 So thanks for joining us, I appreciate it. What we're going to do, spend a little time with you and today is going through what I think are three bills. I'm not sure there's more than that, but there are three in my radar screen, H51, H175, and H214, I believe, are bills that have been introduced. The deal is fossil fuel infrastructure. That's like magic, those are the three bills. And since there's been a lot of discussion in the hallway of this building about this, before we dig through deeper into the session, I wanted Luke to take us through these bills. The committee had an opportunity to ask questions about the direction that each of these bills takes. I guess that's it, my way of introduction. And thank you for joining us. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. For the record, Luke Marland from Leicester Council. And as the chair indicated, the purpose of our discussion today is to go over these bills and committee. But what I thought I would do is begin with a little background on some of the issues you've heard so far from other witnesses, just to refresh your recollection, and then talk about some issues that you may want to consider as you go through the bills and then walk through those bills. And as always, if you have questions, please ask. If anything I say is not clear, please ask. So there's two existing pipelines in Vermont, the Vermont natural gas pipeline that you heard testimony about a few weeks ago in the Western part of the state from Canada down to the middle part of the state. And then there's also a Portland Hype Line Corporation pipeline in the Northeast Kingdom that goes from Portland Main up to Montreal that transports, I think, a crude oil from Portland up to Montreal. So those are the two existing pipelines in Vermont at this point. What I'd like to do today is, as I said, give you a background on the existing. We'll also understand the existing regulatory framework that pertains to fossil fuel pipelines and facilities. And then briefly summarize some decision points and then walk through those bills. So a couple things keep in mind. First of all, when you're talking about the existing regulatory framework, it's important to distinguish between the federal and the state. And you heard testimony about this a few weeks ago about the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. FERC regulates interstate, in other words, between the states, wholesale, sale and transportation of electricity and natural gas. And FERC also has jurisdiction over the construction of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities. This is the federal area that you cannot pass legislation that impacts you to be preemptive from doing so. As to within the state, it's important to distinguish between natural gas and other types of fossil fuels. As we'll go through in a moment, the Public Utilities Commission through the Certificate of Public Good Process regulates some natural gas pipelines. Act 250 could apply to other fossil fuel pipelines or facilities. So it's important to keep separate in your mind federal, interstate, state, natural gas and other forms of fossil fuels. Now, as far as the regulatory framework for natural gas, this is set forth in 30VSA 203, which states that the Public Utility Commission and the Department of Public Service have jurisdiction and that it lists those areas they have jurisdiction over. And it includes a company engaged in the manufacture, transmission, distribution, or sale of gas or electricity to the public. Or under two, that part of the business of a company, which consists of the manufacture, transmission, distribution, or sale of gas or electricity to customers. In addition, under 30VSA 248, and this is a long statute, I'm just going to summarize two parts of it, it states that no company may, in any way, begin site preparation for or commence construction of any natural gas facility except for the replacement of existing facilities with equivalent facilities in the usual course of business, unless the Public Utility Commission first finds that the same promote the general good of the state and issues a certificate to that effect. In other words, a certificate of public good. It's important to see the definition under A, which is paraphrased above, which states that a natural gas facility means Henry natural gas transmission line, transmission line, not necessarily distribution line, transmission line, storage facility, manufactured gas facility, or other structure incident to any such line. In other words, any such transmission line. The definition continues, for purposes of this section, natural gas transmission line shall include any feed or main or any pipeline facility constructed to deliver natural gas in Vermont directly from a natural gas pipeline that could be between the states. So this is an important definition. It's important to keep in mind that as to natural gas facilities and transmission lines, the PUC has jurisdiction before any of those could be built. But there is the exception that the replacement of an