state and we have a lot of challenges with the meeting our energy goals if we just look within our boundaries given the limitations we have both on our system as well as on the electric system. But I guess, I think you use the word risk there. And that's what I'm asking is I'm trying to appreciate what the potential rate payer risks associated with this contract are and what is the possible downside there for rate payers. And from a financial as well as an environmental perspective there. And I just wonder if something along those lines of hypothetical I just presented were to come to fruition. I would assume VGS would still seek to recover any costs and then put revenues associated with this contract into its cost of service for rate recovery. Am I correct on that? Yeah, I mean, it might be kind of interrupt a little bit. And that may be a legal question at some point. Well, I didn't wanna stop. I don't wanna stop at the discussion at all because I don't think it's purely illegal discussion. The scope of the contractual risk and the company's optionality under the contract, its ability to resell RINs and things are all factual questions that I think are totally appropriate. I think, you know, will Vermont gas, I guess I'd approach the question a little differently. I mean, I think asking Mr. Murray about the scope of the risk and what options VGS would have on the table in the event that this contract was less valuable to customers under our new legal framework is a completely legitimate question. And it might be jumping ahead of ourselves to start talking about rate recovery, which is a completely separate question from what kind of options we might have to mitigate financial impact, if that makes sense. So I mean, I think Tom is totally in a position to be able to testify about how to mitigate all that risk and all the options under the contract and all the rest, including the financial impact of that risk, how we file a rate case four years from now, this witness might not, I'm not sure that Tom's prepared to testify about that or has testified about that in this proceeding. Yeah, and that's fine. And that's why I preface the question with, if he's not the right witness, please feel free to let me know. So I appreciate that, Mr. McLean. But I think give you some context of where I'm going. And I know what I'm interested in and I know the commission's going to be interested in is how does this contract sort of play in with the alternative regulation plan and VGS is overall cost of service that's regulated through rates in general. And one thing I'm looking at is in the rebuttal testimony that Mr. Morsefow, there's that proposed condition that's responsive to the recommendation from the department. And I understand the intent of the condition there, but what I don't see from the testimony is what is the consequence of failing to satisfy that condition? And so I think that's what the commission is going to want to wrap its head around is, is this an issue that ultimately gets resolved in a rate case? Like you said, four years down the road, if this contract doesn't perform the way it's intended. So that's, I think where the risk is. And does this turn into sort of a traditional rate case standard where this contract can be reviewed five years from now under a prudence or a used and useful standard? Or does this proposed condition have something that is specific to itself and in order that could come out in this case in terms of what a potential consequence would be for failing to satisfy that condition. And that's what I'm trying to reconcile. And that may well be something for you to brief as opposed to something for the witnesses to speak to today. And I know that the commission's going to be interested in how this interplays with rate recovery in the future. Does that make sense? Yeah, thank you for that. That's very helpful. I mean, I want to make sure that while we have our witnesses here, there are, that we're asking a lot of the factual questions that undergird some of those questions. Ultimately, the department's recommendation as I read it and as we have interpreted it via that conditional language in Mr. Morse's testimony did not discuss a consequence. And the language of the condition itself is mandatory and as discussed at length in Mr. Morse's testimony contains some significant level of flexibility. And in fact, I think the suggestion would be more flexibility than even is proposed in the condition. But ultimately, I don't think that there is a penalty conceived of by the department. So we have not responded to a proposed penalty. I'm not sure how you would assess that with this witness because I don't see any facts that are related to it, but we'd be happy to address how we would propose to try to comply with that condition and Mr. Morse and others' confidence in there and in the ability to manage the contract consistent with the recommendation, which are factual questions for sure. And then that's fine, Mr. McLean. And that's why I noted that this may well be an issue that I see in briefing from the parties. And so that's fine. So I think Mr. Murray, I don't have any additional questions for Mr. Murray beyond that. So Mr. McLean, if you have any redirect either from Ms. Bach's questions or I guess my limited question to Mr. Murray while he's available and still on the stand, please proceed. No, I don't have any redirect for Mr. Murray now. And Ms. Bach, do you have any quick follow up and response to the questions that I asked, Mr. Murray? Nope. Mr. Porter, back