 So we're going to start with a quick ask of our counsel, Mr. Martin Parkland, who joins us at the table this week. And as we get started, just to review for the committee and for the room, so we have a recapitulated miniature sort of the asset review process in the last week for a lot of testimony about energy efficiency modernization. The week before, here in the fallen trip, we're looking at energy landscape. The idea is that based on what we've heard, the goal is to move forward with the idea that efficiency utilities in the Salomon could address increasingly in the next period of time, three years, is what's been proposed in the bill. Emissions related to thermal and transportation. So they've been doing some thermal work. And then as we heard sort of painfully repeatedly last week, that the largest area of emissions is one they've been unable to work in at all. So the idea is, how can we change that story? I'll also recognize that there's a full proceeding of the way of the PUC to deliver just such an all fuels energy efficiency program model for it and other answers next year. So based on what we heard last week, I asked you to draft this and we'll get an introduction, work on it as a group this week, take some more testimony. And I hope by Friday, because it is quite narrow and well-defined, that it will be ready to vote out committee vote. For the committee, committee votes go directly to the floor. So if you're off to notice, an affraction doesn't get referred to. So to ask the question. So is that just the process that's interesting to me? So it goes right to the floor. Does it go to another committee, unless it has something in there that is required to vote hand? You know, it's an interesting question. I'll have to go back to this. Does I can ask the Secretary Blum or just to see if I can. Yeah, so I checked the Secretary Blum generally. But I did ask him, had there been any appropriation of this? Maybe I'll set rule 41 or something like that. It wasn't automatically for all, which would make sense. But so we're not voting or we're not dealing with taxes or I think we're just currently in the floor. So with that, Mr. Martin, thank you. If you could walk us through the draft one of the draft four of the committee. Thank you very much, Louie Markland, Director of the Council, Chief Counsel General Assembly. I was asked today to do a quick walkthrough of this two page bill, based on the testimony from last week concerning Act 62. You have not seen it yet. That's why I have draft watermark on it and I'll walk through it and we'll read it line for line. But I'll try to paraphrase it for you. And as always, please interrupt a few questions. Can I start with a quick question? You remind me. So in terms of making this an official committee bill, what's the process there? What takes us from being in draft to having to be the first official committee bill draft? I was just doing this because members of the committee haven't seen it in his draft four, which just means that the sponsor and I were working through different versions over the weekend. So I wanted to explain that. That's why I put the watermark on it. The official committee would take it up, discuss, modify it as they think appropriate, and then vote on whether they would pass it out. I don't think I ever read the statement of purpose as introduced, but it's worthwhile taking a second to read it because everybody summarizes the purpose of this bill before I go to the language. And what the bill tries to do is, for a limited period of time, three years, allow energy efficiency utilities to use a portion of their budgets on programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the thermal and transportation sectors. So let's now look at the language in the actual bill. First of all, you notice the session law, not codified in the green books. Starting in line 14 on page one, it says notwithstanding any provision of law or order of the PUC to the contrary, for the calendar years, not fiscal years, but calendar years, 2021 through 23, an entity appointed by the PUC to provide electric energy efficiency and conservation programs and measures. There's a cross-reference. This basically means the energy efficiency utilities. Shall be authorized. So that's mandatory. Shall be authorized by the PUC to spend a portion of its annual resource acquisition budget on programs, measures, and services that shall. So as I stress, on line 18, it shall be authorized by the PUC. And it states a portion, but does not give a specific amount. Clipping to page two, here are the criteria. Number one, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the thermal, energy, or transportation sectors, or both. In other words, one of the programs, measures, and services could be specific to thermal, specific to transportation, or somehow cover both. Number two, result in the largest possible greenhouse gas emissions reductions in a cost-effective manner. In other words, biggest bang for the buck. Number three, demonstrate a clear nexus with electricity usage. And four, be complementary to and shall not be replaced or be in competition with. And this line basically means a tier of three programs under the RES, so the so-called energy transformation programs. Are there any questions about what have covered so far? Yes. How is clear defined? Because something that might be clear to me may not be clear to us. Clear is not defined clearly or unclearly. I mean, it's, you're right. It's common sense. It's not a defined term. Neither is nexus. So these are words that the community could use. They're different words, but it's a little bit of common sense. And remember, this is session law. We're not quite as exact in the drafting. So there's other words that are better. OK. You do