 Madam Chair, thank you for joining us. I really appreciate you coming in to chime in on this bill. We are working on H688, which is the Global Warring Solutions Act. And one of the findings we have in the bill, just as kind of a placeholder, relates to some things in public finance. And you have also done a great deal of work in recent years on some of these big picture issues that affect our state, certainly that you work in water. But I wanted to make sure that you had a chance if you were interested. And I appreciate you taking up the invitation to join us just with some thoughts on the bill. We're very open to any improvements we can make. And as I said, I think the focus was on with you being essentially the chief financial officer for our state. This is an important thing to talk to you. So welcome, and thank you for joining us. Well, thank you very much for the record, best peers to state treasurer. And I'm going to start with, I hope that we support the bill. I think that this is a big step in the right direction. I'd like to read a little bit of what I started to write in terms of a really long report. And then not to that for the rest of this, because I don't want to put it on that situation. Obviously. Yeah, we've got it in the next seven or eight hours. Most of my reports stopped at page 90 or so. Clean water I think was 93 plus probably three times more of a single, but decent type. But so let me just start off with a few comments that came from doing the Clean Water Report and thinking about the issues as they relate to climate change. And also, we have on our web page a report called Environmental Social Governance, which talks about some of the efforts that we're making with respect to investments in climate change. And I think that if you're interested, you should take a look at that. And maybe that's one thing you should talk about in terms of we're looking to develop some metrics and working with some of the environmental community to develop some metrics and our investments. And that might be something we should talk about here. But let me just start off with basically a statement. That climate change is a serious threat to our way of life, the future well-being of our citizens, and also our bottom line. These threats are not some way down the road they are here right now with us. And it's going to require a collaborative effort from all parties and local, state, federal governments, and in concert with the private sector. And I think your bill addresses that. Let's do more to address the issues that face us. And there are consequences for not doing it. Now, we've been a model for many number of years in solar and wind and clean water technologies, but we need to do more. We've articulated very ambitious goals, but we have not met those goals and presently do not see it without this bill, do not have a path to meet them. We haven't done nearly enough to combat climate change and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I'm going to read a couple of lines from a report that was cited in Business Magazine. And basically, the bulk of Vermont's total emissions from transportation heating sector is 71%. And this is from a DEC report. Vermont has already missed important greenhouse gas reduction goals and is likely to miss future emission goals. Let me do that again. To miss future goals is emissions that continue to rise in the years. And going to another A&R report, Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions remain at levels well above its reduction goals, establishing state statute in the Comprehensive Energy Plan. Each successive year of increasing emissions levels makes achieving the state's emission reduction goals significantly more difficult. Now, a couple of years ago, we wrote an op-ed. We wrote a big clean water report, which I appreciate the efforts that were made by the House and the Senate after that in the General Assembly and the Governor to make some real strides in clean water. But we wrote an op-ed and it was a financial case to protect Vermont's water. And as I was thinking about that, in that report I said, we have a choice to act or defer action. And we can't continue to defer action, simply put, there is no choice without jeopardizing the health of our citizens, our economy, our natural resources, and our way of life. We are in a similar position now with the task ahead of us. Delay is at our peril. In each year we delay and we have more risks and more costs. But bottom line, we must act. Now I want to go through a couple of pieces on that. You've probably heard all of these already, but looking at some of the data on the state's website, total rainfall has increased over the last 50 years. Storms have increased in intensity. Winters are getting warmer and shorter and summers are getting a lot hotter, hotter. I'll do that again. Whoa. But I really like the cold, so I pay attention to that last one. But in terms of risks, we're already dealing with some of those risks in terms of the temperature swings and how they impact our farms. Rain, increasing intensity there, more floods and more changing in terms of insecticide needs and pests and it's a real problem. Our sugar season has already seen detrimental impacts. We need more dollars for infrastructure in terms of disaster relief and certainly it's going to impact snowfall. When we wrote the report back in Clean Water in 2017, we pointed out that there was $2.5 billion in our tourism industry. My guess is that I haven't looked at it recently. I hope it's grown to about three. I hope it hasn't gone down. But the mitigation strategies should be looked in terms of our economy, in terms of the loss of revenue and the cost of disaster planning. So in disaster, unfortunately, when we have a disaster, the implementation around that. So for me, this is a big effort and we've done some work on it. We have a hazard mitigation report that the state has developed. I think it's very good, but it isn't there. It isn't to the final efforts. Page 143 of that report, it says intends to create. We're still in that intend and moving forward part. We need to do more than just a hazard mitigation report. We need to be able to have a comprehensive whole look at what we're doing. Now I thought about that and said, and I did this independently of looking at your bill. And I said, if I was looking at this, how would I start? And I'd start with a strategic plan, including goals and a comprehensive effort. And one would be to develop those climate goals and strategies around them. We have done that, but we haven't done the work to make that happen. We need to develop an action plan and that action plan needs to include regulations with records of detail policies and to create measurement and accountability plan to attract these efforts and demand action when those goals and strategies have not been met and our mission has not been met. When I look at your bill, I say it's doing that. And I'm very pleased to see that. This is the strategy that we take when we're addressing problems on the financial side. You're doing the same thing in terms of the broad issue of climate risk. But when we've had efforts, again, we need to move forward and implementing a plan. And I would also point out one other piece on this. It impacts us in so many ways. It impacts our farms, it impacts our sugar season, it impacts our tourism, it impacts costs for mitigation and costs when we have disasters. Irene is a great example of that. But more importantly, well, not more importantly, that's in itself a reason to do this, in of itself a reason to do this. In addition to that, I wanna point out that the rating agencies are now paying attention to this with great interest. There are two publications here. The first one is evaluating the impact of climate change on US state local issues. That was issued in 2017. And that document, right on the front, it says credit risks are resulting from climate change. And the bottom line is that they wanna know what mitigation strategies are in place. How is the cash flow being affected? What is your energy plan to move forward? After Irene, I won't say what rating agency. I got a call. And it was, the questions were very succinct. How much does it cost? How are you going to pay for it? And can you still pay your debt service? Okay, that's the bottom line as they're looking at it. On page three of the report, I believe, there you go. You're taking a look at the issues. Property tax, state sales tax, impact on tourism. On the other side, by the way, we did see some construction costs go up because of Irene. Increased cost of debt, if you have to issue more debt, right after Irene, I remember folks coming to me and saying, we gotta do a bond, we gotta do a bond, we gotta take care of these things. I won't relate that to another recent subject. But taking a look at the balance sheet, in terms of impaired assets that we have in the state, are cashflow and the ability to do that and the ability to pay debt. Rating agencies are interested in that. In 2019, there was a separate report by movies. I think we have to hit that little button. There you go. And it talks about the risk of temperature shifts and precipitation patterns and how we're going to address those. Talks a little bit about the demand for energy when you have higher temperatures and the disaster costs that are associated not just across the world, but with the US. And as I said, we've seen in this state. They're serious about this, the rating agencies, S&P and Fitch have also weighed in on it. And Moody's has just recently taken another step. They bought a majority share in a company called 24-7. I like the title. And this company uses outputs and climate change models to assess physical risks associated with climate change. The processes and efforts of governments are used doing in including state and local as well as the private sector. So why would Moody's take a majority stake in a climate risk assessment company? And the bottom line is that they want to provide meaningful data on the governments and the financial community and investors. Investors in this state and it's not just bonds, but people who invest in this state who come here to start companies. They wanna know what the risks are in climate change and what we're doing. The people that are buying our bonds wanna know what's gonna happen in terms of the future and the future risks that might impair those bonds. I think we're in good shape on that just in case Moody's is listening. But the bottom line for me is this impact, the financial community is looking at these issues and they're looking at how we're addressing climate change, not just with broad goals, but how are we gonna implement them and how are we gonna be accountable for them and moving forward? It's a material risk financially. It's a material risk for governments across the country and the rating agencies are paying attention to this. And I think I'll stop there and take any questions. Thank you. I don't know if we use GDP for the state or GSB, whichever. I'm curious to know, you said you hadn't really looked at the tourism dollars, but like meatball, skiing and farming seemed to be the three industries that immediately come to mind that are most affected by the climate stuff. Absolutely. I would be curious to know if there was any way to calculate the delta between where it would be if we weren't in this climate situation and where it is now, like how much are we losing as a result of it? That would take some modeling, which we have not done. I have looked at the DEC site and others that have some very good information on the risks, just the areas that you just mentioned, as well as the hazard mitigation report. And again, what I'm seeing is that we need to do more modeling in that area to take a look at that. And I think that that's part of ultimately accountability in the end. Beth, thanks for coming. So one of my concerns in listening to a lot of folks that come in and say how much they appreciate the bill talking about do more, invest more, a hection plan and all this. My concern is I don't see what those investments in costs are gonna look like. They're kind of in a blind area right now. And so what I mentioned too though is our other obligations, and I mentioned just a few the other day, pension obligation, half a billion dollars worth of unfunded school improvements that are out there in communities. The housing bond that you just spoke about that you didn't believe was reasonable in the sense of, I believe it was principal that would have to be paid back on that bond? The interest. Yeah, just the interest, yeah, okay. So anyway. We both have to be repaid, but the interest cost is someplace between 26 and 30 some odd percent depending on the bond. And that's a pretty hefty amount of money. But with all those things in play, again, can you put my mind at ease as far as... Well, I think we talked about this in the Clean Water Report. And what we said is that the cost, I believe was $2 billion and that the unmet cost was someplace in a billion dollar range with existing resources. And we needed to marshal those at the state and local and private sector level. And the state did some analysis and we said we need to get up to that $50 million range per year to do this. We did some effort at the front end to have a glide path to that in terms of using some bonding capacity that was still there within our current general obligation debt capacity that's determined throughout the process with a really, really incredible name, the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee. It's a really wild meeting if you want to come. But it's an important issue and how much debt can you have? We took a look at these issues, we ended up, they were quite the revenues that we looked at originally. The governor and the general assembly came up with some areas to do that and we're pretty close to what that number is in terms of making those changes. We also came up with delivery systems to make it work, to get those dollars out the door. And we also made some changes in our definition of clean water so that more could be done at the bomb bank and over at VEDA in terms of working with natural resources and things like riparian buffers and so on. So we were able to make a lot of changes because we took action. This is taking action. This is getting you on the path to get that done. $2 billion, we found a way to do it over a 20 year period. We found a way because we had the desire in the will to make it happen. And I think that this bill gets you to that, gets you to the will to make it happen. And I think it's extraordinary important, the risk in these areas. And again, I haven't done the modeling. We did it for the water. We also had 26, it was a 23, a 26, 23 stakeholder meetings with 1,000 people. I'm not suggesting I'm volunteering to do that again. But the reality is that we recognize the cost of doing nothing and standing down. You are in that same boat. The cost without being, you know, replicating those, replicating the cost to our farms. You talked, we talked about, you just talked about the sugar rain season. I saw an article and digger a few, I don't know what was a few months back or a month time just kind of compresses when you folks start to come here. It just becomes one wild, serious kind of, it just, you know, there's no night and day anymore. It's just, you know, continual, but, sorry, I had to say it. But for me, looking at those risks, you are going to have more costs by doing nothing. And you're going to impact sales tax. You're going to impact our tourism revenues. You're going to impact the cost of doing business for our farmers. And they have a tough enough job already. And for me, inaction is not the choice to make. I wholeheartedly support this bill. So, just to follow up, please. So would you recommend a similar modeling effort? Well, I think that that would be part of action plans that would be developed by the agencies to work forward on this. I certainly would be, she's going to shoot me for volunteering again. I'd be happy to, I'd be happy to assist, but not take the lead, okay? But I would be happy to assist. It's been pointed out to me that, believe it or not, with legislation and statute and different, I'm on 30 different boards and committees. And obviously, I send people to different boards and committees because I can't be in 30 places at once. But we're stretched a little thin. And I would point out that we haven't had, our budget right now in our general administration is actually less than it was in 2009. And so we keep our belt tightened there. We're kind of coming up to the limit of what we can do to be honest with additional programs. But we're willing to help. We're willing to help. This is important. And I see this as one of the highest priorities at stake and have paid the pensions and long-term liabilities kind of high in my list too. But this is important. Not doing anything is just the wrong thing to do. So I didn't want to step on your toes. I'm glad you asked that follow-up question. I have a similar one and I'm curious. I, for a lot of reasons, was not very involved in the water work that you had done a few years ago and continue today. So it would be helpful for me to understand what the analogy is between what was done there. And frankly, the legislature right now and the state government struggled with that issue for years, maybe decades. Back in the late 90s, we were talking about clean water and it took us near around 20 years to get there. Part of the thing that broke loose the log jam was your work on very specifically outlining what are some of the strategies, what are some of the financing pathways so that we had clarity on some of that. It still took a couple of years to get to kind of get over the hump on how are we going to actually finance this. My question is how clear the analogy is between that work and what we're contemplating here. I would say we've got to do this much more quickly because of the emergency at the end. But also, I see some of this work as cost savings in nature. People are using less fuel and people are using more efficient technologies. There's also discussion about the economic development component of this. There's some of that in the water world but where's the analogy there? And I know that you undertook this study over a month, if not, you know. It was a long time. It was a long time. If you could compress that into five minutes. Okay. Well, first I want to say that while it said the treasurys report, it was a combined effort with A&R, agriculture, economic development, lots of private sector folks that brought in local municipalities as well. It was a combined effort. And we did analyze the cost as a group. And I think that that's something that needs to be done. And I think that part of that's been done already. There were studies on climate change. You know, we took those studies and we pulled those together. And I think that some part of the regulatory or policy process moving forward would be to require something along that lines at least compiling what you had and putting that into a strategic plan that moves forward. I think the comprehensive energy plan lacks a little bit in terms of how to get there. And I think this would be important. So I think that's step number one. I do believe that you've got to move faster. I would absolutely agree with you that this is not something you could do over a two, three-year period. We need to do it now. The consequences are already hitting us in terms of, as I say, farming sugar. We can't take that chance. When I did the clean water report, I made the analogy that clean water is an asset. And if you've got a company and the company makes widgets, and I don't even know where the widgets are at, I don't think they actually exist, but you make widgets. You make sure that the widget machine is working. And that means you put investment into that machine because you can't make a profit if you don't keep the widget machine working. The same with clean water, the same with climate change. You have to see that our climate is an asset. It affects all these areas. You have to invest in it. And I think the end result is it's cost-effective. You mentioned jobs. It creates new jobs and new economies. And I think we've done a lot in solar. We've done a lot in wind. We've got some clear head