to you. We have nothing. Thank you, Mr. Porter. So thank you, Mr. Murray. You are excused for the line. Mr. McLean, can you call your next witness? Yeah, just give me one minute. Yes, please. Mr. Burke, I think we're ready to roll. I would call Greg Morse to the stand. Can you hear us? Okay, Mr. Morse? Yes, I can. Thank you, Mr. Morse, and good morning. And before we get started, I'm gonna swear you in. So do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, Mr. Morse. Ms. Bach, you may begin with any cross-examination you have for Mr. Morse. I have no questions for Mr. Morse. Mr. Porter, do you have any questions for Mr. Morse? No, sir. I do have some questions for Mr. Morse. So you do have your testimony in front of you. Is that correct, Mr. Morse? I do. So we've received quite a few public comments and I think the interveners have testimony on sort of the long-term viability of the landfill where the generator is going to be here and there are questions about its permit that at least there's testimony that that permit will need to be renewed. In your rebuttal testimony, you discussed that the contract basically has assurances for output and that potentially the counterparty, I'm sorry, Archaea would be able to produce gas from alternate facilities to satisfy the contract. So I guess I have sort of a twofold question in response to that. One, do you have assurances that they will be able to continue generating gas to meet the contract's needs even if the landfill does not get a permit extension based on I guess the current fill that's already there and its ability to generate gas going forward? I just want to be clear about your question is that they will have the ability to continue generating gas at the Seneca landfill if the landfill- Yes, at the Seneca landfill. Initially, have they told you that even if they're unable to get a permit extension that there is sufficient feedstock already at the landfill that would allow for performance under this contract for its full term? Yes, we have that assurance from Archaea and it's my experience in landfills in the Northeast that there is significant amount of R&G production after a landfill closes and in many cases specifically in the Northeast that production actually increases for a couple of years before it declines in the later years. And so I follow on that question. If for whatever reason they are not able to generate gas requiring the contract from the Seneca landfill have they let you know they being Archaea let you know what other sources the gas would come from? Is that- Yes, I'm sorry. Go on. We have an indication from then, yes, of which landfills are available to replace that gas. We would pursue gas that has a similar environmental footprint to this gas to preserve the environmental benefit. Are those generally located? Yeah, I'm sorry. They're located in the Northeast. Yeah, the contract specifies that those are located in the Northeast so those would be in New England, New York or I believe that's right now. And I don't know, were you listening? I'm sorry, can we, hold on one second. I'm hearing a bit of a feedback. So if you are a member of the public and you're listening in and you have your microphone on, I see one person named Kevin and I think Nathan and Jane Palmer. Your microphones are showing up green in my screen. So if you all have the ability to shut those off, I think that would be helpful to keep proceeding. Kind of jumping back, I had a discussion with Mr. McClain a moment ago about a proposed condition that's included in your rebuttal testimony. So I'm gonna presume that you're familiar with that condition, correct? Correct. And am I correct in understanding that condition? I'm gonna try to bring it down to layman's words. More or less is trying to ensure financial performance of the contract by tying it to the cost of carbon. It's not directly analogous, but it's more or less what is the difference between the spot price of gas and the cost of carbon and are you paying more than that? Is a measure to ensure that customers are not paying for more than what the environmental benefit otherwise would be. That was a little verbose, but does that make sense as to what the intent of the contract is? I believe so. Or if there's a different way that you could summarize it from your perspective or at least what the intent behind it is, maybe that would be helpful. I believe the intent behind the condition is to ensure that our rate payers are achieving carbon reductions at a cost that's acceptable to the department and ultimately to a policy environment in the future. And I read your testimony. Sorry, there was a little bit of an echo there. I read your testimony and correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding that to satisfy this condition, unless the carbon capture and sequestration system comes online, EGS will necessarily have to exercise its options to sell some of the attributes or sell some of the gas in the transportation markets. Is that correct? That's the way we've conceived of it and what's included in the modeling and testimony. Yes. And then again, this may be a question for briefing, but the contract refer or the proposed condition, excuse me, refers generally to the societal cost of carbon. How are you envisioning defining the societal cost of carbon and are you going to peg it to a specific measure? I just wanna make sure that's clarified because that's not defined in the condition that's been proposed. Throughout testimony, I think you see in