 All right. Good morning and welcome to the House Environment Energy Committee this morning. We are going to be continuing testimony on age 687. An act relating to community resilience and biodiversity protection through land use and we are going to hear first from Tim Taylor who's joining us by zoom. Welcome back. Mr Taylor. Thank you for having me back. So just for that, I'm very happy to be here today. I'm very sorry. I'm here by zoom. Not only weather wise but strep wise of all things. Can you imagine 72 year old man with strep but I guess that's been going around. Anyhow, for those of you who don't remember me or don't know me. I'm Tim Taylor and I'm a retired vegetable farmer. My wife and I started Crossroad Farm 43 years ago. Here in post mills in the town of Fedford. And we recently sold it to a former partner and a young man who's actually only 37 years old. So we're very excited about that. And then additionally for 12 years I was chair of the district three environmental commission, which comprises many towns in Windsor County, Orange County and believe it or not two little towns in in Addison County Granville and Hancock population wise it varies from almost 11,000 in Hartford to about 300 in Granville. I served on the town of DRB development review board in Fedford for 20 years and, and most recently for the last five or 10 as chair. And finally, I actually went to Vermont law school and graduated 1978. Also failed the bar twice it, but I did pass New Hampshire. So it's nice to laugh about these things. I worked for brown out Jonathan Brown L I clerked for him, and he was one of the drafters of act 250. And the farm largely exists because of act 250 but that's, that's a story for another day. I'm extremely extremely excited to be here, because so many times I've made an appearance it's been to criticize something and to be upset about something. And this piece of legislation as drafted is just magnificent I think now I'm not any expert as you can tell. I think chair Sheldon in and representative bond guards and any others who participate in this done a wonderful job of balancing the need for exemption in our plan growth areas and, and, and a robust review and scrutiny and critical resource areas. So I'm a big fan. And I hope the Senate gets on board and seriously looks at this. I think there's, you know, really to two foundation blocks of this piece of legislation, and one of them is planning and planning has been something that has been missing. And as I think you all know from act 250 from almost its inception. And I think with planning, we actually could see a reduction in cases that are contested and, and that's perhaps because you know, a picture being 1000 words, an applicant will go on a map proposed development will be, and hopefully we'll have some clear idea of what exactly is expected to occur in that area. So many times as chair and in, in, in, we issued over 400 permits in that period of time and so many times I can't tell you how frustrated we would be. I'm going to mention by the way anytime you want to interrupt me because it'd be cool if this was kind of a dialogue, but we would get frustrated so often because we go, Oh, if they only planned this out a little more and thought a little more about it we wouldn't be here. So I'm very excited about that building block and the other part of the building block I think and foundation is is this enhanced or new professional board the ERB the environmental review board. So it's principal roles would be reviewing, legislating and supporting. Legislating, I guess would be more called rulemaking. But I think, I think these are the foundation blocks of this and of this piece of legislation and going forward to, you know, a robust revival and new act 250. Without them, I think, I think this the without these anchors I think things will fail and not work too well. I like to call this location resource based jurisdiction, primarily because what you're doing for the first time is taking a piece of land and seeing where it's located, and then examine what the resources it possesses. And that's, that's very exciting to me we're doing that in our own town in our own way now with with some mapping and that kind of thing. So getting into the weeds a little bit. The definitions of that that you have of connecting habitat for force block fragmentation habit. Habitat critical resource area we're working lands and clear. I think a very clear and succinct. In fact, if I were chairing a, and a hearing and you know, and involved in that issue a day issue. I think I would be able to understand from the way it's presently drafted, what was expected of us to do and look at, I think it, it directs us, you know, the only question I really have is this mitigation question reference, referencing 6094 I couldn't find that where in, in the statutes, I found 6093 which has to do with mitigation of prime agricultural soils. But it follows sort of a similar step by step process that we would use with prime agricultural soils as well. The resource mapping, I think that, again, a picture is worth 1000 words I think that's excellent and very needed, and excited to see that. I wanted to make an old plea for something that's very near and dear to my heart, which is, and I know it's somewhat beyond the scope of this but I think it's time to mandate. I think that there are a lot of towns with without zoning and sub subdivision regulations to acquire them and give them a date certain to promulgate them. I will remind you all that 47% of the towns or 125 towns do not have planning subdivision regulations, and wouldn't it be wonderful if we stopped having to make this 10 acre one acre distinction and just all towns were in the same boat. And we start off so that's just something to keep in the back of your minds. It just, it seems necessary our towns had zoning and subject, subdivision regulations since 1972. And we've revised them a number of times. I very much like what I now call the 500 foot rule. This is the 500 foot rule that you have. And it's, you know, it recognizes the importance of our critical resource areas, especially the prime agricultural soils in the rural working lands areas. Very, very exciting to me. I call this tier two with teeth. I think it's well thought out. If you, you put a any kind of marker like a distance say, you know, in this case 500 feet from the road, you're going to run into issues probably in questions and, and things might not be quite as smooth as they first appear. And I think, as I'm about to mention if the towns are included in this process. It could be viable. I don't really like the four lot rule for subdivision. And the reason for that is let's say I am a, I am a retired farmer. So let's say I have a nice 40 or 50 acre piece of land and I need some money to retire with because, well, in fact we did conserve our land and, and we're fine. And the reason I said, the point I'm trying to make is you could take your 40 acre piece and have 10 lots 10 half acre lots, clustered off by the side of the woods, and trigger act 250. You would at four actually, right. On the other hand, the, you would not trigger act 250 if you subdivided the those lots into 10 lots of say 13.33 acres. And that to me would be more impactful because chances are that are going to be sold to folks who are going to pop a house down and take it out of farming altogether. So I think you should give some consideration to that one way might be to rephrase it to look at in the rural working lands areas, based upon the maps that if five acres or more were involved, then a potential opinion would have to be drafted into to examine the proposed project to see, you know, what kind of impacts it might have, not to similar to what's done today with involved land and that kind of thing. So that's just a thought there. I mean, the key, the key to much of this and what I see is the quid pro quo between those of us who are concerned about our, our resource areas is this playing growth area which I also think is good don't get me wrong. And so I think that exemption for the larger municipalities and those that are capable of, of meeting the requirements in the playing growth area designation structure that you've, you're proposing is excellent. So I do want to make you understand that towns are always right and BNM realty is an excellent example of that. That was exit one where Scott Milne had proposed to have a rather large development. It was the planning, it met the local town plan requirements and approval with a town, but the regional plan it violated that. It went to E court, we were overturned, it went to the Supreme Court, and they appealed us essentially. So, while they don't always get it right, I still think, you know, generally speaking, Hartford does an excellent job. One other caveat about exemption in these growth areas is something that I think you're probably aware of but with exemption. There's always that carrot in act 250 of if you want to build priority housing projects, then you will be exempt from act 250 Hartford's another example of that right now, where the project a 30 unit project was built along Sykes Avenue. And presently, Simpson construction is proposing 250 units approximately of which about 200 will be market rate studio apartments and 50 of those other units will be will fall into PHP's priority housing. So with that exemption, would we, I think the law should have in perhaps in this area plan growth that you have would have something that would require the developer if they were to get this exemption also to have some kind of prior priority housing component. One of the worries I have with so many of these exemptions is that there isn't, there's this loss of incentive if, if it's so erroneous to go through act 250, then that carrot was was helpful and I think, you know, Godzilla can speak to that ever north can speak to that seller buyer, you know, some of these other folks that know more about it than I do but I think you need to have something there to incentivize still affordable for making forced housing. Now not in your, I couldn't find it anywhere but not in, and I also made a typo here, but I'm in favor of making permanent. The jurisdiction threshold for permits or, you know, 25 units or some number there for downtown's neighborhood development areas village centers and zoning bylaws is, you know, towns with subdivision zoning bylaws. I don't know if it was all of them, and growth centers, basically quoting the language that's