 Hello there and happy Earth Day from TownMeetingTV and welcome to this episode of Under the Dome which is TownMeetingTV's coverage of the Vermont Legislature. My name is Bobby Lucia and I'll be hosting this program. Today we're talking about the environment and climate and what the legislature has been up to on those issues. Fittingly on April 22nd here on Earth Day we're seeing what our legislature is up to with respect to our environment and natural resources. So we are joined today in this episode by Representative Gabrielle Stebbins on the House side as well as Senator Irene Renner. Thank you both so much for joining us. Thanks for having us. Great. Thanks so much. So maybe I'll just give you both a chance to introduce yourselves, what committee you serve on and how long you've been in the legislature and anything else you'd like to share in your intro and we'll start with you Senator Renner. Irene Renner I serve in the Senate Agriculture and Senate Institutions Committees. Institutions has to do with capital budget. Great. And Gabrielle Stebbins? So Representative Gabrielle Stebbins and I am part of Chittenden 13. There's another house rep that serves the south end of Burlington and I serve on the House Environment and Energy Committee. But I also do two other things related to sort of climate energy work. I'm co-chair of the Vermont Climate Solutions Caucus which is the largest issues-based caucus. We have 90 plus members and there are 180 representatives and senators in the building. And then I'm also co-chair of the Vermont Climate Workforce Coalition. So recognizing that in order for us to make many of the-much of the progress in the Global Warming Solutions Act we're going to need workers. So I've been working on that side of things as well. Great. Well again thank you both so much for joining us. So Vermont works on a two-year schedule right for the legislature and this is the second year. So I wanted to start by just sort of asking where what was accomplished, what was passed, what wasn't passed, sort of a recap of the first year of the biennium before we get into what you all are working on now. So just giving you both a quick chance to talk about what was worked on last year related to the environment and climate. Maybe we'll start with you Representative Stebbins there. Sure. So you know last year was the last year that we officially had federal dollars coming towards us as a result of COVID. And so a lot of the work that we did was setting aside millions of dollars for either clean water or for brownfields testing or for PCB remediation. So there's the whole part of the work that we did related to the budget. But in terms of policy you know we provided some support for organic dairy farmers. You might remember that probably better than I do but we had a small farm diversification one-year pilot program. In my committee in particular we spent a lot of time on an act that did pass that really brings stakeholders together to identify how we can conserve 30% of Vermont's land and waters by 2030 and 50% by 2050. And you know it's an interesting discussion to have because so much of Vermont is privately owned. So this cannot be you know from high up Montpelier coming down this has to be okay if you own all of this land where are you going with that? How do you imagine you know that land either going down being passed to your offspring or what not? And how might the state support you in conserving that in ways that could make sense for you and your family as well as the state? So that was a big one. It's currently in a lot of stakeholder discussions, conversations. We did also pass a household hazardous waste bill which no one will really notice because it's really about making sure that individual Vermonters don't pay for it and that rather the folks who are paying for it for our solid waste districts to take in these products that it's actual the manufacturers who are paying for it upstream but presumably you shouldn't see that too much. And then of course the Affordable Heat Act which is currently you know going through lots of discussions and stakeholder committees and comes back before the legislature next year. Okay so that was passed last year by the legislature and then was that that survived a veto? It did. Okay. Yeah. And then it but it comes back to the legislature for what? So typically and feel free to jump in if you want but typically the way the legislature is structured is that we would set up the policy and then we would pass it to whatever regulatory body has you know the economists, the engineers, the experts of that field to develop the regulations. And in this particular case because it is a unique policy in terms of how it's being applied the legislature said okay so we're going to pass this bill but then it's going to go over to the Public Utility Commission and you're going to define all the regulations and then you're going to bring the regulations back to the legislature to review, maybe make changes, pass, not pass, we'll see. But that's that's for next year's legislature. And the other thing that I didn't mention is every year we have a very large transportation bill which has many many components to it related to programs to help lower income, moderate income for Monters be able to spend less money on driving around programs related to bike and pedestrian safety that sort of thing. So I would mention that we started off last year with a PFAS bill about textiles and artificial turf. And I think that made its way to the house I don't know the current status of it but I think it's still in play. So I think that's environmentally important. We're finding PFAS everywhere drinking water soils and we're not all sure of the effects as we should be given how prevalent it is in the environment. So it's coming back to you. We just voted it through the house I think last week or maybe two weeks ago. That's great news. You'll be seeing it again. The end of the session is May 10. So things really are wrapping up quickly. Another bill that we passed last year was S 100 the home bill and to me that was a real environmental bill at its core because we had to figure out where are we going to put all these extra houses for people who want to live here but we don't have enough housing right now. And so I think we