existing facilities with equivalent facilities in the usual course of business. So is that long that definition here, everybody? Yeah. So the definition of national gas transmission line, including any feed or main or any pipeline facility constructed to deliver natural gas in Vermont directly from or to, because a feeder line applies to me that it's speeding into a transmission, any speeding into a pipeline. The full sense, I cut it off at the bottom of the frame here, but says feed or main or any pipeline facility constructed to deliver natural gas in Vermont directly from a natural gas pipeline facility that has been certified, pursuant to then their citation to federal law. Oh, OK. So we're talking about from a natural gas pipeline facility, which is either a generation or? Well, think of it as a natural gas supply line from outside of Vermont. OK. Coming into Vermont. And then there's the connection to Vermont and ultimately to the customers. OK. Is there any confusion about whether a pipeline that is bringing gas from out of state is in state line or interstate line? So no, I don't believe so. So it's bringing gas from out of Vermont, let's say from another state. That's within the jurisdiction. And the construction is under the jurisdiction of her. So that would be interstate, it's a natural gas line. If the line physically crosses the state boundary, then that's interstate. It is coming from another state. Yes. It is coming from somewhere else coming into Vermont. Gas inside the pipeline in Vermont is from another state. That makes sense, eh? Right, so the Public Utility Commission would regulate the construction of a natural gas facility inside Vermont, which is defined to include a pipeline inside Vermont. Right. So I guess maybe there's a facility or some sort of distribution structure or something once the pipeline crosses the border into Vermont. What I'm asking is whether there's just major. So there's any confusion about whether a pipeline that is constructed in Vermont, but it's actually carrying interstate gas? I think it is an interstate pipeline or an interstate pipeline. I don't think so, because I think it's and I might be mistaken about this. I think it's dependent on the pipeline, not the gas inside the pipeline. So yes, could gas come from outside Vermont? Sure. But when you're talking about a certificate of public good for construction of a pipeline, if you're talking about the physical pipeline, that's what the terms where the PEC would have on charge six or nine. If the FERC has not tried to assert. Well, they would assert it between the states, and they also control the wholesale market. But once the cost is into Vermont, the PEC would have charge six or nine if you're constructing the pipeline. Right. Thank you. Sorry. I think that the distinction in a previous slide is I forget the wording, but that the pipeline is bringing gas to customers in Vermont as opposed to the pipeline that crosses the corner of the Northeast Kingdom, which is just not serving any retail customers. If the wholesale, I think was the, I forget the wording, but that's the distinction. That's a good point. Thank you. Would methane be considered natural gas? I don't believe it is. I don't know if there's some technical definition of what the definition. I don't. I should say I'm not sure. I can check to get back to you. Any other questions? So this is the regulatory framework as to natural gas, pipelines, and facilities. Now as to other fossil fuels, and the pipeline you mentioned in the reference earlier is actually not natural gas. That's the boil from Portland up to Montreal. So remember that to fall within Act 250. So Act 250 separate from the public utilities commission. To fall within Act 250, a project must involve either more than 10 acres of land or more than one acre of land within a municipality that doesn't have zoning and subdivision bylaws. That's the general standard for Act 250. Now a pipeline could fall within this definition. An example is a pipeline in the Northeast Kingdom from Portland made up to Montreal. There wasn't actually Act 250 case concerning that. And the Natural Resources Board ruled that the pipeline could satisfy this requirement because the whole length of the pipeline was more than 10 acres in parts of it or more than an acre within various municipalities that didn't have the zoning and subdivision bylaws. So the pipeline could have been subject to Act 250. In that case, the Natural Resources Board held it ultimately wasn't because it had been constructed prior to the passage of Act 250. We're back to the 40s and 50s and then updated I think the early 60s. So in that case, that pipeline was not within Act 250, but a new pipeline to carry fossil fuels could perhaps fall within the Act 250 structure. And could therefore be subject to Act 250 review. So on that particular pipeline, there was some controversy a few years ago about whether to reverse the flow from laundry all down to Portland in order to carry the tar sands. And would a change like that trigger Act 250 