 This activity report contains multiple recommendations related to climate change. The first of which is to revise the capability and development plan to address climate change. So that is on page three. And in 20 is greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is added to the capability and development plan to read. Climate change poses serious risks to human health, functioning ecosystems that support the diversity of species and economic growth, and amounts to tourists, forestry, and agricultural industries. Primary driver of climate change in Vermont and elsewhere is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, which has a warming effect that is amplified because atmospheric water vapor and other greenhouse gas increases as temperature rises. Vermont should minimize its emissions of greenhouse gases. And because the climate is changing, ensure that the design and materials used in development enable projects to withstand an increase in extreme weather events and adapt to other changes in the weather and the fire. There are 19 other subdivisions in the capability and development plan. They were adopted in 1973 and they are the legislative findings and details from the legislation to head to the back to the 15th. So this can be adding a new one. That was, yes. So do you have that list or I was just about to start looking at it or is it somewhere, where's the easiest place for you to find them? It is appendix number, appendix number five in your activity report. If you want to see it more... Do others want to see that? Yes, yes. It's just as easy to pull the statute online. To page 10 of the actual report. I need to change the process of serious risks to human health and public safety. That's a fundamental to impact related to future flooding with extreme weather. Human health might imply solely about waterborne diseases or people with diseases. Just wanted to help describe some of the risks. Come after the 20th. Don't know specifically other than that, often the first section of the change directly. So it could appear elsewhere. Ecosystem protection changes. Ecosystem protection and utilization of natural resources. A healthy ecosystem clean water purified air contains soil, regulate the climate, recycle nutrients and provide raw materials and resources for medicines and other purposes. They are at the foundation of civilization and the state economy. These ecosystem services are the state's natural capital. Biodiversity is the key indicator of an ecosystem's health. A wide variety of species cope better with threats that will limit a number of species with large populations. Products of the land and the stone and minerals under the land, as well as the beauty of our landscape, are principal natural resources of the state. Protection of healthy ecosystems in Vermont. Preservation of the agricultural and forest productivity of the land. And the economic viability of agricultural units. Conservation of recreational opportunity afforded by the state's hills, forests, streams and lakes. Wise use of the state's non-renewable earth and mineral resources. And protection of the beauty of the landscape are matters of public good. Uses which threaten or significantly impede healthy ecosystems and the state's natural and scenic resources should be permitted only when the public interest is clearly. There is a certain economic value for the forest and not to mark the capital. There's an intrinsic worth of our natural asset. That intrinsic worth means that we mean that it doesn't have to necessarily be human derived. And I only throw that out as a concept. We'll talk about capital, we're assuming that there's only an anesthetic value. I have different things for size. I think that might help capture both the, you know, the public benefit as well as the intrinsic worth of our speaker systems. As a process of healthy ecosystems, do you know the experience you're seeing? I think we have to clarify a little bit more. So you're meaning it's valuable to. The sheer fact of that having a healthy ecosystem, we don't necessarily have to achieve an economic benefit. To give the woods and enjoy the experience, whether you're seeing it, there's a palm tree value and then more of this higher level. You know, when you say natural capital, I have an understanding of its nexus to the land and the ecology of the land. When you add social there, it's a very subjective to me criteria. I mean, maybe it's social for a while, and maybe it changes because either something else comes into the landscape that you want to encourage and you say you change it in terms of what you're looking at for either when you're talking about trees or just in terms of what you know, we're talking about biodiversity in this whole group. So it seems to me that by social, it kind of limits a land known as choice or a property of choice in terms of what he wishes to show off or showcase on his land. That's all, I just, it's too ambiguous over there. Yeah, I don't think it's worth burning a lot of time on. Let's make sure we get to the climate sections before we start the testimony on this. So the statement that you made is that the one you're talking about, I'm going to go into some actions in person. Moving on, we're at the time, yeah. Scratch the seeding. So on Friday we talked about before you move on, you know, I'm just looking at line 16, the action of Healthy Ecosystems in the long preservation of that, I'll give you, I'm trying to understand the relationship of the two and how they would be envisioned to play out. That's not a question for you, it's a question for nobody else. This language is all used, activity is supposed to be the tool to accomplish the goals set forward in the capability and development plan. So these are a list of goals and priorities. So this is adding the protection of Healthy Ecosystems to one of the goals that already exists, the preservation of agricultural and forest productivity. Yeah, and I understand that, but I'm still trying to understand the protection of Healthy Ecosystems and how agriculture and forestry would play out on the need. This is a list of the things that are matters of the public good as the very last piece of that sentence states. So I think I certainly agree the protection of Healthy Ecosystems that are matters of the public good. I think preservation of agriculture and forest productivity is a matter of the public good, economic viability, all of those things. I understand that, I'm just saying that agriculture and forestry are in the public good and bi-black cultural units are important to our communities. But I'm wondering how it fits in with the protection of Healthy Ecosystems. In other words, is there gonna be some trade-offs or there gonna be some compromises being made between agricultural and forestry operations for the benefit of the overall health of the ecosystem and what would that be? Well, I think there already are trade-offs being made in that whole list. Separate from the new language, that there are trade-offs that we... No, but the protection of Healthy Ecosystems is new and so I'm just trying to understand how it fits. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the concept, I'm just trying to understand where the ranking would be for ecosystem protection and have an agriculture and forestry as being still uses of that environment. That'll come out, I think, as the bill unfolds. Okay, I'm not signing off on this until I understand it. You're welcome. Go ahead. Okay, so, I'm gonna say, so if you were saying what ranking does it have, like would the protection of ecosystems come before preservation of agriculture? Well, I'm just trying to understand how they fit together because agriculture and forestry, I understand them, I understand that they have a lot of values beyond just the products that they produce, you know, like the timber and the feed and livestock and the food that comes out of their culture land. But then again, I know there's always been some conflicts between the Grado Ecosystem Management and those agriculture and forestry portions. So I'm just trying to understand if we put that on as a priority, how does the customary and ordinary operation of the land work? Do you ever see that in statute or were you, were, do you see this as a ranking issue? Which is gonna come first, this or this? I don't, but I don't necessarily, I'm not an expert in this area. I don't necessarily know if there is a priority placed on certain things. The list has 19 things in it valued differently. I think there's supposed to be the overarching goals, but I am not sure if they're used in a specific way currently. Well, the reason I'm asking the question is because under the Act 250 as a company is, agriculture and forestry are looked at as uses of that land in and of itself. And now we're talking about being part of a greater scheme, a greater plan of ecosystems and ecosystem management. So I'm just wondering what the role is. Representative Dillon. May I recommend on that comment, the original language was preservation and keep that. And so say the preservation of the agricultural forest productivity. But as it continues when it reads, it lists things of a suite of matters of public good that include recreation and use of mineral reserves, et cetera. So if we, with your theme in mind, we can move protection of healthy ecosystem, ecosystems in Vermont or preservation of that to follow or come right before I would say the protection of the beauty of the landscape. So can I just say, what's the theme? So what line are you on? Right now the goal of this meeting is not to do markup. Oh, okay. The goal of this meeting is to get us grounded in the changes and statute recommended for climate change and then start hearing from witnesses who are gonna testify on that. That's it. Okay. But I think there's an easy way to address that. You're concerned. So let's keep going. Just to the climate change parts of the bill, please. Okay. So on Friday we talked about new definitions that are in section 6001. Many of that, multiple of them relate to the addition of climate change to the criteria. Do you all have mentioned which definitions are specific to the climate change? Sure. What are you doing on? Sure. So on page 11, it starts in page seven where we amend the definition of floodway to become flood hazard area. And then the change floodway fringe to report on it. Then on page 11, there's a definition of air contaminant, which is used in the new criteria one. On page 12, there's a definition of greenhouse gas. Did you happen to find where that definition came from? Yes. So the greenhouse gas definition is similar to the definition in 10VSA 552, but it's not identical. And I'm not entirely sure what the intent was. Although I think it was, it's slightly different because it adds the district commission, a body that can determine what substance is a greenhouse gas. So I think perhaps it was rewritten 552 gives power to the Secretary of Natural Resources to decide that. So this adds the district commission. So I think perhaps it was trying to give the district commission some power in that decision in case the science develops further. So then on page 32, we start the change in duty criteria. Three criteria were amended, addressed climate change more directly in Act 250. So currently, criteria one addresses both air and water pollution. And so what this change does is make criteria one solely about air pollution and moves all of the existing water language to criteria two. That's currently in criteria one. I'm gonna walk through this language. Yes. Page 32, starting on line three, before granting a permit, the district commission shall find that the subdivision or development will not result in undue air pollution. In making this determination, the district commission shall at least consider the air contaminants and noise to be emitted by the development or subdivision in any. The proximity of the admission source to residences, population centers, and other sensitive receptors at or near the source, and by the applicant. That in addition to all other, any of any air contaminants by the development or subdivision will meet any applicable requirement under the Clean Air Act. And the air pollution control regulation will be granted whenever it is demonstrated by the applicant. In addition to all other applicable criteria, the construction, use, operation, and maintenance of the development or subdivision re-housed gases, including re-housed gases from the nuclear craft part verified and enforceable by the applicant and its accessors and assigns by the state of Vermont. The rules shall be adopted