presently been in s 100 that was passed this past year. I think, I think that, again, is this part of this balancing act between critical resource area protection, which is necessary to come through in this bill, tier two and tier three, and this tier one and be that as it gets called I, I don't think it's going to work because this bill just magnificently goes through all this. The new requirements for RPCs are excellent and necessary. But I think that if this is to be successful. Much of this planning needs to be from the bottom up and needs to come from local communities with the aid perhaps of the RPCs this has been done with the energy committees before to site where they want solar and wind. It's been done before when they, you know, establish industrial, you know, parks and zone. So I don't think it's would be hard to do this, you know, and maybe there is language in the bill that I didn't see that, you know, that would do that I know our RPC works closely with the town of Bedford and helps direct us sometimes we're get a little annoyed at them. Because they think they know more than we do. But, and they probably do their planners professional. And so, finally, I just want to mention, which is sort of a little thing I was thinking that as climate change rages on. We need to strike this balance between building affordable housing providing an equitable education and preserving land to feed those who live in those homes and children that attend those schools. The main story is that in the 80s, our farm which is now 56 acres would not have existed, but for active 50. And instead, maybe the housing crisis wouldn't be here in the town of Fedford, because we would build awful lot of houses. On the other hand, we would not have fed thousands of Upper Valley residents we would not have given away thousands of pounds of food to willing residents and hired hundreds of school age, you know, college age and high school age kids to work on the farm. So it's an interesting balance that's intention that's always there. And then lastly, again, only per well related. I've mentioned this before, but with exemptions come a loss of fees. And I think, I think, so by has mentioned this before, and it's come up with testimony but in our last years, and my last years as chair. We had three automobile dealerships move over it was pretty exciting from, from over in New Hampshire come over to Sykes Avenue, and then one the Toyota dealership expanded and we collected approximately 125,000 and application fees. 41,000 in transportation fees which helped build these Sykes roundabouts that many you may have gone around. And then $34,000 in offsite mitigation fees and those are fees that go to the housing conservation board which can be used to secure other lands with conservation easements either for farming or in fact to build affordable housing. So that's one of my last years, which means we got them out in 30 days or so. And they, they went very well so that is primarily my testimony and I, yeah, I just one last thing. It's funny because I'm not a professional at this and it really takes me a long time to get these things organized together. I spend a lot of the time just trying to figure out what the heck the statute means and everything that's set well I shouldn't say set the name here I got to be more professional I guess that chair Sheldon and and representative bond guards piece together but it when you finally settle it down and spend some more time with it like probably couple days it's it's really very very good so thank you. Thank you for your testimony. We have a question from representative Smith. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. Thank you chair. I see that you've been on your DRB for about 20 years and you're chairing it now. That's correct. Do you think that your DRB could do as good a job faster than act 250. Oh gosh, what a question. Well, since I've done both. You know our criteria are significantly different. We just had a situation where a zoning administrator we had one leave and we were desperate for a warm body. We made a horrible choice which I'm 25% responsible for, and it was just disaster for two years. And that person left and now we have an excellent person. So, you know your foundations your zoning administrator in some ways. We are closely with that person today and with the planning commission. So, that is a question I've asked myself for years because I think we've been in a unique situation here being on the edge of Norwich, where all the builders want to build because they can build billion dollar homes, and then being on the border with New Hampshire where Lebanon seems to take the brunt of the housing, building the housing over there. And so we have not seen that much. Nor did I see that when I was chair of the of the act 250 commission. So we've never really been tested with our new zoning to see if we can do the job. We have good members on it but we're still lay people. We're lay people as chairs, you know, as members of the commission, but our criteria are different, as you know, in act 250, although by and large what we would be doing in a conditional use hearing, and what we do with criteria is deal with aesthetics, and you know that's the siding in the mitigation and conditioning of a housing development or a commercial business. But no I don't think we can do quite I don't remember half the towns don't even have the zoning and subdivision regulations I think we're a pretty talented group but I think it could be difficult. I don't know if that quite answers your question but I'm kind of agnostic. One example I'll give you years ago was a neighbor, it was going to be a really excellent small development near the interstate perfect spot for it, but a neighbor and attorney name will not be said, fought it, and eventually the, the applicants will go away. But that can happen in act 250 as you know to. I have one more question for you. Sure, yeah. Can you tell me, you describe a forest block. No one's been able to yet for me. Well, that's what I would leave to the experts to show me what those forest blocks are. We're doing that same research using some of the same maps that have already been made. And I get a sense that it is a fairly uninterrupted area of forest right now. And but again, there's professionals out there that I would. You know, when you're driving down the interstate coming back from Montpelier or Burlington, and you look out over these thousands and thousands of now pretty mature trees. And you go wildlife, what are they worried about. I kind of smile and I guess it's not the deer were really worried about I mean the deer were my wife woke up and watch three of them eating at our bird feeder this morning, I guess. And it's the predators apparently that we're really mostly concerned about with this forest block and fragmentation and that kind of thing so I would have to. I really, I can't define it. Exactly. I want to see what the maps are. Yes, exactly. Thank you. I don't think any. So they are mapped and they're on the A&R map atlas. Yeah, we can walk through that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Oh, you're welcome. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. We're glad you could join us despite the weather and and any illness. So thank you. Yeah, well, I'm much better than good old Amoxicillin. Thank goodness for that. And I wish you all trying to put this all together and I do hope everyone who comes to the table. There seems to be some concept of working together and I hope that happens. I've been told I'm very naive about that, but I hope it does happen. Thanks. All right. Bye-bye. Next up we'll welcome Thomas Weiss. Good morning and thank you for shoe horning me into your schedule on short notice. I am Thomas Weiss, resident of Montpelier. Civil engineer in my experience with that 250 goes back almost to the beginning preparing land capability maps for the out of Quichy regional planning and development commission in the summer of 1970. My most important comment this morning is that this bill needs to be implemented as a whole all at the same time. This is particularly true of the three locations, the critical resource areas, the rural and working lands areas and the planned growth areas. If you get Act 250 out of the downtowns first, the critical resource areas might lag behind many, many, many years and might never get developed. My second consideration is, is this bill balanced? The three tiered approach is intended to be a shifting of jurisdiction, reduced or no jurisdiction in the compact settlements and more jurisdiction in the rural countryside to keep the countryside rural. And my comments are going to go more or less in order as they appeared in the H687. The purposes, they both seem narrow and unbefitting to Act 250. Instead, I suggest going back to Act 250, the original and suggest using its declaration of intent. The legislature declares that in order to protect and conserve the lands and the environment of the state and to ensure that these lands and environment are devoted to uses which are not detrimental to the public welfare and interests. The state shall, in the interest of public health, safety and welfare, exercise its power by creating a state environmental board and district commissions conferring upon them the power to regulate the use of the lands and to establish comprehensive state capability, development and land use plans as here and after provided. My written testimony is on the internet site. So if you want to follow along there, I guess you can just want to listen to me. That's fine too. The utility of the nominating committee is questionable. It will meet once a year to nominate one person, little continuity, a little backlog of experience on members from year to year because four of them are legislators. Two year terms. I know many of you get reelected, but the quality of the board is also within the purview of the Senate committee on natural resources and energy in its advising consent hall. My limited observation is that the hearings in the Senate committee lack substance and timeliness. So I suggest that you see if there's some way to improve that process. I'm a strong supporter of the supervisory authority of active 50. That is why I know that active 50 is neither redundant or duplicative. That is why I support 8, 6, 87 proposal to add the long standing court ruling that confirms active 50 supervisory authority into statute active 50 right from the beginning has been