found out once the floods came that we couldn't just build in town towns because a lot of those downtowns flooded. And I believe there are bills working to sort of modify those specifications in S 100. Okay. So last year the legislature wrapped up and then that summer there were tremendous floods across the state that the legislature has since responded to. So maybe we'll start there in terms of this year's work in the legislature. What's the status of our state's flood recovery and what is the legislature done this session to support recovery from those floods? Want to start? Sure. So on the institutions committee we talk about the buildings that the state owns because there are approximately 240 of them and we were not allowed by FEMA to fix any of them permanently. So we have a lot of temporary electrical and heating and air conditioning units in them, which I don't know how cost effective that is, but that's what FEMA requires. Very recently we got word that FEMA is going to reimburse 22 million up the $26 million that we spent basically drying out those 17 buildings that were flooded. So as you can see it's a long recovery process and expensive one. But changes have to happen and eventually if the institutions, if I remain on institutions, I'll have a front row seat to seeing are we going to mothball some of those buildings going forward? Are we going to move up all the electrical and other facilities, all the controls to an upper floor, prime real estate, but you can't put it in the basement anymore knowing these floods are going to come on a regular basis. We can elevate buildings, like I said already, it's just a question of what do we do to make sure that next time we aren't hit with such huge costs and immobilized for months as we have been. So the floods were in July and then the FEMA funding just came through recently in the $22 million? Is that normal for it to take that long? I believe it is. Oh wow. Definitely. Okay. That's a bummer. Anything to add? Representative Stebbins on flood recovery work. Yeah. I mean, so one of the things that both bodies worked on was the Budget Adjustment Act. So just like any business, you know, you have your budget and then you recheck where you're at six months in and make appropriate adjustments. And so one of the items that had been in there from the House side was $22.5 million for flood impacted towns to essentially help with some of that impact. And we also passed Act 82, which basically allows the Vermont Department of Taxes to approve reimbursements to towns related to the Education Fund. And, you know, those are sort of the shorter term, you know, assistance. The bigger question per what Senator Renner was saying was so much of Vermont has been developed and is really integral to our river ecosystems. And so, you know, there is a question per what the Senator was saying about S-100. And, you know, from last year, where do we build? And how do we rebuild? And do we rebuild? And so a couple of the bills, S-213, which is currently in, actually we just voted it out on Thursday, related to river quarter management and wetland management. How do we entice people to preserve more wetlands rather than building them or develop them in some way? Also looking at dam safety and some other elements there to start the conversation of there's not going to be enough money in the world and certainly not in Vermont to keep continuing the way we're doing right now, which is a lot of our communities are built within towns. So how do we shore up those communities, sorry, are built along rivers, along waterways? How do we shore up that infrastructure? And per what the Senator was saying, when do we elevate it? When do we say, okay, we're going to prioritize funding over here, building over here in this other area? And so that's a lot of S-213. Yeah. And I think something that's related to the recovery from maybe not this flood, but future floods is a bill that's passed through the Senate, I believe, the Climate Superfund Act. So can you tell us maybe either of you about this act? I know it started in the Senate, but not in your committee, right, Senator Renner? But this is an act that had a lot of support in the Senate and could potentially play a big role in how the state funds recovery from future climate disasters. So my understanding is it's based on the Superfund Act, the idea that someone poisons your land or your air in the case of these oil companies, that those vendors are actually responsible for cleaning up. And I voted for it. I'm excited about it. I don't know how many years of court cases we're going to have to go through, how much litigation it will take to see any money, but there should be a large pot of money at the end of this, and we hope that that will help us with some of these remediations. Yeah. I mean, it's really based on the polluter pays model, which we have seen again and again and again as part of, you know, solid grounding for various court cases, that if a polluter knowingly continues to pollute, that there should be some accountability there. So that has just made its way through my committee. But it's interesting because it's first and foremost a judiciary bill. So it's a lot more related to court procedures and, you know, the precedents of the Superfund Act from many, many decades ago. And so this Superfund, so it would be fossil fuel companies that would be paying into the Superfund based on how much they've emitted, and then that fund would be used to support climate adaptation and recovery from climate disasters. Is that my idea? At high level. Okay. I mean, you know, there are all the steps of like agency of natural resources would do this to assess how, you know, what percentage of emissions came from where and what kind of impact that was. And then it brings in the state treasure office to determine what that financial impact is. So, yes, it gets into the details very, very quickly, but at a high level, that's generally. And is it emitters that are just based in Vermont or where could these possible contributors to the Superfund actually be based? No, generally these are very high, high upstream. They're not necessarily, you know, someone who's driving their car because technically, you know, if we drive vehicles with gasoline or heater homes with oil, we