in consultation with the secretary of natural resources and shall be applied with re-housed gas reduction goals section 578 of this type infrastructure to withstand and adapt to the effects of climate change. First part of the teaching section now is open. Start from start, it was considered a nuisance, but it's also considered a nuisance. No, I believe that it's existing. So, so noise is considered currently under. Specific reference to noise in the criteria that has its reference in this draft bill is new, but reviewing noise in the criteria one is not new. That's been happening for quite some time. Noise can sometimes also be reviewed under the aesthetics criteria in criteria eight. So it's possible that it might be reviewed for two different things. And that's, that currently happens right now. Thank you. Thank you. So a new introduction is added so that the water language of criterion one is added to the criterion two. So on line 17, page 33, will not result in undue water pollution. Do you want me to read through all this? No, but I'm curious what it, I guess I don't really understand what the existing language is. If it didn't say will not result in undue water pollution four, it just started with in making this determination. Well, it did actually on page 32, line five. So previously it said will not result in undue water or air pollution. I see. And so sort of split right there. And then the existing criteria two and three are actually merged together to be the new three. So the next change is on page 35 where it changes the criterion to be blood hazard areas, river corridors. And so that uses the new definitions established in 6,001. Page 35, line nine. So blood hazard areas, river corridors, a permit will be granted whenever it is demonstrated by the applicant. In addition to all other applicable criteria, the development or subdivision of lands within a blood hazard area or river corridor will not restrict or divert the flow of floodwaters, cause or contribute to flu meal erosion and endanger the health, safety and welfare of the public or of riparian owners during flying. Do we have a definition for flood hazard area? It's a new definition. It's on page, it's in this bill on page eight. And it's the same definition that's already listing in title 10. And it was a definition to the consultation with. Then one, three, please. It's just a line to get up to the current definition. It's representative of the bill. What's currently there is the term floodway, which is too narrowly defined. Under court law, they determined that the act 250 floodway means the flood hazard area. So both the flood, the term flood hazard area and floodway both come from the federal national flood insurance program. The floodway is the active river channel, which oftentimes is where the river channel is the wet part of the river channel, especially during a one or two year high flow. And then the special flood hazard areas is an attempt to capture the so-called hundred year flood. They're relying on 40 year old maps of their and 40 year old data. So they're outdated in terms of being useful. So since the 19, gosh, early 1990s, act 250 has through court case, have determined that the act 250 floodway is a misnomer, but needs to be fully capturing the flood hazard risk. So since the early 1990s to today, the agency that's resources mostly through act 138 that was passed post-traumatical snowmary has redefined their flood protection laws to reflect this term called a river quarter and special flood hazard area. And this is what this attempts to do is align what's already in statute based on act 138. Are you going to accomplish it? Yeah. Talks about the public preparing owners. Criterion 1D is a protection. It's mostly focused on flood hazards for act 250. It's so it's fundamental about public health and safety and why it has that focus. We know that river quarter area that what they often refer to that land adjacent to waters right clearing areas. We know it has ecological benefit, but the fundamental purpose of this part, this criteria on an act 250 is for flood protection and public health, welfare and safety. Each 36 of the emerging three are supplied. So it now reads, does have the sufficient waters available for reasonably foreseeable needs of the subdivision or development. Will not cause an unreasonable burden on existing water supply if one is utilized. And that's the existing language that's now being combined into a single criteria. So then the last change related to climate change is on page 41. It's criteria 9F. Actually I would suggest that on 37, the transportation changes that are related to climate change. Sure. So criteria 5A will not cause unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways, waterways, railways, airports and airways, bicycle, pedestrian and other transit infrastructure and other means of transportation existing or proposed. It includes strategies and provides safe access and connections to adjacent lands and facilities and to existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks and services. However, the district commission may decline to require such a strategy, access or connection. If it finds that a reasonable person would not undertake the measure given the type, the scale and transportation context of the proposed development. Page 41, line seven, keep conservation and efficiency when has been demonstrated by the applicant that their applicable criteria, the planning and design of this subdivision or development reflects the principles of energy conservation and energy efficiency, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the use of energy and incorporates the best available technology for efficient use or recovery of energy. An applicant seeking an affirmative finding under this criterion shall provide evidence that the subdivision or development implies that the applicable building energy standards and stretch codes under 30 BSA section 51453. Could you just tell me what a stretch code is? So it's a more stringent building energy code. It's the goal is to achieve greater energy savings that are required with the basic code. Other changes could be attributable to the goal of mitigating climate change but those are not Instagrammed. Welcome. Thanks. Now I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you today for the record. My name is Jo-Henna Miller. I run the energy and climate program at the Vermont Natural Resources Council. My guess is they had some of my colleagues in this chair we have already this session but as you probably know, the NRC were a statewide independent environmental and sewer organization based just down at the end of this block here. Again, I run the energy and climate program but we have water program, forest and land use program, sustainable communities program and several in-house gurus related to Act 250 including our director Brian Chubb who's here who's had far more experience with Act 250 than I have but again, I focus on energy and climate issues. That's my arena of expertise and do a lot of work both on the policy front and have been thinking about this stuff for a while now including I had the opportunity to serve as one of the 21 members of the Governor's Climate Action Commission. I will note already right now of the five different things that the Climate Action Commission chose to focus on, communities and landscapes, smart growth and good compact development was a core component of that focus. I'll talk a little bit more about that. So this is a really important conversation that you're having a big lift clearly as you know considering it's been 50 years since this landmark 90s and development has been instituted and back then very few of any people were certainly talking about or thinking about or understanding the science and climate change it wasn't really an issue then but almost 50 years later not only is it an issue but it's an urgent issue. So I'm gonna talk a little bit more about that and then speak to some recommendations, support for some of the recommendations that are already in the draft bill and thoughts on adding a few others. Can you hold on, we'll take it. Christy, Joe Man is a presentation that isn't loading on mine after a couple of refreshments. It's right there. Yeah. It's not working. All right, I'm gonna try again. Try again. Yeah. I don't know. Her name is there. It's just not working. That's all good. Thank you. Well, I just wanted to know, yeah, while we do a lot of work in this building in various sort of policy arenas, state and regional conversations our work in general and my work especially is really informed by our work at the local level. I coordinate the statewide network of town energy committees. There are about 130 of them now. Many of them are municipally appointed. Lots of you have energy committees that are active in your towns working closely with your municipality. Good news. We just hosted a regional event with the Bennington County Regional Commission and just heard, I just heard yesterday that they're forming a new energy committee, a joint energy committee with chefs very in north Bennington. So there's a lot of good work happening at the local level and more coming down. And as you look, we are well aware again, these groups working to help their communities, friends, neighbors, the municipality themselves reduce energy consumption, tackle climate change. So I just sort of frame that out to say that, you know, again, our policy positions are oftentimes very well informed by what we're doing at the local level. And we're honored to cross the board but certainly the folks that I work with quite a bit are deeply concerned about climate change and I wanted to just sort of, spend a few minutes, if you indulge me, I won't take too long, but just sort of providing the frame for what you're talking about here when you're talking about Act 250, a landmark important land use and development law being updated to address the reality of our warming world and making sure that Vermonters are positioned to, you know, thrive moving forward. So again, essential frame. So one that I hope that informs, you know, your work and our work broadly in the state of Vermont as you look to update Act 250, but the reality is, I mean, I think you know that we have a rapidly warming world, it's costly, it's consequential and it's tied to how we generate and use energy and how we live and interact with the land, which also has a lot to do with how we get around, how we heat our homes and buildings. So the signs couldn't be more clear. Our global climate pollution is rising. We're currently at 406 parts per million. And as this chart shows, and just to say that 350 is what scientists say is sort of what is the good mark to be at for sort of healthy, habitable planet. So we're now 406 parts per million and rising. And just to note that in 2005, when this legislative body, perhaps some of you are here, and then Governor Jim Douglas enshrined our statutory greenhouse gas emission goals, the parts per million atmosphere at that point were 378. So in just over a decade, the parts per million of power pollution and atmosphere have risen by 25 points. So it's pretty staggering and rapid increase in terms and it means that it has pretty significant implications. Representative McCullough. So I'd like to suggest that 350 parts is to be at, but it was rather, you didn't mind us remembering this. These are the at for now, we're above that. No, 350 parts per million in the atmosphere is what scientists say is sort of like, what is like equilibrium for, you know, happy, habitable, healthy planet. And now we're at 406 parts per million. And I'm gonna talk a little bit more about what, you know, some of the latest research and science says in terms of what that actually means in a lot of ways. So getting back down to 350 parts per million is the target goal and a big challenge. Representative Bates of the Constitution. I hope I phrased this right. When was the last major climate change? Like how long ago was it? Oh man, when it was, you know, like, the world was like over? When was that, do you think? I'm on that page. I can't remember. Oh, but it was the racial, it was 2000 years ago. I guess I'm just trying to get a bearing on. Are they the exact dates? No, no, no. I'm just trying to think when, like, in your opinion, since you're the expert on this, when was the last major? I mean, 100,000s of years ago. Okay, so we're in a 100,000s of years cycle, is what we're at. 10s, 10s of those. And we're in that cycle now and it's just speeding up from how I'm understanding it. Well, I think what the science says and the leading