part of an intentional dual process. The legislator created many in our municipal permits at the same time that a place corresponding criteria into act to 50 and chose not to make them identical. This proposed section in 8, 6, 87 clarifies that it is indeed the responsibility and duty for district commissions in the board to apply their independent judgment and interpreting facts and interpreting law. And I find that the to do a process is not duplicative because, as I said, the criteria for a and R and municipal permits are different than those from act to 50 intentional definitions. The proposed definition of fragmentation determines that some fragmentation is okay and other fragmentation is not under that definition. A new farmhouse will not fragment the forest block a new residents that is not a farmhouse in the same location could will fragment the forest block. The ownership or use of the house should not determine whether the forest or connecting habitat has been fragmented or not. And also, how does the bill do that excuse me. Pardon. How does the bill do that. In its definition of fragmentation. It speaks to property ownership. It speaks to uses. If it's a one can put of infrastructure for land for farming and forestry and maybe one other purpose into a forest block and fragmentation and that doesn't count as It doesn't apply to the forest block criteria. So. The residents is. Not allowed. Your or has to be considered in forest block and the farmhouse does not have to be considered. And the criteria for forest blocks and connecting habitat refer to mitigation according to a section 6094 and I hesitate to ask what is section 6094. I've not been able to find it. And I don't see how avoid minimize mitigate works for connecting habitat. Connecting habitat is fundamentally different from forest blocks or primary agricultural soils, which also propose or allow avoid minimize mitigate. The difference is that if the project severs or has an adverse impact on connecting habitat, there is no alternative for the species using that and acting habitat. And I, there's something wrong in my mind with having the outgoing nrb create the rules for forest blocks and connecting habitat. The outgoing nrb could have shown some initiative and made such rules years ago under their rulemaking authority as part of criteria for criteria eight or nine C. And there's no reason to use rulemaking for these new two criteria. The commission on the future of act 250 provided specifics in its draft bill appendix four of the commission's report. And that is a reasonable start and would need some revision in order to update it from five years ago. But but I think it would be a good start to avoid the wrong rulemaking process. And I support the proposed definitions of development and have some enhancements act 250 has mostly been concerned with commercial industrial residential. Uses and several of the proposed definitions I believe would be enhanced by adding governmental purposes to that. I am surprised and disappointed at how few critical resources have been listed. I request additional ones connecting habitat, headwaters, removal erosion areas, the highest qualities of ground waters and the highest qualities of surface waters. And I request that the definition be expanded to clarify that when a critical resource occurs within the boundaries of a planned growth area that the critical resource area is carved out of the. Planned growth area and is subject to the rules of the critical resource areas and not the rules of the land growth areas. There are three different versions. The thorniest issue is how does one get act 250 out of the compact settlements and out of which ones. I believe that age 687 does not answer that question. For a long period last year. The NRB report plan to refer to a deferred to a CDA agency commerce and community development that question and the agency plans to defer to the board. The agencies resolution appears to be that everyone who can have a designation and only some will be eligible for unspecified act 250. Benefits, I've not made time to listen to your hearing on the designations. So I'm not sure if that is still current or not. I believe it is. There are 3 different versions of delegation of active 50. Authority in the various bills that have been presented and that are floating around this committee mostly up there. My concept of getting active 50 out of downtown's has been that the active 50 criteria would not be ignored. Rather the criteria would still be considered. None of the 3 different versions describes the conditions needed on the ground to be eligible for a designation. They with documents needed with no specifics on the contents of the documents. And I think you really need to spend a lot of time on the content of those documents, particularly as they relate to the active 50 criteria. Based on my experience with the report submitted on necessary updates to act 250. I have little faith that the NRB. In its present state can produce an adequate process. The NRB was given 7 charges for that report. My comments in volume 2 of the report point out that the report failed to respond to most of the charges. In the minutes of the meetings showed the board itself took no part in the development review or approval of the report. And the NRB doesn't even take ownership of the report report being issued under the name of the company hired as a facilitator. I request that you work out the specifics of the contents of the documents as they relate to the active 50 criteria. Particularly in the bylaws and the municipal and regional plans. And I request that you not consider the delegation proposal contained in 8 7 19. It leaves too much to be determined later. Release of land for permits has 2 different takes. I have concerns with both processes for handling. Active 50 permits in the designations having been a consultant and witness to a party in an active 50 case. I'm concerned that this section is not set up to support a party and give the party a right to learn of and retain the conditions. I request that you work out resolutions to prevent the hard earned conditions of parties from being discarded without consent of the parties that obtained those conditions. 8 7 19 proposes to require no mitigation of primary agricultural cultural soils when used for subsurface water and subsurface wastewater treatment systems within a designated area. 8 6 87 proposes to include primary agricultural resources as a critical resource. Thus the primary agricultural soils cannot exist within the designated area. And on the other hand, put a large subdivision using alternative wastewater systems and primary agricultural soils and poof no more farmland and no mitigation. And I have a fundamental difference of opinion on appeals than does age 7 19 my experience with appeals is that they are a useful and necessary part of permitting. There are several limits to permitting provided in I mean to appeals provided in 8 7 19. I don't know what an injury in fact is given the other portions of age 7 19 that propose to limit the ability to appeal. I have a feeling that this is intended to limit the ability to appeal. The section also proposes to require 1 who appeals to provide a bond. The amount of the bond would be decided by the court based on vague factors. I too have been unable to find information on the judiciary's internet site and have been unable to determine the outcomes of appeals. I believe it was representative. Boss who presented testimony on that in 1 in her bill. 2 days ago without that information 1 cannot judge whether appeals are being abused or not. age 7 19 proposes to raise the number of persons who are required in order to appeal decisions of the administrative officer. Decisions of an administrative officer are rarely required to receive public notice. The individual who was most likely to learn of a decision is the 1 the decision involves that individual should not be stymied in the ability to appeal by increasing the number of individuals needed to appeal so high a number as proposed in 7 19. The section also prohibits appeals decisions on housing projects. Which also prohibits the developer from appealing an adverse decision works both ways. age 652 proposes to extend the exemptions in section 16 a of act 47 I oppose those exemptions last year and I still do. age 760 proposes to require the act to 50 database to include documents relating to the environmental division that's still I was talking about few moments ago. I support the request as I too have had similar experiences. I also request that you direct natural resources board to allow 1 to search for appeals on the act to 50 database and to provide the cake court case numbers of the appeals. That was 1 of the hardest things I had. I found was trying to correlate act 250 case numbers or permit numbers with court case numbers. They don't relate court doesn't rarely mentioned it might mention it in the title of the of the. You know the what start on its list when you search for act 250 municipal cases. But I couldn't get into the find I couldn't get to find the appeals itself find the decisions find find documents in summary. age 687 does strive to strike the balance sought by the commission on future back to 50 reducing some jurisdiction in the compact settlements and increasing jurisdiction in the surrounding countryside. The unbalanced approach of only reducing jurisdiction in the compact settlements will do a little to relieve the pressure on development within the rural countryside. And age 687 has features that will perhaps not relieve these pressures but direct them to areas more suitable to our ultimate need for sustainability. age 687 is encouraging moving many more people and much more activity into compact settlements along the rivers. That is counterbalanced by including river corridors as critical resources and carving them out of the designated. I'm sorry the plant growth areas making all development within a river corridor under the jurisdiction of act 250. That's an important benefit to making our population less vulnerable to the sizes of floods that we have seen this year and the larger floods that we know are coming. I remind you that I consider the balance must be implemented at one time. There are growth areas rural and working lands and critical resource areas all together. I my comments to written comments have a few more things in them and they do provide suggestions or requests for each of the topics that I've talked about. And thank you for listening to my testimony. I'm going to find it and my written comments of use in your deliberations on this bill and the other bills proposing to amend act 250 and that you incorporate many of these suggestions and requests into act. I'm sorry into bill age 687 that ends my testimony. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that thorough review of the bill and for the many suggestions I you gave us a lot to think about. I was following along. So I appreciate that you submitted it in writing and also gave us an overview in your oral testimony. Do members have questions right now? I suspect there may be some more after this to representative Stevens. Thanks for my expenditure. I'm wondering, you know, we've heard a proposal that people like having the appeals. And the option to go to the other court and we've heard people say they like having it. I'm sure assuming we have an ERB before the ERB or now current and I wonder what your thoughts are on that. That's really outside my area of expertise. I've heard the arguments both ways or the discussions both ways arguments in the sense of debate arguments rather than people yelling at each other. I have no conclusion. It's my understanding that when the environmental board. Heard the appeals. It was more productive for act 250. Because the current natural resources board or none of the natural resources boards as far as I know has taken it upon themselves to review the outcomes of the appeals and to determine whether or not to modify the rules. Or to request statute changes because they were uncomfortable with the outcomes of the appeals. They tend to be leaning towards returning appeals to an environmental resources board with the capability to handle that. The environmental resources board will also have the responsibility to handle all of these designations under the proposal submitted in age 687. I believe other bills might be suggesting that the rural plan regional planning commissions might have that responsibility. This is I'm leaning towards environmental resource this board but if there's a lot of evidence in the other direction I might be persuaded to change my mind. I'm an engineer of scientific method. The other data make decisions. You find more data that contradict what you decided on. It's okay to change your mind. Amen. Other questions. I'm not seeing any right now. Thank you again for your testimony. Very well. Let's take a seven minute break back at 20 minutes past the hour and we'll have our legislative council here for. All right, we are reconvening our morning meeting and looking at some changes to age 687 with our legislative council. Welcome Ellen. Good morning Ellen Chekowski office of legislative council. So. Actually, excuse me. Yeah, I just say as introduced under her name. Second, there's going to be another one. I think that's two. That's 289 that is the same bill. Yes. Yes, all of the work you're doing. Here we go. Me mostly get refresh and 687 now as a one one. Okay, great. So, yeah, so age 687. Community resilience and biodiversity through land use. There is an amendment today draft 1.1 dated 124. So from last night, so the chair requested a few changes and then I also made some grammar changes based on last time when we did the walkthrough. So there really are only a few small changes in here. I will walk you through them and they are in yellow, but they're primarily really at the end of the bill. So. One thing is that, and I'm going to walk through them, but addressing mitigation. Forest blocks. Language has been added in here because I mentioned it last time and it wasn't actually in here. And then there is some additional language regarding tier 1, B from the natural resources board report. Some language has been added around that. There's a few small changes in the future land use map section. And then each 568 had been added on at the end and that's related to resilience planning for the municipal and regional planning. Fund. So, starting the 1st yellow is not until 17 so actually the 1st 1 is actually more of a question. So this is the 1st 34 ish pages of the bill 30 pages of the bill are are regarding the natural resources board and their new authority, giving them a new title environmental review board and giving them authority over appeals and some other things in this bill. So one of the things that I highlighted on page 17 and I wanted to check with. This is language you've passed before, but there's language in here that the hearing shall be held in the municipality where the project is located. And so, I did just want to check if that is still how you're envisioning this, especially with the other duties you're giving them, or if you want to clarify what types of it feels that. So that's more of a note. Just reorient us. This is the section to what section this is. So this is under appeals. Yeah, this is under active 50 appeals specifically. And so these are appealed the district commission decisions on permits as well as district coordinator appeals on jurisdictional opinions. So the section here is saying that the board will hold hearings on these appeals in the municipality where the project is located. And that is the language you have passed previously. But I didn't know if you wanted to. I wanted to flag that. Yeah, I think it's a good question. And I was wondering, do we have a similar held in the municipality or approval of the future land use maps or any other of the duties that we're asking the board to do. Representative. The easy part of this is that it's an appeal of the district commission. I think there should be a way to do. We also want to have that be the case when we're talking about jurisdiction feels of jurisdiction opinions. And that's what. That was clearly the intent wasn't was to have your appeals active of this of district commission. Decisions in the community. Originally. Yes. Yeah. So. Thank you for flag. Yeah, so the language that all that that's on that page page 17 hasn't changed that was just a flag. So. The next yellow is much farther. I did fix a couple of cross references that are not in so a couple of perception, but that was more for internal consistency. Do you listen to the previous witnesses today? I did not. And there were a couple of. Oh, okay. I didn't find a reference back to. Someone are you saying are you saying you're saying that out. Yes, well, I did notice while I was reading that 1694 is not in there and that's what I was mentioning about force block mitigation. So it isn't here. It's an it's all in yellow. Did you just fix the reference or what. No. So that's okay. We'll get to that. So that's actually next. The next yellow is on page. 39. So in this section of the bill. This is the new. The creation section 20 creates two new criteria. One for force blocks and one for connecting habitat. There are eight B and eight C. And so as I read you through the language last week, force blocks and connecting habitat would require you to either to avoid minimize or mitigate fragmentation of the force for the connecting habitat. So the first changes on page 39 first there was not internal consistency between the terms. So I made all of firms connecting habitat. In over the years, when you have considered this language you've gone back and forth between whether it's a connecting habitat or a habitat connector. So I've made this version have all connecting habitat. And then the other thing that is on this page 39 is subsection. I think that is struck or highlighted to be struck. And since the conversation I had with the chair, this language on page 39 would have allowed for mitigation of fragmentation of habitat, connecting habitat. And I think you were interested in perhaps getting rid of that provision, but still allowing mitigation of force block fragmentation. Because we, I guess, and we just took testimony on this. Okay. Which I didn't know was coming, but the idea here is that these connectors are pretty few and really critical. And that it doesn't seem reasonable that you could mitigate them. So we're not necessarily conserving something else somewhere else or the other tools we might use for mitigation. So it does seem feasible that force block could but not for an actor. And so then on page 40. There is a new section section, new section 22 adds the language for 6094, which I had previously included the reference on, but then left out. In 1994 establishes a statute on the process for mitigation of force blocks. On page 40 line 10. A district commission may consider a proposal to mitigate through compensation. The fragmentation of a force block. A district commission may approve the proposal only if it finds that the proposal will meet the requirements of the rules adopted under this section. And will preserve a force block of similar quality and character. Chapter is spelled wrong. Chapter is spelled wrong. A district commission may approve the proposal only if it finds that the proposal will meet the requirements of the rules adopted under this section. And will preserve a force block of similar quality and character to the block affected by the development or subdivision. The natural resources board in consultation with the secretary of natural resources shall adopt rules governing governing mitigation under this section. On to page 41. The rule shall state the acreage ratio of the force block to be preserved. In relation to the block. I will strike or connected or sorry affected by the development or subdivision. Compensation measures to be allowed under the rules shall be based on the ratio of land development pursuant to subdivision one of the subsection and shall include. Mitigation of a force block of similar quality and character to the block that the development or subdivision will affect. The posit of an offsite mitigation fee into the Vermont housing and conservation trust fund. So that's the fund administered by the HCP. This mitigation fee shall be derived as follows. Determine the number of acres of force block affected by the proposed development or subdivision. The number of affected acres by the ratio set forth in the rules. Multiply the resulting product by a price per acre value. Which shall be based on the amount of the commissioner force parks and recreations determines to be the recent price per acre. To acquire conservation easements for force blocks of similar similar quality and character in the same geographic region as a proposed development or subdivision. On to page 42 the Vermont housing