review? Well, that's exactly what I'm referring to. The decision said no because the decision held that it was a type of fuel, I forget the word, that was used. But it was also whether needed to be upgrade the pipes or the valves and the Natural Resources Board held that those were not as efficient to quote with an Act 250. So you're right, that was a claim. It was rejected by the Natural Resources Board. But a different claim, maybe the facts would be different. Now there is an exception under Act 250 that cars out natural gas facilities that fall within the jurisdiction of the PUC. So your natural gas under PUC, another fossil fuel pipeline might be under Act 250, you probably wouldn't fall within both to be either one. So with that background, any questions about that before I proceed? Here's some issues or decision points you should be aware of when we go through the various bills because each of them approaches issue in a different way. So very high level. You have an option to do nothing, maintain a status quo. What I call the absolutes, which could be arguably to ban all fossil fuel pipelines in the state or for that matter, perhaps remove all restrictions or modify the existing criteria, for example under the Public Utilities Commission to either encourage or discourage construction of fossil fuel facilities and pipelines. If you're taking this third option, which is looking at the criteria, there is various things to be aware of when we go through the bills. First of all, the distinction between facilities and pipelines, we've been talking about pipeline so I think that's how most people envision this issue, but what kinds of other facilities potentially could be impacted? What I made clear about natural gas and other fossil fuels, addressing one, the other, both. And various car valves. That could be a grandfather clause for existing facilities, maybe they need to be covered by the bill or maintenance. So you get various car valves that if you're modifying criteria would pull out certain types of pipelines or facilities from those changed to the criteria. So I'd now like to begin to go through the bill, but before I do that, I think I should clarify a question about, could you describe natural gas facilities versus pipelines? What would be a facility? Well, go back to the definition that we went to earlier and I am not an engineer, so I don't know if I can give you on the ground definition. But if you remember from, so from 30VSA 248, that the definition of natural gas facility, it says any natural gas transmission line, storage facility, manufactured gas facility or other structure incident to any such line of facility. And then it goes on to land which we talked about with the theater from an interesting point. So it's not just the pipeline, but storage and other structures or facilities that are incident to that pipeline. Are there natural gas storage facilities? I don't know the answer to that one, so. You mean inside Vermont, I still don't know the answer to that. A manufactured gas facility, I guess would be a methane digester or a landfill. I'm not sure if it's a facility, is anybody in there? Are there any friends here? Are there any other? Yes. I believe that's reference to the legacy, like the bar's count on Tom Murray from Vermont Gas, by the way, that's a reference to the legacy manufactured gas, which was a Rufflin had one and Barry had one, basically manufacturing gas from coal, coal sludge, basically that's where that was referenced to. And on the note around facilities, we have gate stations along the way that decreases the transmission pressure down to distribution pressure. So that would be ancillary to the transmission line, so that allows us to serve the community at the lower pressure. All right, thank you. Are there any facilities where a pipeline crosses into Vermont? Really the only facilities, so what I'm getting from your answer is the only facilities are the pressure facilities to decrease the pressure from transmission to distribution. Yeah, I mean we have a couple of mainline valves, which is similar, but it's a small station for release pressure, something like that. But in general, the gate station is really the big one that we see on the transmission line related to that. We do have a propane air plant, which is a way to make propane and to make natural gas. That's a peaking unit. That would probably be considered ancillary because that is used during cold days to inject into the system. That's the only one that's even close to a storage facility in Vermont. I will say OMEA has an LNG facility, which is a, you know, the mind down in Florence, they have an LNG facility that, I don't know, it's traditionally classified as storage, but it definitely has the look and feel of storage, not associated with a transmission facility, but I do believe they got 248 for it when they got that permit. Great, thank you. So before we go into this, I want to actually come back up to a question that Scott had asked earlier, that I'm not sure I'm entirely clear on, which is at what