the department's testimony what they suggest and in my rebuttal testimony are concerns about that. I'm not sure we're prepared at this time to suggest what the price ceiling should be other than to note that there are a number of different ways to calculate that ceiling. The department suggestion was $128, a short ton based on the AESC study that study also considers the marginal batement cost which works out to something over $500 on a metric ton basis. We're comfortable with the concept that there will be a threshold against which contracts will be evaluated for leased cost. But we think there's probably more work to do to establish what that cost is and perhaps that will be a decision established through legislation. But I guess for purposes of issuing an order in this case, are you conceiving that condition of sort of solidifying that 128 number or are you envisioning that this is a number that will fluctuate as those reports in which I think the commission reviews every two years get updated? So is it a stagnant, here's a fixed mark for the full 15 year term or will it be sort of a moving target depending on market forces? I think in this case, we're comfortable with the stagnant target that the department has proposed based on the modeling that we shared or comfortable that that target can be met for this contract. I think it's worth considering that the value of carbon changes over time even in most of those studies, including the AESC study. So that may be something that commission wants to think about as this order is developed. Yeah, and Mr. Burke, this is a potential distinction between an issue we could brief, I suppose, and the factual background, right? Mr. Morse has discussed at length in his testimony a variety of reasons why someone in his position with deep understanding of how we evaluate the avoided cost of carbon in different contexts can testify about appropriate values. The 128 is not a number that is incorporated in the proposed condition and the way we read the department's testimony, Mr. Jacobs has not himself articulated the fact that 128 could stick around for 14 years. I think on the contrary, Mr. Jacobs testified that he expects that number to change. And so it does present, I think a question about, you know, how flexible the condition needs to be in order to meet the realities of the facts we're dealing with. But, you know, whether or not, for example, the condition incorporates $120 as a requirement, I think currently no one's proposed that from what I can tell. Okay, thank you, Mr. McLean. And I just, having read the department's testimony and I'm gonna ask the department obviously some similar questions. I just, it appears there's some level of agreement between VGS and the department that a condition can be imposed here. But if there is an order approving this contract, I wanna make sure that what that actual condition is, everyone is on the same page and that the commission understands precisely what the requirement is. And then like I mentioned earlier, if there are any consequences. So it might behoove the department and VGS to discuss this ahead of their briefing to see what extent there is still disagreement amongst the parties on that and make sure the briefing is very clear as to where there is and is not agreement. Because if an order is ultimately issued approving this contract subject to a condition, that condition needs to be crystal clear for all parties to understand what the expectation is. And I just wanna make sure I understand the party's expectations from their testimony. So that's where I'm coming from at this point. Yeah, no, but understood and I agree. Thank you, Mr. McClain. And let me look really quickly. And I should ask Andrea, I apologize, but I don't know Andrea if you have any questions for Mr. Morse is why I've been remiss and not asking if you have any questions at this point. But if you do, feel free to let me know Andrea. Otherwise, those are the questions that I have for Mr. Morse. And so Ms. Bach, do you have any follow-up based on the questions that I asked him? Nope. Mr. Porter, I've lost you on my screen. I think I'm in my back. You're back. If I could just ask one follow-up question of Mr. Morse. So Mr. Morse, are you aware that the Vermont Climate Council has adopted a measure for the social cost of carbon to be used in climate-related decisions? I'm aware. Yes. Okay. That's all I've got. Thank you, Mr. Porter. So Mr. Morse, I think you, and I suppose Mr. McClain has some follow-up. Excuse me, Mr. McClain. Yeah. So I just want to follow up on one question that Mr. Burke asked about sort of static nature of this 120. I take it on the one hand, you have testified that if VGS wanted to, it could manage its options under this contract so that the ultimate social cost of carbon was equal to or less than 128 given the options under the contract. Is that right? That's correct. I also understand this on your testimony that you think that value could change over time. Is that fair? That's fair, yes. And could you just discuss a little bit about the kind of considerations that would be relevant? Say, five years from now, if the social cost of carbon valuation based on the same methodology the department has proposed were to change significantly. Sure. The cost of carbon is a communication about the value of various measures. So as the cost of carbon rises, the implication is that the measures that reduce carbon are more important to society or to the legislature. So setting a high cost of carbon communicates