conservation board shall use such a fee to preserve a force block of similar quality and character to the to the affected by. The development or subdivision. Any other compensation measures as the rules may authorize. The application of impact on a force block shall be structured also to mitigate the impacts under the criteria of subdivision subsection 8086 a which are the criteria of the title other than 8B to land or resources within the block. All force blocks per preserved pursuant to this section shall be protected shall be protected by permanent conservation easements that grant rights that grants development rights and include conservation restrictions. And are conveyed to a qualify holder as defined in section 821 of this title with a liability with the ability to monitor and enforce easements in perpetuity. And this is language your committee has considered before, and it is based on the language is currently in statute for how to mitigate primary agricultural soils. So. I have a bigger question here around this and so you have. Property spending your family for years. And we pass a new law. Restricting your ability to. Restricting what you can do with it. And so here, there's an opportunity for you to buy back that opportunity. It seems like you've lost something. And so, you know, I need to understand that. I need to understand. So, when we pass a law, it feels like lose. Something if you've had on on and I'm not saying that we shouldn't pass the law, but I really need to understand. Property rights here and. Yeah, pure thanks manager sorry. Do you understand my question? I'm kind of bumbling through it, but so. Broadly. There are, there is wide latitude for the legislature to impact property rights. The primary check on that authority is the constitutional limitation known as the takings clause. The takings clause requires that if the government passes a law that so restricts the ability of the property owner to use that property in any way. It constitutes a taking of the property and there has to be just const compensation for it. Here, there have been lots of decisions outside of Vermont and in Vermont specifically that regulation of a property and what someone can do on that property does not run a foul of a takings. It really requires that you limit someone's ability to do anything on their property, like they can't do anything to it ever. Act 250 has been found to be something that fits within the constitutional limits because it guides what activity can happen on it, not full restriction of ability to do anything. So, from a constitutional angle. There are some there is guidelines on what the state legislature can impose. But other than that. There's, there's latitude to enact laws. I'm not really sure if I answered your question. Can I just add that this is after avoiding and minimizing, which we've done on AgLance since Act 250 passed. So, I'm my chair. This is an area of, so I think we have the potential to make some historic propositions here to share. And maybe really necessary and needed. And this question is one that is of real importance to me that I understand and I'm able to explain. And so, I guess I would like us to maybe set aside a little more committee time to kind of dive into the history of this precedent. I don't want to take us all the way down a rabbit hole, but just rather than, you know, 5 or 10 minutes here just to kind of explore that it's not something I'm deeply familiar with. And so, thank you. So, is that something you want to talk about now? I had 1 flag. I did want to flag. I think that this is is discussed a bit in the recent natural resources board report. So, there currently is criteria 9C, which, which asks projects to look at their impacts on productive forest soils. And so in the report, I did read the report recently. I think they are suggesting that if you go with this criteria 8B, it might be swallowing up 9C. So, you may want to consider how those 2 things interact if they're both needed with this language. But that's more that's more of a sort of aside, not directly responsive to what represents the language. Yeah, and yes, and forward to Ellen advising us on how to dive into that. Me too. This doesn't have to happen now. Okay. Yeah. I mean, if you have thoughts now, feel free to share them, but we can you can think about it and we can plan that. Sure. And I can just take a step back because we did kind of jump in today because I'm trying to be conscious of you. We scheduled you for this afternoon on the red. Yeah. Okay, so right there's plenty of time. Um, so, so taking a step back. If you're seeking to construct development on a piece of property. And you do so at a in a way that triggers active 50 jurisdiction. The language that's that we've just been discussing in in this section 20 and then 22. Would then look at if you're going to fragment a force block on that property. And if you are going to fragment it. You will you are being asked to. Avoid fragmenting it if you can. So, can you move? Can you use site design to move your construction to not fragment the force block? Can you demonstrate in your application? Yes, we have attempted to avoid the force block entirely. So we have we're moving part of the project to avoid fragmenting it. If not. We are not we are not able to because that is the perfect part of the site that we need to use. We are going to use site design to minimize how much of the force block we're going to fragment. That's the second step. And the third step is actually almost entirely this parcel is almost entirely force block and we are unable to mitigate to minimize our fragmentation of it. And so we are seeking to use the mitigation option, which will then bring you to a. And then the provision that I was just reading through, which will require you to pay a mitigation fee so that somewhere else a force block can be permanently protected from being fragmented through the use of conservation easements. And so the statute that's being proposed in section 20 does list things that the project could consider doing, which is site design as I already mentioned, as well as designing the roads, driveways and utilities to not go into the force block, and using the fence lines and fence lines to as a guide to avoid them. So it's providing some clear some some information in the statute, but then there is also a rulemaking provision so that there's further guidance on how to avoid fragmentation. So it's providing options that if you're going to negatively impact a force block by fragmenting it. How can you minimize it. And if you can't asking you to preserve something somewhere else of similar quality. And this is the process we do currently use for primary primary agricultural soils. And the concept is that if you're going to do development so that it negatively impacts these resources so that they are being taken away permanently. It's you're being asked to preserve similar ones somewhere else permanently. And it was used, for example, also in at least one of the wind projects. Right this this concept. Yes, and so it's been used section 248 actually does use not this criteria specifically because this is being a proposal, but they do use the same criteria as Act 250. And also some broader criteria that they have looked at force impacts as well as habitat impacts and have sought through permit decisions to preserve habitat and forest blocks that are being impacted by the construction of renewable resources. Thank you. Who would implement the fees and the compensation. Is there a list of how much or what those costs. So this directs the commissioner force parks and recreation to come up with the price. And then there's a multiplier. So how many acres are you going to be affecting and what has the commissioner seen as recent price per acre to acquire easements. Okay, I think I saw that. Yeah. And then the fee goes to BHC be into their conservation fund and then they use those funds to match with people looking to purchase property. And so it's a grant program so that then that can buy property that will be conserved by other people to use. Thank you. No. Could we what kind of testimony. Could we hear to help us understand the experience of a. For monitoring works the land without a lot of means and. Some of our future future for monitors who are. Developing a second home here for their for their future retirement home. I have both I have a good window into both in my community. And so I worry like you're talking about the mitigation strategies and I think. Well, that's not going to be difficult for my. Friends from away who want to make my town their home who I want to be there. That sounds really difficult for my neighbor who has lived here for 5 generations and it's kind of scrapping together who may want to develop this land that they have and so. What is the do you have a sense and if you don't maybe I'm just noting this for the chair it's important for me to understand the experience of those. And I'm sure there's a lot of different constituencies will experience this differently, but in particular those different constituencies because it's important to me that we don't just make rural Vermont a place for wealthy people. To live. You have ideas for that. I don't know that I don't know how to get around that. So how do we. Who can we hear from that can help us make sure that that's not the case. So who is an advocate for rural working property. I don't know the answer to that. So the question for Lynch County. Yeah, I was to answer that question and I would suggest that we wrap our heads around the whole bill first and then go there. So that we know what we're asking that now. Before we stop because we don't know quite yet. Yes. I have one. Slightly relate thought, which is another piece of information. So I mentioned that this language is modeled afterwards. What has been used for primary agricultural soil mitigation. So, I believe the primary agricultural soil provision was added. In the early 2000s. And it was in response to people constructing. Development on what used to be working farms. And once you put a building, especially specific kinds of buildings can really damage and erode fertile primary agricultural soils. And once that soil is gone. Primary, like the, the most primary agricultural soil can take up to 500 years to regenerate. And so once it's gone, can't necessarily get it back unless you're using really innovative regenerative. So the implementation of this language about mitigation said that, okay, if