starts in that area. New technologies are there in terms of farming, in terms of, well, go back to clean water for a while, different types of digester technologies. Those help create jobs. They also, as you said, when you're putting more, you have less energy venues. Oil's a pretty up and down in terms of its reliability over time, prefer other sources of energy, frankly. And since I mentioned oil, I said, boy, did I step in it. But those are the things that we want to get away from. The technologies have to be there. Lowering our energy costs is good for homeowners. It's good for companies. It's good for people that are trying to, it's an affordability issue, that are trying to pay their bills. And those energy costs are really, really high. And so I think that there are cost-effective ways of doing it and cost deterrence that they're not going to have the cost and the types of disasters that we saw in Irene and other types of disasters that we've had since then. So I think it's a cost-effective model. See it as an asset that needs to be monitored, needs to be invested in, and needs to be cared for because if we don't, we lose so much in this state. Scott. Beth, this bill puts the agency of natural resources in the position of being the lead agency which seems appropriate in terms of being the lead agency also for controlling pollution. But we've heard from some people questions about whether that's really an effective structure because the agency is, A&R is the one upon a level with all the transportation and commerce and all the other agencies. And I just wonder if with your experience in state government, do you have any thoughts on that? I think that when going back to the analogy with clean water, A&R was our primary partner in working some of those bills out and coming up with legislation around the definition of clean water and the delivery systems that were included in the final act. And I was trying to search for the number, the act number and I'm not gonna get there. But so I think that A&R is a good lead. I think that they have experience working with other agencies in that cooperative approach. And we had a lot of success in dealing with them. I think that Secretary Moore did a great job taking what we did in the report and translating it into action. And I would recommend, I don't know what her workload looks like right now, but youth folks volunteered me for the clean water report. I'm voluntary. Is she out there someplace? Okay, I'm in real trouble. Okay. Any other questions? Did I answer your question? You did. Well, you certainly answered mine. But go ahead. Sorry, just to follow up on your last answer because this is one thing that's come up from a number of people if A&R is the right place. And I guess I'm just curious with regard to clean water, it seems as though there was as complicated or if not more, you know, a situation but the interconnecting of so much wasn't there. It really was. I mean, it really is folks. You know, there's certainly some storm water and transportation, you know, those. But it's, I mean, this has ever, I mean, I mean, this encompasses a lot more than those who would be involved in the clean water. Well, I think that we can build on that success number one. But when I take a look at what we did in clean water, we talked to everybody from BGS to transportation, to agriculture, to economic development. We talked to the private sector. We talked to farmers. So I would say that the breadth of that was pretty big. I'd say that the difference here is that you've got a shorter timeframe to get this done because the effects are more severe. They're related, obviously. But I think that A&R has the capacity perspective to be able to do this. You know, I can't answer for their resources in staff and what that's gonna look like down the road. That's something that I don't have to discuss. But what we found was that the ability to bring those other agencies, other partners into the conversation, the capacity or the will to do that was very clear in A&R. I think they can do it again. I have a lot of trust in what the folks I work with there was superb. They did a great job. Great. Thank you. Thanks for joining us today. Yes. Hi. You can quite see it right there. I was back there. I was back there. Welcome. Thank you. We're this crowded every day. And actually we're not. All right. We've got an all-star cast in here this afternoon. So thank you. I can't wait to hear that. Yeah, I know. Thank you for joining us. We have been discussing for the last couple of weeks H688, which is the Global Warming Solutions Act and taking testimony on that. I really appreciate you coming over and joining us today for testimony. Always interested in your perspective, but particularly as a utility leader. In fact, utility executive of the year in 2019. And certainly the perspective you bring there, but also just generally from a private sector and dealing with these issues. You've certainly been a leader with Green Mountain Power in bringing that utility into the 21st century in terms of actually both mitigation and resiliency work kind of critical for the business model. So thank you for joining us. We record our hearings for the record. So if you wouldn't mind, we're here to see yourself. Sure. I'm Mary Powell. And I think I'm listed as an energy leader and a small business owner, right? Yes. Woo-hoo. Yes. All right. Thedogvt.com, so there we go. Where does it come from? It's a company that I founded way back in 1994 and that my husband is the CEO of and has been for a decade, but we're going through phenomenal growth because we were just put on Oprah Winfrey's list of favorite things. So yeah, that happened right as I was leaving Green Mountain Power, so I've been deep back in dog, so it's awesome. And they care about climate change too, so it's all good. It's all connected. You're welcome. Thank you. So, is it finding those dogs? Spot the dog, yeah, as in reflective, protective, outerwear for dogs and a world's first energy bar to be sharing with your dog. So there's my commercial about the business. Now, let's talk about matters important to you guys. Well, primarily, I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the bill in a broad scope or, you know, so we welcome your input on that, but as well, excuse me. Just generally, your input on that is welcome. Great, so first of all, thank you for inviting me to talk about this very important topic and this very important bill from my perspective. And I did have a chance to read through it and I'm glad that I can be here today because really all kidding aside about other things that might be happening or not happening in my life as a small business owner, there is really no topic, probably, that I'm more passionate about than climate change. Both in terms of the sense of incredible urgency, I feel, that it's an issue that we need to tackle, we need to embrace, and we need to really move forward as fast as possible. But also, I look at it also from the perspective of a little bit of what Beth Pierce mentioned, which is, I think, you know, it is for the states, for the communities, for the entities that get ahead of the curve and want to embrace, well, I don't know that there's any ahead of the curve at this point, but that actually embrace it and move fast, I think there is incredible economic opportunity over time to be a leader, not a follower. So I think the time is of essence and we need to move forward. So I'm pleased to be here. I read it, I mean, so probably with those words, none of what I will say will surprise you. So, A, we need goals. No, we actually need requirements, yes. We need to move from goals to have hard, fast requirements, commitments to what we want to accomplish. We need to do it, in my view, with as little bureaucracy as possible. And we need to do it in a way that is not about setting up a structure to allow lawsuits to get us to the change that we want to see. Simply because not that I actually think that that approach actually might have worked in certain areas in decades past. I think we are way past the time when that approach is useful from a societal perspective because I think it takes too darn long. So I think it's fundamentally flawed because really what we need is action and playing things out in courtrooms does not tie very well in my experience to moving quickly in action. So I think I'm all in on really having very rigorous requirements of what we want to achieve and as fluid, flexible, and fast-moving structure around that to move forward. I also worry a little bit, so on those, so the parts I would worry a little bit about are in my experience, both deep in the nonprofit world as well as three and a half years working for state government and the private sector, I really subscribe to when you have more than a group of about 12, you are gonna slow things down considerably. So I worry a lot about the size of the group that I saw that was gonna possibly be leading this forward. I think there's a way to have lots of people involved without having these huge task force that have become so large and people substitute people and at the end of the day, not a lot gets happened but there's a lot of paperwork on why nothing happened in my experience. So we don't have time for that, we don't want that. So I would say those are my overarching observations and comments and I'm happy to answer questions. The last point is interesting to me looking at what other states have done from a modeling perspective. I don't know if they're good models or not but New York, being New York, had scores and scores of people working on what was moving forward. Maine I think had in the neighborhood of 40 people and a group of legislators who had worked on drafting this I think were particularly sensitive to that point. And so it's certainly well taken. This group has, I believe, 21. So smaller but still larger than, and in fact we heard testimony this morning that who's missing, you know, more people. Yeah, yeah, no, well there always is. Guess what, if you have 25 there's gonna be 50 missing. I mean, so to me it's just do we have a bias for action or do we have a bias for process? And a bias for process is a lot safer. It's what, you know, you see it in the private sector, you see it in nonprofits, you see it in government all the time, it's way safer. I don't think we have time to be focused on what is safer. I think we need to be focused on action. And so that's, you know, and I also, I'm really just deep in my bones. One of the areas I have a lot of excitement and actually I've had a lot of reason over the last few weeks to have even more excitement is the area of new technological development in the clean energy economy. In fact, I've been really shocked, honestly, at the fire hose of phone calls and things I've been invited to by the Left Green Mountain Power. From players, from financial players, I would say all over the country. I think there is, I don't think, I know there is more capital and investment going in, private equity going into the clean energy economy than I have ever seen before. So I think that's really good. That gives me a lot of hope. But then that also, it also, worry might not be the right word, but how do you marry that with kind of a, what feels like maybe a very bureaucratic approach to solving the problem, which is, we're gonna figure it out and we're gonna have a plan. Change doesn't really happen that way. In my mind, it's very, very concrete, deliberate. We are going to get here by then, right? And then really creating momentum and entrusting a number of folks, no more than 12, to work with a lot of others, right? Because, again, you can't get anything done without a thousand conversations. So each of those 12 needs to have a thousand conversations, but, and then really moving forward. We know where our problems are. I mean, that's the whole thing, you guys. I mean, I read it, like, it's transportation. It's heat, like, we know. And so what we really have to have is the courage and the lies for action. So let me ask you on that point, as a utility leader, and I think utilities don't have the reputation as being the most dynamic part of the American economy. Right. But as you're looking forward, in terms of 10-year capital plans, and thinking of the transformation that Green Mountain Power has gone through in the last 10 years, again, when you're looking forward 10 years, you don't know what technologies are coming down the road in year six and seven and eight. And yet, you're creating capital plans, you're creating strategic plans to try and get to a certain place. How do you deal with that uncertainty as you're looking ahead to whether it's renewable goals, or the carbon emissions? And there's a little bit of, I mean, the Dilbert of leading a regular utility. So you, by definition, have to do these longer-term things that you filed that, you know, really from my perspective, hopefully you don't spend a lot of time obsessing about. And actually most of everything we, on the ground, tried to focus on when I was there was what are the things to do in the next two years, right? Because, and that's my point, you can't sit here today to me and chart out, or you could, you could. You could chart it out, and you'll be so wrong because it's, you're not allowing room for how things might change. So again, I use the storage example as a great example of that. Like, we didn't have any plans, strategic plan, it said we're gonna get into storage, right? We had, we created a culture and a requirement that we were gonna move in a certain way, right? And we cared a lot about not just climate lowering carbon, but we cared a lot about improving resilience, you know, for the customers that we serve. So when we heard about this, we just jumped on it, right? And then that then became really the cornerstone of so much of what we did strategically. So, I mean, one of the first things I did when I joined the industry was I threw out the strategic plan, because I actually, I think that's these three to five year plans don't make a lot of sense in the modern economy. There's requirements that you have, so you know, these IRPs and the DTDs and blah, blah, blah. But you know, then you actually have how you run your company and how you seize opportunity with crystal clarity on goals and measurements so you know if you're moving towards those. And I think that's one of the challenges the state government has, or any government. Yeah. But we heard testimony earlier this week about actually someone who's working with a group moving, helping to move Maine forward to, and it was a note of caution, but also optimism of leaving room for market solutions that we don't know, you know, we don't know exactly what those are yet, but they're there and they're going to develop and Moore's law has, you know, a part of this process. Right, right. And yet we also know, you know, we have, you know, what, 620,000 of us, right? And we also know that the transformation we've started is tiny compared to where we have to go. So there is also room to be said, we should be, you know, in fact, when I got utility executive of the year, you know, on the one hand it's nice. On the other hand, you know, honestly, I felt like it's kind of sad that the progress we've made is seen as this national example, when literally we have maybe 1500 homes that now have dramatically improved resilience. So how do we get this team, you know, that's going to enact what you're talking about to focus on making that 20,000 by next year? Like even it just like, just figure that out, which actually shouldn't be hard, you know, or how do we get from the level of EVs we have to X, you know, and know then that you're measuring that and you're making this great progress. So while we leave room for new technologies, we can also really, really develop much faster the existing ones that we have and have them in more homes and businesses, cost-effectively. You know, the chair mentioned new technology playing into this as well, you know, how and if it should. I sat up last night thinking about this as well. As you can see, we have a board with numerous bills on it. I thought last night another concern of mine is going to be holding back this body, the legislative body, from enacting all these other things around it and maybe some of them will be good. Will they be included in the overall plan? I don't know, but I mean, you know, it's everything from, you know, you got people out there pushing for 100% renewables by 2030. I mean, you and I know that's not going to happen. Well, you might not. I'm not so sure I agree with that. I think that it could happen. I think it could happen. Well, again, I want to see. I'm going to see that plan that, you know, you know, whether it's, I mean, there's Act 250 that's being reposed, that has all kinds of implications. So I think it's kind of a, we're working at both ends here and I just don't know how good an idea that is. I mean, because I know this body well enough to know that, you know, it all depends on who's here but what they're going to push for even further than, you know, may look like they're moving too slow. So let's put this in. And whether that's going to be part of meeting that goal, maybe that's something we need to talk about too. If something that the legislature does above and beyond, but the commission sets forth, right? And, and agency natural resources promulgates through rules. Is that going to be counted? Is that going to be also included in that goal reduction effort? It's a concern for me. Big concern. No, I hear you. I hear you. Yes. And as far as, you know, I understand renewables, but, you know, I'm from Lowell, you know that about the wind project up there. And I guarantee that you try to get another wind project in and, you know, you're looking at $15.5 million now to get new transmission line, to get you to use the power. Right. Well, let's remember, I mean, one of the really cool things we have going for us in Vermont is we already have an electric supply that is pretty darn clean and low carbon. I mean, Green Mountain Power's existing portfolio today, which is what, 78% of the state is 90% carbon free. You know, in fact, I mean, if you see the energy action now dashboard, electricity is the one area where we've actually met or exceeding all the goals. So again, I think part of our, because we're used to it, it's how we thought for decades, I think, in Vermont. Every time we have this conversation, I think we quickly go to the electric supply. You know, personally, I think the electric supply is doing darn well. It is the other areas. How do we help advance technological advancements where, again, if we use strategic electrification, we could actually help keep rates lower into the future. I mean, the fact of the matter is, Green Mountain Power's rates have gone up below the rate of inflation over two decades. I don't know any other part of government or anywhere in the state where that has been true under the rate of inflation. So you have a pretty green, affordable supply. So a lot of how we tackle the goals we have are, you know, a lot of it is in transportation, it's in heating, and yes, in agriculture too, right? But you already have, so I don't think it's about that debate anyway. I mean, there might be more wind projects that might not, you know, certainly you're gonna see, I think, more solar and storage because it helps with resilience. I think of that a lot. Laurel and I think of conversations we've had where those kinds of projects can be so helpful in creating microcrets, creating really community home and business-based solutions so that when these climatic events happen, we have more Vermonters who can go on with their lives, who don't have the insecurity of having no power. But other than that, I mean, not to say that electric supply shouldn't continue to march forward, but it's out of every area, it's doing the best. Well, it's not without irony that we have requirements in that area. Yeah. And those have been established in the last five years. Sure. They're probably- But some went ahead of those. I mean, you know, I mean, WAC has been 100% for a while and, you know, Green Mountain Power launched a goal that was to jump ahead of the requirement, right? So I think a bit of both, but you're right, it, you know, does it get inspired by having, you know, legislative