to all the parties involved that these measures are very important, probably that compliance with those measures is more important than paying some sort of penalty or damage. And the opposite is true as well. So a lower cost of carbon implies that there are certain measures we're not willing to take that will not fall under the threshold and that more than likely the payment of some sort of damage calculation or ACP or whatever is imposed is acceptable in lieu of actual compliance of actual reduction. So that's why we think that more flexibility is warranted here. There are a number of measures we know that would not meet the 128 threshold, although this contract will. So it's important in our view that that price be flexible in the future so that the state can actually achieve its goals rather than achieve payment of a significant amount of damage penalty in lieu of those goals. And so do you conceive that, for example, if there was a consensus in Vermont that the social cost of carbon was higher in five years that you would be managing this contract to that higher value or you would continue to manage the contract to the lower value that's currently proposed by the department? I think it makes sense to manage all of your options to the same value at the same time. Otherwise there are split incentives and unintended consequences. So in my view, it makes the most sense to manage this contract to what the threshold is at the time that you're making those decisions. Right. And just following up on Mr. Porter's question about the climate council, are you familiar with any of the, of any other setting where the social cost of carbon has specifically been used to value decarbonization efforts or just to where generally that the council has adopted that measure? I'm aware that the council has adopted that measure. I mean, I'm aware of several other settings in other states where there is, if not an outright cost of carbon, there is an implied cost of carbon in compliance with laws and measures in those jurisdictions. Yeah, and what do you mean by an implied cost of carbon? So in some locations, the requirement to reduce carbon has a certain cost flow associated with it. So sometimes those are direct, like in California, there's an LCFS market that's actually priced in dollars per ton of carbon. And in other places, there are more nebulous reduction requirements that don't create tradable assets like that there aren't California. Okay. I mean, Mr. Burke, I'm happy to hand it back to you. I'm trying to think of all of the factual questions that we may need to have factual answers to to answer your legal question, which I think is a good one. I appreciate that, Mr. McLean. And I am remiss there was one question that I intended to ask Mr. Morse that I overlooked and I apologize for that. This is sort of in response to some of this or Dr. Grubert's testimony from this morning. And Mr. Morse, did you listen to Dr. Grubert's testimony this morning? I did. Yeah, and I realized there's a bit of a disagreement between Dr. Grubert and VGS about whether or not VGS is entitled to attributes that would be associated with the potential carbon capture and sequestration facility at the Seneca landfill. Can you speak a little bit to your perspective as to why you would be entitled with those attributes and if you have any response to Dr. Grubert's testimony this morning, anything that would be helpful on record? Sure, absolutely. We specifically discussed the value of carbon capture with Arkea when we negotiated this contract. And I think that Dr. Grubert's reading of the contract is very narrow in terms of the definition of biogas. She interpreted that to mean only the definition that is included in the federal renewable fuel standard, the RFS standard CFR 40. The definition of the contract incorporates that definition but goes further to define biogas to include all of the environmental attributes and it extrapolates on how those could be defined but all of the environmental attributes that are associated with the production or use of the RNG. So the CO2 that is projected during the upgrading process is a gas that is included in the production of the RNG. And we agreed with Arkea that that was the best definition to use to incorporate the benefit of carbon capture. Thank you, Mr. Morris. And Ms. Bach, you are certainly entitled if you have any follow-up questions in that answer, feel free to ask them, Mr. Morris. Ms. Bach, do you have any follow-up for Mr. Morris? You are muted right now, Ms. Bach. I have no more questions. Likewise, Mr. McLean, do you have any questions to follow up on that last question? Thank you. Thank you. Now, Mr. Morris, I do know that you're already at this point. So thank you very much for coming in this morning. Thank you. So we are now, Ms. Bach, ready to proceed with Mr. Gardner as a witness. I see that his name is on here unless the parties feel like they need to have a break at this point, but I think we can keep proceeding unless I hear a request from someone otherwise. I have no questions for Mr. Gardner. Mr. Porter, do you have any questions for Mr. Gardner? The department has no questions from Mr. Gardner either. And so Mr. Gardner did file an affidavit with his testimony, so I do not need to have him sworn and to have his testimony admitted into the record at this point. So thank you, Mr. Gardner, for coming this morning, but you are late. So Ms. Bach, you are not gonna need to call Mr. Gardner for cross-examination this morning, which means we