juncture the jurisdiction of the PUC kicks in relative to the jurisdiction of FERC? So if we have a pipeline that crosses a state border and an expansion on that pipeline is looking to be completed, is that an expansion of an interstate facility and therefore is under FERC jurisdiction? So your pipeline that comes to the border of Vermont and stops or continues into Vermont? It continues into Vermont. Okay. If there is a pipeline crossing a border of Vermont or going the other way too, but coming into Vermont and an expansion of that pipeline is anticipated or is looking to be supported construction that would be supported. Is it FERC jurisdiction or is it PUC? If it's in, well, actually let's back up and make it simpler. So you have a pipeline, some company builds a pipeline in New Hampshire, the other then turn to Vermont. Vermont Gas wants to tap into that and have a pipeline into Vermont to serve Vermont customers. Sure. PUC. Okay. Okay, PUC jurisdiction. Even though it crosses the border? Well, it was within Vermont. Vermont regulates what's inside Vermont, FERC regulates outside Vermont between the states. So right, so wherever the pipeline comes from is in New Hampshire, stops at Vermont border, Vermont Gas wants to now build a pipeline from Vermont border into Vermont, serve customers in Middlebury, PUC, okay? So say you already have that pipeline inside Vermont, serving the customers in Middlebury. And they want to somehow extend it further. That might depend on whether it's a transmission line, how it's defined, how far it goes. I don't know if I can give you an exact answer. PUC could definitely be involved depending on the nature of that expansion. Yeah, what's not clear to me is does FERC have any jurisdiction over construction? Inside Vermont? Well, I'm looking at your very first slide. Actually, that's in page three. FERC regulates interstate wholesale sale and transportation of electricity and natural gas. Jurisdiction over construction of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities. So in your example of the pipeline that goes to Lebanon, New Hampshire. Okay. And stops there. But then there's an interest in Vermont connecting up, at the end of the year, Vermont connecting up with that pipeline and bringing that pipeline into the state. That would seem like FERC would have a lot to say about whether that construction goes forward or not. Within Vermont? Okay. I don't believe so. I believe FERC is concerned with a wholesale market of electricity and natural gas, concerned with the construction of interstate natural gas pipelines. But Vermont gas applies to build the pipeline from Lebanon into Vermont to serve Vermont customers. I believe that is just PUC. I do not believe FERC has a role in that. There might be some scenario that I don't know would be involved. I can't think of it. I don't know if anyone else- I did. It goes back to you, but when we talked about going to the international paper plan, we got a 248 permit to, or we worked to get a 248 permit, I think the final permit was never issued because the project died, but essentially we were going down the path of the 248 really from Middlebury to the lake, if you will. FERC was permitting, I think the lake crossing is that's when it tripped into the interstate, essentially. So I think that's kind of the distinction there. I do believe though that FERC often defaults to the state's environmental regulation to a large extent, so I think the long and the short of it is any pipeline, if somebody tried to use the FERC, Trump character, really Trump, that's probably a bad analogy, but maybe it's appropriate actually. They'd do something like that in Vermont. I think Vermont would have a pretty extensive say. You've seen that in New York, that the governor of New York effectively jammed the pipeline project from Bington to Albany, and even though it was the FERC project, they've essentially stopped that project. So FERC could not force through a pipeline that the PUC did not issue a certificate if I would put it forward? Not an attorney, but I believe the states can make life very difficult for a Florida A.S. that pipeline. That's what you're trying to get to. Well, the reason I'm asking that is we're about to go into these bills, and I want to be clear what kind of jurisdiction and playing field the legislature has on some of these issues, because these are interesting. Well, I think the bills are all legal. I think that they all are focused on Vermont. You see there's language to make sure and carve out for FERC, I think in this bill. So we cover ourselves double, but I think they're all okay. I don't think we're going to raise those issues. So this is now H-51. So I talked to you earlier about some decision points or things to be aware of. H-51 is a bill that would fall in the category of what I call the absolutes. In essence, it would ban any new fossil fuel pipelines in the state. And so let's walk through it and please if there's any questions, I don't plan to read a word for work, but if there's any questions, please