scientists in the world say is that we are, I mean, there may be natural reasons for a changing sort of atmosphere, but it's the combustion of fossil fuels, obviously, that is driving the rapid warming. And then also the rapid deforestation of our world's forest is another significant contributor to- But we're in that cycle is what I'm trying to get at. Well, we're in that cycle and we are accelerating, amplifying. Right. Causing that cycle to intensify in a way that has never been seen. So our 100,000 years is now coming to an end. It's been about 10,000 so let's make it a glaciation. Okay, next one. I didn't notice, I don't know. This is, I mean, I do not believe it, it's, I mean, there are natural cycles of the planet, but what is happening now is not a natural cycle. It is human caused. What is happening to, like, what is driving global warming is a human caused phenomenon. Related to the combustion of fossil fuels, largely, and also the deforestation of the world's forest, other reasons, but largely it's the combustion of fossil fuels. Okay. Representative Dolan. I think your last slide shows some of that cycle and kind of over the millennia. And I think this is what gives people concern is because while it may be sick of gold, all of it is under the 300 parts per million, the last cycle was, as it shows, 125,000 years ago was the peak of it, of the carbon emissions. We've reached the lull of it, and then what we've surpassed is the historic, since the last 400,000 years, the historic maximum level of carbon dioxide. And if you traced with this, this just shows carbon dioxide emissions, and if you traced actual temperature rise, it coincides with this. And that's recognizing that warmer air can hold more volume of water in the atmosphere, and that leads to the extreme weather events. And so that's where the concern is. There's a climatologist just across the lake at Paul Smith College by the name of Stagler Steger. And he's given a number of lectures on this phenomenon, regionally too. There's also a professor from University of Texas at Austin, and she too has looked at the impacts of this data, studied this data and its effect in the Northeast. So those are two good resources for a more in-depth look at the cycle of the carbon levels. And I'm going to speak to one of those in a little bit more in just a moment, but Mike, I'll take in, thank you for pointing that out. So just to sort of say, I mean there's some 2016, the hottest year on record, I believe since 2001, we've had 18 on the last 19 years have been the hottest on record. I mean, the long short of it is what we're doing is increasing warming our world and it has impacts. And that's what I just want to highlight because I think it gets down to what does it actually mean for us and what it means, both globally and Vermont, is that we're seeing more floods and at the sea levels are rising. These are a few photos of high tide in Charleston, South Carolina. This is sort of just a usual day, right? It's no longer, I mean, along the coast of Florida, there are several big cities that are also just, there's just regular sort of high tide consistent flooding. In Vermont though, we know that happens in different ways. And as you are likely well aware, we all remember, Irene, we don't have coastlines like Florida or Louisiana or South Carolina, but we're not immune from flooding and that's where I think really actually 50, what you're exploring is, you know, there's a really important opportunity and need to look at how do we improve this important program to recognize and protect our communities from the impacts of flooding or ideally avoid being impacted from it. So, you know, and I think Irene had some significant, not only environmental costs, but economic costs as well. I think up to the tune of about a million dollars, we paid in hard costs, you know, displacing hundreds of Vermonters, sure you've heard some, you know, harrowing stories of what that meant for people, but, you know, our rivers were overflowing, you know, taking propane canisters and other pollutants along with it, you know, contaminating our state waterways. I mean, it had real significant implications and I think also important to note that it disproportionately affected vulnerable Vermonters often, you know, who live in, you know, mobile homes or other areas are more susceptible to flooding often times. So, just to note that we've felt the implications of this and it's highly likely that we will continue to feel them more intensely over the course of time. I just wanted to also highlight considering the important work that you do when you're thinking about water protection and Lake Champlain cleanup, there's a study that came out in 2016 that showed that, you know, Lake Champlain may be more susceptible to damage from climate change and that the rules created by the EPA to protect Lake Champlain may be inadequate to prevent, you know, elbow blooms and water quality problems as our waters form, as they're more intense and more severe, sort of rain and weather events, sort of exacerbating runoff and sort of, you know, just amplifying the problem that we're already struggling to find solutions to. So, again, knowing that's an important piece of your work I wanted to just sort of highlight that it has lots of implications and there's an opportunity to do something about it. And lastly, before I speak to some of the specific recommendations and thoughts related to Act 250, I just wanted to sort of, again, sort of set the frame about what it is that we're talking about, because reality is that we live in a new era, certainly from when Act 250 was originally grafted almost 50 years ago. You know, so updating that landmark law and harnessing it strategically to focus both on mitigation strategies, reducing, you know, climate pollution and then also adaptation strategies, figuring out how to adapt and live and survive and thrive in a sort of new reality. I just want to highlight a few of the reports. You very well may have seen them, but if you haven't, I do think that they're important to inform your work in looking at Act 250, but more broadly, which is, you know, last summer, the Agency of Natural Resources released their Vermont Greenhouse Gas emissions inventory report. It was an update from the last one, which it had been in 2013. It was looked at the years 2014 and 2015. And what it showed was that despite our long time statutory greenhouse gas and carbon pollution reduction goals, our greenhouse gas emissions went up 10% in just two years. So over the years 2014 and 2015, our state's greenhouse gas emissions, as opposed to following the trajectory of reducing emissions, which we have committed to in a tripartisan fashion, instead they rose dramatically, largely in the heating and transportation sector, our two most carbon intensive sectors in the state of Vermont. But, so it's a pretty significant increase. Again, two areas where Act 250 could help in terms of improvement, both in transportation and in the building sector. I also do just want to highlight that shortly after that, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC, as people refer to it, sort of the world's leading climate scientists, they put a finer point on the science that they've been highlighting for decades related to climate change. And what they found in that report, and I highly recommend you picking it up, it's real, pick me up. But what it really shows is what they say is that the world is warming rapidly in quote unquote, without unprecedented action across all sectors of our society, in quote, we're gonna face serious social economic and environmental disruption. So, and they estimated that we have about now 11 years until 2030 to cut our collective global fossil fuel consumption in half. So by 2030, now 11 years reducing our, again, global combustion of fossil fuels by half. So we've got 11 years. So it's a pretty significant challenge. If you were the energy committee, I would be talking about it in terms of the opportunity as well. I fundamentally believe there's no greater economic development opportunity than proactively responding to climate change in smart and strategic ways. But that's a whole other conversation in my note of limited time today. But I would just say that there's pretty significant realities, both challenges and opportunities. And then lastly, I just highlight on the national climate assessment, which is this fourth report here that rolled out the day after Thanksgiving, the Trump administration quietly rolled that out. Well, I was enjoying leftovers with my family. I hope you guys worked too. But that report was sort of the work of over 12 federal agencies. And it was their sort of latest update analysis of what, you know, the science of climate change and what that means broadly across our economies. They, you know, they have chapter by chapter sort of overview of like, what are the high level takeaways from that analysis? But then they also get very specific. And this is what I believe everyone in Dublin referenced is that there was a Northeast section of that report that looks at what does climate change mean to our economies, to our ecology, to public health, to wildlife, to forests, to habitat. In the Northeast, the lead offer of that report was a professor at the University of Vermont named Leslie Dupichne-Jarrot. I highly recommend you checking that out because it does get to the more sort of deep specificity about what climate impacts are to our region. So again, I would just say, speak a little bit more about, you know, what that means to your important work at hand. But I think the important frame is that when Act 250 was first implemented and instituted, it was a very different world. And you have, I think, an important opportunity for you now to think about how do you strategically update it to serve as one tool in our toolbox, certainly not the singular tool like I said before, there's a lot of really good bipartisan support work happening here in Vermont related to different strategies to address climate change, mitigate, and adapt. But I think Act 250 is a really important program and tool to help set our communities up for mitigating and adapting to a warmer world. So again, just wanted to highlight that speak specifically about some of the recommendations and then offer a couple of other ideas. But first, starting with saying that, I think we support, you know, listening to the walkthrough of the bill just now, I think the support, the commission with the future of Act 250's recommendations was reflected in this draft bill related to changes to criterion one. I do think it's important enough that I believe Act 250 can, you know, does and can address climate change, but I think it will really be more explicit and articulating how and making sure that it is explicitly referenced, well, to strengthen, I think, the program and the bill. So ensuring that adding greenhouse gas emissions specifically is currently, the draft is really important. And then one other recommendation that we would respectfully urge you to consider is that ensuring that any new development, that Act 250 serves as a tool to ensure that any new development is consistent with our state's gas emissions goals. So that's really, so making sure that what we're thinking about, you know, planning new development, you know, because most of Act 250 is new development. So making sure that those developments are set up to be less energy consumptive, more strategically located is really important. So I think a lens and an important sort of parameter to assess developments by is to make sure that they're consistent with our long held statutory greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. And then I wanted to just sort of speak to and support the recommendations currently in the draft bill or the changes where looking to enhance protections from a lot of hazard areas and river corridors. So we know a lot of development occurs in river corridors, as we noted before, they're more prone to flooding. So really believe that what is in the draft bill is an important step forward. Couple other specific recommendations. As I mentioned, as you are likely very well aware, transportation is the largest greenhouse gas emissions emitting sector in the state. So a really important opportunity to update Act 250 to reflect that. So we support the Act 250 commissions recommended changes to this criterion, which are really focused on sort of helping people figure, you know, creating mobility options and not, you know, primarily or more singularly focusing on single occupancy vehicles, but really embedding