are all creating emissions as well. This is much more focused on higher upstream, the extraction and production of fossil fuels. So it's not so much like Vermont based companies per se. So not tracking emissions in Vermont. It's tracking emissions generally contributing to climate, you know, carbon in the atmosphere? It's tracking overall emissions and then correlating that to, you know, how the breakdown is of different companies in terms of how much sales they had of a certain product. And then there's a whole other component that looks at, okay, now Vermont specifically, what are the financial damages? So sort of making a connection between like if company A had, you know, was responsible for 25% of emissions, then out of X million damage in Vermont, 25% of that might go to company A for responsibility. Does that make sense? I think so, starting to wrap my head around it, right? And it is focused on these larger companies. I mean, is it, you know, if there's a company in Vermont that's emitting at a very small level, are they going to have to pay into this fund or is it really focused on the X on the BP? No, it's really focused on very high up extraction production companies. You know, not, I mean, I don't have too many extraction companies here in Vermont. Yeah, right. So, no, it's much more, you know, the global large companies. Okay. And then does that fund support decarbonization work or does it just support cleaning up and adapting to, you know, the next flood, the next heat wave? Yeah, so there is actually the, what it relates to is climate change adaptation projects. And it means a project designed to respond to, avoid, moderate repair or adapt to negative impacts caused by climate change and to assist human and natural communities, households and businesses in preparing for future climate change-driven disruptions. And there's a whole list of eligible projects that could receive support. But yes, generally it's climate adaptation. Right. So you are expecting, you're both expecting some litigation on this piece. Is that sort of that? I mean, that's what we're seeing in other places that are looking at this. And Vermont is, this would be the first in the nation, right? In the nation. But if you're looking at like other countries and what we're seeing from some of the media reports, it's, it would not be surprising. Right. Okay. So that's the Climate Superfund Act. And so that passed pretty, with a lot of support in the Senate, I recall, right? Yeah. Yeah. And do you expect a similar level of support in the House? Do you know, has the Governor weighed in on this bill? Do you expect a veto coming here? I don't know. I, you know, the vote out of our committee was 9-2. So it was, you know, we had nine Democrats, independents, progressives, support, and the two Republicans did not. So we'll have to see, we'll have to see how, how the conversation meanders through the 150 representatives in terms of, you know, where they land with their views on the policy. Okay. Okay. So that's the Climate Superfund Act. So we'll move on now to a pesticide bill that's gotten a lot of attention this, this session. And it's focused on neonicotinoids. Can I say that right? You did. Thank you. Well done. Shortened to neonics often. So this was a bill that started in the House. And these are pesticides that are used mostly on corn and soybean seeds, right? And it's at the sea. It's actually on the seeds themselves. It's on the seeds themselves. Okay. And it's been found to be really toxic to pollinators' bees, right? So, and I know this is, is this in your committee now, Senator? It was in, yes, it was in the agricultural committee in the Senate for quite a while. We've been exploring it the whole time, knowing it was coming over from the House. The House overwhelmingly supported it. And it's spent a long time. I didn't know if we're going to talk it to death or actually vote it out, but we did vote it out the other day. Some background on it is that not only are neonics attached to seeds to sort of start in the ground to kill off any pests that might attack the seed at that level, which is where we're told from farmers, is a big threat. And then some of the neonic ends up in the plant, in the pollen, et cetera. And that's where we worry about the bees. Although I was told 75% of pollinators nest underground. So having that pesticide in the soil and it is indeed persistent is a problem over time. In addition to using neonics on seeds, the House bill banned neonicotinoid use in turf applications such as golf courses that rely on it for at least an annual treatment to keep the grubs down. So the Senate version of the bill at the last minute removed that exception for golf courses or put, you know, took golf courses out of the ban, I should say. So we made an exception for turf uses, which was concerning to some folks. But the thing that caught me by surprise was that this bill was initially passed starting in 2029 as far as going into effect. As the bill left our committee, the date was changed to 2031, which is seven years away. And that's concerning to me because what we heard from beekeepers is they are losing between 30 and 85% of their hives each year. So I'm concerned we're not going to have any bees left if we have such a big buffer between when we pass this and when it actually goes into effect. And what we heard from seed companies was that we can expect a two-year turnaround. If they need to provide seeds to us that don't have a coating, they could do that within two years. So I understand that there were folks who wanted to see how New York's new ban, which goes into effect in 2029, works before ours goes into effect. But I think that we could have done that later on. We could have had ours, you know, start when New York starts. And in fact, there were a bunch of clauses added to our bill again on the last day before we voted it out that made our bill compatible with New York and in fact following New York's lead such that if New York changes their effective date or changes anything about the way they're going to put their ban in effect, Vermont would be following their lead. So I like Vermont to lead on some of these things. But it sounds like we're going to be following New York at least. And again, I worry about the pollinators. People are