stop me and let me know. So you have section one is purpose and as you know, that's in session law. It doesn't really have a direct legal impact, but it sets forth the goal of the General Assembly for the reason why you'd be considering this bill. And it has a general language about the reason for what section two does. So section two is adding a new sub-chapter. And it's actually in title 29, which chapter 14 deals with natural gas and oil conservation. And that title actually has intent language of its own, which states that Vermont should encourage natural gas and oil exploration and development. So this would add a new sub-chapter nine. And it states that in line four under A, a person shall not construct or reconstruct fossil fuel infrastructure in the state. So it's a prohibition on the construction or reconstruction of fossil fuel infrastructure. In other words, it's an absolute ban. One is a carve-out in essence for FERC to make sure that there's no conflict. Two says that the prohibition does not include the repair or maintenance or both of fossil fuel infrastructure in existence, in other words, the grandfather clause I mentioned earlier. It's a carve-out for existing pipelines or facilities. Under B, it has definitions. So it gives it definition of fossil fuel. And interestingly, there's only one other definition of fossil fuel I'm aware of in the Vermont statutes, which sort of lists all the types of fossil fuels. So this would be a new definition and it's a definition that we reuse in many of our bills. I'm presuming methane would not be included. Uh, no, it was methane from potato, potato, again, it doesn't matter, but I guess it's not in there, it's crust, so good point. B is using the section two, fossil fuel infrastructure, means a structure and ancillary facilities used to move fossil fuel from one location to another, such as a natural gas or oil pipeline. The phrase includes natural gas facilities defined in Title 30, which is the definition I gave you earlier. So it covers, oh, I'm sorry. So it covers, my apologies, covers natural gas and other fossil fuels. Now, under the second sentence, it states that the phrase does not include an endless motor vehicles, underground tanks, or pipes located in the site of a service station, or pipes leading to a residence or commercial building. So this is another kind of car map. Doesn't include your cars, doesn't include gas station, doesn't include a residential, commercial building and a fuel tank. Is that clear? So in layman's terms, I'll ask you, what does it include? It includes, anything that's- And is it really just Vermont gas, basically? No, I think it would be, I mean, yes, it would include Vermont gas, a new pipeline, not an existing one, remember there's that car valve. It is structure and ancillary facilities move to use fossil fuel from one location another. So it would be very similar to the current definition that we talked about, the pipeline and the gates or whatever word you use that's necessary to move the oil or gas, that's what it would include. I don't know what you're thinking of. I'm, frankly, I'm thinking of, I'm thinking of Borns in Morseville. I'm sorry, what? They're moving, Borns Company, you know, they're moving over fuel oil company, you know, the home delivery and delivery. Yeah, I don't think it would include that. I don't think so. I don't know where, if they would want to build a new pipeline to serve as some storage facility, then it might involve a pipeline from the existing facilities, no, have your grandfathered out from their trucks with the transporting fuel to the storage tank for the local residents, no, I don't think it would include that. Look, what about a pipeline going into Addison County that currently doesn't serve a particular town or neighborhood that wants to hook into that for residential use? So it'd be an extension, like to get to a new house? Well, I guess, yeah, essentially, but I'm trying to distinguish between what this bill would allow, and maybe we're not at that section yet, but between, I guess what I'll call, transmission and distribution. And by transmission, I mean, maybe the larger diameter pipe that is supplying a particular area as a pressure, under high pressure, maybe that's the way to distinguish it, as opposed to distribution where a neighborhood or an individual home is being. Well, the way it's defined, I think it will include both. And if you're taking up the bill, that might be an issue that you deal with, but the definition, remember, means structure to move fossil fuel from one location to another. It doesn't distinguish between transmission, distribution, or pressure or diameter. So it seems to include all types of lines. Yeah. Do trains count as motor vehicles? Or is that simply, that's a good question. Or is it simply got more semi-trails? Good question. That's the kind of thing you need to take up the bill, and you can clarify. Any other questions about the definitions? So in section three, and if I forget to page down, please remind me. So basically what section