you really can't get around destroying the soils, we still want there to be farms in Vermont. We are going to conserve a farm and so under that statute very clearly it says the easements for primary agricultural soils are to be used. They are to be used by VHCB to be used as farms. So they're saving other primary agricultural soils permanently to be used as farms and VHCB sort of does that matching. So, that's where this came from it's an idea that I think some people consider to have been a successful program to. Okay, if you have to develop this property. It allows to preserve future viability of other farms elsewhere. So it's a similar concept here being applied to forests. Great. Thank you. Thank you. I just noticed that I didn't say I think that before outcome. Is, you know, one of the, one of the things active 50. People say that activity, but I think it's true. Is that what one of the things that accomplishes most is to have people actually think through what they're doing. It's even more than the permitting itself. It is. It's thinking it through ahead of time and trying to avoid some things that we're trying to protect. And this is a little bit the same thing that if you want your child. Wants to build a house upon your property. You know, rather than go right up to the middle of the woods where the whole thing is kind of wants to do with the edge. It's just, it's, I think, and that's if it's a larger development. It's to cluster rather than have this well over a quarter of it impacted because it's clustered rather than have a whole thing destroyed by just having cookie cutter Watts. So, I mean, that's what that doesn't answer everything. We're talking about every day, but it is conceptually that's what we're trying to achieve. I think with this. It's just, you know, in that outcome, which may be a shared outcome. It's the process and how different types of people experience being able to get to that outcome that I'm worried about. So I did just notice that my section numbering is off so I will this this version obviously has not been edited because I did it last night so I will fix the section numbers in the next draft. They line up with the section numbers that I just outlined. I'm just kidding. I knew they would change. Yeah, so sorry, it's work in progress. So the next change is on page 44. And this is now getting into the location based jurisdiction language and the tears. I have struck through all the language and subdivision. Three little eye. But more so to highlight that I think we need to have a conversation about this. So, when I presented this language last week, this language says that in a rural and working lands area for or more units of housing would trigger active 50 jurisdiction. And I think I heard the chair say that that was actually not what she had wanted here. So, if you strike it, it will go back to the default provision, which will be. So it looks wrong for anyone who's keeping track at home legally, but if you want to get rid of the four units of housing trigger in rural working lands. I'll strike this and it'll go back to the status quo language which is 10 units of housing. Except some of this is underlying. I know that's what I'm saying. You wouldn't strike at all. I wouldn't strike it off like a new part. Yes. We also just heard testimony on that, which I didn't fully understand in the four units. I think his point was that we might inadvertently encourage large lots. I don't see him. I think it's okay. On page 46. In the definition of critical resource area I changed habitat connector to connecting habitat. And then the next change is on page 47 and this is another bigger sort of bigger topic. So, this language in section 24. Is adding the concept of tier one a and to your one be to the structure you had this bill had was setting up. So, as introduced age 687 did not distinguish between tier one a and tier one be it was specifically just creating a growth area designation. And within and the area within that designation was exempt from act 250 review because it was being reviewed by the municipality. And so what I've done here is I have created a distinction between one a and one be and I left the existing requirements for one a as what was already in the bill and so that would be the full exemption for the designated area. And so that's what so on page 47 a municipality may apply for designation as a tier one a or tier one be planned growth area. And so yeah, then online 18 to obtain a tier one a land growth area. And then it goes into the list of qualifications. And then on page 49 into 50 is where I make the distinction between what is required for one be. Now, I think there's a few things that you do need to discuss. I don't know if you want to call them to your one a and to be, but that's sort of what I heard. And so then at the bottom of page 49 to obtain a tier one be planned growth area designation under this section. The municipality must demonstrate to the board that it has all of the, that it has the following requirements described in subdivisions. And this is sorry this is not perfectly grammar, but a E I J and K. So, and this is, I took this from the, what was recommended in the report. So that would be the municipal plan permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws. Yeah, yes. So I'm referring back to what's already required for tier one a. And then permitted water and wastewater systems with capacity to support additional development. Say the letter. That's I. And then J is adequate municipal staff. And K is that the applicable regional plan has been approved by the board. And I think the grammar of what I wrote in subdivision to might need to be tweaked ever so slightly, but I did write this last night. So, but this is my sort of interpretation of what you asked for. Yeah. How would a term municipal staff adequate to support coordinated comprehensive and capital planning development review and zoning administration plan for if be defined, if we don't define it here. So the board would review the municipality would make a statement under this part of the application. How many staff they have working on their development review process. And the board would review based on the size of the town. And potentially like historically how many yearly development they annual annual development applications they have if that's adequate to support this program. So the board would just determine what's appropriate without additional guidance. Um, yes. I would like some testimony on this from, I think, NRB. Is that who would, who would testify about what that might look like. I don't think planners, the RPCs. Yeah, maybe. Okay. That would be. That's important to have a sense of what. What would be adequate stuff would look like adequate. I think that should be completely undefined to me to be able to be totally. You know, our representative Tory. Yeah, I have a question. So, what would, for a small town that maybe has like a historic pamlet. That because of flood risk becomes more attractive as an area for growth. What would, what kind of designation. So it's not, it's not directly contiguous to the. Village, but it's a historic settlement area. It's out of the risk of flood. It doesn't have any community wastewater yet. But it might through a community visioning process be identified as an area. And we would like to see a growth. What, where does that fit into to be. I don't know if it fits into tier 1B, but 1 of the things we've been having to think about is how. The process feeds into this process. And so. My current way of thinking about your question is that those programs they offer. Would provide the opportunity for towns to access. Planting for infrastructure development or whatever was missing in those areas. So they would. Through the future land use map and their own town plan map. Identify that area. And then they would qualify for one of their designations that would then provide those services for them. And then they might grow up into a tier 1B or even the 1A. You see it. I'm working through it. That makes sense to you. May I, yeah, so. I'm just thinking about like how I'm thinking about my communities, you know, like my community that has. A town clerk is there only kind of full time person and then a volunteer select board. Like, I don't even know how we could get them to testify. On something like this, and yet they. And it's important to me that we understand how they experience it, not to stop it, but to make sure that we have adequate tools and supports. So maybe it's. That might be. I'm going to think about that. Yeah. Center Mars. I'm just a follow up on his conversation and maybe quiz council here. Some of this falls under the jurisdiction of the regional planning commissions and the resource method, if I'm not mistaken. It tells us where we want the development versus or where we don't want. So some of that could be covered by the regional planning commission. Well, I think. Yeah, I mean to represent of civilians point hearing from towns that have are going to kind of hopefully move into this world of planning and what's the support they need from the regional planning commissions to make that. And at this point, we were talking about the regulatory. What we're really talking about is up to 50 minutes of housing within the. So that's when we're really talking about this portion of the designation program that we're doing today. So just keep that in mind for 1B. For 1B. Right. The question is how do I become a 1B. No, no, I understand. Yeah. People are connected to. Yeah. Figuring out the language to address that will be important. I do think it's intentionally vague because it is flexible as opposed to setting specific numbers or specific requirements. It's as adequate. Because in recognition of the fact that there will be different. Yeah. Requirements for different sized towns. And the distinction between 1A and 1B, there are a lot more requirements to get 1A. Then at least as I've drafted for 1B. Yes. And then just as a follow up, if none of those are in place or there's. There hasn't been proven that they have the capability of doing that. It would resort back to the N. R. B. District commissions for. The permit. Yes, they would not be eligible for that. And so the regular activity process would play out. That's okay. So then on page 53. This is another flag. And it's actually what you were just discussing a moment ago, which this language isn't changing in this draft, but I wanted to flag that there's