saying Neonix are today's DDT and some of those watchers who were alive in 1972 will remember when DDT was banned. It was a synthetic organic chemical that was very deadly. And Neonix are as well not just two bees and other pollinators but other insects. And in fact, someone testified the other day and mentioned that when you use Neonix you're killing the predators of the pests. So it may be somewhat self-defeating. Yes, you're killing the pests, but you're monkeying with nature in a way that may not be something that down the line we're very proud of. And indeed the bees are really suffering. And the U.S. is not the first country to consider bans on Neonix. Europe has done this. Canada, Ontario, both and Quebec have had bans in effect since 2019. They haven't seen a lot of difference in yields. So we did receive testimony from dairy farmers and people who are concerned that if they stop using Neonix treated seeds they will see a decrease in yield that will affect their bottom line. And I would hope not. And I would hope that the data from Canada would somewhat track with what we can expect to happen in Vermont. But there was a lot of concern that not having this tool-in-the-tool box would prove dangerous for their economic survival. So that was the debating committee. You know, do we choose the bees over the dairy farmers? And that's never pretty. We have to pick a winner and a loser. And so that's what's gone on. I was the one member who voted no on the bill as it was going out of committee because I was extremely concerned about the date and I wanted to draw attention to that fact that I think we're pushing this out way too far. Seven years from now. It's a long time. Yeah. Representative Stevens, what have you heard on this bill? I know it wasn't in your committee or it was in agriculture, but have you heard anything from your constituents about this bill or what's your thinking on this issue? You know, I think this issue just sort of clarifies how challenging things are because obviously we need farmers. We also need bees. So we're often in this place as legislators where we have to vote yes or no, black or white on something that's not a great answer, black or white. And, you know, frankly, it's why I think we're seeing more and more effort by legislators to have caucuses and to have, you know, discussions outside of the building with stakeholders to figure out how do we move the needle more quickly to support dairy farmers and bees? Because ultimately we have to vote yes or no. And yet, you know, it's really kind of a moot conversation if we're having to choose between farmers or bees. Like that is not a sustainable choice to move forward on. So for me, it's more of a really good example of how challenging this can be. I'll also say, though, you know, after a bill has left the House and gone to the Senate and then come back to the House or vice versa, Senate to House to Senate, you know, maybe we'll see this go to conference committee and maybe we'll see them, you know, push on the date. I don't, I will see. I don't, I don't, the House is not, at least my committee, hasn't been following exactly what just happened in the Senate on this. Did you guys just vote it out? Just did. Okay. And all these changes were announced on Thursday and it was not even on the agenda that there was a planned vote, to my knowledge. So it kind of happened quickly. Got it. Probably more discussion will occur, is my guess. Okay. And so that's been a big one this session. Lots of activism, as you may know, right? Yeah, there's been a lot of activity in the State House. Yeah, absolutely. These are beautiful and charismatic creatures. So they have a big fan club. And then also, you know, pollinate all of our food. Exactly. There is that. Yes. I could tell you that we had one. Dr. Samantha Alger said that there was a service value of global bee populations somewhere north of $273 billion is the service that bees provide to us. Right. So, yeah, and they're unreplaceable. And what I should also add is that we are looking at colony collapse, mostly among people who are managing bees, the beekeepers. But there are wild bees out there and we don't have as good a read. There were some statistics provided, but not as good a read of how they're being affected by neonics. And that's concerning to me as well. Did either of you hear from any farmers that were in support of this bill or sort of identified any alternatives to alternative treatments or ways to protect their yield? Or was it a pretty grim outlook from farmers across the board on this bill? Well, integrated pest management is one way to reduce the amount of pesticides that are being used. And so orchards have worked really hard to do that because they're among the users of neonics and under this bill they would still be able to use neonicotinoid sprays but not when the trees are in bloom. So there are restrictions on their use of them, but they are still accepted because we don't have a good alternative. They don't have a good alternative right now to keeping their fruit looking the way consumers want it to look. And so there's plenty of neonics to still go around even if this bill takes place. It's just we're trying to rein it in and experiment with can we use other things and can we at least start with the seeds that are leaving so much poison in the soil. But also some of the coating flakes off as the mechanized planting happens in the fields. And so it's been proven that this neonic powder and the talc and other things that are holding into the seed come off in the process, get in the air and end up on other people's crops and other people's flowers. So it's not all going into the soil, which is also problematic. You said integrated pest management? Yeah, that's examining and using pesticides really carefully in, you probably know this, but I do, in conjunction with like weather forecast and you don't treat a pest to actually see the pest, you don't just go in and start spraying like, oh, it seems like it's time for us to spray for such and such. Is my impression, I haven't done an integrated pest management as a farmer, but maybe you have. No, no. In fact, I am not, I have my garden, but I probably would not survive if I had to eat my own food only. But to your question about, you know, did we