three, section four, and section five, and for that matter, section six, two, is each of them has a prohibition on the construction or approval of any new pipeline. So section three states that the Secretary of A&R cannot approve, I'm sorry, it cannot issue a permit or other approval pertaining to the construction or reconstruction of a fossil fuel infrastructure. Section four basically deals with Act 250. Section five states that municipal land use permit cannot be issued for the construction or reconstruction of a fossil fuel infrastructure. So each of these are prohibitions on anybody or person approving the construction or reconstruction of fossil fuel infrastructure. Section six is now in Title 30. So this is dealing with the Public Utilities Commission. I won't move it in a second. Yeah, can you wanna go down, I assume? Section six, yep, okay. So what this does is I'm gonna switch pages here, but it's Title 30, and this is the same law that we looked at earlier, 248. And the new language, so it keeps existing law, but you see the new language on lines five through sevens, basically states that commencing with the effective date, the commission, the Public Utility Commission, cannot issue a certificate of public good as to a natural gas facility. So on paper, they would have that continued authority where they can never issue a CPG as to a natural gas facility. Continuing down, I'm not gonna read these, starting on line eight, U of A, these are stylistic changes, just updating the drafting convention. They're not substantive. And then continuing down. You see, a certain language is removed, and I'm sorry, I'm losing my voice. Existing language is lined out, and under existing law, the PUC, candidate discretion to have a proceeding to give an opinion that might be relevant to a proceeding, but this removed the ability to do so. Later on, under I, I'm sorry, one and two under H, again, strikes out, let me go back up so you can see it. If there is a proceeding for a federal certification under existing law, the PUC, in essence, can give its input, but now the small mandate that the input would be that the facility's contrary to the general goodness state. So it's requiring the PUC to be negative as to such an application proceeding. And then you'll see that one and two would be deleted from current law. And basically what this is doing is that the PUC would not have a role in giving advice to FERC about the interstate pipeline, if it somehow impacted Vermont, and that the PUC could not approve any new fossil fuel pipelines that are facilities in the state. One other definitional thing, maybe it's about a definitional thing that is mentioned here a couple times, I want to be clear on the phrase construction or reconstruction, and back, it's on page three of the bill, line four, a person shall not construct or reconstruct fossil fuel infrastructure in the state. And then it goes on to say what the prohibition does not include. But I think of reconstruction of fossil fuel infrastructure in my mind that falls in the maintenance world. But we're also in age 51 maintenance is carved out. So I'm trying to adjust those things. Reconstruction is, this is a carryover bill. You could, I think you could use a different word than reconstruction. It's not a defining term in the bill. So if you want to, thank you very much. If you wanted to use a different word, I think that'd be fine. I think you're trying to get at building a new or is somehow substantially changing and existing. So it's not merely maintenance. I believe that's what you're trying to get at, but we could define it better. I think it's also important to note that page five. Well, thank you very much. Line eight, this section about natural gas transmission line. And natural gas transmission line is defined as I think to be distinct from a distribution line. At least that's how I took it when I read it. I think you're right. Yeah. So back on page three where the new language about fossil fuel infrastructure is talking about a structure or ancillary facilities used to move fossil fuel from one location to another. It probably needs to be clarified, but I think I took it to me that it did not include distribution lines. I took it differently. And I didn't, Ellen and I did not write this bill. It was catalyzed as I mentioned. I'm not sure what the sponsor's intent was. I mean, if you take up the bill, you can decide. If you want to live in it or have it broadly and we can clarify that language. I read it as more broadly. It's okay. I don't know if that's intentional. Yeah. Okay. So if you're worried to allow distribution, I think you should. We would have to carve out the ancillary facility that would drop down the pressure for distribution. Yeah. If that's your intent, yeah, it would suggest to be very clear and have a carve out if that's what you wish to do. I think, I think this language can be read broadly. So if you don't want that, we should clarify it. Any questions about H 51? I wanted to more quickly focus on two other bills that take a slightly