the focus on transportation choices and transportation mobility options. So all kinds of different opportunities for people in the transportation sector and more specifically, and another addition we'd love for you to consider is recommending provisions in there that sort of, that highlight the name for electrification, so vehicle electrification, so supporting charging stations in developments. So incorporating EV charging infrastructures and other pieces of this provision. And then lastly, when it comes to criterion 9F, just wanted to say that we support the, expanding it to include energy efficiency. As you know, conservation is, you know, not using energy, turning the thermostat down, bringing a sputter, and energy efficiency is more efficient in technology. So buildings that incorporate that, we can use Act 250 as a tool to ensure that that happens. That's definitely something that we support and I hope you will too. That's really it. I think I just wanted to sort of thank you for indulging me in just setting a little bit of a higher level frame in terms of the climate science. I don't know if, I hope I didn't, but it was a too repetitive. I don't know how much you've delved into the latest science, but I think it's a really important frame for your consideration in general and all the important work that you do, but also this Act 250 update and I said, when I look at your, when I look at your talk board and it says what will be our legacy, I really think it's important that when people look back and look at how this body updated Act 250 to respond to the realities of this day and age, I think climate will be a threatened center in terms of a pressing issue and an opportunity to set the stage for our communities to really thrive in the 21st century. So I'm happy to take any questions. If you have more specific Act 250 questions, I did bring the Act 250 guru, but I really just appreciate your time and your focus on enhancing and updating on 250 in general and certainly your considerations of updating it to reflect, adapt and mitigate climate. Thank you. I have a question on the criterion one recommendation about adding that any new development complies with our steps to agree on some of the submissions. Give me an example or what does that look like or is it different than what we're pursuing now? I think that, you know, if you're looking at developments in, I think you need to measure developments related to where they're excited, how they're excited, how developments propose to or can integrate, again, mobility options, building design. I think the goal is to make sure that it is not exacerbating the problem and instead is recognizing that we need to build developments that actually use less energy both in the like, the built landscape itself, but also pursuing both in the buildings, building itself and in the location. So I think it's really, it's a lens that just like you have recommended giving the agency enough resources per view to consider this criterion. I think it, you know, they're the entities that are responsible for our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets largely are greenhouse gas inventory. And I think this will give them guide posts to help and district missions to help assess developments through that kind of lens. Representative Domenal. Actually, my question is about your point inquiring about, yeah, I think throughout our documents we talk about design and materials used for projects to enable us to both mitigate or really reduce carbon as well as adapt to make it more resilient to flooding. And like your opinion on what do you think that means? I understand Vermont has pretty rigorous building energy codes. So how would we, in recognition of what you had said in the very start, you said that the two major sectors contributing the lion's share of the carbon emissions or the greenhouse gas emissions are transportation sector and our heating sector. So that heating sector I want to fundamentally focus on. What would that look like? How would we, what should we do to focusing on that sector and looking at design and materials that can help us improve our both reductions and adaptations? Well, I would say that while we're taking steps to improve, you know, create stronger building codes and some communities are moving towards and I'd like to see reference to the stretch code, we have a lot, a lot of room for improvement there. And I do know that you're gonna hear from at least one potentially other very specific energy efficiency energy code experts. I think you're having Richard Bezzi come in and he will speak. Hopefully he just canceled because he had a cold. I hate you all. But I do believe, you know, the long and the short of it is, you know, sort of really setting parameters around what kind of, you know, what we're expecting when people build, you know, new buildings in Stammermont because the long and the short of it is it may cost a little bit more upfront to design a more efficient building but it is far more affordable over the long term. So let me just, may I follow up? Just, because I've heard two opinions. One is that we have a very stringent code, energy efficiency code. We're just not doing enforcement of it. And then I've heard, no, we need improvement on our code. So I'm just trying to get a better sense for how we can address what the need is. Well, I mean, I would say to you right now that obviously you can get lots of different opinions on all kinds of different issues. But like some of the folks that I work with at the local level, including building contractors, we, there's a lot of room for improvement. We have some, and I know that the department is doing good work in terms of updating our energy codes. So they're not nearly as aggressive as they need to be and should be. So I think there's a focus on that and from my perspective, not wanting to be too prescriptive here, but really making sure the developments are required to meet a higher building code. I recommend the stretch code. I mean, setting a bar, I know it was kind of controversial. There was something in the bill that you're gonna move towards net zero. And I think that ultimately that's where we need to get to as fast as possible. Recognizing that we also need to make sure that we're being reasonable and how we move forward towards making progress here. Thank you. Can you help us understand a little more about the stretch code? We know some baseline energy codes, but it really says that we're gonna go further. I believe, and I can clarify this later, but I think South Burlington is the first municipality currently only municipality that has implemented a municipal stretch code in thus far, but it just essentially says we're gonna go above and beyond what is required at the state level to ensure that our new developments are more energy efficient and far more affordable and long term. But on this particular topic, efficiency goals in the state of Vermont for residential, there may be some for commercial. This may be an area that really, it's not an active 50 conversation, really it's an area that we've been addressed. And active 50 would then do thermal efficient, the thermal efficiency codes and act it, for instance. So that's how I think it might come. I think back to criteria one, recommending adding new development and quality reduction. And then I'm not, you know, fine. I think that's a good place for it, but I would go all the way to nine F to ask a question there. And there is a distinct difference between conservation and energy efficiency. And so your suggestion to expand, to specifically include energy efficiency, we go back to that stretch code kind of a thing. When an active shall efficiencies. We probably aren't going to get them to turn off their lights. Everybody will see it's pretty dark. Maybe their lights on and all that. I think the important point, which is why I was glad to see it reflected in your proposed, or the recommendations from like commission and then in the draft bill, that I think, you know, obviously conservation, as I was saying, is you all know, is just avoiding using energy. So we make it as, you know, figure out ways to avoid usage and efficiency is when you're building that new house or your house is, you make sure that you have it wired or that you require energy like LED lights. And you know, outside lighting, like very, the technology has evolved so much that it is so much less expensive again, even in the initial investment, but also certainly in the long run in terms of, so what I'd also say is the department is doing some really good work on the energy codes. And I think they have some great expertise there and they could come in and give you an update. I know they're in the process of looking to 2030 to set the stage for annual progress towards far more stringent energy codes. So I do sort of recommend that Kelly Launder over there is an expert and I think she can do a good overview of what's happening and the value of it. Present of the faith. Thank you. Is there any financial incentive now in running by the state runs to make developers build buildings that are energy self-sufficient? Especially in terms of setting up signal light solar panels on rooftops and things like that that would basically cut their consumption of fossil fuel generated power. And I know about sort of a package program for developers in particular, but thanks to you all there's lots of different programs that incentivize people and certainly developers are among those people to install solar to, you know, we have efficiency per month that helps customers and certainly a lot of businesses and private contractors, you know, avail themselves of different sort of incentives for energy efficiency. And I think that they're taking advantage of the programs that you all have helped to create that our utilities are also helping to create. So I don't think, and I'm happy to be corrected if there's any sort of like package that's specifically for the private development community, but I do think we have a lot of programs that they can avail themselves of and they do in large part because customers are I think asking for it. More people are interested in, you know, getting out the fossil fuels being for 100% of the fossil fuels that we use. They're looking for energy independence and they're recognizing that fossil fuels are qualitatively priced, you know, using less energy, setting the stage for that and moving to things like whole climate heat pumps, which is another technology that I know a lot of developments are exploring that's integrating as part of their development package. So I don't think there's anything as tidy as what you're describing, but I do think there's a lot available to everyone. I'm really talking about the industrial, you know, the new sector. And Efficiency Remind has a lot of programs that serve those customers. Here, we kind of have to move on. Yeah. Just one more. I kind of mentioned this. Okay, I think one interesting opportunity for us is to think about instead of locking onto a code, what we've done in waters, we lock onto what's called best available technology. And I know we've done that even in managing stormwater when changing climate, you look on best available weather patterns and precipitation information. So I throw that out when we think about a code. It's either a couple of wanting to get compliance to an existing code, but if we're always thinking that the code is going to be obsolete as soon as we write it down on paper, maybe the strategy here would be to think about how do we incentivize or require compliance to something that would be more along the lines of a best available technology for maximum efficiency that can achieve the stretch standards where a lot of the codes that are in place. Anyway, just a thought. All right, thank you so much for coming in. Thanks. So for the record, my name's Everard Monka. I'm here testifying on behalf of the Global Housing Coalition. Appreciate the time that I'm focusing on housing and housing affordability. And I appreciate the committee's work so far and obviously also the active 15 commissions. So just because I'm not sure everybody around the table is familiar with our organization, we are an 80 member statewide coalition and we include all of the affordable housing developers that are most of the non-profits that have developed cumulatively and collectively over 12, 15,000 homes affordable rentals in the state of Vermont. And we also in our membership include homeless shelters, some of the designated agencies, community action agencies, broad array of groups that are involved in affordable housing