requirements and goals, it sure does, yeah. Well, to kind of follow up, you know, to me, I agree with you that we're at this level of a great amount of renewable already, whatever, but now we're looking at an infrastructure issue. And we heard that from Massachusetts as well. You know, they're looking at 3,200 megawatts of wind off the coast now, but they're looking to try to get some of the hydro down to Massachusetts. So that's going to be huge with investments in that. And where is that coming from? The rate figures. So, you know, those are the sort of things that, you know, I have to visually see in a sense, even if they're estimates or, and they may change along the way because of other issues, but that's some of my concern. Any other questions? Is that a slight technical one? With regards to resiliency, if you don't know, maybe you could put me in the right direction, of the number of hours outages per year or whatever, is there records on how many of those are caused by upstream of the transformer, sorry, substation versus downstream? Oh, there is absolutely records. I think relative to outages that you can get from all the companies is to exactly what created them. So, you know, tree related, where, located, yeah. The major ones, though, that really shake or shook our customers to the core are, you know, again, the big major events that come in that really knock down infrastructure both on both sides of the substation and knock down. You know, that is, you know, again, actually, you know, if you look at just core reliability, like the day-to-day reliability, you know, the Vermont stats stand up very well against, certainly against any rural state. I mean, just day-to-day reliability stats in Vermont are really good. So I think there's been adequate attention and investment across the board, but it is those major climatic events. And that was a lot of what informed me so many years ago when I was out working a storm, oh, probably 12 years ago. And, you know, I saw lines that we had just rebuilt to make hearty, better wire or storm, right? You know, and when Mother Nature comes through, you know, it's twigs and twine. That's when I came up with that expression because I was like, oh my goodness, it all becomes twigs and twine. I mean, just, we saw that with the 1999 storm. I mean, Hydro-Quebec's massive transmission towers became twigs and twine. So, you know, that's a huge part of what we need to be planning for and thinking about at the same time is how do we have our climate, our overall climate solutions be ones that are cost-effective reliability solutions for monitors we know are fragile right now? We should be doing more of those projects faster. You know, those are the types of projects we should be doing much faster that also would tie to the goals of this bill. Mike and then Heidi. Yeah, when Green Mountain Power said, wants to get to 100% carbon-free by 2025, carbon-free doesn't necessarily mean renewable, right? Right. And that includes nuclear. Right. And so when those nuclear plants eventually go offline, what would you say should replace those? Well, so just to back up for one second, we said 100% carbon-free by 2025, 100% renewable by 2030. So the whole point was to have, and that's what we did way back in 2008 when we launched our strategy to go low carbon, cost-effective, incredibly reliable. It was always about using the benefits of existing nuclear as a bridge to a much cleaner, greener portfolio. So yes, so that has always been, so I think there's an expectation, again, I'm not there anymore, so I'm not speaking on behalf of the company because goodness, a lot could have changed just even in a few weeks, but a lot of it is taking advantage of some technologies that we know are there now, solar and storage, really leveraging storage, but also room in that again for the advancement of other developments. And in fact, the expectations on some of that offshore wind that's supposed to happen in the region over the next decade is supposed to be very cost-effective. So there was room for maybe having some of that, obviously seeing much more in-state transition to self-supply. I think we're gonna continue to see more and more firm honors, want to move to particularly, in my mind, the solar storage paired together because it's not only can they get more energy independence, but they also can get then the resiliency benefits. All right. Thanks, Mary. Appreciate it. It's good to see you. Good to see you, too. So I just want to go back to your push. We need action. We need a process to action and things take a while. And in the business sector, as we know, that's much easier when you just make a decision and roll with it. In this particular, as I said earlier, to Scott, dictatorships are really efficient. To much. You're right, right. I think you were quoted on that. I was? Yeah. So I guess that's kind of in your experience and you've had a lot throughout the years with this particular building on site, this kind of thing. And what I worry about is us, we have this process in place or with this bill, what I worry about is us not really being responsible for doing the policy making that it goes to the executive branch. And I guess I just wonder, I wonder what your thoughts are. And I'd like to see if we can, I'd like to see if we can come to a place where we're actually, as elected officials, as elected by the people of Vermont, doing, making these decisions once the plan comes into fruition in the after the, and I just wonder, I know that there's some concern that politically it might be difficult or what have you, and it might take more time and more time than what we have in the future of the lots of people. So I'm wondering what, and then of course it goes to the judiciary, if it doesn't, so we're kind of saying, okay, the executive, and then the executive, if that doesn't work with the cause of action, we would go to the judiciary. So I'm just sort of wondering what you're, right, I mean, if you have the confidence that we'd be able to do it, because of legislative, I mean, I think at the end of the day, and you think, first of all, thank goodness it is a democracy, right? So yeah, and again, the work that I've had the good fortune of being a part of, also was not work that you could do by fiat, you know what I mean? And it's no good work, in my opinion, actually is, right? Good work is hard, like to do really good things is hard by definition. And so, so and to do things, I think, one of the greatest things we're not has going forward. And I know we don't all feel this way on Sundays, but we are small enough to collaborate. We are small enough to figure out how to do stuff that I actually think that is our superpower when we lean into it. So as much as you can head in a direction that pushes towards that superpower, that you know, and again, and that's probably, I don't have your collective experience, right? I have mine, so I can't lay out exactly how I think you would do it, but that's why I sort of, you know what, legal strategies then breed fear and then that breeds more of your argument process. So how does it really become something that, you know, in my mind, just again, thinking out loud, it's so crystal clear, you know, what you want to see happen. And yeah, and then there's a way to bring it back, but have enough involvement so that it's really building on the Vermont superpower of collaboration. That's, you know, and yet action. I mean, so again, that's, you know, in some of the things that I think back on, you know, some of the hardest things I was a part of doing, you know, it was the vast majority wanted it. We wanted to move quickly, you know, so we had to have a way to really continue to focus on how to collaborate, how to have a thousand conversations. So, but have a smaller, I would say for me, a smaller, tighter, accountable group. 180 people. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Perfect. It's just, it's just a lot. It's just a lot. We each have a thousand conversations too. I've been part of so many and it's so, it's, you know, and we all have, right? And sometimes you claim victory and then you say to yourself a few years later, wow, should we really like, gosh, like, I always just automatically just think of like, the cost of the intellectual and the emotional time of all the folks involved. And, you know, you want to have it, you want to have it. If you have it large too, that the, you know, my experience then, nobody feels account like, oh, if I can't make it, well, Tim can be there. Just you'll lose the judge. If that's a technical term. Do you want to be on it? I'll try to do it. I'll try to do it. So my question is a little bit, a little bit off topic, but it's around broadband. It's around what you think the convergence of broadband and electric utilities might be. And so one of the things that we did last year and we've been working on, some of us have been working on since is this communications union district because as an avenue for getting broadband out. And one of the things that in my mind has been, well, maybe actually 10 years from now, it's going to be electric utilities who are really using broadband and are really the vehicle for getting broadband delivered. So I think this, since we have you here, I wanted to, I wanted to, I wanted to, I wanted to, I don't know, I mean, I guess you know, you're probably going to get a very unsatisfying answer, which is just in a broad way. I mean, I feel like it goes back to what I just said. I feel like, yeah, there is absolutely power in collaboration. I think if there was a silver bull to figuring out broadband, I think it would have been figured out definitely five years ago, 10 years, right? So it's, it's a tough- Are these industries converging, I guess? And is your crystal ball that you left the back of it? I mean, I see more, you know, I see, you know, one of the things I share, I know with all of you is the passion around how do we, how do we really make a moral economy prosper at a time when technological advance is actually increasing the great divide? So I see, you know, when I think out five and 10 years, no, my struggle's always been like, like there's going to be solutions for communications connections that aren't grandpas. Right, exactly. You know, but at the same time, how do we get to that kind of future in a way that can work in a rural economy, which is so different. So there's a fear I have of, when you say that, like, oh boy, wow, that's like doubling down on the utilities becoming the fair points of the future, because they're going to have all the like losing businesses, you know what I mean, because people will be, well no, but it's, you know, because again, our whole philosophy was lean into technological advance, be part of that, be part of providing self supply, right, because, you know, there's other parts of the world where you could see where literally poles and wires will just be really what landlines are of today, right? So I don't think it's this, I don't think there's a simple solution. I think it's a little bit of everything, but technologically, I absolutely think there's going to be leapfrogs past that. I mean, that's my own personal view. Well, the connection to me was the microgrid and the interactive, you know, generation and load. Right, right. And the necessity for broadband to make that work. Absolutely. And that's why absolutely, I think, again, our superpower could be so much more collaboration because I think, you know, there's so many tight rules of the road as you all know in the utility space, which is whatever, I guess that's the way it's supposed to be. But it doesn't, you know, how do you, how do you really build in mechanisms to incent deeper collaboration so that anytime there's one thing happening, you could stack public benefits around resilience or stack public benefits around communication. So I think there are, there are absolutely ways that progress could be made. Okay. But no silverware. So you give the last question to Robert. Okay. So, hi. So I want to go back to your earlier comment about a bias for process versus a bias for action. And that this, this plan is not an action plan. It's a, holding the steps to get to an action plan. Yeah. But I, and then also tied that in, want to tie that in with Mark's comment about, you know, so a big transmission line, the one that's permitted through Vermont is a billion dollars, I think. And we go, holy, that's, you know, that we can't, we can't do that. But, so my, what I'm looking for is what are the barriers that a billion dollars spread over that many kilowatts over 40 years is probably could be cheaper than onsite generation of natural gas to build this distribution transmission system to bring in power from Canada. And we throw up these hurdles in our way, in our own way. Say we can't do it. And I was wondering, there are insights on those. My insights about like big solutions versus small solutions. And also self-sabotage. Where we look at a hurdle but we don't look behind it, we look at it so we can't do it. Yeah, I mean, I do think that, you know, one of the phenomenons I think is happening from a societal perspective is, again, and we've seen it in our, all of our technologies, everything, right? We're moving towards more, we're moving towards smaller, faster, right? And I think bigger infrastructure is getting harder and harder to build and get done. I mean, I think that's, that's just a fact. And I, that's true, actually, all over the globe. You know, so it's not, we're not alone in that. So, you know, much of what I've seen over the my years of experience, one of the challenges has been sometimes what is said that a, like a big solution that could be more cost effective, right, could cost. What I have seen over my decades in this business is, they never actually end up costing that because it's originally, it's originally pitched with the idea that there won't be a thousand obstacles between how it could be done and how it's actually gonna get done. So, I don't have any, I don't doubt that there will be, continue to be larger solutions. But at the same time, again, what you're seeing is technological advances in really where I see society moving more and more towards, which is individualized solutions for them. So, that is happening all over the globe and I don't see anything stopping that. So again, from a big picture, a helicopter view perspective, I always use the landline cell phone analogy, right? So, there were people decades ago that thought, well, no, the vast majority would still be using that. And what's, I see what's gonna happen in the energy space is very similar. So, you won't be tearing down that infrastructure, you're still gonna need it. And a lot of people are still gonna wanna be great connected, but they're not gonna be using it as their primary source. So, I think that does call into question, doesn't mean the larger project shouldn't happen, it just calls into question how effective it will be over time from a cost perspective. Thanks. Great, thank you for joining us. Oh, you can do it. I appreciate it. See you everyone. Thanks. No, I think this is actually the first time you've been to our committee, at least since I've been here. Yeah, and I know you've been in this building in Edmonton, but it's maybe not as a placial committee room as ours, so. I know, usually they're a little smaller, right? Yeah, yeah. Well, I thought I was saying that today, if you were in Senate, I'd say yes. So, Wynn, thank you for joining us today. My pleasure. I don't necessarily have an introduction other than to say we've been working for a couple weeks, age 688, which is the Global Warming Exclusion Act. And I know that you, so thank you for coming to offer thoughts on this. I know that you are bringing a few different perspectives here. One is a, you know, of a business person who is involved in a very key industry in our state that has some, you know, climate things that are of interest. And I know that you're also involved with the National Conservancy. And we've had some folks provide testimony as well. So, just by way of introduction, thank you for being here. And if you can introduce yourself for the record, because we record our hearing. Absolutely. So, thank you very much. I'm Wynn Smith. I'm a resident of Warren, Vermont. And I'm actually coming here, as you mentioned, wearing two hats. One is the President of Sugarwish Resort up to two weeks ago. I was actually the owner of Sugarwish Resort. Congratulations. Thank you very much for 18 years, but also a trustee of the Fitch Conservancy, Vermont. I'm going to give you my written testimony, so I don't necessarily want to read that a little redundant, but I hope you'll read it. And I'd like to just paraphrase it and talk about what I think are some of the substantive issues I see as a business person, but also as a conservationist and a member of the Vermont Nature Conservancy. You know, obviously, I think everybody here knows the importance of winter sports, the ski industry, and the impact we have on the state. If you don't, Molly Mahour is right there. The President of the USA, and I'm sure she'll steer the statistics. And also, you know, that we're facing. And I'd like to refer to an honest climate change. This is something I actually learned from my new owners, and I refer to it as a climate crisis. And maybe that gets to Mary's point about actually creating more urgency if you think it was a crisis, and not just a change. So I'd like to, you know, really change the dialogue and talk more about the climate crisis. You know, I've seen it in my long career, and I spent 28 years at the NASA degree. I saw a lot of industries. And I saw a lot of industries and companies that failed to recognize trends and change. They sat back, they used a strategy to purpose a method which never works, and they went obsolete. I saw other industries that represented change, and they had the courage to actually embrace change and with change see an opportunity, even though there might have been a short-term cost to it. And that's the difference, I think, between a winning strategy and a failing strategy. And maybe, you know, this is very relevant to what we're seeing today. And I think the other thing, too, is we all know that what we do in Vermont has been right for the climate crisis we're facing. You know, the carbon that's put out by coal in the United States, by India and China, you know, it's just massive. So what we do here isn't going to solve the climate crisis, but I do think it's important that we take leadership role for a number of reasons I'll get into and that we really, you know, embrace the fact that we can do something, and that cumulatively, little steps do make a difference over time. So a trig wish, just to give you an example of what we have been doing, and I sent you a copy of the ballot reporter that I think really summarizes what we've been doing. We've been trying to focus on a number of things like energy efficiency. We've been focusing on supporting renewable energies, especially solar development, you know, insulation of electrical vehicle stations, development of energy efficiency buildings, use of LED lighting wherever we can. So I think those are small steps, but they're important steps, and they're things that we can do, but I think make the difference. And with the help of Efficiency Vermont over the last number of years, we've actually reduced our energy consumption by 34.5%. That's a big number, that's relevant. You know, not only is that good for the economy, I don't know that it makes Mary that happy, but actually it does, but you know, it's also good for our business because we've reduced that cost of our business, so therefore we have a margin to spend on other things, and I'm gonna get into what we're gonna have to spend. But just to give you a little idea about energy, and a little bit of a tutorial on snowmaking, when I bought your Eurasian 2001, we had five, 6,000 cubic feet per minute compressors to make snow. In addition to that, we used to have to import for a period of time diesel generators in order to make snow at less than capacity. So because of the energy efficiency we have today, we currently only use two compressors, one at Lincoln Peak, one at Mount Ellen, that both use less than 4,200 CFM. So think of that energy savings that we've done, and that resulted in that 