still language in here that says if the underlying designation is terminated. Then the growth area designation shall also terminate. So. As we were developing this bill before it was introduced, I think. You went back and forth about whether or not an underlying designation should be required. Like the AC, some say ACCD, right, right. And so, as it's currently drafted actually an underlying designation is not required. So this might be, but you have been. I'm not sure it's required. No, it's not. I don't think we should require it. And so this should be changed. Yes, just to the plan growth area. Oh, or. Or would go away. This other the rest of the section is kind of when you might refer back. Yeah. Yeah. And so then on page 55 bill on this topic. I've added the 55 the 50 units. So in this is the section 27, which is the exemption section. So notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, no permit or permit amendment is required for any subdivision development or change to an existing project. That is located entirely within a tier one a planned growth area designated under section 6032 of this chapter. And then notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, no provision, no permit or permit amendment is required for 50 units or fewer of housing located entirely within a tier one just tier one be not tier one a I was getting confused. I think at one point, which one was which planned growth area designated under 6032 of this chapter. So, Subhain and do you mind if I ask you a question. I'm just curious where that number 50 came from because it seems rather high. It was, it came out of our consensus report and it was, it was, it was a number that everybody felt was okay. It's not a great answer, but 50 units of housing in a tiny village is a lot of housing. I mean, to your point. I don't know how often will be used to point but what was the number Ellen that we have going right now in smaller areas for in the sunset provision. It's a 25. Okay. So this was sort of just my opening attempt. I think this language may need to be thought the fifth. Yes, the number of units is one question. I mean, I don't know if you want to consider five years five miles five miles might not be the right metric. But the standard active 50 jurisdictional trigger does include within five years five miles for 10 units of housing. I presume that most of these designated areas will be small and so probably won't be, but you may want to consider that nuance. If, if it is a, yeah. You change that in the sunset it took to so. Yes. So. It really is the is it sort of is there is there a year cap is it is it 50 units over a period of time or just per. Her application essentially is sort of what this is perspective will be areas that are in that. And then the discussion with the community and the RPC so it'll be an area that sort of 40 set. And then the community will have to have certain set of abilities to regulate itself and take. So it's just for context instance if it's not like it's the wild west it's one certain steps of the taking keys have gotten to the point that they're so general discussion on what the numbers should be. So there's two other change. I think there's just two other changes in this draft on. So, on page 59 in section 30. This is the language regarding the elements required in a regional plan and the regional plans map. And so. The chair had asked to bring. Clearly a statement of the over the 1 of the overarching goals, which is compact centers surrounded by role working land. So I've added it here, although it could go a couple other places potentially so. Let me know if this is not where you are envisioning it, but. So first of line seven, a regional plan shall be consistent with the goals established in 30 and 40 302 of this title and shall include the following. So then number two is a land use element, which shall consist of a map and statement of present and perspective land uses based on ecosystem function consistent with Vermont conservation design. Support, maybe it's supporting compact centers surrounded by rural and working lands and that. And then it goes into the specific elements that are required in the land use map. It feels a little awkward to me there, but I wasn't sure where else to add it, but I think you were looking to make sure that the board had that in mind specifically. So it could potentially go later where you actually mentioned the board. But I think you were going to discuss broadly how to give the board more direction on what criteria you wanted them to look at in the past. So where does this language come from supports compact centers surrounded by rural and working. Does it come from someplace in statute some other planning reference some other purpose. Yes. So, I believe I'm trying to get the exact site I believe it is part of the purpose and goals of the planning chapter and for 24 VSA 4302, which is why I mentioned that it's right there. I'm not sure I've got the exact. So 4302 establishes more than 14 goals that are regional and municipal planning should all keep in mind as they plan and the one that I think is cited most frequently is this concept of compact center surrounded by rural and working lands. I'm trying to find it. So, I mean, that's my short answer is that I believe it is in 4302. It's also in the vision that we passed last year. Yes. Which is reference at the beginning of this bill. We can find it. I have a question about how the areas of regional plan that follow in subsection a after this relate to the elements of the future land use map. And so do I. We need to, we'll take testimony on that from some folks who practice this. Yeah, and so I will say in drafting that. So, these provisions have existed for a long time, a fairly long time. The report that came out from the regional planners themselves recommended these the sort of unified list of categories. And when I looked at that at their list and what was already contained in the statutory requirements. The statute lists specific things that each map needs to include. The categories from the report are broad categories and I think that the specific things fall into. Some of the categories. So yes, I think you should make sure there are they lined up so I made them separate. Because I think I think what will happen is they'll take those categories and the things are already required to map. They'll apply those big categories over the details are already required to map, but I am not a planner. And I don't think they had any specific language in their report on how to do that. So, the only other thing that's new in this bill is that on page 62 through the end of the bill age 568 has been added, which is a bill I think you may have gotten the walkthrough of already. Mike drafted it, but it does fit within yesterday. No, I kept this one. Yes, I wasn't sure if you had, but 86%. Okay, yes. So this is amending the municipal and regional planning funds to specifically include resilience. So, yeah, I don't know if you want to walk through it, but I think you already heard. You did walk through it with. Council Brady. And a large piece of what, you know, why we brought this in was because of funding to support similar planning efforts or support the planning efforts and then also creation of resiliency planning positions that the regional planning commissions also again to support planning efforts. That are called out in this bill. So we felt like that was pretty good fit to talk about actually smart. Yeah. So we need to look at that and align it. More closely. Take test. Great. That was very helpful. Thank you. Members have further questions for legislative council on this at this time. We're going to plug in the list of categories. Have you taken testimony on that yet? Let's hear it. Yeah. I didn't know how. I didn't know how to do that. So I, I don't know. Did you take testimony on that? On, on the future land use categories. Yeah. Not specifically. I mean, we heard the report back. Okay. What's the question? When I looked at it, I think it's like pages and pages log because the definitions are long. Let's look at that. Thank you for this very helpful. And I think we'll take a five minute break and then we'll shift gears into their noble energy. All right. We're reconvening our meeting and shifting years to age 289 draft 2.1 that we'll look at with our legislative council. Representative Sabilia kind of. Yeah, it's a stage for us. So thank you, Madam chair. And yesterday, we sent a number of changes to Ellen. I'm already aware, Ellen, even though you were here late working for us, that I didn't get all of these pieces right. So, but I think we're moving in the right direction. So Ellen's got. Based on what we've been hearing. Erin. Yes. So today, I'm here on age 289, the committee amendment, which is draft 2.1 dated this morning. 125. The changes are highlighted in yellow. They were based on the list of changes that I was sent last night from yesterday's discussion. So, I think there might be a couple of things that I'm. I think, no, I think this is almost entirely things that are being that were requested by yesterday's testimony, but I did want to ask what you wanted to do for process because I am coming back. I'm here for this session and then the afternoon as well. So, I don't think the committee has done actual like what we did walk through. So there were proposed changes from yesterday's testimony, but did you want me to walk through. And do markup starting with section 1 on, or just do the yellow changes. That's a great question. Um, so we have recently received summary of the sections. Um, by by advocates and stakeholders. It might be helpful to go through that. And that might not be your job or if you want to either way. I mean, I can read. Yeah, I don't know. I'm happy to or maybe actually let's start with section 1 and then. And then you could do the English, like the explanation of what it's supposed to be doing and then look at the language. Okay, that would be great. And then we'll get as far as we get till noon and then we'll come back with you at 2. I think you are available again. Okay. Oh, yes. I'm going to Senate gov ops. I'm a little bit excited. I've never been there. Yeah, one of my bills got sent there for some reason. I don't know why. Yeah. Like it. You're excited. Thank you. Representative seven. Thanks, chair. I don't, I looked online and I looked at my inbox. I didn't. Well, we just got it. Yeah. Okay. So let us look at. Whose name did you put it under? Well, I