work and anti-poverty work and really any organization that needs affordable housing for its clients and currently everyone needs housing that's affordable and safe to them or they are missing out on the foundations that are in their lives. Just a little bit by way of background, we've been involved in a number of iterations of looking at designation areas and providing some exemptions, some relief from active 15 at the local level. So each of the successive stages, a number of that. I think 10 years ago there was first five tiers of different size, different population towns that received for their, for certain designation areas, certain exemptions for units, for developments up to a certain number of units. And our affordable housing developers have made extensive use of that. They developed in designation areas, they follow smart growth principles and have been very actively involved in building downtowns, building new town centers. Brenda will mention one of the developments that they're involved in South Bronx, in the city center, for example. So our developers have made extensive use and have received the benefit of not having to go through both the local plans for new process and the active 50 process in the areas that have been affected by what used to be a kind of five tiered system based on town population and the provision of certain affordability requirements. Committee members will hopefully recall it. Two years ago the top two tiers, which were the towns and populations of about 15,000 between 10 and 15,000, basically removed the thresholds above which housing developments would be required to go through active 50. We are very supportive of the idea of enhanced designations and are supportive in appropriate locations for housing developments, especially if they have an affordability component, not having to go through both of those levels of view and support the committees and commissions efforts to create the enhanced designation. That said, and we are hoping that this is an unintended consequence, but maybe not, there were priority housing affordability, there were requirements for affordability and inclusive housing under the priority housing designation that appeared to be getting lost in the enhanced, what we've seen in the proposals for enhanced designations. So the main thrust of my testimony and Brenda's also after me from the Champaign Housing Trust would be to ask you as you are writing the bill and creating enhanced designation areas not to lose that minimum requirement of inclusivity for some affordable housing. And that's kind of the main point that I'd like to make today. And what I wanted to do also was give you folks just some ideas and some, you know, feel for how bad are affordable housing shortages and how bad are affordability dappens both for rental housing and home ownership and why we need to maintain a basic minimum threshold of affordability as we move towards enhanced designation. And ultimately what we'd like to see is some version of what is now considered to be priority housing as a requirement maintained in the enhanced designation areas. And so let me just also add that two years ago as part of a larger housing bill that included the housing bond that went to my housing conservation board that's been creating hundreds of new units and fully rehab units around the state. As part of that there was a pretty in-depth discussion around affordability requirements and there were actually efforts to reduce the targeting and the inclusivity under priority housing. And so here we are again two years later having I think a similar discussion and we hope that you land on the side of maintaining those basic affordability requirements. They're currently in law for priority housing projects. And more specifically for what is defined as mixed income housing and mixed use housing. And I'll go over what the exact requirements are for those shortly. Before I do, I did want to just quickly go over what's on your screen here and just give you a quick overview of rental housing affordability or lack thereof in our state. And many just pull out a couple of data points from what you're seeing on the screen. And that is what we call our housing wage. It's an average wage that you would need to earn if you're working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. It is $22.40 an hour. And that's what you need to earn as a household whether you have one wage earner or two to afford a modest two bedroom apartment on average in the state of Vermont. Clearly, our current minimum wage is substantially below that. So somebody working at a minimum wage or at a low wage service sector job will need more than one income in the household for that modest two bedroom apartment. Obviously, it varies around the state. In the Northeast Kingdom, it's substantially lower. But if I scroll down briefly, you can see in the Burlington, South Burlington, metropolitan statistical area, it's fully $27.73 an hour. So clearly, the gap between what a large number of Vermonters, working Vermonters can afford, and sorry, what they're earning and what they would need to earn to afford a modest two bedroom apartment is high whack. And there's a very large gap. If you look at Addison County, our housing wage for that two bedroom apartment is $19.63 an hour still. Substantially above what the minimum wage, current minimum wage is, it's even above the $15 an hour minimum wage that is proposed for us to go to in a couple of years in the bills. And it's like two million. Let me just also highlight that for renters and about 29% of Vermonters rent, their homes is opposed to owning. We have a 71% homeownership rate, which is very high nationally. But the average renter wage is $12.85 an hour. So for the average renter, there's a very substantial gap between what they can afford, but they need to earn and what they are earning on average in order to afford a modest two bedroom apartment. I presented the thing as a question for you. You would count for that disparity. How do we account for that disparity? Yes, how does it come to be such a widespread? Housing is expensive and it's expensive in Vermont. It's expensive throughout the Northeast. Even in the Northeast Kingdom, it's relatively expensive compared to, say, the Midwest. Housing affordability is a national problem. It's a problem that is predominant on the Eastern and Western coasts in areas like Hawaii and in major metropolitan areas. But Vermont is no exception. We have some of the high strengths in the Northeast of Boston. And I would say there are a number of factors. It's a pretty complicated answer that has many, many factors. Is it comparable to the other New England states such as Maine and New Hampshire? Yeah, so I didn't provide this here, but so that $12.85 average renter wage, we have the fifth largest gap among all states between the average renter wage and the housing wage. And behind us, right behind us, so we're five and six, seven, eight, nine are all the other New England states except Rhode Island. So Maine is expensive, Massachusetts is expensive. Part of it is our older housing stock. It's less energy efficient. It needs upgrading. It needs energy efficiency upgrades. There's lead paint. We're built in an environment. A lot of our development is infill as opposed to, we don't want to build in on finite soils, obviously. That's what this committee is all about. It's making sure that we're going to concentrate development in the areas where we want it and leave the other areas working for our slums and agricultural lands working and also open for our very large tourist industry for folks coming from that state to enjoy some of it. So just quickly, who are the ones ahead of us on that gap? So ahead of us are Washington, D.C., incredibly expensive, Hawaii. Northern California is ahead of us. And then certain counties, counties in Connecticut, counties in Westchester County and in New York. Representative McCullough. I'm not getting your heart, the difference between the average renter wage and the average per hour housing wage. So it's about a $10 an hour difference. Well, I see the math, but what's the difference between the average renter and the average housewife? I'm sorry, I'll step back. So we have a criterion for affordability. If you are paying more than 30% of your income for your shelter costs, if you're renter, it's rent and utilities. If you're paying more than 30%, then you're living in housing that is not affordable to you and that you don't have enough leftover for other basic life necessities. And if you're paying 40 or 50 or even 60 and sometimes 70% of your disposable income for your shelter costs, you're one step away from homelessness. You're one major car repair or one injury or one sickness away from not being able to pay the rent and potentially losing your housing. So $22.40 an hour is what you need to earn so that the typical two bedroom apartment, which is 1,000 in red and the language in the top. So these are 2018 figures. That's $1,165 a month, including utilities. So by that 30% standard of affordability to afford $1,165 a month in rent and utilities, you need to earn $22.40 an hour. That's a simple math, it's very simple math. But the average renter wage. So the average renter wage is they're only earning $12.85 an hour. So they are $10 an hour short of being able to afford that affordable two bedroom apartment based on that 30% standard. They're the same people, but these guys are only getting $12.85, not $22.40. Yes, they're high-tech. The $22.40 is what you need to earn. The $12.85 is what those folks on average are earning. So $10 gap. Okay, so we have another witness and we're already behind you. That's the one thing. One quick law thing. Maintain affordability requirements. Misuse mixed income already in the law. Is that state law you're talking about? Yes, so we have two years ago, we went through general assembly, we went through a process of aligning the definitions of affordability both in Chapter 117 and in Act 250. And if there's limited time, this is not simple stuff and it's not math. I don't even know about that. I just want to know if it was a local thing you were talking about, because then I wanted to ask that. We have definitions for affordability in both Chapter 117 and Act 250. We also have definitions of mixed income, mixed use, and they have basic requirements for affordability. That's all I want to know. And then inclusivity, that does not mean inclusive zoning, like a particular city like that. It does not. It's comparable in the sense of what we're asking is that in order to receive this basic enhancement of not having to go through Act 250 in these for enhanced definitions that basic levels of affordability as currently defined in law remain. And if they not be lost, otherwise we have, you're gonna have a workforce that's gonna not be located to your services, not be located to your jobs, they're gonna continue to have to commute halfway across the state to get to where they work. And let me just also point out that the other handout that I provided to you, this was also required in law two years ago when the enhanced, I assume the designation areas were last reviewed in this committee and other committees. One of the requirements and the question was, well, what do these affordability requirements mean? How are developers gonna know, what's their price point for a new single family home? What's the price point that they have to target for those affordable units in their development? And by the way, it's only for mixed income, it's only 20% of the development for rental that needs to be affordable to people, at or below 80% of the HUD area median. And what I've highlighted here for rental housing is the 80% row, that shows you the incomes at 80% of the HUD area median income for all areas outside of Chickman, Franklin and Grand Island, the top tier of gross. And so what would be affordable for rental for folks at that 80% threshold, which is what's set in current law, for a one bedroom apartment, it's $1,195 for rent and utilities, for a two bedroom, it's $1,435. So if you move down the 80% threshold for rental housing in Chickman, Franklin and Grand Island, which are known as the Metropolitan Statistical Area, there clearly your 80% threshold is higher. It's for three person household, it's 66,960 annual income and the rent affordable to that household would have to be 1,674. So for Chickman County, that's still below market, but it's not usually below market. It's maybe three or 400, two bedroom apartment reconstruction in Chickman County last time I worked was in 1900 range per month. So