34% reduction in actual kilowatt usage. So the actual view, when I talk about kilowatt reduction, it's actually five million kilowatt hours that have been reduced, five million kilowatt hours that represent that 34.5%. In addition to that, I mentioned we have worked on solar development, in particular Green Mountain or Green Lantern, and we've developed so far five solar fields that are producing 2.5 megawatts of electricity. And the net metering has really allowed that, so they've been using our net metering. We get some cost benefit out of it, but it's really been a tremendous benefit, I think, for solar. In addition to that, we're working with Green Lantern and Mad River Solar on three other solar sites, one of which would be actually more of a parking lot set that should work. Currently we've also installed 22 electrical vehicle charging stations at Lincoln Peak and Manone, and we have two additional charging stations in our Claybrook Hotel. So obviously we're trying to encourage and motivate the use of electrical vehicles. And then I think importantly, this is where I think being a small state actually can be an advantage to some degree, we've made a decision that we want to become more outspoken advocates for climate action, both through our own public messaging, as well as supporting the right organizations. So last year we became a top tier sponsor to protect our winners. If you're not familiar with them, it's really worth looking as a group of young athletes that are great following the younger generation. And we've also become an increased sponsor one percent for the planet. Personally, I'm becoming much more involved with the Nature Conservancy here in Vermont and other environmental initiatives. And our new owner, Artel Amant Company, is really a leader in the ski industry. Their affiliate Aspen has been outspoken, they've been a leader, and I think we're gonna learn from them about what we can do to become more. And I already mentioned just the change of mindset from talking about climate change to the climate crisis really came from David Perry at Altera. Now, why are we doing this? Well, obviously we're doing it for a lot of reasons, but I think a very important reason is because our guests want it, especially the younger generation. Increasingly, people ask us, what are you doing about climate change? If you don't have a good answer, they don't want to spend their money here. So from Vermont, we want people to realize that we're taking action. We want the next generation to realize that we are being responsible, and we want them frankly to spend their money here instead of somewhere else. So there is an ESG initiative to this as well. Let's talk a little bit about climate change because often I get asked questions. Are you seeing less metal? They're assuming I'm going to say yes and I say no. Are you seeing the shorter season? They're expecting I'm going to say yes and I say no. So that's not happening, and it could lead you to the conclusion while climate change isn't happening. It's not affecting the ski industry, but that's totally wrong. So here's where we are seeing the impact, and it's significant. We're seeing it in the greater volatility of the weather. And last week was a great example. You know, we're 100% open, we have great skiing. Suddenly we have 50 degree weather, rain. We're down to 50%. We're going into the all important Martin Luther King weekend. We lucked out. You know, we had enough snow making temperatures to make good snow. We had enough natural snow, we're almost 100%. And we had a record day in our history. Most ski resorts did. Now had that not happened, had that not luck happened, what would have happened? We would have been down considerably. The tax revenue of the state would have been down in sales and use for rooms and meals. So it would have had a pretty significant impact. So volatility, you know, we've already experienced this season, five roller coaster events. We've had good conditions, a thaw, rain, freeze. So we all know we've had January thaws forever. You know, that's not unusual, but to have five at this point in time, and unfortunately maybe six this coming weekend, that is not the norm, that is unusual. So what does it mean for us? Well, it means that this volatility of weather is causing us to really make investments. You asked the question of, you know, how do you look in the future? How do you plan? Well, we have to plan to get ahead of the curve of climate change. We have to invest now, we have to spend. So how are we spending money? Sometimes it's not the way I'd want to spend it. For instance, last summer, we had to bury some power lines. For six years, we've had power lines going from our base area to mid-mountain to generate our snow making in our lifts. But increasingly, we're seeing such great risk with the winds, if a tree comes down in the middle of the Warned River King, I lose power, that's a disaster. So I had to spend $400,000 to bury those power lines. That's not productive, there's no ROI on that. That's insurance, but it's necessary to get ahead of the curve. Wind probably scares me when I do anything else. I wake up in East Warn, I hear the wind, and all I can see is a tree falling across that power line. Several years ago, the busiest day we ever had at Sugarbush was right after that Valentine's Day storm, four feet of snow, perfect conditions. Saturday was a blooper day, 20 degrees. Every seat on all 16 chairs were filled by the power line. So you talk about a disaster. Now fortunately, we have a backup plan, we have diesel engines, you know, you can get everybody off in about an hour. But when a tree sways, that's what I worry about, and we're seeing increased volatility. Not just in the winter, but in all seasons. I had lightning strike, my Remount Express lift last summer, it's still being repaired, we're still trying to problem solve how to get it repaired. It's working because we have diesel backup, but that's not ideal. But that volatility of the weather is really, really important. The other thing we're seeing because of the volatility is that more winterfalls happen. And I just saw, driving here, the ice flows that are beginning to create normally when you see, you know, ice jams are very concerning to us. The way we make snow is we have a snowmaking pond, we withdraw from the Mad River when I set the February level or above. And we put in a weir or a dam in November, it's taken out in March. But if you have a thaw, you have an ice jam, if that takes that dam out, again, we're out of snowmaking. Already it has damaged the foundation. We've repaired it somewhat, but we're gonna have to invest another million dollars to put in a new dam, which is gonna be an inflatable dam. So if the ice jams come down and deflate the dam, they go by, we can re-inflate it. Now do I wanna spend that million dollars? You know, but I have to because, again, that's insurance. And then long-term, because we experienced something devastating, if I will, you all know of all the devastation around the state, but you may not know, we actually lost our snowmaking pond. So it happened, snowmaking pond. So we have a pond next to the Mad River. So the water came in, it washed out the upstream, the river flowed in, it stopped, and it was filled with silver. Fortunately, it happened that day because it happened two weeks later, we would not have had to repair it to open the season. We just barely got it done, removed, and an unsure cost of a million dollars. So again, you look at weather volatility, those are the impacts it can have on a business like us. And then speaking of snowmaking, it's always been important that you used to have adequate snowmaking, and we're really fortunate of Vermont, I think we have the best as an industry anywhere in the country. We've been ahead of the curve, we have good, robust, we've been aided by efficiency of Vermont, and all of us are doing what I mentioned to you that we're doing at Sugarbush. But it's not gonna be enough for the future because with greater volatility, there's gonna be shorter windows of really good snowmaking rather than opportunities. We have six fall freezes, we've gotta recover quickly, especially before those all important weekends. So what that means is we're gonna have to invest in long-term strategy to create more snowmaking capability at certain moments of time. For us, that means most likely building another reservoir at a substantive cost higher up in the mountain. So if the mad river washes out, we've gotta reserve, but also allow us to put more snow out at any given time. Not necessarily making more snow over the course of the season, but making it more rapidly when we have the opportunity to do it. So right now we can put out about 6,500 gallons per minute, but we really think we should be getting up to eight, nine, maybe even 10,000 gallons per minute. So when we have that fall like we had a week ago, we can recover much faster and not necessarily rely on the luck and mother nature to bail us out. As I mentioned, the guests also are continuously looking at are we operating responsibly and are we operating in a really good way? Now, I don't think that ski industry is gonna disappear in my lifetime. I think we're fortunate in many ways that we're a higher elevation, we're further north, we get some lake effect snow, sometimes even slightly warmer temperatures, great more snow, but we don't wanna bank on that, even though there might be not a short-term crisis, but I wanna make sure that the ski industry is around for my grandchildren's life and then their grandchildren's life, and that's why we have to start making all these initiatives. I do support H688. I think the state needs a strong action plan that provides a good, clear roadmap. As Barry said, you know, strategic plans, you make them, but you don't put them out there and they last forever, but they provide a roadmap. They provide some initiative, and clearly, you have to have goals and then you have to have accountability, you have to hold people accountable to action. The good business does that, the bad business does it. You really have to have a roadmap, changes, you have to adapt, but you have to have goals, you have to have accountability, and you have to hold people to that accountability. You know, I'm sure what's gonna happen after you hear a lot of testimony are probably gonna be tweaks to this bill, but I think, in my opinion, this is providing a very good framework. I'd have a little concern with what Mary said. Anytime you get big councils and big committees, you know, there's a risk to that. But nevertheless, this is a good framework. If you go forward, I would encourage you to actually seek out the voice of the ski industry. I'm not representing the ski industry today, maybe Molly will have a future testimony, but I think we have a lot of input, we have a lot of skin in the game, and I think we're very interested in making sure that we're doing the right things. So we're a small state, you know, there's no silver bullet, you know, maybe when we have battery storage, that's when we can really go to 100% renewable energy. That may be the silver bullet, it's not here yet, it's coming, but in the meantime, what can we do in the state? Well, I think there are a number of things we can do, and we're trying to do it sugar-rich too. One is I think you can encourage nature-based solutions, such as protecting our forest from development of fragmentation, promoting reforestation. Maybe there's some interesting tax benefits that encourage people to reforest to take their land and use it differently. Promoting and accelerating the restoration of degraded wetlands, encouraging the development of healthier agricultural soils to capture and store carbon. Fossil fuels are a big problem, but so is methane. Healthier soils, you know, actually creates interesting nature-based solutions. As mentioned, I think also earlier, public transportation, we've got to improve public transportation so that our current dependence on personal vehicles is reduced. It also helps on a busy ski weekend when you don't have loads of vehicles going up the snow road and the garbage road. It takes four hours. But in all seriousness, public transportation is key. That's the big issue in Vermont today. And also for the business, we need better public transportation to get a voice. If I'm hiring people to try to and try to for Montpelier and Barrick, you know, that's a long commute for them. They don't necessarily have a car. They sometimes can't afford a car, so public transportation also serves real business needs. Also, I think we can continue to install more electrical vehicle charging stations to promote electrical vehicle ownership. You know, frankly, I would like to do it. Right now, when I look at my commute sometimes, there's not enough stations in the long way to make that practical. So I think the more we have, it takes away the impediment of really moving to electrical vehicles. I also think we can continue to promote well-sighted and appropriately-scaled solar development and eliminating the cumulative net need in the capital. So I know there's some controversy to that, but I do think that this is something we can move towards and we have, and I'd encourage more. Fifth, encouraging energy efficiency and strategic electrification. You know, while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels by expanding the ability of efficiency for Vermont to fund additional impactful projects. I'll give you an example. You know, if we put in wider pipes, greater volume, we can put more water up the hill with the same amount of electricity. Should that be something that is incentivized as opposed to the addition of just going to low-entry stomach? If I have the ability to buy an electrical groomer instead of relying on what is the classical diesel groomer, would that be useful? It's probably a 50% premium, once we've developed the technology, so there is a motivation to really getting people to do that. So perhaps if you think creatively, energy efficiency for Vermont can fund additional projects which get us to our goal. Then I think importantly, and this is something that struck me from a actually Nature Conservancy meeting I was at, is I don't think there is enough discussion at the dinner table at the home about the climate crisis. And unless you discuss something, it's remote. Too many people believe there's climate change, but they don't really understand how it's impacting them, and they don't really feel they can do anything about it. So one of the things I think we can do as a state, and I think we can do as a business, is to educate more of our visitors about the climate crisis, the impact it's already having on our state, the impact it can have on the ski industry, and then what they can do about it personally. Again, small little steps sometimes can make a difference symbolically, but also realistically. And an example of that, in the middle of Presence Week on February 22nd, we're going to be doing a panel on climate change with protect our winners. And the messaging there is not doing will, because that can turn people off, and it's not projecting a polar bear on a melting icicle, but it's educating people about the science, what is happening, why is happening, and what is the likely outcome going to be here, and then more importantly, what can and should we be doing. So that's a dialogue I think in a small state, maybe not the silver bullet, but I think those small states can make a difference. And again, I think in Vermont we can be a leader, and as I start out by saying, I do think that H688 is a good road map and a good start, and we just, okay. Thank you. I don't want to take us down a granular rabbit hole here, but I'm really interested from a market perspective, and if you don't have information on this, that's great, we can follow up at some time. You probably have a lot of customers who come from out of state. As you said, you've put EV infrastructure in place. I'm curious, the market that you serve, how many people are driving EVs to Vermont, and how many are concerned about that? It is increasing, so when I take a look at the electrical chargers on a weekend, they are mostly used. I had a complaint yesterday from somebody who said, somebody was hogging it, they'd already charged the car and they were off skiing. So he wanted to get in and actually get that electrical charge. So I think it's a chicken in the egg, but I do see more electrical vehicles, and I do see more demand for it, and I think we're going to see most of those 22 ports filled. Yeah, I'm really interested in that, for example, driving from Boston or whatever. It's not just Boston, it's even Burlington. And I know two years ago, somebody who's a friend called up and he said, where can I get my electrical vehicle charged? We didn't have it yet at Sherwush, but the West Hill then did, and his car just was able to get up and over the app gap, but he needed to get charged to get home. So it's not just Boston, it's the local market too. I was wondering if you had any information based? Like reduced revenue or increased costs that you could directly attribute to the climate? It's hard to do that, right? But I can tell you that if last weekend we didn't have that recovery, we would have lost probably a couple of million dollars of revenue, so that's pretty significant. Because in ski business, what a lot of people don't realize, we're open 160 days a year. We make our business in about 40 days. The other days we kind of chug along because we have to, but we lose three days on Martin Luther King, that's three of the 40, very hard to recover from that. So I'm really looking more at the potential threat here. I do know when we've had bad winners, what that impact is, and you multiply that across 18 resorts and it's big for the sake, but it's also a multiplier because every dollar spent in our valley, on the mountain, there's probably another dollar spent in the valley, either lodging, filling up the car, going to the grocery store, eating out. So it's a multiplier effect, which can be really significant. Thanks for, how are you? Good, well. So I'm interested in the last comment you made with regard to the education piece on climate change. And it's funny that you said it because I was talking to Phil. Yeah, Phil, earlier. Yeah, I wasn't sure who's here. I ran into the cafeteria earlier, all right. And what is one thing that's frustrating, this is probably more of a statement, but I love this to be sort of incorporated into education about climate change. What is frustrating for me as a lifetime Vermonter being here is hearing, just knowing that we are, we have grown into such a consumer culture, a throwaway disposable culture. And yet it is the blame for everything that is going on right now is put on this older culture that we've created this mess that we're in now. And that's frustrating because I think back to how I was raised and you know, mom had this big thing, you know, use it up, wear it out, make it do, do without. Boom, that was it. We had one car, we had six kids. Nobody was able to get a car, my parents didn't buy us cars. We biked around, we walked around, we lived in the village, we didn't have big houses. And I just want that to be part of the education. People flying all over to go travel here and there and everywhere. And that happens all the time. And then they complain, they, I mean, we complain about the climate change. And yet they're traveling to, you know, Seattle to go to a climate change conference. And a toaster breaks and we throw it away instead of going to an appliance store to fix it. It's, and again, televisions, phones, everything. It's just such a, and I want that to be really part of this answer because I'm tired of that kind of hypocrisy. I think you're spot on, Heidi. And I don't think, I would never say we want to go back to the dark ages. No. Okay, that's not realistic. That's right. But can we be more sensible, can we learn? I'm part of the problem, right? I'm the baby boom generation, so I'm part of the problem. You know, I remember probably the biggest impact I had in college was the first May Day, you know, a birthday. I made a big deal, but I get very comfortable. So I think part of our education, yes. And that's those cumulative little steps. What can we all do a little bit better? You know, one thing we're doing with just water in our cafeterias is we're taking out the pumps, right? A little step. We don't have plastic straws, a little step. But I think the more I know you educate people about the impact they can have, the better it is. And that is a dialogue. It's not a diatribe, it's not a blame. It's recognizing that the world we knew 40 years ago was changing, and now we gotta be ahead of that change and we gotta do our work. And I do think that the younger generation is teaching us stuff. You know, when you hear their voices, revolutions are never started by old people, right? Revolutions are always started by young people. And very often they're not heard for a period of time, but those voices resonate. And I would say we better understand it because I am increasingly convinced that young people are gonna put their dollars where people are responsible. My overall the financing and investing, I'm still on the board of even vans. We're making a big initiative into ESG investing. Why? Because we're business. We wanna continue to thrive, but we know that the customer wants that type of investment process. And so that's, I think my answer to you. Let's stop blaming each other, let's learn, and let's see how we can change behavior without going back to our ages, which is not gonna be as good. And I didn't mean that, but it's just exceptionally frustrating. But I will say, sometimes when we put out a message, we have to also realize that we're gonna take some flak. I put out a message a year or so ago, encouraging people to support our continuation of the Paris Climate Report. And I'd say 98% sort of nice comments on social media, but then we got something really bitter, nasty, personal. Now when I did some research, it wasn't our clients, it wasn't Vermonters, it was the trolls out there. And so you have to recognize sometimes, you gotta be a little courageous if you take a stand. You know, you may get criticized, and you may have some damage, but you just have to have the courage to take it and move forward if you think it's the right thing to do. Let's get the students on the buses, half empty whenever they go by my house. Yeah. Public transportation. It's actually often the parents that are driving. That's what I mean. Any other questions from Wayne? Thank you very much for being here. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Would you like a couple cups of this, or do you have one? We've got it on the website, but people want it very much. Thank you. We're standing on our dining table. Oh, thank you. Thank you. That's nice. Is this his phone? This is his phone. Yeah. Oh. Jen, did you have anything that you wanted to do? Yeah. Yeah, okay. Great. We're going to keep going. Here, jokes. So, Jen, thank you for joining us today. Our next guest is Jen Duggan. And again, similar to wind, I've invited you here really to wear kind of a couple of hats, or you could have extensive experience in state government, experience in other states in our region working on this issue, and currently working for the Conservation Law Foundation in Vermont. So, appreciate you coming in and offering your thoughts on H688 if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself to the record. Welcome. Yeah, thanks for the opportunity to be here. I'm Jen Duggan, and I'm the Director of Conservation Law Foundation in Vermont. And prior to joining CLF, I was the General Counsel for the Agency of Natural Resources for three years, both under the Shumlin Administration and the Scott Administration. And in that role, I managed the Office of General Counsel which included management of 15 lawyers and provided legal services to the central office, but also the Department of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Wildlife, Forest Parks and Migration. And in that role, I also provided legal advice to the Secretary and Department Commissioners on rulemaking, permitting, litigation, legislation, all variety of legal issues. And you would be surprised at the wide variety of issues that surfaced at ANR. And prior to that role, I had a pretty significant regulatory practice, federal regulatory practice in Washington, DC, representing community groups and other organizations in major rule makings with the federal government. And I wanna start off by saying we fully support this bill. We think this legislation is critical to get the state back on track and to meet the climate crisis. And I've been following the testimony and thinking about what would be most helpful for the committee. I've been following the testimony very closely for the past couple of weeks. I'm really listening to the questions that have surfaced either from this committee or through witnesses. And would like to talk through some of those questions and share my perspective. In some cases, I have specific suggestions for consideration, but really to utilize my background as a journal counsel, my regulatory experience and sort of my experience being engaged at a regional level to share with this committee. And before I walk through specific sections of the bill, I thought it would be helpful to share some big picture comments to provide some context. You all have already heard a lot of testimony and I don't wanna repeat a lot of things that have already been said, but I think that there are some key points to just sort of highlight and emphasize before I talk through specific sections. You know, you've heard testimony on the urgent need to take action. We're off track and that's important not only to do our part to address the global climate crisis, but we have communities that are really suffering right now that need action. And you've also heard that it is going to be critical that we move forward with this transition, ensuring that it is done in an equitable way and that we are not leaving communities behind. And you've also heard that action on climate brings significant economic, public health and environmental benefits. It grows the economy, creates jobs, saves money on healthcare costs, improves public health and the quality of our natural and working lands and our waterways. And on the flip side, you've heard from the treasurer this afternoon that a failure to act brings significant cost and risks to the state. And the other important point I think that has surfaced in the past two weeks through the testimony here is that this framework works. Massachusetts has set targets under their Full Warming Solutions Act and they've actually met them while growing their economy, while creating opportunities for their citizens and capitalizing on all of the co-benefits that come along with cutting carbon, addressing resilience. And our neighbors have taken notice. They are passing similar laws and so I think it's important to note that Vermont is not blazing a new trail. We have a good model. We have lots of experience to draw from. And so this is not something that we're getting way ahead of the curve on. So why does this framework work? You know, the type of challenge that we're facing, you know, to deal with mitigation and resilience and adaptation, it is cross-agency. It is cross-sector. It requires action on the part of state government, the private sector, individuals. And it requires a lot of different kinds of strategies. There's a lot of work that is being done that is diffuse through state government that private companies are starting to do but there's really not one person, one agency that is responsible for leading that work and making sure that what we're doing is really focused and strategic and coordinated. And one of the things that I have found most troubling in the testimony these past two weeks is that we don't even have a list, a comprehensive list of all the actions that we're taking. What that work is actually accomplishing and how and whether or not it's cost effective. And so we don't even have sort of the basic foundation in terms of what are we doing at this point. And this type of action really, it requires, you know, addressing the climate crisis requires state action and leadership. You know, I understand some of the concerns about not wanting to create bureaucracy and, you know, Ken is government up to the challenge but we really can't meet this challenge without state action and leadership. And so the question becomes, you know, how do you do that in the most effective way? You know, we market-based solutions, private sector leadership, all of the creative innovation and thinking in personal action, these are all critically important but if you want to maximize and direct those types of actions, you have to have binding requirements and you have to have the right regulatory framework in place. I think, you know, we talked earlier, Mary Powell mentioned the incredible progress that the electric sector has made and that's sort of an example of where we are succeeding and that is one of the most heavily regulated industries and I think it really helps underscore that if you put the right regulatory framework in place then you create the space and the tension to do all of the things and to direct all of these great actions that are happening in a coordinated and strategic way. While making sure that that work is happening in a way that is equitable, you know, we know that climate change and this transition is going to disproportionately impact rural and vulnerable communities and you need process and state government to be ensuring that that transition is happening in an equitable way. And so, you know, the question then is really how do you make this work, streamline this action, act quickly, remove unnecessary bureaucracy and the GWSA does this with very aggressive timelines to make sure that we get started now and ensure that we're on track to meet net zero by 2050 no matter who is governor and who is in the legislature. You know, one of the things that this transins politics it transins all of us and I'm really constantly reminded of that, you know, watching the young people that have been showing up in your committee room, thinking about the communities that have been, that are already being impacted and are being left behind and the questions that my six and eight year old asked me about the climate crisis. It's a constant reminder that this transins all of us and we need to put in place a framework that is going to outlast, you know, the current administration five years from now. You know, this is, we have to be in it for the long haul. And one of the other I think points and questions I have that came up today was, you know, does this limit the ability of the private sector or the legislature or other agencies to do more? You know, does that count towards the reduction goals? And the answer is yes, you know, the bill doesn't limit that. We can always do more. You know, the, we can act faster than this framework. This just makes sure, you know, this is the floor. This makes sure that no matter what, we get to net zero by 2050 and we are not leaving communities behind. So that's sort of some overarching thoughts that have really surfaced for me in listening to the testimony. And I wanted to touch on some specific comments about the climate council, the climate action plan and the cause of action section. And starting with the climate council, there have been questions about whether or not there should be term limits. You know, how can we ensure that folks have the space to do the work without fear of political interference? And I think that the answer is yes, you know, we can do more to ensure that and to protect that council and the main statute provides a really good model. And so I would just suggest looking at that model that does set term limits for council members and it also ensures that removal only happens if there's incompetence or misconduct or a failure to perform duties. And so the main model is certainly a good example of how to do that. One other small but important distinction is that, you know, as drafted the bill sets forth membership that basically talks about folks that represent sectors. And I think it needs to be clear that we're looking for people with expertise in certain sectors, not just representation. This council will need to be a working council. We want people that, you know, have the expertise to bring to the table. And so I think that's a small but really important distinction. You know, the other question that has arisen is who should be the chair and whether or not that's the secretary of administration or should the chair be A&R? And there are, you know, pros and cons to both of these approaches. But I think on balance, A&R is really the best qualified to lead that work and to be the chair of that climate council. You know, I think that we heard from the deputy secretary earlier this week that A&R is already playing that de facto climate lead. Even if that may be in a more limited way, they're already doing that work. And in addition to having authority to regulate emissions, A&R also has, you know, significant programs associated with resilience and natural and working lands. And so there is a wide breadth of experience in that agency. There's a lot of technical expertise in that agency. And so I think, you know, on balance, that is really gonna be the most effective to get this work done. And the secretary of administration is going to be playing the mediator role regardless. You know, it's not, that is always available to work through those if there are conflicts that arise. And that happens, you know, we heard from the attorney general, that's not uncommon, you know, that happens frequently. With regard to the climate action plan. Do you want, would you prefer to go through and then? You can please interrupt me with questions. Yeah, I don't want to hear myself talk for 30 minutes. So just on this specific piece, this is an area of interest for me. And I'd like to understand, make sure I'm clear on your recommendation. And it's based on technical knowledge. I think that there's not one agency that covers all of the climate issues, right? A&R has a pretty significant body of authority, both in terms of the mitigation component, but also in terms of natural systems and resilience and river corridors and working lands through forestry. And there is a wide, you know, there is a significant breadth of technical expertise inside that agency. And so I think that, you know, out of all the agencies, you know, they, it makes sense to have them lead that work. And why would you argue against the agency of administration leading that work? Because the agency of administration doesn't have the sort of the program or the technical expertise and it's not, it doesn't have the experience of doing that type of detailed work. And I think that because we are moving fast because these are very aggressive timelines, you want that council, you want folks that have expertise and you want the work close, you know, to the technical people that have the knowledge doing that work. And the secretary of administration will always be, that will always play a mediator role, regardless of whether or not they are the chair of this particular committee. Were you, I don't recall if you were in here this morning for Simonser's testimony. Were you in here for that? I was not, but I did review her testimony online. And so one of the other questions that I've been asking, different agencies and departments, which I will note you are not, is who's responsible? That's me kicking that darn plug. There's no foot room in here either. Who is responsible in state government for protecting Vermonters from the effects of climate change? I think that is diffuse. I mean, I think that there are part of, there's not one agency that is charged with that. You know, A&R has the responsibility to protect drinking water. You know, that is impacted by climate change. And for example, so that would be one area where they may play a role. I think it is diffuse. And I would agree with you, which still, you know, has me in conflict about agency of administration versus agency of natural resources. Okay, thank you. Scott, Marcus. So following up, is there a role for agency of administration that should be, that could be, should be specified in the process, on the climate council for a second? Yeah. You know, it would not be our recommendation for them to be form of, you know, identified in the bill or to have a formal role. But you certainly could do that. Okay. And I do think to your point, there, you know, there are, there's not necessarily a wrong or right answer in terms of. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so I think that, you know, it will be up to this committee to think through what the pros and cons are. But I think our recommendation for the reasons that I've talked about is that A&R would be the chair. And I would just like to suggest that through my looking at the Act 250 process and talking to a number of people who've gone through it, regarding, you know, proposed changes and all that sort of stuff, I would say the atmosphere that I heard on out there is a total lack of respect and, you know, for the A&R natural resources. I mean, the individuals that I talked to that support, you know, the guidelines of Act 250 and whatever, they had no problem with that. But when they got down to dealing with Act 250, there was indications of disrespect, outright, you know, yeah, it was just, it was terrible. So I think we've got a ways to go if we are gonna have that agency be the lead on this. And I don't know if you've heard that as well, but that's what I'm hearing from so many people. I haven't, I mean, I have a different perspective. And I think we heard from the treasurer earlier today that, you know, she, the work with A&R was, you know, that folks were professional and did a great job and it was superb working with them. And I'm not sure exactly. You're talking about working with the public? Yes. Yeah. What you're commenting on, I have a different perspective. Well, we won't go into it, but I can give you a list this long. Yeah. Individuals that have got pages of it, so. Yeah, I can't really comment on that. And was the interaction with A&R actual resources or A&R? Following on this theme, you listed some of the areas where A&R has authority or that, and was active 50. And so I'm wondering what your thoughts are too. Should there be a climate czar who can reach into the different agencies that doesn't distract, doesn't distract a secretary from the very significant workload that already exists. Right. And I think that there are lots of different models that you might use, but I think that if the goal is maximizing the, you know, not building out, you know, being mindful of not building out more bureaucracy and maximizing the existing expertise in state government, I think that, you know, would counsel in favor of looking at where do we have the expertise, who is already doing that work and coordinating and building on that, rather than creating, you know, standing up a whole other office or structure, which I think would slow, you know, could slow the work down and we've heard, you know, we need to move quickly. We need to move quickly. And the deadlines and, you know, in the statute are aggressive for a reason. Please continue. With respect to the climate action plan, I think one of the things that we heard was that we need to take an inventory of the current work that's being done. And I absolutely, but that is not a work, that should be the work of a climate council. That work can be done right now and that should be given to the climate council when they show up for their first day of work so that they can have a good understanding of the landscape and can begin to build on that work. And so there is, you know, one recommendation would be to include, you know, a directive in the bill that would require A&R to put together that inventory by date certain so that it is ready so that work can be done on day one for the climate council. With respect to resilience in the climate action plan, one of the concerns that I heard surfaced is that the specific requirements in the plan. Sorry, can I go back? Sure, yeah. So with regard to the inventory, so I'm gonna go back to my original discussion and you're saying we should have A&R put that together. We took testimony in here from the Department of Health and they wrote very significant socio-economic vulnerability index, which is