hear from farmers in support? Many, many, many farmers in support. And Representative Rice, who presented this bill on the house floor, you know, even, you know, provided some quotes of different farmers who said, this is just so critical. And without a doubt, we need to move forward with this. You know, besides my writ large comment about black and white and having to make a black and white vote on something that's often gray, I think the hardest challenge is that a lot of the bills that come to us are, you know, they ask for short-term challenges amongst various vermonters, whomever it may be, in this case it's dairy farmers, for a long-term benefit. And, you know, I think that's the challenge where we know that we need to do something. We do not have a sustainable community of people and animals if we don't have bees. And yet the short-term impact is felt so acutely that there is a request to push off, you know, addressing that short-term impact even though we know that it's just going to get worse as we move down. And I think that's a huge lesson for Earth Day. You know, I mean, we've known since, I mean, going back to the Superfund Act, some of the testimony we heard was that the first time a scientist went before, I think the American Petroleum Association, was in 1955 saying, hey, the burning of fossil fuels has this impact in 1955. And it was really Hanson in the 80s that I think it started to get a lot more traction. And then the 90s with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And here we are in 2024 still pretty much nibbling around the edges. And it's, we've got to stop, you know, kicking the can down the road because the road's not that long. It's like we're just kicking it around and it's just going to make things harder and harder and harder. We're speaking with Representative Gabrielle Stemmins and Senator Irene Renner on Earth Day today about the work of the legislature on climate and the environment and energy reminder that you can call in if you're just getting off work and ask your representative, your legislators about what they're up to and what we're talking about. 8028623966 is the number. We'll be here for another little less than 30 minutes or so. Now, I think you mentioned the climate, work on climate in the legislature. Maybe we'll turn to the Renewable Energy Standard Bill. And I don't actually totally know what the status of this bill is. Maybe Representative Stemmins, you can fill us in here. But this is one of the bills that the legislature has been looking at this session that's focused on reducing emissions. Is that right? Yeah. And I guess, you know, the other sort of interesting thing to think about in the world of climate change is, I would say, up until maybe just 10 years ago or maybe even just five years ago, the real focus was on reducing emissions. And now we know with the floods of July and August and Irene, not you, Irene. Sorry. And, you know, smoke from Canada wildfires and droughts and hail storms in May that decimated a lot of apple trees down south last year. We know that it's not just reducing emissions, it's also adaptation. So, you know, the Renewable Energy Standard is very much focused on the reducing of emissions side. 2015 was when Vermont passed our first Renewable Energy Standard and it set a goal that was not 100% Renewable Energy Standard by 2030-2032. So, this bill was really the product of a working group of all of the various utilities of Vermont. For folks who don't know, we have our largest electric utility is Green Mountain Power and it serves 70-80% of Vermonters. We then have a couple of cooperatives, Vermont Electric and Washington Electric Cooperative. And then we have some municipal utilities like Burlington Electric, which I chaired that commission for a number of years. And then we have many, many other utilities that like Stowe Electric but many others that sort of work together when it comes to legislation and regulation under a group called Vipsa, Vermont Public Power Supply Authority, I think. But VPPSA. And anyway, a lot of these utilities, unlike other states, we are still not a choice, a retail choice state. If you live in a certain place, you will be provided your electricity by whomever provides that territory. In other states, there was this whole process of deregulation over the last couple of decades so that no matter where you lived, you could choose to get your electricity from a different provider. And what this means is because our electric utilities have a monopoly both on the infrastructure as well as serving their customers. They are regulated by the Public Utility Commission. And I mention that because what that means is every three years each one of these utilities has to put forth an integrated resource plan. They basically have to step back and say every three years, they say, okay, looking forward in the next 20 years, how much electricity do we think we're going to need for our customers' needs, where we think we're going to get it, where are the risks, you know, if customers have, you know, a very high need or a low need or a business as usual need, how are we going to prepare for all of that? And I mention this because a lot of our utilities are already locked in to various energy contracts. And so going back to the REZ, House Bill 289, the reason why it was important to have the utilities actually come together this past or last summer and fall was to have them identify within Green Mountain Power or within Burlington Electric or within Vermont Electric Cooperative, how much power did they see their customers needing as they transition towards greater renewables and how does that relate to the current contracts they have or the current power plants that they might own. And so H-289 is really uniquely tailored to where exactly each of those utilities is currently. So that making that transition to 100% renewables in 2030 or 2032 or 2035 is affordable and doable for Vermonters. If it had been a one-size-fit-all for the state of Vermont, I don't think it would have worked in terms of affordability, but because each utility could come to, you know, that discussion of where are we at now? What have we planned for? How best could we get to 100% renewable and in what timeframe? That's how they ended up getting to a place where