it. B, this is, in essence, a carve out that applies to Burlington Electric. Because remember, Burlington Electric is both a utility and a efficiency utility, the DUNEU. Any funds spent on programs, measures, and services pursuant to this section by a retail electricity provider that the PUC has appointed an energy efficiency entity pursuant to when there's a cost for reference, shall not be counted towards a calculation of funds used by that retail electricity provider for energy transformation programs. What this basically says is that, if you remember, there is under 30 PSA 8005. There is language that the tier three programs, the energy transformation programs, shall cost the utility less than the applicable alternative compliance payment rate. And then later on, in the same statute, there's actually numbers for the alternative compliance rates, and the PUC has the ability to modify them. In essence, what this does is Burlington Electric's concern, I think, as they voiced in the committee last week, was that if they're engaging in additional programs, according to the session law, they do count the cost of those programs. They would put them above the alternative compliance rate, and they would therefore be penalized. And this applies only to Burlington Electric and prevents that. So that's really what this language does. Then finally, section two, the effective date. They actually take effect on passage and shall be repealed as of January 1, 2024. If you remember, this applied to calendar years 2021 through 2023, in other words, December 2023, is repealed as of January 1, 2024. And this language, perhaps a little redundant, just makes it very clear that this is a time limited three year. There are any questions for me? Thank you. Thank you. My team on the first page shall be offered with the PUC's sort of portion of its own research. And then will the PUC can set that portion? Or will the? That's a good question. I had read it as more that the programs would be suggested. And if they meet the criteria in page two, the PUC has to, shall prove them. Perhaps it could be read as PUC underrollable authorizing what portions that maybe some community wants to discuss. Yeah, well, thank you for that question. There are the portions. So conversations, I worked on in Blackville in the summer and fall, but at one point laid out sort of an allocation formula. The more I learned about the process, the more I concluded that there's a lot of sophisticated analysis behind deciding what kind of measure ought to be funded or not. And we have the department working in all the stakeholders that you use, but that you use all working at the PUC to have these conversations. And I felt like, OK, so let's stick with the well-defined process we have that's got so far. And we'll come on the PUC to figure out what the right proportions are. Because frankly, any member just said just a little more. At one point, I said, well, what if we get 5149? I think, well, what type of sense does that make? So let's rely on the process to deliver the best definition of what portion. The other thing is, because I think based on what the PUC said last week, proposing to only use EEC dollars that originated in EV charging, I think, was part of their proposal, that generates something in an order of $120,000 worth of EEC money currently, or last year. Does that such a small report on that seems to me like they're not charging ahead? It's a big progressive way. They're offering a very modest step, so it makes me feel as though they're going to take a cautious approach in determining what that comparable portion is. And then thirdly, I don't think, honestly, we could move too much money too quickly, because there are capacity things. How do you find the programs? What kind of personnel delivers them? Do we already have those resources? So the notion I have for myself, and we'll take testimony this week to flesh this out, is that we're asking analogy that comes to mind for me is almost all the weight in the efficiency utilities is in the right fit, meaning they're doing traditional electrical energy efficiency work. Talking about doing work in thermal transportation is sort of like putting weight into your left foot. Well, how fast do you shift weight from one foot to the other, and what's the balance at the end? This seems like the kind of thing that will evolve, and try to write any statute will be a bit on the clunky side. How will we know we have right numbers? Why not work with expert parties and stakeholders to figure that out in person and proceed? So that's why it's this portion and doesn't mean further portionings. Is there any camping? Mr. Chair, it's the three-year time period. I thought that was based on the report. Do you back? No. Well, so that's based on, right now, the energy efficiency utilities have filed for their next main resource plans for the period 21, 22, 23. And so it's matched to that next performance contract period. And the idea there was to define a period that made sense with the way they make their plans, get their budgets approved, and all the rest. Provide some longevity so that people know they can move into this area and make investments without having a room pulled out for underneath them only 12 months later, as I like that. But not make it permanent so that we know that, yeah, we want to actively monitor this and then participate in future years. And with further adjustments, I hope to get to the true comprehensive fall fuels energy efficiency program that acts 62 content lengths. The other questions about what this does or whether or not it's a good idea about what it does. I can't comment on this a good idea. So how would that be different from what happens if we don't do this? Council, there are certain things