something. So, you know, does A&R, I mean, again, is that their view of state government or is that the agency of administration's view of state government? Like how does that information, is that really their role to go through all of the agencies and departments to inventory? What is happening right now? I think that there is, again, I think that they have the capacity and the ability to do that. And I think that you want one of the agencies that is doing a significant portion of the climate resilience work to have ownership over that that already has expertise in working with other agencies. You know, A&R touches a lot of this state and so there is a lot of expertise inside that agency and working with agency of transportation and Department of Health, they coordinate with those agencies all of the time. And so this is not a new model. And so I would just, you know, that is something that is done on a daily basis. So in terms of the concern about the directive to include strategies to build resilience, you know, that can mean a lot of different things. I think that there are, you know, two ways that that could be addressed, you know, for the committee to consider. And one would be to spell out that these measures must increase the resilience of communities, infrastructure, and the economies. And so there is a way, there is sort of a metric, even though it is very high level that would be required for the plan and direct the council to develop metrics for that. The other option would be to include specific metrics in the legislation so that there's clarity about what resilience, what we are talking about when we mean resilience. And I think there are lots of models for that. So I think those would be the, you know, sort of the two options. And I do think it's important that, you know, that we get that part, that that part is correct and that we provide sufficient guidance there. With respect to the rulemaking section, one of the questions I touched on this briefly that has come up is whether or not the bill prohibits other agencies from rulemaking? And, you know, the answer to that question is no. Other agencies can and they, you know, will move forward with appropriate rulemaking in addition to ANR. So there's no, you know, concern about whether or not this prohibits, you know, an agency for moving forward. And as I mentioned, you know, agencies have to navigate overlapping and complementary authority on a fairly regular basis. And there are lots of ways to manage that through the governor's office, through the ICAR process and rulemaking. So that's not uncommon. And that's, you know, we, that will continue. What you could do in this bill though is to be, is to include a provision that makes it clear that this bill doesn't limit existing authority of other agencies that does not prohibit rulemaking. And Maine did something similar in the bill with the Agency of Transportation. They just made an express statement that, you know, the agency may move forward with rulemaking to address climate change. And so if that was a concern, you would be able to include something specific to make that clear that it would not limit existing authority. I think we're pretty explicit about that here. We can take a look at that. The very last, the very last three or four lines in the rulemaking section. So it's very specifically nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the existing authority of state agency or department to regulate. That's great. I think it is a question that keeps coming up. The other component of the rulemaking section is whether or not, you know, there's going to be sufficient public process. I think we've heard from Massachusetts and Maine about the importance of having this be a public and inclusive process. And, you know, I just wanted to note that in addition to the Administrative Procedure Act, public notice and comment provisions, this bill does require the state to hold additional hearings and to hold those hearings in impacted communities. And the other thing to note in terms of facilitating public process is this requirement to create a detailed record that supports the agency's rules. And that may not seem like a public process issue, but it really is because it puts the burden on the agency to say why they believe this rule is consistent with the statute rather than on the citizen to try and figure out, is this going to meet the target or not? And so I think those are, you know, really important public process components in the bill that we think are important. Is that some, I'm not at all familiar with the rulemaking processes. Is that something that is new and different? Or is that implied just as part of, you know, kind of how we do rulemaking in Vermont, that, you know, it's certainly outside of ANR, that when you come forward with a rule, you have to lay out the reasoning and the tail behind why this rule is going to accomplish what the legislature had hoped it to? Or is that something that the public has come forward and trying to pull out of the agency? So the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act does require a record, but it does not clear on what that record looks like. And it varies significantly from agency to agency. You know, in some cases it's a couple of pages. It varies because of cultural reasons or it varies because different agencies have different requirements in the rulemaking. It varies because of institutional and cultural reasons. Because the statute and the rules don't provide very specific guidance on that, it can look different. And I, you know, especially with this type of rulemaking, and the consequences, if we don't get it right, on the front end, it's important to include the requirement to make it clear that they have to show their homework. So in just a little background, again, I'm not at all an expert on rulemaking, but as we were discussing this with legal counsel in recent months as we were going through this, this was something very specific because of, you know, potentially it leads into the cognitive action section in the bill. But a record is important here to understand specifically what rulemaking was done and what the pathway was that was created there. Frankly, for the defensibility, if there is litigation that an ANR or another agency can say here is precisely why we did what we did. Agree. It's important on the front end for judicial review of the rules when they're first promulgated. And it's also important on the back end if the state fails to meet the targets under the emissions inventory and the cause of action is triggered for a court to evaluate whether or not the rules were strong enough and not the charge of the statute. So it's important for that reason, but also on the front end as well. Does ANR have or contemplating anything like EPUC? Outward-facing portal for information on rulemaking and permitting and processes and... There is an environmental notice bulletin that has some information, but I am not the right person to ask in terms of the extent to that or whether or not there are plans for future expansion of that. My recollection, Elkar does require a statement as through how the rulemaking supports legislative intent. Right. So from what you were saying, I got the impression that you didn't think there was. No, there absolutely is that requirement, but it can be a three-page memo. And if you're talking about rules that are gonna reduce carbon, that can be very complex, that may have technical and scientific components to it. It would need to be more detailed than that to actually demonstrate that the rules were gonna meet the statute. And so right now there's not a lot of guidance around what that basis looks like. And so it could be a very short memo. And it really wouldn't give the legislature or citizens enough information to be able to evaluate whether or not those rules we're gonna achieve were consistent with the statute. With respect to the cause of action section, there have been a lot of questions around that section generally. And so I wanted to kind of share my perspective on what this section does and then take questions on this. I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that this is a backstop. This is not applicable. The cause of action is not triggered if the state is in compliance. And so that is sort of a prerequisite. And the framework is fairly, it's fairly simple. If there are no rules, then a court can order the agency to do the rules. And what that looks like is an order that says, agency, you have an obligation to do these rules and you haven't done that. And here's a schedule. You need to get these rules done on a timeline. If the rules are promulgated and they're not sufficient, right away, citizens already have the ability under the Administrative Procedure Act to go to a court and say, hey, this isn't valid. This isn't consistent with the statute. And there's also an opportunity for Elkar to object as it's going through the rulemaking process if it's not consistent with the statute. The third area is where we've missed the target and this cause of action section where we've missed the target and the rules are why we've missed the target, then a court can order the agency to do the rules that they were required to do in the first place. And I think it's important that the statute expressly recognizes that we're expecting a complex mix of strategies to achieve these targets. ANR is not on the hook where the legislature doesn't act or there's not appropriation. They are held accountable for what is within their sphere of control. And I think there is absolute, one of the recommendations that was talked about yesterday was to include a very specific provision to make it clear that judges are not allowed to engage in rulemaking or policymaking. And that really, the remedy is limited to a remand back to the agency for them to do what they were required to do in the first place. So what if they don't do it? Well, then they're in contempt of court. Okay, yeah. And then what? Then a judge can move forward with the contempt of court order. I've never seen that happen with an agency. I think generally the idea and the seriousness of the court order. I'm just wondering what happens. That's right, yeah. Do they go to jail or? I have never seen that happen before. The whole agency. Oh no, round them up, round them up. And I would hope that the seriousness of a court order would ensure that action would. But the judge still couldn't make the policy. Well, I think that, so under the current construct, that's that I think the AGs, and I agree with the AG, their thoughts yesterday, that would be grounds for appeal. Judges are not allowed to engage in that arena. But in order to be very express and clear, you could include a provision that would just make that very clear in the remedy section. And so that would be a recommendation, if that's a concern. The other important thing to note about the cause of action section is that clarity is important. I think that anyone can file a lawsuit, but where you have a clear defined pathway that provides certainty for the agency, that can limit litigation with respect to the procedural pathway, what the remedy is. And so having a clear cause of action section can actually limit the time that people spend in court. The other thing to note is that this is a really narrow cause of action section. And I just wanted to walk through because I don't think anyone has done that yet. Just how, where all the limitations are, the bill is really drafted to limit the cause of action to very specific circumstances. And so the first thing to note is that the statute of limitations here is one year. So if there is a violation or there's a claim that the agency's not in compliance, folks cannot sit on their hands and file a lawsuit five years later, sorry. They are required to act within one year. There's notice that's required before a suit can be filed. And so this gives the agency the opportunity to take action to comply with the statute or to engage with plaintiffs before litigation is even brought to trial and negotiate and resolve any questions. And the remedy is limited to basically do what the statute tells you you have to do. And we talked about how that can be made even more clear in terms of making sure that a judge does not overstep their authority. And then the other thing to note is that if A&R is taking prompt and effective action, then a court will have to take that into account when they create the schedule. So if the agency says, judge, we have a plan to get this done in a year and we've already taken these three steps, the court is gonna take that into account when creating that schedule for them to act. So that I wanna stop there and pause in case folks have questions about that section. So you've outlined these for us, are these, are there recommendations that go with that? Or is that are you just flagging this, are you just listing these for our application? The one recommendation is to ensure that it's clear that the judge cannot make rules, make policy, but I wanted to flag the ways that this cause of action section is limited so that folks have an understanding of that. The language around that is that if the court finds that the rules are a substantial cause of failure, the court shall enter an order directing the secretary to adopt or update rules that achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reductions. And that's not clear enough. Well what we had talked about was after this was in the A.G.'s testimony yesterday. Right, specific. The secretary to adopt or update rules in accordance with this act. Yes, I actually wrote that in here as well. But is that what is directing, is telling the judge, especially that the remedy is ordering the secretary to adopt the rules. And the concern that came up was what if the judge included in that order, A and R, you shall adopt the rules that do X. And a judge, I think that's grounds for appeal if a judge sort of dictates that in a very specific way, that you could make that clear. But in your experience, that's a little wiggle from there. I think that it would be grounds for appeal, but I think if you wanted to make that clear, you could do that. Okay, thank you. Thanks. And the last question that comes up is an important one and that has been raised in a lot of different, by different folks in different ways, but what are the costs to implement the work that we need to do? And that's an important question that can't be fully answered, but it will be answered through legislative and the rulemaking process. Once there are specific proposals, there's an opportunity to engage and grapple with those questions. There's a directive to prioritize strategies that are cost effective. And there's a process in place for having those discussions, whether it's legislative or it's rulemaking. And I think the other important question is what are the costs of not taking action? And we also can't fully answer that question also, but some of the benchmarks that you've heard is from the treasure today in terms of the material financial risk to the state of not taking action. The Department of Health, the figure of $1.1 billion and avoided healthcare costs and 2000 lives by 2050, if we just meet our transportation goals alone. The energy action network has done an analysis on how much we spend on heating fuel. And in 2018 alone, that amount was $240 million more than if we were 100% renewable energy. And that's dollars that would stay in Vermont family's pockets and our local economy. TNC has provided some information, one wetland restoration, $1.8 million and avoided damages. And there are mental and public health benefits associated with doing the work we need to make communities more resilient, to make sure they have safe drinking water, to make sure that they have good wastewater treatment system. There are missed opportunities if we don't take action in terms of new jobs and new financial pathways to support farms and forests. And so, you know, we, if you look at the cost question in a macro scale, it's clear that we can't afford not to act. And the Global Warming Solutions Act puts in place binding requirements to make sure that we have the framework in place to facilitate that action. In the rulemaking process, I believe this is the case, but when you put forth a proposed rule, you need to include a financial impact. And in this case, I would think it would include both the positive financial impact of the kind of avoided cost, but you would also, the agency would also say at the same time. And that's going to take three new positions in order to enforce or, you know, just as an example, so that they would be putting that into the rulemaking proposal as well. And then it would obviously need to, budgeting for that would then be something that would have to ultimately go through the legislature. In other words, the agency may say, we're going to need three positions. The administration may agree and put that into the proposed budget, but it still comes back here. Just sort of thinking. That's correct. And so when there is a specific regulatory pathway proposed and it goes through the rulemaking process, that cost conversation is required to happen. So I guess to go further with what Alvin had said. So let's say the legislature doesn't authorize three new positions and we still have these benchmarks that we have to meet. What then? How do we achieve that? How does the A&J Natural Resources move forward? Well, I think that, you know, that the statute in terms of enforcement and the cause of action section, then it's, you know, the agency is not on the hook. You know, there's only a cause of action with we, if we haven't met the targets and the rules or why we haven't met the targets, you know, if the agency is able to say, we need a legislative action to do this or there needed to be an appropriation, then that a judge is not going to be able to find that the rules were a substantial cause of why they didn't achieve the emissions inventory. It's not perfect. I mean, I think there are, I think what you're pointing out is that there are some gaps here. You know, there is no, if the legislature does not act on a recommendation, there's no cause of action for that. There are some gaps. And I'll editorialize on that. I think that is a, that is absolutely a flaw here. And personally, I am committed, you know, to come reelected that, you know, to see the legislature move with legislative initiatives that are proposed that we think are good ones collectively as a body, including spending priorities that are highlighted. Maybe as a body, we won't go forward with those. Maybe they'll be rejected. But very specifically, the cause of action section says here, and it's part V of that section that the court finds that the rules adopted by the Secretary of State went to 593 of this chapter are substantial cause of failure. I think that is intentional language, which I think there may be objections. But it's, yeah. Well, that would be my objection because again, if we feel as a body that we don't have that money, regardless of what we think the effects might be if we don't act, to me is where our responsibility lies and who knows what it might be around. It might be around a big recession. It might be around who knows, but I mean. I 100% agree. But I think that, you know, as we're talking through the cause of action section, what can we hold a regulatory agency accountable for? In this case, ANR. You know, I've already expressed what my experience is in the courtroom so far and not a lot. But, you know, can a judge hold, in this case, ANR responsible for substantial failure? You know, if they have failed within their capacity to pass rules, I would say yes. If there's failure because of things that, you know, maybe the legislature has done and ANR would make that case successfully, but I think the judge would just roll in court in favor of them. But again, our experts are sitting around the room here. Not at the end of the table. No, I agree with that. I think that the agency has a strong case to make. If they're, if the action is outside of their control, if it's a legislative, if it's legislation, if it's appropriation, then it will be very hard for someone to be able to show that the rules are why we didn't meet the targets. Because ANR will be able to say these other three things