each of those utilities will be able to go before their regulator every three years and say, here's where we're going and, you know, we can prudently say we can make these additional investments in renewables. Where are we at now, you know, across the state in terms of what percentage of electricity is being sourced renewably? I should have my chart. I can't tell you offhand. First of all, it depends on the utility. You know, we have a Burlington Electric that is 100% renewably sourced. We have other Washington Electric is at 100% with their Coventry landfill. So it depends. And there are other smaller utilities that are 100% because they have, you know, a very historic, long-standing hydroelectric dam. So it depends on the utility. It also depends on how they participate in the trading of renewable energy credits in the New England marketplace. So it really does depend. Do you have a ballpark? I should. Are we a quarter of the way? You know, if it weren't six weeks ago that we were looking at the res, I would have it. I should. I'm embarrassed to say I do not off the tip of my tongue. That's okay. And then just a last question here. Well, I guess Senator Renner, I want to give you a chance to chime in. So did this pass the House? And is it in this? Yes. Okay, so it's over in the Senate side. It's in the Senate and I think Senate natural is still discussing taking testimony. I don't think it's left Senate natural yet. Have you heard anything from your constituents or are you thinking about this bill yet or it's not? I know Lobbyist approached me at five o'clock on Friday. It's really just getting into my radar. Okay, okay, gotcha. And the term renewable, does that mean, what does that mean, renewable energy? So I think the easiest way for me to answer that is by the type that is typically allowable here in Vermont, which is wind, solar, hydroelectric. Nuclear is not considered part of it. Also, various forms of biomass. And that's one of the things in this renewable energy standard is say, okay, we have two existing biomass electric plants. We recognize that that technology from the 80s is not as efficient as other options and it does create emissions. So there will be no further biomass electric plants in Vermont. So that's in this REZ is to say no further. There's a ban on future plants of that type. A ban on building more. Yes. So would it still allow for the McNeil plant to continue? Yes. But there are details within that, but yes. Okay. Would it change the way that, is McNeil going to change the way that it operates based on this bill at all in the next 10 years? McNeil has been changing the way it operates for probably since it was originally constructed. And part of that is from state requirements. Part of that is air quality requirements. Some of that is also to meet renewable energy requirements in other states. So they've added scrubbers to improve emissions and et cetera from that. You know, you asked me, so the reason why I didn't quite answer your question on how is renewable to find, it sort of depends on where you look in statute, but typically it relates to the harvest rate that basically something can regenerate more quickly than it's being harvested, something along those lines. But the actual definition is a little bit tricky. Yeah. Well, in Burlington, there is this conversation about McNeil and whether it's actually renewable. What are you hearing from your constituents about that and how are you thinking about biomass as playing a role in, will we be able to successfully reach a statewide net zero or 100% renewable? Will we be able to get where we need to be emissions-wise with the continued operation of the McNeil plant? Yeah. Well, that's the definition. I mean, you used it of net zero, right? So, you know, in some place, if you're still emitting like from a biomass plant, then you would have to have additional clean energy credits somehow else to net that out. You know, I look at the use of McNeil from a lens of but for, like, what else would we be doing? And, you know, I have some constituents who really deeply disagree and are very troubled with the fact that I personally feel that closing down McNeil tomorrow or next year so that we end up just buying spot market energy from the region's natural gas supply, which is fracked elsewhere, is I don't know how that gets us farther because really right now, unless we start saying yes to larger-scale wind or unless we, you know, if it's offshore or nearby, we've got to start saying yes if we want to keep using electricity. And so I ask my constituents, will you say yes to all of these other options, you know, at the same level that you're saying no to McNeil? Because yes, it's not as efficient as other options and yes, it emits. But if you shut that down, we're just buying fracked gas from the spot market in the region. And that to me is not, that's not a, that's not necessarily a win. Do you think that we should be on a path to eventually, should it be a goal for McNeil in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years to not exist? Or do you think it's always, do you see it as always being a part of the energy mix here? I don't know. I think it really depends on like writ large where we go with our other energy policies. Like how good, how much more efficient can we be with how we're heating? Are we going to see more larger-scale wind offshore or nearby? Because if we don't actually pick up those other renewable energy options, then we're kind of, you know, throwing out more eggs from the basket without replenishing the basket. So I think I'd say I'd want to keep watching how the market evolves. Senator Renner, anything to add on the McNeil plant, the sticky wicket there? Anything else about renewable energy before we move on? I think there's been a question about the price tag. How much will this increase electric cost for consumers originally? There was a $1 billion price tag that's been reduced in recent months. So I think that's where my constituents in Chittenden North sit. They really don't want a carbon tax. They just don't want to have to pay any more money because they feel like living in Vermont is unsustainable already and they just face education tax increases and they're just seeing right ahead of them down the road the clean heat