can proceed directly to Mr. Porter as witness for the department. Well, Ms. Bach is a witness too. However, I don't have any questions for Ms. Bach. But thank you. Thank you, Mr. McLean. I overlooked Ms. Bach as a witness. And my apologies, Ms. Bach. Mr. Porter, I should clarify. Do you have any questions for Ms. Bach as a witness? The department does not have any questions for Ms. Bach. Thank you. And my apologies for that oversight. And thank you, Mr. McLean. No problem. And so I see the department has got its witness, Adam Jacobs, Mr. Burke. Good morning, Mr. Jacobs. Before we get started, I'll note for the record your testimony has been admitted into the record. And so I'm gonna ask you, do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. And so in terms of cross examination order, Mr. McLean, you can go first with the department's witness if you have any cross examination for Mr. Jacobs and then we'll proceed to Ms. Bach. I have no initial questions but I'll just reserve the right to follow up if something comes up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McLean. Ms. Bach, do you have any questions for Mr. Jacobs? Yes. Do you have your testimony in front of you? I do. Good. Can you please refer to page one, question four and read that line 28? One moment here. Sorry, because the proposed. Because the proposed contract is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, my review is targeted at ensuring the cost of those emission reductions. You not exceed the monetary value of those avoided emissions based on the social cost of carbon. Thank you. So are the emissions reductions that the contract aims at in line with the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act? Can you please rephrase the question? The Global Warming Solutions Act requires a certain amount of emissions reduction by 2030, 2040, 2050. So if the reductions that the contract is aiming towards, if they're in line with those requirements. As previous witnesses from VGS have referenced, there are a large range of initiatives, measures, supply options that will need to be pursued in order to achieve the Global Warming Solutions Act under Vermont State Law and the Agency of Natural Resources Emissions Accounting. Renewable natural gas does have a greenhouse gas reduction quantity that can be assigned to it. So for the purpose of accounting under the Global Warming Solutions Act, yes, renewable natural gas from this source and others would contribute towards reducing emissions. Okay, so it's not designed to be the only thing. Correct. And correctly, okay. How do the avoided emissions based on the social cost of carbon relate to actual measurable greenhouse gas emissions reductions in Vermont? I'm sorry, could you rephrase that one as well? Or maybe just repeat it. Yeah, just repeat it. So the emissions that you've avoided, the emissions reductions that are in the contract and how are they in line with the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act? Wait a minute, I'm reading the wrong question now. Let me read just how do the avoided emissions based on the social cost of carbon relate to actual measurable greenhouse gas emissions reductions in Vermont? Okay, understood. So the social cost of carbon is a value, a monetary value assigned to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The Vermont Climate Council through their work relying on studies conducted by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation has assigned a stream of values for the cost of carbon. They have annualized values published out to, I believe, 20, 40, perhaps a little longer. And the $128 per ton value that I referenced in my testimony is a 15 year levelized value as far as the contribution of this potential contract to reducing emissions. Basically, I would compare what the cost per ton of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as measured through VGS's use of the California Greek model as we've discussed earlier would compare in terms of dollar per ton reduction and then held that against the 15 year level as social cost of carbon. I should note that the Agency of Natural Resources would treat the emissions associated or would treat this source or any source of renewable natural gas as zero emissions under the official GWSA inventory. But as the Vermont Climate Council directed, they also requested that full life cycle analysis of all energy sources be considered for additional policy making purposes. So essentially, the inventory would recognize all this R&G volume as zero emissions, but the Vermont Climate Council has requested supplemental life cycle analyses be completed for policy decisions such as this. Now that makes sense because it's not zero emissions as far as I can tell. Anyway. As far as VGS's methodology and California Greek model as well confirms that. Right, right. My second question, did the department evaluate any scenarios of how VGS could achieve emissions reductions in alignment with the requirements of the GWSA that do not involve the substitution of R&G for fossil gas? The department hasn't completed specific analysis related to VGS in isolation. VGS provides thermal energy to a large volume of customers in the state of Vermont, but there are many, many other customers that rely on alternative fuels such as delivered propane, oil, some are fully electric heated homes and businesses. So no, the department hasn't conducted analyses specific to Vermont gas's infrastructure and how they would comply with the GWSA. But as part of our