needed to happen. And those were, that was the reason why. And I will say at the other end of that spectrum, again, to editorialize, my interest and attention here is seeing that ANR and other agencies have broad authority, maybe even broader authority than they have now to regulate greenhouse gas emissions with the effect of reducing it. But again, there are clearly limits on that, depending on appropriation, depending on their internal resources and course, and make a rule. Are we cutting you off? No, I'm good, I've gotten through what I wanted to say. If you all have other questions, I'm happy to stay and answer them. Turkey? Yeah, thank you, I appreciate it. So why don't we get going here? It being kind of late on a Friday, I don't want to retain folks a huge amount of time. Thank you for joining us particularly since I only made this invitation last night. And as much as anything, this is for my edification, but it may be helpful for folks around the table and around the room also. As we've taken testimony in the last couple of weeks, which has uncovered some issues for me and also being attentive to questions that numbers have had, I have started to make an inventory of issues that we may want to explore more, that we want to potentially address. But it would be helpful for me, and I'll leave it to you Luke as to how do we do this if it's literally just kind of flipping through the bill. There's other things in these three sections. Particularly this week, I have been making notes in my copy of the bill of your advice that might want to look at tweaking or maybe there's more significant changes, but I want to start to make that inventory so that we know where some of those things are. So again, as our kind of organizational leader, I don't know how we kind of get through this. I'll leave it to you as to how we kind of plow through and I don't know if it's kind of page turning. Well, actually I'll kick it back to you guys because clearly some sections, there's more conversation about than others. Yeah. So would it be, I assume there's more issues or thoughts about potential changes to some sections than others. So why don't we start with one of those sections? Did that make sense? Sure. So you can make plans, issues, and you can make the list or whatever, however you want to see things. I would actually like you to make the list because ultimately you're going to be charged with kind of helping us make the changes to the bill as we make them, so. I'm willing to help out some of this, and I find it, so this is a strategy running the committee issue. So I've been in some committees where you have about a hundred people and they open in language and not very productive because you haven't made the underlying policy decisions. I think it's better if the committee, all right, what are the issues or questions you have that work through those, make those decisions. Once you make the decision, I'm sure we can write language to get you to your end point. And so it's sort of a list, definitely, discussion, decision, then craft the language to achieve that as well. So I have a question. Yeah, please. So for me, what might be most helpful here, and I don't know if this is where we're going, is to just kind of go through and put flags. So as places that the committee wants to come back to, this is an area that we know it won't, there may be places that there's no work that the committee is interested in doing and not necessarily try and solve the problem today, but start to lay out a map. Is that weird? Yeah, again, my analogy was an inventory of what those issues are. I think what you're getting at, are the parts of the bill that we may not pay a whole lot of attention to, and that we kind of want to move beyond, but. Specific examples might be like, should there even be a commission? If there is a commission, should it be 21 or 10? Yeah, I'm sure that, I don't know. Certainly a high level of concern is, do we have a council here? Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If we did be on that question, and we had some money today sitting, no council. And frankly, that's where we were six months ago. But if and when we get beyond that question, I think there's absolutely conversation about who's in the room working on these issues. And we've certainly heard someone put on that recently. So was the decision to sort of go section by section that say, hey, this is something we want to discuss further, or we may have issues about. And then, let me suggest we start from the beginning and turn pages. I think some of the pages are gonna be quick, pretty quick pages. You want to lead that, or you want you to lead that, or what's best for you? Well, I will kick it off saying, I have a couple of things that I have flagged in the finding section, that I'm not recommending changes, but are things that have stood out to me, both feedback that I've heard and some things that other members have mentioned. And I'll mention two off the top of my head. On page five, line six, I heard representative Higley, questions under the wording here. And I don't know enough about this issue. I don't want to put too much weight on the findings and have the time we spend on this, but the conservation and restoration of Vermont Forest Club, and Mark, you had raised the question about and restoration. What's on page five? Page five, line six. How about page five? So I circled that in my economy. In line nine, keep up, keep up. On line nine, the treasurer had called out a question, and I think her concern about specifying a private company here, as to whether or not we want to refer to the credit rating agency industry generally. So that was another thing that I flagged in the findings as we might be a little less specific to a private entity there. But those are two things in the findings that I had flagged that I've heard from people on. We should consider a finding talking about the economic opportunity. Because these are all pretty much negative if we don't end this. We've heard several people testify to the opportunities created. Yep, let's go on to section three, which is essentially a markup of the existing statute. So I'll start off. There's one question that I've heard come up on a couple of occasions which is the definition of greenhouse gas. And Luke, I thought I'd recall you saying that that is defined in some parts of the statute or in some titles, but not others. It is, and when I came back, I said probably good to have that across reference in Syria, because we wave structure now to a different chapter. Yeah, so that was the point, yes. And on that note, who was it? Somebody said that that's defined in Massachusetts. Statute. Well, we have a state definition that's pretty good. So I just cross-reference that and repeat it here. So I think it should be a defined term. Right. Do you know what that is on hand or what? I know the definition on top of my head. Well, I'm not talking about it. I'm sorry, but next time I'm going to take it. I think we should use an existing state definition otherwise we'd be right in the state definition. So should we do that start definition or would you repeat it in here? I think either is fine. We'll figure that out in the state definition section. If at some point in the future it changes, you would only want to change it in one place. But unless one of the stakeholders says the current definition, which I think they're all aware of, is not a good one. Yeah, I would just cross-reference and repeat that. There was another bit of input we had from ANR with regard to the ability for how the greenhouse, the current greenhouse gas emissions inventory accounting works, whether we would be able to include some benefits that we get from regional partnerships within that accounting. So it changed you to how the accounting is currently done. That was a question that came up. OK. Where are you at, sorry. Well, that would have to be a new idea. Yeah, that would have to be because it's not 47577. It's not captured in 578. It's in 582. So this is the step we need to take. So say that again, let me kind of capture that. We actually added one in particular. We have the deputy secretary in the room. So in the provision for how we calculate the further record Peter Wacht, deputy secretary of the Agency of NetVision, in the way we currently calculate greenhouse gases, there is an understanding for how we calculate electric power production that is based on the consumption based on what we're buying rather than our production instinct. Because we are buying on a grid and we are part of a regional program where we're getting emissions reductions around the region. So we want to make sure that we're capturing that we are getting those regional emissions reductions. Were we to have a nationwide cap and trade or something else for different programs? And we were participating in getting credit for those reductions as a part of the overall reductions across the country. We would want to capture that again on sort of a demand basis or accounting for that participation because that's the whole reason to participate in those sorts of things so that it's easier for everybody to get the most cost effective reductions as a whole rather than those reductions having to occur in Vermont. Because that becomes much more complicated to measure and lessens the appropriateness of participating in those sorts of cost effective regional and national programs. Okay, so that becomes C? No, part of C. No, if we made changes here, it would be in section 582 of 10 BSA 582 is where that definition is. It's not part of this bill right now. So that would be section three. It would be section three, it'd be a different section. Different section of section four. Yeah, it'd be section three or section eight or something. So we haven't dug into that at all, but if you have any specific suggestions on that and we decide to dig into it, that would be helpful. And I don't know where they go exactly. But one was we've talked about resiliency and perhaps defining resiliency and not including in here, not any kind of matrix for determining how we increase resiliency. But the first place that I actually see it mentioned was at the top of page nine, line one. And specifically the word resiliency. The word resiliency. Yeah. And I'm wondering if it wants to go back in section three, does that greenhouse gas reduction requirements, that's for measuring the goals? But I wonder if we should introduce resiliency in this section, the goals section. So just to be clear, it's a section three. Yes. So what that is, is it is current law. I'm looking at mandatory reductions. Yeah, I'm looking at three C, where we're talking about. Okay. Somewhere in line 78 to 19, we start talking about construction maintenance, buildings, services, line 20 services and infrastructure. I don't know. I wish I had a more specific recommendation. That's clear as the idea. So I think this part of the statute refers to state of the structure as opposed to something more broadly. So that might be more confining than you want it to be. That would be. Yes. So I'm just wondering if this is this, maybe not three C, but maybe three D, a new D about new goals. Can I ask a question? Yeah. So. Oh, wait, of me? No. Yes. So are you. The members of terror did it. No, I just want to see if I'm following you because I had a note also around the singular goal here. That's emissions reduction. Yeah. Are you saying to add a goal of increased resiliency? Yes. So where I would take us on this, trying to keep this at a higher level is at the top of page 10, one of the charges for the council is to identify means to accurately measure. And one of those things that we're doing is that we have talked about earlier this week is how do you measure resiliency? I actually have a question. Section four, three, A, three. So you need to get a copy of the bill as it is. Yeah, okay. If we're just inventorying now, I think we skip ahead of the whole section about the creation of the council and the makeup. So why don't we just inventory this as a question on defining resilience and measuring? And I'll think more over the weekend about how I see it fitting in. Well, yeah, I think, are we done with section three? Which were the requirements and requirements. Okay, so section four is the climate council and climate action plan and this goes on for a while. First question. What would be the other alternative, Azar? Yeah, so I think other ideas that have come up would be, is there a new position in government created that specifically has authority over climate initiatives? That's something that's come up. I think another idea that has come up is that A&R is not the right chair of this council. So it should be agency of administration. Sue Mentor this morning talking about, that our first among equals. And we've also heard testimony about A&R is the agency that has the technical expertise and also experienced working with a number of these agencies that position. So I think that is definitely something that we're gonna cross here as to. And we also had some suggestions about different representation on the council itself that should just flag it. Yeah, and yes, what about the ranking member of each of the legislative committees? Yeah. That's a poison pill for me. So I would say this is another broad area as to where the kind of leadership of the council resides here and whether or not there's a new position clearly. Does Massachusetts have a council or is there is through the EPA? Yeah, so Massachusetts has a different regulatory structure than Vermont does in that they have an agency that incorporates utility regulation, conservation, transportation, and that's a conservation and environmental protection. And there might be others, but that is. Transportation is not included in that. Oh, I thought it was. Agriculture is. Okay, thank you. So there's a lot in that, their version of A&R. Very specifically, utility, if we got that. So I know that they also have a committee on global warming and climate change. It's an actual committee just like this. Like that's separate. Within the executive branch? No, no, I just like the branch. I don't, so I just, I don't know what their actual mission is other than what we're doing, but I. They have a bigger building. Just something to ponder as far as what that looks like, I guess. From a serious perspective, would it make sense to just have somebody from each of the agencies in the executive branch, like an assigned person from that agency. So it's inclusive representative of all the aspects of state government and more close knowledge of the inner workings of each of the agencies. I think that's something we should discuss. Yeah, so I mean, we're flagging this as an area. Yeah, the competition. Yeah, enough for ourselves today. No, we're not. No, I don't think so. But I mean, wouldn't that be kind of a position if there was a czar that they're gonna call in each expert in whatever agency to lay out, I mean, that's different than having some broad counsel of all these people on it. Okay, I mean, all right. One agency is not representative of this list. Well, so just as an aside, and I'm not suggesting this, but I've heard this from other people and we've had some of those discussions today that, you know, is there a place in the room for the state treasurer here who has, you know, I think played a key role in moving the clean water discussion along, you know, does she belong, or do they belong on the council? That was another thing that I had flagged and that I've heard as a subject. So. Absolutely. Emergency management. Yeah. Yeah. Well, there, yeah, right now it's public safety. Yeah. That was meant, that was what it was meant to get at, but yes. Similar to human services was really kind of meant as a euphemism for department of health. But, so clearly kind of council leadership and construct. Regional planning commissions were brought up. Yep. National Guard. National Guard. Yeah, and the concept is also brought up that this shouldn't be 21, it should be 12. So, what do you want to talk about? National Guard. Yeah. That's very helpful. Yeah, very helpful. That's very helpful. Fellow Scotsman. So. Morning, Mayor. I'm gonna keep moving here through what the council is charged with in terms of responsibilities. So, what do you mean? Something that I heard in our discussion earlier today was, and actually earlier this week, understanding, actually, this would potentially fall outside the council, but understanding what programs the state government currently has, how much we spend on them, and what the efficacy of those programs is. That was brought up earlier in the week is that's something that the council should take a look at. It was also brought up earlier today. That's information that the council should have on day one, and that we should look outside the council to provide that information. I don't think that's, I agree. I don't think it's council's job to do that work. It's council's job to have that information. Sheriff, I may, if you don't provide direction for somebody to do that, then you're hoping that that's going to occur before the council starts. Is hope a strategy? Hope is not a strategy. It is. Just not very effective. So then we're really looking at... This, it will be outside of this section, Bill, but I'm just flagging the inventory, you know, question, pretending it's a good one. I have, I'm not sure in public infrastructure on page nine, one, 12, I'm not sure why I don't care. I don't know if anybody else has a note. They are around public infrastructure. No, they're not. Oh. I've added them myself. I think you and I talked about this. Okay. What this kind of section says, you know, again as a charge for the council is identifying, analyzing and evaluating financing strategies to support this transition. Financing the public. That, you know, what does that, what does that relate to? And one of the questions was financing public infrastructure, which could be everything from, you know, more hardened transportation infrastructure to publicly uncharging stations or financing strategies for the private sector to accelerate the transition. You know, and I'm just making this up, but it's, you know, the VEDA funding to support. I don't know if there's a variety of different financing strategies. So as you and I talked about that, I don't know if we want to. Or school and municipal buildings. School and municipal buildings was one of the things that I thought about as well. Where are you not by page number because we have the page initials here. We're in the council section. The council shall is B and then keep moving down under that. There's A, B, and C or C. Got it. Thank you. Just line 12. Yeah. Can you get the things working the same way? Yeah, financing strategies. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. If I can go up to section B, line E. I've circled analyzing each source or category of sources. And I have a note that says be specific. And I don't remember the details. Jenny Rushlow had said that each source or category of sources invites speculation or something like that. So she was suggesting marking out each source and just saying analyzing categories, categories of sources. And what I had written in, parenthetically, was industrial transportation, buildings, et cetera. I don't know whether. I think she said she suggested not listing them, but I'm not sure about that part. Remember that? There are clearly defined categories as part of the inventory that might be helpful. As a template for this? Right. It says here are the sectors that we look at for sources of additions. There's no reason why that should change as part of the evaluation of the council. So should we just list sectors of sources? Presenting that as an option for you. That's good. I also have a comment here about prioritizing. I have prioritized equity, but I think it means prioritizing areas where I'm not sure whether it goes in this section. That area is where we want to identify as needing the most resources. Where am I? It's just a note I have written down there. I think it goes in the section. Maybe it goes on debate. Regarding the subcommittees, there is a suggestion of... An all-in-a-way in analyzing technical feasibility and cross-equivalence of existing strategies and revenues. It's just... Okay. There is a suggestion related to economic challenges that I think this is kind of related to the Just Transition subcommittee. But having a specific subcommittee charge that relates to... I don't have the exact words here, but kind of economic challenges or economic harm that might result. The second subcommittee... Just transitions. Yeah, but it does talk about it. Maybe this needs to be more fleshed out. Not unfairly burdening a group or community that also may include an economic sector. Anyway, I've just made a note. I'm flipping through the next place that I get to is the Climate Action Plan, which is set at 592, which is on page 13 for me. But I don't want to cut off any other thoughts that people have in here. Just seeing back in subcommittees, I know we received suggestions or questions on whether there needed a clarification on size and functioning, but I don't think so. I like it. Yeah, so... Actually, thank you for bringing that up, because I got a related point. What I understand is that I'm looking to ledge council and Luke, you might not be the person, but with what things we need to include in here when you're creating a council. For example, I think we need term limits and there's a question about staggering those term limits. And to your point, Robin, what kind of power can we give? Here we've given the council the ability of subcommittees and there's a flexibility there. I'm presuming that we don't have to get granular in terms of right prohibiting again into that depth. But my understanding is what we do have to do is establish term limits or terms and that they should be staggered and that there should be an odd number of people on the councils at all. Those were parameters that I understand, but I don't... You're saying these ideas you might want to pursue? No, these aren't ideas. This is what I understand when you create a council. You told them you had to do it. Who told you you had to do it? My friends on the government operations committee. Really? Yeah. But again, there might be somebody in your office that has expertise on this. I don't know if the lawyer is that... I think you sort of... If you also like those ideas, it would certainly do it. I don't know if you have to... An odd number of people make sense if you're doing a vote because that's where that comes from. But you don't have to. But term limits, you could have people that are put on here and there and they're on here for 20 years. Well, you can have consecutive terms or you're there for five years. Remember, a lot of these folks are executive branch. They might be there for 12 months and they might be there for four years. It's not only they have that position. But some are not. True. Were you thinking of length of term or term limits? So I was thinking of both. Both. Okay. And again, I don't want to solve this problem today. I want to flag it. I can check for that. Sure. The question was terms, term limits, odd number of people under council. And the question that I have is to how prescriptive we need to be is to the governance of the council. And my understanding is that you do not have to be prescriptive of the governance of the council. But they can create those rules of the road themselves. But that's a question I have. You are correct. Yeah. You're kind of correct. I just thought, I mean, I do think that should be an odd number. But with a group this large, inevitably at probably 50% of the meetings, someone is not going to be there in the number of people anyway. So you could still have a tie vote on something. Getting back to the subcommittees, I just found my notes about what Sue Minter suggested this morning around potentially another subcommittee. And what I wrote down was a subcommittee to identify areas of vulnerability and risk and assess strategies to reduce risk, something like that. Yeah. That was the, maybe that's some just transitions or maybe it's something else. So again, I would put a charge to members of this committee as to, Representative Spillia had worked a lot on the thoughts behind one of these subcommittees and what it should cover. Two of the other subcommittees were left, frankly, fairly general. To the extent we want to flesh out more information there and be more prescriptive, to the extent we want to jettison one or add one, that's up to this committee. And so if that's something you're interested in, then we should go there. But again, I'll leave it to the committee, but I want to flag that. Yeah, it's something that, because I heard that from two mentor, I heard that from Mr. Driscoll who's here, with regard to, you know, specific economic harms that might result and that should be captured here. So I'll leave it open as to the extent we want to be more prescriptive. Okay, climate action plan section 592. I'll also say, to be clear, we're not closing any doors on doing this stuff today, but I do want to capture things that are on people's minds. So, you know, if we don't have anything written down, we don't need to stare at the page. But I do want to collect things that people do have that are front-line. Tim, I'm sorry. I just stepped out on one of our testifiers for next week. Yeah. I was calling. Okay. On the rural resiliency. Yeah. I'm sorry. The subcommittee? Yeah. There was one, well, this is probably two granular, but we're going to be talking about adaptation, the pressure that climate change, but climate change and also climate change adaptation. Adaptation. Yeah. So both. Are you putting that? Under the rural resiliency task force. Right. But we're going to start with adaptation. No. Definitely. Well, the title of the committee is rural resiliency and adaptations on commitment. Actually, Sue has suggested adding risk reduction to that as well. So we're going to start, wind is going, wind and rain are going to put pressure on rural areas. All of the economic changes that are happening in the world to deal with climate change adaptation will also put pressure. So, and. And this is in B. Plan. If anybody has anything on the plan, which is starting on page 13, which I think the plan is to reduce emissions and build resiliency. And I think that highlights the need to kind of define it more. I mean, it's true. So this ties in with the earlier, when I was sliding resiliency. So we mentioned that in the action plan on page 13, line 18, which I think, so there, the plan is to reduce emissions or have it be a goal earlier for requiring the plan to address it. And it should be in goals. Let's think how to do that. Because the reason I say let's think how to do that is because the, what is now the requirement section is existing statute that specifically is about greenhouse gas emissions. So I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that. I'm just saying let's think about where it belongs. I don't want to focus. We're bringing it up here to be included in the plan. So it seems like we should talk about her head of that. So maybe my question is on this section as well. So when it talks about, so I'm in little B. Are you in the plan section? Yeah. Talking about including regulatory and legislative changes. That's where my concern lies with, this is what they have to put forth specific initiative programs and strategies including that. But above and beyond that, like I say, it's a legislature on their own jumped in with passing some legislation that would affect their plan and strategies. How does that fit into it? Because they only go back and forth. So let me just be clear on the question. Because I think I heard this come up a couple of times. This doesn't preclude legislation. Legislature can legislate anytime outside of this. And may have heard you ask this question. If we do things as a legislature that are outside of this plan that accomplish greenhouse gas emission reduction, in other words, accomplishing the requirements. How do they include it? What's the process for them to include that in their strategies and initiatives, specific initiatives, because that is what it would be. It would be a specific initiative that the legislature passed. It's outside of this. It's outside of that. That helps to accomplish that. Why wouldn't it count? Well, it's a question of how you count it. I understand that it would count. But I'm just saying how would it fit into the plan? Would they then, if it was something huge, would they back off on another proposal enough to meet the goer? So again, I just want to make sure I'm clear because what's the pathway to address the question you have? Can the legislature step in and alter the plan? Is that the question you have? Well, no. Again, the council how they can consider we meet every year. We could conceivably every year put in a new proposal to limit carbon emissions. So they've already got a plan. They've already established your plan. They're going down the road. All of a sudden we've thrown in these other things. Are you saying just let that go as well but not be included in any reductions that they have plans for that they've already considered in their ultimate plan? I just don't I think somehow it's got to be interconnected. I don't know how but I think it should be considered somehow. Yeah. I think what you're saying is that when you lay out a program or a plan to reduce emissions somehow part of that plan is developing metrics for determining reduced emissions. So if the legislature comes up with a plan that isn't included in this in the council's plan or is it different anyway there might be another accounting of greenhouse gas reductions that then isn't captured in this plan. Does that make sense? Doesn't make sense to me because the sources of greenhouse gas emissions are not going to change. I want to be careful that we don't debate here. I just want to flag and I think it's a really important question actually as to how we deal with that issue. The goal here the ultimate goal we're trying to get to is reduction in emissions and who gets credit for that and I know that's not your question Well let me put it a different way then let's say the agency natural resources through rules throws out a particular proposal and we as legislators almost at the same time put out a bill that's in conflict with what the agencies have already done and they're basically saying wait a minute we've already proposed by the council in this way we're going down the road to rules you just passed a law that really is a little bit different tweaks it in a different way where do we stand? I might be able to answer some of those questions if you want we can do it another time so if emissions go down whatever the reason you went down recession, depression you're meeting your targets that's what matters if there's a plan and a legislature passes a law that's outside that plan something different you would hope that each entity legislature would be aware of what the legislature is doing to maybe modify their plan accordingly I don't know how you legislate if they do that but you'd hope to be aware of what's going on and stay in it modify the plan accordingly as your last question, law of trumps rules so they got a great idea of all the rules that A&R should do and the legislature steps in and passes a law that's different but usually laws are general, rules are specific so it's usually not either or but yes laws trump rules so legislature goes ahead and does something via law that would trump any rules that are being developed if they're incompetent any other section presenting it perfectly was that the rules section? no we're about to get there maybe something that I flagged in the rules section was in A2 I had bracketed the term reasonable basis and wrote a question in the margin would it help the agency to lay out what constitutes a reasonable basis and that was actually a question that was going to come down to that also I have a doctor today with Jen's testimony and Jen Duggan's testimony in K perhaps there's a need to be even more explicit there which is the bottom of page 19 no agency or departments rulemaking authority it's K Jen Duggan had indicated that there is perhaps a need to be more explicit be more explicit that no one's rulemaking is I don't know it's pretty explicit I haven't noted at the beginning of the rules it was 16 2016 and I think it's 593 A and I believe that it relates to where it says consistent with the Vermont Action Act and it was my notes here too yes this was Jen's comment also about so my scribble was well-adopted regulations as prescribed by the plan as opposed to consistent what I had mentioned when Professor Roslaw was testifying was some struggling with this in that being cautious about directing the regulatory body do with precision what the plan says as opposed to staying within the bounds of the plan and again we can take away what that word is the intention was to give some flexibility to operate within bounds and that was essentially what that word was chosen another phrase that I wrote down was necessary to carry out what we're trying to find a balance between Jen and Roslaw trying to give legal precision at cover and maybe marry Powell's just get a plan still to it well let's flag that I've forgotten that so two things I'll flag in the cause of action section are in both A3 and in B3 it's the same change that that when a court reaches for the remedy of requiring the secretary to to take prompt action or adopt or update rules that they be in accordance with the plan or in accordance with this this law which I can't rule which it was but being clear that the court can't prescribe action that is outside of what this what the plan or what the law calls for what's that based on what is that supposed to address so for example in on page 21 line 16 what this section would then say is the court shall enter an order directing the secretary to adopt or update rules in accordance with this act so that the court couldn't take couldn't require action that might be outside of what we're calling for here that they are confined to things that are allowed under the court is not making policy so is that the concern that the judge's order is too specific to the legislation for the bench or that they go off you know they go far afield and come outside just yeah I think the con so this was actually raised by representative Sherman that the that the court may ask for rulemaking that would in fact result in greenhouse gas emission reduction but is inconsistent with where we are and I get what I'm struggling with is whether it's where we are within the confines of this statute or whether it's someplace outside of the the plan I don't know what you would do but it's basically the court exceeding authority either being too specific or to go too far afield but as long as I'm trying to figure out how to phrase it I'm going to let you struggle with that I don't know, is that a de-evil you're trying to prevent? Yes. Judge, legislate, will the bench either be too specific or go too far afield? My interpretation for my understanding of Heidi's concern was the too specific we don't want a judge saying you must adopt rules that say this as opposed to achieve this goal well again I'm trying to stay within the confines of what we're doing here you know but there's a lot of guidelines I think that we're getting here for rulemaking and for the writing of this plan and the concern here is that a judge would go outside of that Right. There's a scenario where the plan's not leading to the results, do you wish according to our hasn't done it? Well in this section is that they haven't done enough they've actually they've adopted rules they've done it in a timely fashion and we're in Part B of this section where what has been done has been insufficient and more needs to be done and what the judge may prescribe is not only more but more that's outside of the bounds of and here's where I'm struggling outside the bounds of the plan or is it outside the bounds of the statute I don't know which it would be Can I have a question? I have a question around whether so the plan lays out a strategy that is insufficient Yup and they conduct rules that were prescribed to it by ZIPP plan Yup but we're held to account for not meeting the goals Yup So I'm going to draw on my deep well of legal knowledge here that what this section says is that the court finds that the rules adopted by the secretary are the substantial cause of failure so would that be something that would not allow the judge to hold the council not the council the secretary well if our, if the plan occurs and our rule making authority follows from that plan then I don't see how we would be the substantial cause of that failure if we were following the authority given to us that's my point so I don't see how the judge can find in favor of the plaintiff there but your authority is also to achieve the reductions it's planned and it's achieved reductions the plan isn't good now you're supposed to achieve those reductions I thought the plan it just said that if the plan doesn't happen then we're supposed to do it that's the way the plan is insufficient the plan is not adopted there's another ball of wax the plan is not and so if the plan is made and the agency creates rules in accordance to what the plan is and then the reductions don't get done then it's not the fault of the agency it would be it doesn't have a strategy to go back and revise the plan I mean that might be a defense like we're trying really, really hard but they still got these achieved the reductions so even as they're following the plan and the plan is insufficient for some reason exponential economic growth for more cars on the road wasn't foreseen so if the plaintiff didn't foresee it and the targets they still they're still going to be closed to action against it so I think this goes back to how you presented how you took us through the double loop in terms of the steps which I think is important to keep in mind which is what's required in each step and for example at the rule making step there's requirements kind of show your work that there's a demonstration that there's sufficiency in what's being done maybe it's naive to think that when you get if this devolved to a point where we're in a cause of action and we have not met the targets there's still a record that shows that the agency has done work they've shown their work and you know if it doesn't accomplish it I think where you get to then is the judge saying the work you've done is insufficient it was a substantial cause of failure and you've got to go back and do more it's possible and that's really hard to predict because that's really the role of the judge to make that decision but I think that's possible so I'm looking at the last paragraph of 4593 6593 there's 16 page 16 I'm on this one for maybe page 16 line 9 if the council fails to adopt the plan or update the plan then the secretary is on the hook right so the ANR still has to make rules to meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals regardless of the plan and this is kind of how we characterize this as kind of the the in-emergency glass statue here which essentially says the council has an obligation but for whatever reason they can't come to an agreement they fail to get there my presumption is that the council does not want that to happen the council has the power and ability to move forward here if they fail to do that and it's on ANR right so that's when it comes back to Peter's comment about the substantial cause business and I noticed when you used the phrase you said the substantial cause not a substantial cause and I'm just wondering about whether the versus the is important with an important plan there the thing is that flag in the cause of action section maybe in section 6 is where the some of the highlights of terms and whatever in section 7 to we took testimony this morning as to whether or not in the state energy policy there should be provision here that draws the state energy policy kind of being compliant to what we're trying to do here that was on binding to you and it's also thanks question of whether the city gets you should be added there as part of the energy policy so those are things that I had and I also we have a bunch of testimony particularly in the last couple of days where folks have provided very specific suggestions some of which are captured in this discussion some of which any other thoughts that was actually helpful for me so I really appreciate people taking an extra hour today thank you