standard and now the renewable energy standard and they're worried. Yeah, you know, the $1 billion price tag was exactly what I was talking about before, which was a one-size-fits-all for the state of Vermont. So remember, I made that whole long, why it was so important to have like the 18 some odd utilities that make up Vermont come up with what makes sense for them. And so that was part of that initial analysis. It was, okay, if we just make all the utilities do this one approach that doesn't reflect the fact that some of the utilities are already at 100%. And some of the utilities have long-term contracts. So that's why there is such a big difference because the final estimate from joint fiscal came down of a range between $150 million to $450 million over the next 10 years. And that is also concerning. Again, I look at it from a broader market perspective of, I mean, have we seen energy costs go down? What we have seen is that when we, every three years, have a 20-year plan and we're really digging into the numbers, we're able to make sure that any potential increases are as affordable and as limited as possible. And so for me, it's actually more scary to not have a plan and to be like, okay, well, let's just, you know, I think when you lock in to fuel sources that don't have an ongoing price tag like the sun or wind and you do it smartly, then that's how you actually create a more affordable plan. Great. We've got maybe 15 or so minutes left and I want to, well, I want to ask, I want it to be quick, but it probably won't be. The Global Warming Solutions Act was passed a few years ago and that mandated the state to make emissions reductions. And so either of you have an update on, are we going to meet those goals and if we don't, what's the consequence? What happens if we don't actually meet those emissions reductions? I think it was the first goal, 2025? Or was it later than that? I think it was 25. Yeah, so how are we doing with that progress? I don't think we're coming close to meeting it and in fact, last year I sent a bill to the Senate Natural Resources Committee asking them to push the dates out because there was talk about a lawsuit and I thought the last thing we need to do is, as a legislature, is keep a date on the books that is obviously not going to be met and invite lawsuits when, again, it's so unaffordable already for some people to live in Vermont. The idea of a lawsuit coming down on us when we could push the dates out five years or 10 years on each of those benchmarks seemed to me like a sensible thing to do but the bill went nowhere. So that was my attempt to sort of right-size our expectations because we could see we were not on track for these goals which I think were ambitious at the time. But, you know, again, if you don't set a high goal, you're never going to come close to meeting any goal. So I have no problem with setting a target. I just think that we have to be realistic about it. And on that note, the Global Warming Solutions Act, I had a question and it's escaped me. Do you have any further thoughts about this? Yeah, I guess it just gets back to how do we want to approach this challenge? We know it's coming. We know we're going to have more flooding. We know we're going to have more unexpected storms that impact farmers or ski resorts or tourism. And so how are we going to look at all of these challenges that we've talked about in the face squarely and make plans for it? And for me, it just goes back to just a firm belief that kicking the can down the road is not an option. And I think it's why it's so important. You know, one of the things that we've heard a lot of testimony about, and actually today a bunch of announcements were just released by the Environmental Protection Act with regards to Solar for All. And Vermont was awarded 62 million. I'm not sure how much I should have looked that up again. But several states went into get funding. And so I think with the Inflation Reduction Act from a couple of years ago, really setting up the programs and the policies in Vermont so that the Vermonters that are struggling to pay their bills are able to leverage those federal funds is really critical. One of the things that I didn't mention, there's a S-305 just got out of my committee. It's called the Miscellaneous Public Utility Commission Bill. It's just a very juicy name. But in it, we do have language that asks the Public Utility Commission to bring stakeholders together, kind of like we did with the Renewable Energy Standard, to do a big picture look at total energy costs and how do we make sure that we're keeping them as stable as possible. So if you look at the costs that a Vermonter spend to drive to work, to heat their home, and to power their home, when you look at those total energy costs, how do we make sure it's as affordable as possible as we shift away from fossil fuels towards renewables? Because again, the hard part is that upfront cost. But once you have made that shift towards electrification, the costs are typically much more stable than what you see over the last two, five, ten years in terms of, at least for me, like heating with oil. I did remember that question, which you mentioned, Senator Renner, a lawsuit. So what does that actually look like? Who would be suing the state in the event that we don't meet these goals? It remains to be seen. Is it kind of anyone could sue the state? Anyone could sue the state for us missing that deadline. And then win a settlement? How would that work? Well, the language is, if I recall correctly, the language does clarify that if the state is making a good faith effort, something along those lines, it is that it wouldn't necessarily be held accountable. It's more that if we have not seen the state move forward with various policies or programs, and if it appears as though the state is not trying to make a good faith effort, that's where you could see someone choose to file a lawsuit. So we only have five minutes left, and we have just the brief and simple topic of Act 250 together in those five minutes. Brief and simple. Yeah, just a quick little add-on at the end here. So there are some pretty big changes to Act 250. Coming to Act 250 is Vermont's land use and development system that regulates how and how development is reviewed, and environmental