different approach to some of the same issues. Each 175 is a shorter bill and hit in essence. Let me pull down. So right now, utility or company can use eminent domain under certain circumstances if they're constructed in pipeline. This bill would prevent that. And so you see the language on lines 13 and below. It says no corporation or company may condemn any property or right in order to construct or expand facilities or structures that would then under one transport fossil fuel under two bristle electricity, heat or energy using fossil fuel. And then there's a definition of fossil fuel that's similar to the one I just gave you. So in essence, this is not an absolute ban on fossil fuel infrastructure or pipelines, but it takes away one tool that is sometimes used to build pipeline or structure eminent domain. So it would make it more difficult to build a new pipeline in for months. Any questions? Yeah, I've got nothing about eminent domain. Here you go, I missed that day in law school. In fact, I missed law school. So okay, I don't have any context for none now. On all these bills, if you're taking one of them up, we can always research issues or get folks in here who can give you more information. Finally, I'd like to discuss age 214. So this is in essence modifies or adds criteria that the public utilities commission would apply in considering whether to grant a certificate of public good for a natural gas facility. So if we page down, this is once again, 30 VSA 248, the law looked at more than once. And the new language states that this is the section we talked about earlier that no company can get in site preparation or commence construction as a natural gas facility. You'll see online for, this is reorganized, but this is existing language, you need to get a CPG. But below that is a new language. Unless the public utilities commission first evaluates the percentage of greenhouse gas leakage that occurs from the extraction and transportation of the natural gas and determines that the adverse effects of that leakage on climate change are outweighed by the good to the state. So it's a new factor that the PUC must consider before granting a CPG. Then under small three also evaluates the impact of groundwater contamination caused by the extraction of the natural gas in the region where the extraction is conducted and determines that those impacts are outweighed by the good to the state. So this is strengthening or adding to the criteria that should be considered deciding whether to grant a CPG. The other new language is if you click to page three, online is 12 through 15. It states that the public utilities commission shall not allow companies to finance the construction of a pipeline through rates beyond the useful lifetime of infrastructure and shall not allow the construction costs to be securitized on other utilities beyond the pipeline itself. And as the details about securitization of pipeline costs, I'm sorry, I can't give you the information on that. That's one of the things we can research or have people come in to discuss. But the objective is that make more difficult to obtain a CPG. So I think the purpose of that particular clause is if we anticipate that we're not going to be using fossil fuels beyond 30 years, and it's gonna cost, and if in order to pay for the pipeline, it's gonna take 60 years at current rates that would be a disincentive for the public utility commission to issue a CPG. Now there are, those are the bills that are in this committee. I am not aware of another pipeline bill that would be in another committee. I don't know why it would be. There's a couple of bills in the Senate. One of them is the sister bill. I think it's an H51. And there's another bill that would in essence ban pipelines in the state that is written a little differently. That's the universe of bills out there dealing with fossil fuel pipelines. Can you describe a little bit about the precedent for state laws, state decisions barring input from out of the state? Is that a common thing? Like this one specifically says we've got to consider effects that occur elsewhere. Yeah. Is that a common thing for state law or? I don't know whether I can say it's common for state laws in general. It's legal. Could require that. It's possible. I don't know if it's common. I guess I wonder how easy it would be to evaluate the percentage of renounced gas leakage. And also whether that would be variable depending on the facilities being used at that moment or the wells being used at that moment or the pipelines being used. The same graph. Is this a limitation question? Same with groundwater contamination. Yeah. It seems like that might be difficult to establish. I don't know. Yeah. How difficult. How difficult. Can I make a general statement on a lot of these bills? I think we're naive in the thought that there's not something else out there that natural gas or other extensions could be used for. I'll give you two examples. One is the possibility, and they did look at it for a new natural gas facility at the old