prescribed. If you don't do this, my understanding is that there could not use the money for the thermal and transportation sector, greenhouse gas, and emissions programs and services. So it allows them to spend money on stuff they couldn't otherwise spend. Who couldn't use them? The energy efficiency utilities, for example, the supermoder, Burlington Electric. And will we to endorse this, what will the money be used on? Well, there's criteria of age to, but beyond that, I couldn't comment. So the proposals would have to check all those boxes. But beyond that, I can't give you more specifics. So would the PUC decide in the interim what the money is used on? Well, the language is shell as opposed to may. So it says that basically if they come to PUC with a proposal and it checks those corporate theory or boxes on the top page too, PUC shall prove. So this is a nice question. Mr. Chair, last year, we broke our promise to pay this charge. And we did the eyes wide open and we were straightforward about it. And we said it was going to last 18 months. Money was stolen fair and square from my words, from the usual places that it went. It was done with the understanding that it would be used to do things like train people to get ready for the next step. It was used to move ahead and this global warming stuff. And it was all the things that it's being used for 18 months were stuff that's going to have to be done no matter what our solution is. It wasn't a risky thing. Can I check on that? So it had to be done. I think where we made new monies available was in weatherization. Into that slot. So it had to be done. I agree. I mean, that's part of the overall number of things we know we're going to take. And simultaneously, the transportation committee has been moving forward on trying to deal with the transportation side. I'm perhaps prejudiced. I've got my concerns with PUC that often comes in and doesn't tell us what they're going to do and we ask them what they're going to do and how they're working on stuff. And then we go home and we see the rules come out to do things that we didn't authorize. We get caught up in it and the public starts to make changes, et cetera. We should be making the changes. I think most of us are in support of this, what's saying, but the global solutions planning What are my climate change? What's the point of the question? Climate change? I signed on to the bill. What's the bill? We should ask you. Yes, I'm going to run the table what it's called. Are you doing global warming solutions act? Yes. You refer to upstairs, OK? Yeah. And what that does is it sets a timetable that nothing really has to happen for two or three years. And at that point, it's going to take a vote in the legislature to make it happen. But we've established a council that votes on what the plans will be. And the council is, that's our job to vote on what things should be and not put that out to people that aren't elected to do it and people whose interests are dictated by folks that live in other states and stockholders that are there, that it's about 22 or three people who are putting it out to them to do something that's going to, may or may not, take place in three years. I'd like to know what we're doing now other than authorizing the PUC to take money beyond the 18 months that we've taken from the elected great bear so that they can continue to take the elected great bear's money and use it as they see fit. Isn't that what this bill does? Yeah, so I, to respond to the council, so we all will have a fuller conversation about the global warming solution if the House sends something to open. But I'll say right from the outset, I agree that there are policy choices to be made on behalf of all the monitors. And I think the Vermont General Assembly is the place to make them. Not necessarily a council of people who aren't elected. So, but we'll get to that one later. So, to your point, I think what we're, I'm hoping we're doing here, my goal is to find a policy that our energy efficiency utilities shall take on work in all three sectors. We. And then, because that's what we're gonna hire, what we're gonna hire the efficiency Vermont to do in the future. We hire them, we tell them to do. I assume that probably be the ones that get the bid to do this because of their experience which we're bringing. But who knows, who would get hired today. So that, so I wanna keep these two threads separate. So for the final Act 52 report a year from now, that it is very clear that there may be new entities, existing entities, whoever, whoever, I don't know, who would, who the participants in all fuels energy efficiency the program is, that very specifically avoids the word utility. It says it's a program. Utilities will very likely participate, but it's not, it doesn't necessarily suggest that those who are already doing the work will do that program. In this case, we're saying, before we can do that bigger lift, let's take the current actors we already have working the space and allow them to do more work. And so that's where my goal to your point is to keep the policy decision, should efficiency utility be able to work in one sector or three, keep that in here and we're the ones to say we're all three. I think it's an excellent draft and it's put out before us some of the decisions we have to make and I believe in that spirit. Thank you for putting context with the other moving parts that made it more. I mean a lot of pieces going at the same time. The other thing is so, Luke, can you just, Mr. Martin, can you explain, when we put something in a session law, in this case it's a three year program. I'm looking, so is that the rationale for doing it there as opposed to putting it into the range of rules and is there a legal distinction between