work with the Climate Council and Agency of Natural Resources, we do support work that feeds into the broader statewide emissions and climate mitigation scenario planning. Thank you. Please refer to your testimony on page four, question nine and read at line two. Page four, question nine, line two. Essentially the department considers the proposed contracts cost effectiveness of reducing emissions and the overall impact of repairs in order to achieve these reductions. So did you consider whether this contract will result in VGS getting to net zero by 2050 in a cost effective way? That was not part of the review associated with this, given this is a contract that's, first of all, it doesn't go out to 2050. It's a 14.5 year contract. So it would not get you all the way out to the state's net zero goal. Nor did we assess one contract that even within VGS's own emissions reduction portfolio is one of the contributors of many, including demand side management efforts, fuel switching such as the heat pump hot water program. But no, this contract would not be evaluated in isolation as a way to get to 2050 carbon neutrality. Thank you. Did you conclude from your consideration of the contract that rates for the VGS customers are likely to increase? That is one potential outcome. And what we have made apparent through my testimony is that any potential rate impacts that will be resulting in increases to customers' rates should not result in a cost paid for carbon emissions reductions that exceed what the Vermont Climate Council and State of Vermont is using for policy purposes as the value of avoiding those emissions. Thank you. And one last question. Why is it in the best interest of VGS ratepayers to pay a higher cost for methane gas as a result of this contract? Based on Vermont's accounting of greenhouse gas emissions, this contract would result in some emissions reduction. The cost associated with that is what a lot of our work would be and the condition that we've proposed on this contract and that it not exceed the social cost of carbon. But if Vermont gas or other just Vermonters in general do not receive claimable emissions reductions from this resource, they will very likely have to incur costs in other areas to deliver the same emissions reductions. So this is part of one of many investments that the State of Vermont would need to make to meet long-term emissions reduction goals. Thank you. And one more as I'm just curious, do you know if the GWSA states goals in terms of this social cost of carbon? They don't enumerate goals specifically in the social cost of carbon, but again, the Vermont Climate Council, which is largely overseeing what the state is doing to meet greenhouse gas emissions goals has provided the social cost of carbon as their preferred metric to assess the costs of various emission mitigation scenarios. The Climate Council's work hasn't been accepted by the legislature yet, is that correct? Not aware of the specific legal standing. I don't think it has. So that's just, that's my last statement, my last question. Thank you. I do have a couple of questions for you, Mr. Jacobs before Mr. Porter has an opportunity to redirect you. Should I assume you're familiar with the 2022 comprehensive energy plan? That is correct. And does the 2022 comprehensive energy plan discuss renewable natural gas? It does. And in your opinion, on behalf of the department, is this proposed contract consistent with the 2022 comprehensive energy plan? It considers renewable natural gas as one solution to reduce emissions in accordance with the comprehensive energy plan and climate action plan. Thank you. That's helpful. So did you hear my discussion with Mr. Morse about the condition that VGS proposed in response to your direct testimony? Yes. And so Mr. Morse and I discussed about whether or not the social cost of carbon, if it's included in a condition approving this contract would be static or updated over time. Is it the department's recommendation that that roughly $128 figure be adopted for the life of the contract? Or is it your opinion that it should fluctuate and deviate based on recalibration of that figure over time? As a lot of VGS's options within this contract involve variables that will change over time. The social cost of carbon is one of those that would be considered. So for example, the value of the environmental attributes that VGS may elect to sell into renewable transportation fuel markets at the federal or state level for states like California, those are prices that change over time. The value of traditional gas that this would be offsetting changes over time. Similarly, and perhaps a little bit less volatility involved, the value of the cost of carbon may change over time either due to updates and damages approach differences in the discount rate. The Vermont Climate Council has recommended a 2% discount rate, which yields that 15-year levelized $128 a short ton. But they did also discuss sensitivity analysis of considering a 1% discount rate or a 3% discount rate. And just in general, the price could change over time for a variety of reasons, including changes in the legislature, assigning a value, for example. So as the department does for all of Vermont gas is quarterly price of gas adjustments and in the instance of this contract, where VGS has the option to annually change their election of total volume received and total volume that they choose to sell into renewable transportation fuel markets, the department would look to basically ensure that