Vernon nuclear power plant because all the infrastructure is there. My understanding is that there was an issue with Massachusetts bringing that line up through, and that's why that kind of fell apart. But again, if something like this was in place, that could never happen. Another example is the low of the needin' asbestos mines has a proposal now to re-mine the slab piles up there. And they were initially looking to St. Albans, but they feared that the Act 250 process would not allow them to do so, so they're looking at Gorham, New Hampshire, and what they need to extract these minerals out of those slab piles is a huge amount of heat, which would be natural gas. And the products that are used, now this is just an example, is magnesium oxide and magnesium hydroxide, which is used as a fire retardant for cable insulation in high quality cars, submarines, the Airbus A380, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 2, insulation plastic roofing on the London Olympic Stadium. You know, again, I'm just using it as an example that that's just one thing in my mind and I know in my area, they could use natural gas for an unbelievable purpose for a product that's needed. I mean, the project that they're proposing in Gorham is millions and millions of dollars. There's a facility in Canada now that does it, so it's not a pipe dream. It's not like something that doesn't happen. It can happen. They have EPA approval already to move the stuff. There's just other things that would have to come down the pipe. So again, just in general terms of, those are two things that I can think of that should be thought about. And I'm sure there's other things out there that could come about in the next few years that if we go down this road, I think, harm our abilities to create things like this. I'm just curious, just out of interest, in terms of the reclamation project involved, the, I don't know what to call it, it's really kind of reclamation, would a pipeline be necessary in order to be the... Very soon, probably. Yeah, it sounds like it would be unfeasible to get it from wherever it is now to the mines itself. That's why they're looking at that St. Albans, but Gorham, New Hampshire was more a viable prospect to get the material over there. Because there's a pipeline there. Because there is a pipeline there. And it's, they were looking at it to, once they moved it and went into this facility, there would be no airborne product or whatever, I guess. Once this is incinerated, there's virtually nothing left. Because I was thinking, geez, if you got these huge slide piles, there's still gonna be a mining operation or a slide pile still left. But I guess it burns it right down the list of nothing. Pretty interesting stuff. But anyway. Would that be good use for the extra-shea energy? Yeah. Could be. Toasters. I'm sorry? Toasters. Toasters. Just wondering about the air quality effects of actually transporting what you got there and all to wherever it needs to go. Whether it's in Gorham or whether it's closer. That actually picking up this stuff is gonna probably create a lot of airborne material. Well, there's a whole process that they worked into place of spraying it, while it's being moved onto the trucks. Supposedly we've got it now. Just again, it's a mineral- Another question is, can it be, can it be distributionally served for the purpose of actually being the plant that's supposed to be transmissible? Distributionally for the actual mineral itself. For the actual plants. Again, I think they must have considered that to some degree because that's not the direction they're headed in as far as they're thinking it's cheaper to transport this stuff. Which, again, is a concern just because it was like 17 truck loads a day from April to November, I think it was. They tried to stay out of the way. Just something to think about. Thank you, Luke, for taking us through these things. Before we adjourn for the day, I just wanted to remind people about the EV demonstration event that's going on near the Department of Labor tomorrow. It's 4 to 6. I'm going to be there because I already own one. But I can attest to my satisfaction from my election year. But if you have a chance at the end of the day tomorrow, I'll take over that. Do you want to follow up on any of the bills we discussed at this point? Not immediately, but yeah, we will definitely pull the end because we get one. Sure. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not going to talk to anybody yet or go into that EV demonstration or whatever, but we've got the Turkish Cultural Center tomorrow. That's sure to work well. If anybody wants some baklava, that's when you get it. So tomorrow we start at 9 o'clock, and we have two different topics in the morning. And I'm not sure how much time we're going to have in the afternoon. Right now, we don't have anything scheduled up to the House floor. And if it's late today, which I expected to be, I expect we'll be on the floor for two or three hours. But at this time, we don't have anything on the House floor. Thank you.