the impact of using session law versus writing in the general books? So session law is equally binding as opposed to codified law and green books are both law, they're both binding, neither has greater or lesser weight than the other. We put some provision in session law for time limited if it won't last for a long period of time or something. So this is an example of a three year in essence pilot project or temporary project be appropriate for session law. I think just one of the things that I wanna point out in terms of how this is set up is the criteria on page two, one through four are ended so that you have to be able to check all four boxes and those boxes were making notes last week while we're going through stuff. Those were the things that I thought I think this meeting was just one to see whether these are well expressed yet or not, we'll figure out this week. My goal is that we check back in with stakeholders here about those criteria, make sure that we are clear and center at this point and that we're being prescriptive enough at the policy level to maintain that responsibility which is ours, but the reason that it's being sent to the PUC is that again, I've done everything I saw in previous proceedings and in Acts 62 that it's the right form for taking in the amount of complex data from different stakeholders when we're working in through to come up with what kind of measure meets the floor criteria. And then to get back to portion, I figured that that too is the kind of analysis that we've seen the PUC do in the past. There's a tendency of balance that I might adopt between maintaining policy responsibilities here and then if the limitations, responsibilities and analytical responsibilities work in the PUC. Do we have the right balance item? I don't know. When you play the game of paper scissors rock, what's the balance? When, what's that question translated? It is when you're meeting the largest possible greenhouse gas emissions in paper, when you're doing it in cost effective manner it's to get the most greenhouse gases or whatever that scissors and when there's a clear nexus for electricity that's rock. So you've got three-legged Duncan, two nails. So I would say these are all rocks, they're all rocks. We make those decisions and we're giving them to the PUC for the next several years and whatever they do is gonna be what they think's best. After they have listened to the testimony from various lobbyists and special interests, that's our job. Once we have something in place that works in a certain way, we turn its future administration over to the PUC. That's our job and when we turn things over to the PUC and say do this and you're interested in rocks and I'm interested in scissors and you're interested in paper and they come out with what they come out with that becomes the law. But Mr. Chair, we should do that. So this is my frustration with this policy. We put it off into the future and then we give it away in statute to do things that in current statute. I'm wondering does it matter what Senator McDonald say? Because really the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the thermal and transportation sectors. So who cares if it's rock, paper, scissors? If that's the goal and things are reduced, it doesn't make any real, to me, it doesn't make a difference. The fuel dealers makes a difference to them. The automobile manufacturers makes a difference to them what this is thermal. It makes a lot of difference to a lot of people who need to come in and make their case and they're going in to make their case to the PUC pointed forward. It wasn't a point of this purpose. They're not coming in to make the case with us. And we're saying you guys make the case in there where the PUCs rules for take a test among them for doing a whole bunch of things. It's we represent the citizenry on what we ought to do. And sometimes we send it to them once we clear on what ought to happen. Sometimes we ask them to recommend to us what ought to happen and we endorse it. But in this case we're saying we don't know what should happen. You guys write it and put it into law for the next three years. So while we mess around with the, I can't remember if I'm going to change whatever initiative and work that out. Boy, that's a free ride for 180 people. Well, it's meeting a goal it's supposed to be. So I'm seeing him this morning saying I was going to be relaxed this week. Yeah, so far so good of people at this time. The, So this is a great, great, great idea. I would, you know, if I made another analogy, I would think that if we're saying we want housing, we want it to be adequately sized. We want it to be sanitary. We want it to be energy efficient. We want it to be well located. So I'll just elicit four criteria for a housing project. The fact that I didn't choose adequately sized and throw off the other ones overboard. It doesn't mean that I'm not expressing policy. The fact that we have four criteria to consider in making a decision doesn't, to me, suggest we've drawn our hands up or saying of the 50 things we could dream of, we've focused on four. And we're looking for a solution that can satisfy all four. So I don't see it as advocating. I see it as specifying, you know, this could be one very long, could be one, a very long one. And what would that say? Oh, there's only one thing we've made our decision. But I feel like right now, how do you, how do you talk about it? The question, chicken and egg problem, Mr. Chair. Not too many years ago, we had a chicken and egg problem with a 10 acre loophole. The way to solve the 10 acre loophole was to change the law and to do with septic systems and septic system designs. And we weren't able to get over that home. And we didn't give the department the authority to