the condition we've recommended is consistent with the latest values associated with all streams of costs and benefits in this contract and would seek to use the quarterly price of gas adjustments and the annual election that VGS has to change contract volumes as the mechanism by which we do that. Thank you, Mr. Jacobs. And Mr. Porter, I think, similar to what I discussed with Mr. McClain earlier, I think I certainly would benefit from some briefing on the specificity of the contract, or I mean not the contract, the condition that would, if any, would be put into an order that the commissioner would put forward. And I think it would also be helpful to have some briefing. And Mr. McClain, this is for you. And Ms. Bach, if you want to address this issue as well, it's getting pretty legally nuanced though about the interplay between this condition and evaluation of the contract and VGS's rate case is going forward. And so how the commission is going to be assessing performance on this contract and how that interplays with rate setting for the company generally. I think the commission would benefit from some legal analysis on that from the parties. Otherwise, all the questions I have for Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Porter, if you have any redirect from the questioning that you've heard today, feel free to go forward. Thank you, but I don't have any redirect from Mr. Jacobs. Mr. McClain, do you have any follow up to my questioning? No, I don't. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Ms. Bach, do you have any follow up to my questioning? No, I don't. Mr. Jacobs, you are excused. And so that is all of the evidence we are going to be taking today. So I do want to check in with the parties though about whether or not we need to make any changes to the schedule going forward for briefing. Let me pull that up now. Mr. Burke, if that might be helpful, our current schedule I believe calls for a two-week period and states no later than September 30th, 2022 would be the deadline for parties to file post hearing briefs. It's 10 days from September 30th. So I think based on your current order, September 30th would be the deadline for initial briefs unless there's some folks who are amenable to a later deadline, which most people love. And then the reply deadline is 10 days thereafter. So I think the question is, at least the initial question is, do we need to submit briefs by September 30th, or does the commission believe that more time could be granted for briefing and still get a proposal for decision out in the time frame that you're hoping to do that? Thank you, Mr. McClain. I'm looking at the schedule now and trying to overlay it with a calendar. And I'm mindful of I have November 8th as the deadline by which a final commission order must be issued. And Ms. Bach, for your benefit, under the Vermont Administrative Procedures Act, I will be issuing a written proposal for a decision. And that is based on the evidence and the record and the briefing from the parties. And that is not a final decision. That is a proposal in this case because it is contested by the parties. I will issue it and it will be circulated to the parties. And you will have an opportunity to file comments on that proposal for the decision directly to the Public Utility Commission members themselves, the three of them. That's it on the Public Utility Commission. They will review my proposal for decision, any comments that are filed and the evidentiary record in this case. And they are ultimately responsible for issuing a final decision on the case. You are also entitled as a party to ask for oral argument on the proposal for a decision that is issued. So to state that again, I will issue a proposed order after all the briefing is completed in the case. Parties can file comments on that proposed order, ask for an oral argument for the commission. And the commission is ultimately responsible for issuing a final order. That is then appealable to the Vermont Supreme Court. The commission order in this case will need to be issued by November 8, 2022, or the contract will be deemed approved under the statute. So Mr. McClain's point about briefing, when I'm thinking about the schedule going forward, I'm trying to make sure that I have adequate time to review your briefs, prepare an order, and circulate it to parties, give you all an adequate time to comment on it, ask for oral argument if that is your desire, and then give the commission members themselves enough time to issue any final order in response to my proposal for a decision. So I think looking at the schedule, it is tight, decidedly so, but Mr. McClain, I think if the briefing deadline were pushed back to, I guess it's October 4th, which is two Tuesdays from today, with reply brief still to come in 10 days later, which would make those do the 14th, I guess Friday the 14th. That is tight, but should give, I'm thinking about that. So that would mean I would need to have a proposal for decision issued within a week, probably receiving your reply briefs, and you all would have under that circumstance, I would expect only a week to file comments on a proposal for a decision, and ask for an argument. Does that work for the parties? Mr. Porter, you have your hand up. It does not work for the department with, we, if you wanna keep an October, if you wanna move it to an October 4th initial brief, I think we would likely have to file our initial brief during the timeframe for a reply brief and just waive any reply brief, but I don't