regulations are upheld in development planning. And I wonder, so this is the H687 started in the house, maybe representative sevens. Can you just talk a little bit about what changes might be coming down the pike for development in Vermont? Sure. Well, for starters, I think it's helpful to know that this conversation has been going on for like eight years. I think we've had three Act 250 reform bills come before the House and the Senate. And, you know, the Act 250 is 50 years old. There are a few key pieces to keep in mind. Right now, the Natural Resources Board and district coordinators, they basically start to do an environmental review based off of the size of a project and not necessarily the location of a project. And so, first and foremost, this really tries to focus on not necessarily the size but the location. I mean, do you have to go through a full Act 250 process if you're building where everything's already been built up, but it's just because you're a certain size? Or should we really be focusing on making sure that if someone wants to build something right along a river's edge that ends up being flooded, maybe that, even though it might not trigger the size requirement, maybe that is what we should be reviewing. So it really tries to align when we review something. That's a huge piece to shift to location-based jurisdiction, so where you're building it. But the bill really does three things. The first 40, 50 pages actually just out as it left my committee focuses on reforming the Natural Resources Board so that it's a professional board. Right now, it's not. And to be making these challenging judgment calls and really filtering through all of the environmental criteria, et cetera, it makes sense to actually have a professionalized board. So it has several board structure changes. The middle part, related to that location-based instead of size, it basically says communities can work with their regional planning commissions, their RPCs, to be an Act 250, sorry, and the Natural Resources Board, to either be a Tier 1, which is our very densest, you know, Montpelier, Burlington, Wenuski, Brattleboro, St. John'sbury, like a Tier 1 town where they might already be doing the bulk of Act 250 themselves. So why are we duplicating efforts? So that would be Tier 1A. Tier 1B is a whole bunch of, like, not quite, you know, Wenuski or Burlington or South Burlington, but has infrastructure in place, has staff. So Tier 1B, figuring out what that alternative permit process would be, so that it would be more streamlined and more consistent across the state. Tier 2 brings, well, I'll skip to Tier 3, which is the rarest and most critical areas within the state that have, like, national statewide significance for protection. For environmental protection, you mean? Yeah, for the most part. I mean, I think of, like, Camelshump or, like, a really unique ecosystem where there's this only one rare state mushroom or whatever the case may be since we didn't get to that bill. But Tier 3 has a whole stakeholder process to bring landowners to the table to talk through how do we identify Tier 3, looking at the science and then also looking at, again, going back to the very beginning, the vast majority of this land is privately owned. And then Tier 2 is sort of the land in between. And that has a stakeholder as well as an agency of natural resources process to figure out how that's defined and then what the regulations would be. And then the third part of the bill is supposed to make all of the support and money that the agency of commerce and community development can help communities develop if it's technical assistance or funds, that those programs from ACCD are more accessible so that communities, even really small towns, can actually, you know, get support to look at whatever they might be looking at within their own local planning process. Okay, so focusing more on location rather than size, yeah. Yes, and then the other pieces, now it's in the Senate side where they took a housing bill from Senate Economic Development and are looking at how to combine those housing bill pieces in a way that makes sense with all of the Act 250 reform community planning pieces that came over from the House. Senator Renner on the Senate side, anything to add? I haven't seen it yet. I haven't seen it yet. Looking forward to it. Okay, it's coming in. And the governor says that this would make it harder to build housing in some places. Is that true? Would that be an impact of this? I mean, I would say that this bill is really supposed to make it easier to build housing. That, you know, towns literally have to raise their hand and tell the RPC that they want to be, you know, a certain status, a certain tier. And then if they have water or sewer or soils that can handle wastewater, and if they're able to contract to their RPC for support they can be that town and then they can do up to 50 units of housing. So I would disagree writ large. It's really supposed to say, hey, you know, if we know we want housing in communities and we know we need to do it smartly, that this bill tries to do that. The one piece that I'll say is that tier three, I mean, there are certain rare places in Vermont that I think most people might agree we shouldn't build housing and that could be hypothetically where it could be harder. Right. Okay, so much going on in the legislature relating to environment and energy. On Earth Day it's been so nice to chat with you both, Senator Irene Renner and Representative Gabrielle Stebbins. Thank you both so much for joining. And we didn't even get to the state mushroom, but yeah, next time. I mean, that's a short one. Senator Renner, do you want to just share maybe after a little drum roll what our new state mushroom is? It's the Bear's Head Tooth Mushroom. There you go. We can Google it. Thank you. And a bunch of Vermont students really work towards it. It's delightful. Yeah, it's a neat example of... Civics and science. Yeah, civics and science and having Vermonters understand just how close they are and can be to policy. That's awesome. Great. Well, thank you both for joining us and thank you for tuning in. And Happy Earth Day from everyone here at Town Meeting TV. You can find this episode of Under the Dome and many more on cctv.org. Thanks so much.