this is relatively shallow affordability. It's not a large percentage, a high percentage of units. And then there's another standard affordability for mixed income housing for home ownership, which is paid to the Vermont Housing Finance Agency's percentages of their purchase price limits. And if you look to the far right, the three far right columns, the one, two, and three bedroom homes, those affordability thresholds are 237,283 and 328,000 outside of Chickman, Franklin and Grand Island and they're higher within. So this is not deep affordability because we're not necessarily providing additional public subsidy. This is just a requirement for developers to develop an area that had received the enhanced designation and that would allow them not to have to go through the Act 250 process just to local plan through the process. And one other benefit I would say for making sure that affordability is included in there is a lot of times private sector developer will come in and say, well, I want to do some affordable housing but that's really not my area of expertise. We have nonprofits that are expert at that. That's our network of folks. They can bring in some additional public funds like through the Housing Conservation Board, federal dollars and they can actually achieve a deeper level of affordability than what's required in law. And oftentimes a private sector developer will partner with one of our nonprofits because again, affordable housing is not necessarily their area of expertise but this brings in a partnership and creates public private. If you maintain the affordability requirement in the enhanced designation areas then you will continue to encourage public private partnerships with our nonprofits that would provide even greater levels of affordability because of the public sector funds that they can bring in their own housing. I'll rest there. I want to make sure Brenda has time as well. Thank you so much. I guess I, Brenda, are you with us? It says it's a new city. I'm not having a new. Wait a minute. Are you there, Brenda? Can you get a little closer to me? Hi. You're just being cut in and out. I was having challenges this thing and I don't want that to be happening to you. It's working pretty well right now. Okay. Well, thank you. So should I dive right in? Sure. I just said a little FYI. We're definitely running a little behind. Okay. I won't take long and thanks. I wish I could see all your faces but I appreciate you making these opportunities available remotely as well. Members of the committee man's chair, I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the changes you're considering to Act 250. I support the goal of this bill to create a coordinated and predictable review process that will encourage development in areas appropriate for growth. I do not support the elimination of incentives to include affordable homes in housing development. As I understand it, the incentives in the priority housing provisions of current law would be lost if all development in areas with enhanced designations are accepted for review. Before I address these points, I'd like to take a minute or two and give you a brief thumbnail of Champlain Housing Trust, our current activity, as well as our approach to development which is pertinent to your committee's priority. We served the three Northwest counties of Vermont with nearly 3,000 affordable homes and related programs that serve people from homelessness to homeownership. Over 6,000 remoders go to live every night in the Champlain Housing Trust homes and over 1,000 more use our financial education programs annually. Most of our homes are affordable apartments that serve the workforce. We also have properties set aside to house people with special needs and needs of services attached provided by community partners. Over 600 homes are in our shared equity home ownership programs and needs to serve 1,100 families. We also help people to buy homes in the market. We provide affordable rehab, funds and services to lower income homeowners and we operate a statewide mobile home purchase program with fires referred to us from the regional nonprofit. All our homes, whether they're rental or homeownership homes are permanently affordable to the people of our region and this supports the community and economic development goals of various towns and the village and cities because they know that the housing mix that they plan for and work to implement is there to serve their community for the long term. 60% of our rentals are occupied by people who are homeless and last year 88 of our 313 vacancies released up to people making that first step from homelessness. As part of this, then we also now deliver the array of services and programs to help people stay housed. This ranges from budget and financial counseling, belongs and rent forbearance to deep social work and takes managers and partners to it with others. Now our development policy is a policy of smart growth. Opportunities that do not meet this threshold criteria are not even considered. We build more densely and we build smaller homes that are typical of Vermont and this meets both our affordability and smart growth priorities. All of our homes be very high energy conservation standards. So much so that we include heat and hot water in our rent. We use solar for hot water extensively and have solar arrays of many of our flat roof buildings that provide power to the grid. We've also prioritized redevelopment in our town, village and city centers, adapting old buildings to current uses, reducing waste that goes in the landfill, preserving historic properties, as well as Vermont's traditional settlement patterns. Finally, where appropriate, we also could serve open space as part of our development and these include public parks and other uses like bike paths, trails, fishing and waterfront access. Our current development activities are a case in point. We have 60 apartments under construction in South Burlington's new city center. Another 76th in a new very dense and green redevelopment of a former college site on Burlington's waterfront that will ultimately be 700 homes and all. We are developing housing in St. Alden's downtown. It's a mixed income and mixed use project. We've also purchased the rental complex of 105 apartments this year in South Burlington. These rents subsidize both affordable to people at and below 80% median income. And if they sold to market, the rents would have gone much higher and many people would have been displaced. So we purchased that for affordability. Now, I know that we are in a high demand, high cost region and our work is badly needed. For every apartment we lease up, there are seven fully eligible and approved households that have to go on legal basis. But affordable housing is needed statewide. A VPR poll in the fall identified high housing costs as the number one cause of stress and anxiety among Vermont family by far. And no wonder the housing wage gap is high for Vermont workers, even in semi-skilled and starting professional jobs. And you just heard the day from Earhart, I won't repeat it, but I would add one thing to the question that you asked about why is there a gap? We all know that nationally wages have been essentially slapped for over a generation, but housing costs go up. It goes with the inflation of construction and land. And so while Vermont is one of the high cost areas, we are not alone in taking this crisis around the country. And that means we all have to redouble our efforts to plan for and provide affordable housing. This is why any planning incentives and regulatory relief offering housing development needs to require affordability as one of the qualifying criteria. We know that land costs in these developable areas of the state are high as are new construction costs overall. If we do not require any to make some inclusive affordability, these new neighborhoods with the better access to services, transportation, jobs and other amenities will exclude a large plurality of the workforce just due to cost. New standards of construction to address energy use and resiliency to weather events will only add to the cost of building. And this better housing stock needs to be available to Vermonters of all income. The state has funding sources and network of affordable housing developers, both for and on profit, and other resources to support such mixed income development. Given Vermont's well documented needs for more affordable housing, it's imperative that we preserve the affordability targets that currently give housing development with a mix of incomes priority and direct to 50. Neither H197 nor the committee's draft bill right now includes any housing affordability targets among the new criteria qualifying for permits to be. The amendment to this bill is a firm or enhanced design criteria for protection of wildlife and natural habitat, including waterways, historic preservation and the preservation of youth. All important things, but these leave out the most important consideration of residential development. Equitable access to Vermont's most precious resource are people, are people of all wants of life, jobs, age, ability and income. I've just two other more general suggestions about the proposed reform that do echo recommendations made by the Chittany County Regional Planning Commission. The first is that before creating a new designation, consideration could be given to reviewing all the multiple designations we have, these any can be sort of merged, folded in, rationalized in this process. All of the designations have the purpose of facilitating development built up areas. A related point on this is that some of these designations, especially the downtown districts, have been very narrowly drawn and maybe expanded. In closing, I would encourage you to assure that all future measures that are taken to protect Vermont's natural resources, preserve our traditional settlement patterns and reduce our carbon footprint are undertaken with a commitment to social equity and equality of access. This means that we have to consider the cost of these solutions, who pays for them and who benefits from them. Lower income for monitors in mobile homes for the breadth of laws from Chocos or Miami. They have the hardest time accessing equally affordable replacement housing. We now know that without intentional planning for affordability, those of fewer resources who as a group have the lower carbon footprint will be priced out and thus left out of our more sustainable and resilient communities and homes. Please include affordable housing and all planning designations. And please consider affordability and any new construction and weatherization standards. And please do count on Champlain Housing Trust and Vermont's whole network of affordable housing producers to assist you in developing socially and economically equitable solutions to climate change. And also to assist your communities and developers who do seek to include affordable housing in Vermont's new neighborhoods. Thank you very much. Great, thank you. I think we're going to shift gears here. Thank you for coming in. Thank you for having us. And thank you for hearing about this guess. Looking years again to Jeff Nelson. Welcome. Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity. So my name is Jeff Nelson and I'm with DHB, which is an engineering environmental consulting firm. I sent my, I did some documents to the committee assistant earlier that one of the first one includes my bio, which is there for your perusal. Just by way of background, since obviously there were some new members of the committee, I testified a number of times in the past on various water and environmental issues. I've been working as a water resources environmental consultant in Vermont for many years and I've been involved with a number of stakeholder processes as the regulations have been considered developed and have worked on many different types of projects, various permitting efforts related to stormwater wetlands, water quality, et cetera. Our firm does a pretty broad range of work, design, analysis, permitting. We work for ski resorts, we work for utilities, we work on renewable energy developments, we work for commercial developments and we work for transportation projects. So we're touching a pretty broad range of land use and energy activities that are occurring in Vermont and have been for many years. I'm not here today representing any particular entity. I'm here as an expert and imparting, if you will, my professional opinion based on my experience and again, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to do that. So I wanted to touch on two aspects of what the committee is considering in the context of the Act 250 bill. First is energy saving and then the second is climate change. So with respect to energy saving, as I mentioned, we've been involved in a pretty broad range of projects including a lot of energy projects. I've personally worked on all three of the large wind projects that have been permitting constructed in Vermont, Sheffield, Kingland and Deerfield and I'm very familiar with a lot of the particular issues related to those projects. So as I think you know, the Public Utility Commission formulated the public service board has been regulating land use related to energy and telecommunications projects for something like 50 years in Vermont. So there's a lot of history there with PUC and the regulation of these kinds of projects. In addition to the overlay of PUC or in the case of development projects, Act 250, today there is a very broad array of what we call collateral permits that are required for projects. So those would include things like weather permits, stormwater permits, permits associated with rivers and streams and buffers and impacts to very threatened or endangered species. And so each of those permits have their own process that is independently triggered that apply to projects that reach certain jurisdictional thresholds. So with respect to the Section 248 process and the work of the Public Utility Commission, I've prepared a few slides that I'd just like to go through. The first one is, this is a map that we prepared in context of the Kingdom Wind project when that project was being reviewed by the then public service board. And one of the concerns that was raised by A&R at the time of that application was the potential for fragmentation of forest habitat. And under Section 248 of the Public Service Board, PUC now administers, there's a provision that requires that the project have no undue adverse effect on the natural environment. So in the context of that very broad language, A&R scientists raised a concern about the potential for the project to impact the forest habitat. And so as a result of that, in order to address the concerns about habitat, what happened was A&R scientists identified some very critical areas that from habitat connectivity standpoint. So to this out, so the Kingdom, just by orientation, so this is Route 100 coming up through Lull, the Kingdom Wind project, that access road comes up to the ridge line and then the turbine string is along the ridge. What the A&R scientists had identified was a particularly important area to the south of the project that provided connectivity for wildlife between the Green River area and then the Low Mountains to the north. And there was concern about potential for development in these areas. And so ultimately, GMP agreed to obtain conservation easements on these parcels, which totaled about 2,000 acres to address the habitat fragmentation, habitat connectivity concerns. So I just thought it was important for the committee to understand that because even though there isn't an exact criterion under section 2488 today that says habitat fragmentation, it talks about no undue adverse effect in the natural environment in a case where concerns get raised like here about the potential for such an impact. There's a process that's already in place that enables A&R scientists to raise their hands and say, this is an issue. We need to hear from the applicant about how they're going to address it. And this is what we came up with and this is what the agency agreed was sufficient to ensure that that impact would be sufficient, and the committee did. Can I just quickly, let's just propose conservation, was this, so is this completed? It is completed. In fact, in the CPG, the certificate of public good that the board issued, they required that these conservation easements be in place prior to the start of construction, prior to any activity that could fragment the habitat, if you will. So this map was prepared before everything was executed, but the easements were in place prior to construction. Okay. Can I have Dolan and Anoudi? Okay. Good afternoon. My question was just about, and maybe it's too specific about this project, but was the conservation mitigation project here, an apples to oranges, was the attempt to try to recognize that in this case, this ridgeline development had specific habitat function that was obviously going to be affected. Thereby, the conservation secured here was to address and provide the same type of protection, same type of habitat protection. Was it exactly the same type of habitat because the impacts of the project were on the ridgeline and the two partials that are shown here to the south are not, but from a connectivity standpoint and availability of habitat to wildlife using the area, these were the partials that the agency staff had identified as the most important ones to conserve. So it wasn't exactly apples to apples in terms of the exact same type of habitat, but it was, I don't want to use the word critical habitat because that word has different meanings, but it was habitat that was identified as the most important for conservation in recognition of the fact that there were going to be some impacts associated with the project. Is no undue adverse effect the same kind of standard as no adverse impact? Well, to some extent I suppose that's a legal question, but obviously in the context of a particular application, there needs to be a review of that based on the evidence, based on the data and based on the input from agency scientists and from the consultant scientists that are working on an application to make the determination. I guess I can't answer the question directly because it's so fact specific depending on the project. And one more, so the impact has been mitigated. We heard testimony that your field still isn't, they still don't have the land that's a mitigation land. And do you know whether Sheffield and Kingdom have that same issue? Certainly not Kingdom. As I testified a few minutes ago, these easements were in place before construction began. And my understanding, Sheffield is the same was true that the mitigation was completed at the time the project was constructed. I'm, my involvement in Deerfield has been on the water quality, stormwater issues, not on the wildlife issues, so I don't know one way or the other the status of those conservation mitigation conditions. Okay, so you're saying if you get that conservation easement before the project goes in, then the land gets under mitigation, but if not, in Deerfield was it was after it? Well, that was in the case of Kingdom Inn. That's what the Public Service Board ordered, if you will, on their decision that for that particular case, they wanted GMP to get the conservations in place before construction started. And there's no rule or statute that I'm aware of that requires that all the time. But in that particular case, that was the Board's decision. Is that, excuse me, my evidence, do you rely on to show that the mitigation is working as you intended it to? That's a good question. It's not, you know, this is not a circumstance where, you know, there is sort of, you know, monitoring, if you will, to look at what has happened. It's really, you know, during the review proposed project, the professionals involved use their best professional judgment to make a recommendation, and that's really what ends up being the requirement. So I'm not aware, I mean, I know the agency has general programs to monitor wildlife movements and so forth, but I'm not aware of anything specific beyond that. Am I correct in believing that you worked in all three of these major projects? That's correct, yes. And basically what you did was more or less look for ways to mitigate what adverse impacts it would be as a result of the development? Well, our role was, you know, we had, we worked on all three of these in somewhat different capacities in terms of what our specific role in the project was, but a significant, I guess, common denominator is working on stormwater and water quality issues and in the context of all three projects that we had to manage and run off, and that was actually something else that I was gonna talk about a little bit. Okay. So, you know, that actually kind of teased that up. You know, some of the other suggested impacts such as stormwater and erosion and so forth are regulated under these other agency permits and those provide oversight in terms of construction, operations, monitoring. I know the committee has seen some pictures. I wanted to show you a few, too, from Lowell just to illustrate kind of the current condition not as of today, but within the last year outside of the stormwater treatment practices that are there. This happens to be one of the stormwater ponds where some of the runoff from the roads on the project come in and this little foray is where a lot of the sand and silt settles out. It goes into this pool and then the water rises up and flows out. There was also, I think, testimony about, oops, what's called a level spreader. The level spreaders were, and I've been in this committee speaking about level spreader several times in the past, but these devices were used to really reduce the amount of forest clearing. I mean, we talked a little bit about mitigation, but a big part of the effort and part of the project was to actually reduce how much forest had to be cleared in the first place. And these stormwater practices were used to achieve that. So in this case, the stormwater comes in off the road, flows into this trench, if you will. You can see this was after a rainstorm, so the water's a little bit cloudy. It rises up and then flows over the level lift out into the forest area. That is below the spreader. Here's another example. Again, you see the road up here, the water coming in, cloudy water during a storm, that cloudiness is getting settled out in the spreader, and then the water is flowing out over the lift. Representative Odie? So when you look at what's happening with the water, you take into account the seeds in the water, because, you know, like the birds fly over and bring invasive species and drop it in the water, and then it gets washed into the forest. There is an ongoing... It's taken over by invasive species. Yeah, there is an ongoing monitoring that was part of the order of the PUC to monitor for invasive species and to remove those, and so that is ongoing. I happen to give a report that the water's gonna be okay when it's gonna have the invasive species seeds in it because of the clearing, they can take root. Well, that's why there's a condition to monitor and to address any invasive that are found, and that monitoring has been ongoing, and I'd say successful in terms of addressing the concerns that there are. I mean, there have been some invasive found, and that's been, you know, the condition is required that they be eradicated. What's the end of the roof they have? The level spreaders. Am I correct in recalling that they were really put in to help avoid erosion? That's correct, yeah. I mean, basically to provide for treatment of sediment and to manage the flow of water. And how does that work? I mean, what happens? We saw slides that showed the possibility, showed the trenches filling up with water, so the water was going over the top from beginning to end in terms of entirely. So it was the impression that it wasn't a mefcapacity. Yeah, now that the systems have been undergoing, ongoing testing, and that was a requirement of stormwater permit, and we've just completed the final year's report on the level spreaders and filed that with the EEC. And, you know, the systems have been working exactly as designed. That's not to say that they don't need maintenance from time to time. Any stormwater treatment system does, and the result has been that the systems are working and they're meeting the standards that they're intended to meet. We did provide, so we did provide as part of this two things. One is there was a testimony given by Annette Smith recently that showed a lot of pictures from 2016 and earlier. And I wanted the committee to have this letter from December of 2016 from the EEC that addressed a number of, push all of those questions and comments. And so I think that, I'm not gonna go through that in detail, but I wanted you to be aware that the information that she showed you from early 2016 was either outdated, incorrect, or was addressed by subsequent work that was done in terms of maintaining the system. I would also point out that we have prepared on the performance of the level spreaders. I reported