believe we would be able to have a brief on your questions by that time. Mr. Porter, what about pushing that back to Friday, October 7th? I think that is more likely to happen. Why don't we pencil in Friday, October 7th as the deadline for filing direct briefs, and we will keep October 14th as the deadline for reply briefs. Sorry, Mr. Porter, I realize it's only a week, I apologize for that, but the statute is what the statute is in this case. Mr. McLean, did you hear that? Yeah, I was just gonna mention, I mean, maybe we disagree, but at least in my view, I think the parties could stipulate to waiving the statutory period for a period of a week or two, but I don't wanna complicate the story either. If I could, if we could waive that comment period, we would be happy to do that if we could extend, if that would allow us to move initial briefs to October 14th. I've got staff that will not be back in the office until the third, and so I'm a little concerned about trying to get this done by the 7th. I apologize, I think we might be talking about two different statutory period. I would say that I don't think that I'm prepared to waive my comments on the proposal for decision, but I would be amenable to discussing a waiver of the 120-day statutory period for the commission's review, and in my view, that's a statutory benefit that runs to the party petitioning the commission for approval and would be waivable by that party, and I'd be amenable to doing that to making everyone's life more manageable. I didn't write the statute, and it's quite old, but I don't know whether Mr. Burke or the commission agrees with that, and to the extent that the commission doesn't think it's a waivable deadline, obviously, we just have to proceed in the parameters with which we've been given, but I just wanted to let you know that I'm happy to talk about waiver of the 120-day period if that makes sense from the commission's perspective. That's what I said on your hand. Yeah, please go ahead, Ms. Barr. Well, that makes a lot of sense to me because from where I'm sitting, it looks like if you do it slow enough, then the 120-days will be done, and it'll be approved on that. So if we can- Ms. Buck, I think what Mr. McClain is saying is that they would waive that 120-day deadline on behalf of his client saying so that there would be additional time, at least they're willing to agree to allow for additional time so that that deemed approved language would not trigger from their perspective for, I think Mr. McClain said two weeks is what I heard from him. But I think what maybe we should do here because that is whether or not I would be willing to accept the parties waiving that is a rolling I can't make today. I don't wanna look at that statute and frankly discuss that with the general counsel of the commission before making that commitment. And so Mr. Porter, I am acutely aware of your concerns. What I will propose we do today is set October 7th as the deadline for initial briefs and any reply briefs filed by the 14th. What I would ask the parties to do is consult amongst themselves about the possibility of agreeing to a waiver and a modified schedule that's consistent with whatever BGS is willing to, any additional time BGS is willing to add on top of that and just be mindful though that I will, regardless of what you all agreed to amongst yourselves still needs to write up a proposal for decision myself and based on the schedule I've got here giving myself really three or four days to do that which is not a lot of time for me. And then get that circulated allow for you to have the opportunity about comments, request oral argument and then get this in front of the commission as well for the commission to potentially have enough time to review and they have an entry record in any proposal for decision as well. So keep that in mind. So let's pencil on the 7th as the deadline for now I wanna have a schedule that would at least allow this to be completed for November 8th if it turns out that we are not willing to move that 120 day deadline even with the agreement of the parties. So I realize that's tight and I apologize, Mr. Porter. If the law allowed more flexibility I would certainly be willing to grant it. But Ms. Bach does that schedule work for you as well? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Okay, and Ms. Bach for your benefit we have a court reporter today. She will be putting together a transcript that will be posted to EPUC just like the workshop transcript for this case was. So I don't know what her current schedule is but I probably within the next couple of weeks she will have that completed and posted in EPUC. So you have the benefit of referring back to it and you can cite to it in your briefing. Yep. And is there anything else that we should be going over today before we adjourn from this hearing? Nothing else from Vermont Gas, thank you. Mr. Porter? Nothing further, thank you. Ms. Bach, do you have anything? Nothing else. Well, thank you. And again, I want to thank all the parties for their willingness to join a little bit earlier than usual this morning and getting Dr. Gruber's testimony into the record to the extent any witnesses are still on the call. Thank you. This was a very helpful evidentiary hearing for me and I look forward to reviewing the party's briefs when they come in. And I encourage the parties to discuss any scheduling changes as soon as possible and get a proposed motion out of the meeting sooner than later. Thank you all. Thank you very much. Bye.