change septic systems because the representatives from Addison County screamed bloody murder because they got the correct clay. So we directed the administration to come up with a plan to change septic systems and how do we change the new law? And bring them to the legislature. They brought it to us and we endorsed them. But they were not allowed to implement them and start them before we endorsed them. And that was because people in Addison County were just thought that that was, damn it, they were gonna give that and it was a legislature's job to do it. It didn't work. We tried the same thing with solar a few years ago. We asked the PUC to come up and give us a bunch of rules to give us proposals on 15th of January. They didn't do it. They used the authority that we gave the PUC in the event that the legislature dawdled with the January 15th report and didn't implement it in time to get the rules in place. And we gave them the authority to do it by rule on the event that we dawdled. And they went and did it by rule and never gave us the report. I don't trust them. And they should, we're gonna endorse a recommendation. We do it. We don't say you go out and decide what's gonna happen and implement it. Well, okay, so I don't wanna get stuck here. That's why, yeah. There's four. Here, would you just, to satisfy where you're at, would you pick one of these and eliminate three? Is that? I'm very unfairness to what you're trying to do here. I'm prepared to listen more to how we solve the problem. Getting to things started today that we direct under our guidelines, knowing full well that the law that puts together a climate council and has 23 people in it who somehow have some voting or rights that will probably not result in concrete action for three years. If there are other events that we've done at the interim, open to listening for what we've done at the interim. Well, I'm all forget, I've been done in three years, that's for sure. Well, we've stolen, we've taken money for 18 months to come up with a plan of what we're gonna do. And I don't wanna farm it out to the PUC before we sign on. I don't wanna have that being implemented and have us go around to talk where constituents and throw play months to PUC did. PUC doesn't have to make an argument with the public that PUC doesn't have to justify what it does. We do. Well, but I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just not sensing that we're putting ourselves into that predicament. I mean, one other version that says it may already be covered in law. I don't know if there's a reporting requirement that says trust but verify. I've seen enough things go on. I've had a different experience than you've had with some of the proceedings. So, and especially as I listened to what we heard to hear from the Axics, the artisans last week and the filings they had that were much more lengthy and detailed this summer and fall. There's already a lot of work been brought forward. So, I'm myself, I'm sensing that it's a productive venue for us to work through. And as long as, and that I agree, we should provide sufficient guidance so that we're still owners of the policy. I work. Mr. Chair, you're, the Chair's committee and you are having yourself focused on a result that most of us here are in the embrace and we're, we're, you can see where it's at where we get there. Okay. So, let's move forward. Let's move forward. Yeah, great. So, all right, so in terms of this draft, we tomorrow, people are looking at our schedule where the department, so we had a PUC report on Act 62, but happily enough from, I think the legislature's point of view, two years ago, we started down the path to having annual energy report from the department. And they have a longer and more sophisticated description of what it includes. But for me, it's, I call it a low hanging group report in a way because it helps us look at what's going on in the market, energy across sectors and helps us see what's going and how that matches up to things like the compliance with energy plan. And the whole idea, when we requested it starting two or three sessions ago, was that rather than have legislators come in and have to start from scratch each year, how about have a report that would bring us up to date and let us see the most cost-effective measures that we already had and we might have new measures, we might change funding for existing measures, but it would give us a place of being well informed to work from it. So, we'll get that report tomorrow morning, but it also has an impact on these discussions about this draft bill, so there's a good access there as well. Meanwhile, I'd say no one's really had time to study this bill, think it through. So, I'd look at the people in the room, if you have anything you would like, I'm gonna ask everyone, all parties in the committee, to read the bill, think about it, have discussions coming starting tomorrow to be able to work through it. It is concise, it's only two pages. My goal is that by Friday, we'll have enough conversations, enough edits as a week, we'll feel comfortable moving to them. This thing by itself? Great. This thing by itself. You can do it. There's other things to do, but there's no reason to do, wait for everything else to show up. We can walk, to go, skip roads, and a couple other things at once. Great. Thank you. Thanks for taking the lead on this too. Okay. So, before we adjourn, anyone want to put a question on the table, sort of a first impression here, something that I would want everyone to think about before we adjourn? Otherwise, we'll, so let me pull out for you. Any takers? Senator Dowles, got something going for us? Anyone else? Okay. I'm a very happy group, although you're expressing it so super subtly. So with that, we are adjourned.