to this committee back in April of 2016 on the work at that point. As part of today's exhibits, I have provided an updated summary of these systems, how they've been working, and what we found as a result. So that is in the list of exhibits. Is this part of the documentation you provided? That's correct. So I wanted to move on and talk for a moment about potential changes to energy siting approach. As the committee knows, there have been quite a few changes in land use regulation of energy projects over the last few years. Some of which increased the role of local and regional energy plans in consideration of energy projects. Also looking at, in case of solar, preferred sites that are things like landfills and brownfields, but not agricultural fields. So some of these are big changes that have occurred. I would also note that the PUC has very specialized rules and expertise on things like net metering, looking at aesthetics impacts, requirements for decommissioning, which has been a requirement of all the wind projects that I've been speaking about. Looking at impacts of sound from wind sites and so forth. So I guess my point is that before making a change that may have sort of unpredictable consequences in transferring energy siting from section 248 to act 250, I guess I would urge careful consideration. And also time and opportunity for the existing changes that have been recently made that I've just spoke about to work. I also feel, as I said, that the scope of section 248 gives the PUC pretty broad ability to look at the specific concerns and issues associated with a particular site, such as what I spoke about when I came in there. Is it appropriate to ask whether the witness is here of his own volition or whether he's being paid to be here by anyone? Sure. I'm here on my own time for volunteering with him here today. I have coordinated with Rev with the Royal Village in Vermont in terms of coming here. And I have also communicated with Green Mountain Power to simply obtain permission and use some of the materials that we prepared related to England. Thank you. Sure. Representative Nolan. My question is in regards to your last comment about section 248. Yes. And I'm not as familiar with that process, so if you can help me out in better understanding it. But as I understood 30 years ago or so when I was on the public commission service board, the 248 criterion worked to mirror the Act 250 criteria. And as I understood, I wasn't ever involved in those projects, but I think the intent was to integrate the Act 250 criteria, I can only assume the intent was to integrate the Act 250 criteria into 248 decision-making process to be able to have one body handling through their process decisions that would trigger the similar kind of evaluation using similar criteria. So when we're here trying to look at ways to bring Act 250 into the 21st century, so to speak, to give it a facelift, how would it in your mind work under 248? Because it would mean in my mind if we don't do anything under 248, the difference is going to result in a substantial potential difference between the criteria that haven't been updated that are still 30 plus years old in 248 process versus a new and improved Act 250 process. So I'm trying to grapple with your last comment in terms of trying to understand how we can best ensure predictability in the system when we're talking about development under both development types. So that might be more of a legal or a legislative drafting question than a technical question that I can answer, but I'll get my answer and then you can take it for what it's worth. Thank you. So you're correcting your understanding that there are Act 250 criteria that are incorporated in the section 248 review. So all the water-related criteria, soil erosion, the dangerous species, et cetera. And the reference in section 248 is to the criteria of Act 250. So it says section 6086A1 through 8. And so I guess what that would mean to me is that if the Act 250 criteria changed to whatever they changed to, and this didn't change in the 248, that it changes with them. I think that there are a couple of people who can help us, but that's what we've heard in the past. Greg? Yeah, no, I think that's accurate. The criteria that are referenced specifically in 248 are, to spend the record, well, I'm sorry, Greg Mobile, the National Resource Support. The criteria that are referenced specifically are 1 through 8 and 9K. So I think it's fair to say that if the criteria changed in Act 250, they're automatically, and those changes won't be incorporated into 248. Thank you. So I just wanted to say a couple of words about the climate change aspect that's available if the committee is considering. I guess, first of all, I would agree that this seems like to use Carey's representative, Dolan's term about the facelift. I think this is probably the right time to consider this, while Act 250 is being looked at comprehensively. I would note, however, that to some degree, some of the ANR agency programs that already exist, I think take the potential impacts of climate change into account. And there are other states that could speak to this as well, but the fact that ANR has a rule that addresses river corridors and the planning around river corridors considers potential extreme events that could occur over time. So I think there's been some thinking that we need to plan for the future and be prepared for changes that could occur, if not explicitly, somewhat implicitly. But I guess I also feel that there may be some additional opportunities. And I think one thing that would make sense for the committee to consider is some kind of an ANR-led stakeholder effort to really look at what exists currently that could address concerns about mitigation and adaptation for climate change and what some recommendations might be for future changes. I think right now, there's not enough kind of understanding in my mind at least about what's already out there and what other needs and opportunities there might be. So that would be my recommendation that there be some mistake or process to look at that. And I would say from my own experience having been involved in a number of those stakeholder processes that not everybody gets everything they wanted, but I feel that the informant have done a pretty good job with those. I've been involved with several of them, most notably with stormwater, several stormwater stakeholders over the years. And I think they've been very successful in modernizing, updating our stormwater rates, recognizing new technologies, new approaches, and also the need to improve what we're doing in terms of managing water quality. So my experience, getting a diverse group of stakeholders together and having people come to the table willing to work hard to make something happen is something that can happen and that we did a good track record of having that. So anyway, those are the items I wanted to cover and I'm happy to answer any additional questions that folks may have. I guess you first commented about A&R rules already, and I guess programs already take things into account, but you only mentioned recorders, and there are other examples that you want to bring to us? Well, I mean, I guess that's where I think the stakeholder group could be useful to really take that out. I mean, I guess like for another example, when you look at developing a water supply, you need to look at the long-term sustainable yield of an aquifer, and that would consider kind of the long-term availability of water based on the characteristics of recharge and so forth. So it doesn't explicitly say climate change, but the scientific methods that people use to evaluate well yield, for example, consider what's available for water and what the record is of groundwater and recharge. So that's the way I felt that kind of understanding what the processes and rates are that we have in place today, what they do to consider potential changes to the hydrologic system associated with future climate change, and then kind of building off of that as a starting point, and then using that to look at what might want to be done. Any other questions? No, I don't. We seem to suggest if there was a transfer of jurisdiction from 248 to 250, that something would be lost in that transfer, that 250 would be at the disadvantage of being behind in what's taken place and these kind of sightings and what's gone in to prepare for them. And I'm wondering, since most, if you're looking at basically the technical aspects of the job, or you also looking at the environmental ones. I would say both. Certainly technical in terms of understanding energy projects, whether they be electric projects, gas projects, renewable projects, but also looking at environmental considerations because obviously there's a certain universe of energy projects that we have in Vermont, whether they're transmission lines, whether they're solar projects and what have you, and there's between the PUC commissioners and the staff, there's a pretty deep well of knowledge and experience of how these kinds of projects get designed, what the potential impacts are, and then when you layer onto that, the collateral, the agency permits that have to be obtained, that I think it's a system that is very effective in protecting the environment. And as I said before, I feel in some ways it's more protective than active 50 because of the ability to look at things, for example, like habitat connectivity and fragmentation issues such as the king and queen. Well, let me ask you this then. Of the criticism that I have read in terms of the projects that have occurred, let's say in Lowell and Sheffield, the criticism hasn't been so much a technical as it has been environmentally. Suggesting that the environmental considerations are not given their due weight and to push these projects forward. So I'm thinking that the technical aspects are something that maybe PUC is better equipped to handle, but I'm not so willing to concede that active 50 would not have the upper leg when it came to trying to measure the impact that this project was having on the environment or what it would have. So since we were out in our middle committee, that's where my priority lies and I'm wondering how you square the two. Yeah, I guess, two thoughts. First of all, whether it's active 50 or section 248, I feel like that heavy lifting gets done outside of those processes. So with A&R permits and in the case of King and Min, there was a special monitoring requirement that became part of the swarm water permit because of the level spreaders that we use. So that would occur either way. And there are other examples of permits that like for example, with King and Min again, there was a water quality certification that required monitoring of all the streams on the mountain and to ensure that they were continuing to be water quality standards. So again, these permits are really, they're gonna be required of a project regardless of whether it's active 50 or section 248. And then I guess the second point is what I said before, just to be a long track record within the PUC of reviewing these projects. And I just don't see any basis for there being less environmental protection. I mean, it's the same active 50 criteria that are incorporated and with all the collateral permits and oftentimes, and I do a lot of active 50 work, the active 50 condition on wetlands, for example, will be get your state wetlands permit and you comply with the active 50 criteria. So they're not doing any separate review. They're basically saying get your agency permit, which you would do whether you had the 248 or active 50. I have a question. I'm wondering what you see the future of wind power in Vermont being. I guess my personal, well, I think that it is probably fairly unlikely that we're gonna see any more wind projects in the near term. I guess I'd be surprised if we were any. Why? It seems as though there's been quite a lot of opposition that exists and I just don't know. I mean, it seems as though that's... So you think it's social being in this one? I guess put it that way, yeah. Yeah, I don't see that technical issues would prevent this from wind projects in the currently. I feel very comfortable that the designs that were done with Sheffield, Deerfield, and Kingdom were protected with the environment, both from a water standpoint, haven't had a standpoint. So that's not the reason that I don't expect wind projects. I just, you're talking about social concerns, probably is what it is. Any last questions for Mr. Nelson before we let him know? Thank you so much for coming in. Sure, thanks for your kind. Thank you.