put it under bats name. Yep. Ben and really wash the wash. There it is. Res framework summary. Thank you. Thank you. All right. You find it. Yes, I have it. You can start. Okay. So on. So on page one section one of this draft hasn't changed, but this is related to. Rate making. So currently there has been this provision that municipal. Electric utilities and electric cooperatives can use this alternative regulation. And what this means is when they. But the PUC. Reviews all rates that an electric company is going to set. And normally there is a case before the PUC where the utility presents its reasons for why it needs to make the rate change. This statute has already existed where it allows that. If they're only seeking a small change of not more than 2% during any 12 month period. And it hasn't been more than 10 years since they've had a rate change. That was reviewed by the PUC. They could make this 2% change to the rates without going before the PUC. This provision is changing it to 3%. They come up yesterday and testimony. Members have questions or comments on that. 7th. I mean, generally it makes sense to me to understanding how much effort goes into a rate case and seeing what inflation has been doing. Generally, I understand the background rationale. And there's a backstop on it. I mean, if the PUC questions it, right? I mean, explain the backstop. Oh, yeah, I don't have to bring me. I think either the department or the PUC can. Request to review it if. There is a concern. It's actually in the summary, it says full rate case. The current law also allows the department of public service to request a full rate case. If they choose and also allows the commission to initiate one of its own court. Yes, so you are correct. And they do this citation here. Representative Pat just to add to that, even beyond that either the department or the PUC can on its own. Even if there is no change in rates and open an investigation rates, if they think that something is different than what they had approved, let's say, in a previous case. They have the ability to investigate the rates at any time. Yeah. Yeah. Nice. I'm just curious as to where that request came from from 2% to 3%. It doesn't seem like a big deal, but what historically has this been used as we had great increases that are. 2% 3% seems like they've been advertised as higher, but I don't, I don't know. That's it's there are some representatives from utilities in the room. Would you be able to speak to that? Yeah, a little spoiler watch electric co-op general manager. I can give you my best guess understanding. This is only a couple of years old provision. I don't believe that anybody has used this provision yet. They may have been one question, but I don't believe anybody's used it. It has only been once it's been once it's only a couple of years old. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, it was an accident 2021. So I heard the ED request. Okay. All right. Section 2. So section to starting on page 2. First, there's a change to the definition of existing renewable energy. So currently under the statute, there's a dividing line between existing renewable energy and new renewable energy. Under the current statute, new renewable energy is specific is a provision specific to tier 2 requirements. And the date was set when the bill was enacted, which was in 2015. So it said the dividing line is July 1, 2015. And so thereafter projects that were constructed were considered new renewable. Her purposes of meeting your tier 2 requirements. The language on page 2 is setting that back to December 31, 2009. So January 1, 2010 is what is being proposed as new renewables. The explanation you have gotten is that in addition. Is that Vermont started making significant investments in renewables around 2010. And so by back dating this if some of the larger renewables that were built in 2010 specifically I think they've mentioned wind projects or large solar farms. That were built then can now count as new renewable for purposes of use under tier 2 potentially if they qualify or the new regional tier, which is going to be tier 4. So it is being backdated to included some of these existing projects. I will just say from a logic standpoint, I find this to be confusing. But from a practical standpoint, they're making a case specifically to include specific resources so that utilities can use things they already learned they know in specific categories. I'll just, I don't know if you can answer this out, but maybe someone else in the room. When the data that we heard from TJ on cost, did he factor that flexibility in. I think he did. However, I, because I think his, I think the department's proposal includes back dating to 2010. However, I would be better to ask him specifically but. So on page 3. And so we still haven't gotten to any yellow. That's not until the next page, but on page 3 we're still in the definition of. Oh, no, sorry. Now we're in the definition of net metering system. So the language on page 3 is limiting net metering systems to those. Generates through a single meter that will be used on the same parcel as or on a parcel adjacent to where the project is located. So the summary does say that the intent here is to eliminate group net metering, which I know you have had some discussions about or virtual net metering. I do want to point out that the definition of group net metering remains in the statute as well as references to group net metering are left in 2010, which is the statute that directs the PUC to adopt rules related to that net metering. So those things need to be harmonized if the intent. Now there are already existing group net metering projects. So you may want to leave this, the definition, but you may want to amend section 6010 to also reflect this change. The PUC will probably have to update their rules in regards to this change anyways, but this does slightly conflict with less than 2010. I would maybe just want to make sure they're harmonized. This is about a big change to group net metering. So you do want to make sure that your intent on what you're doing with group net metering is clear. So then on page 4, again, still no changes from the prior draft, but the definition of new renewable energy is being amended. It adds, oh, the next page is a lot, but so the definition of new renewable is being changed under this bill. As I mentioned before, the dividing line has been June 30, 2015. So first, it's adding the reference to capable of delivery in New England. I'm going to be honest, I think that is redundant because all of the RS needs to be capable of delivery in New England. But then also it does change it to January 1, 2010, but excluding energy generated from a hydroelectric generation plant with a capacity of 200 megawatts or greater. So it is excluding from the definition of new renewable energy, large hydro. And again, this will apply as to tiers 2 and 4. Representative, this is an area where there has been some work to further refine that. Yes, met much of it is on the next page because I included all of it because to be. Clear choices. Yes, just sort through. So speaking of which on page 5. So. This is we're still in the definition of. New renewable energy. And so, except as provided. In 8005 C. 3 new renewable energy shall include also shall include. Some the retrofits of a plant. And then on page 5. You previously discussed the language regarding the pass through and the deal with hydro back that representative Pat negotiated. So, there's 1st day proposal to strike that language. Then there is also a proposal to narrow the language. So, the, the, in the middle of the page on page 5, new renewable energy shall also include any additional energy available to a retail electricity provider that is 100% renewable. Under this title under agreements approved or authorized by the PUC and it's April 15, 2011 order issued in docket number 7670. The purchase of 20 Vermont utilities and the Vermont public power supply authority requesting authorization for the purpose of for the purchase of 218 megawatts 225 megawatts of electricity. Provided that such additional energy does not exceed two megawatts and further provided that a retail electricity provider exercises its right to such energy. So, January 1, 2028 and for no longer than through December 31, 2038. So we're talking about the 100% renewable utility that has this option, which I believe it's just Washington Electric co-op. And so this language is more specific than what was previously proposed. So I think there's perhaps different perspectives in the room that want to speak to this just briefly. Do you want to talk about. I'm happy to answer any questions. Certainly, although it's Porter Washington Electric co-op general venture, having to answer any questions we talked a little bit about this yesterday. The unique situation that Washington Electric is in having been party to the HQ contract but not utilizing the power for it. It was suggested that we try to draft this section to be as tight and as narrow as we could. And so this is, you know, working with with others in the room here. Trying to trying to create that section to be as limited as it can be. Happy to answer any questions about that. I think it's to your kind of your current contract and then it puts a time boundary on it. Yeah, exactly limits of the piece to get approved contract. What's a time boundary and puts a. Madam chair, I have made a suggestion to Mr. Porter about a different place that this might be more appropriate in the bill, which I believe he has led council his attorney. Yeah, so I, I, I, I watched Alex, his attorney hasn't had a chance to review it yet, but I would say provisionally, we're fine with moving them with moving section. Provided it allows us to include that in our load growth without having to. Essentially by Rex twice in order to cover the power. Thank you. I guess I would like assurances that our, our own council thinks it. It's where it belongs. Yeah. Okay. So. We'll get that for you. The suggestion is. Pat minutes. Thanks. Just minor correction was something legislative council said I was not representative. Sorry. But you spoke about it last week when you told the story of something that happened when you weren't a representative. That's right. Yes. Yeah, I'm real. Did you have your head up? Thanks, chair. So the amount that we're talking about is 2 megawatts for this, but can you the 218 megawatt to 225 megawatt. Can you just provide a little more context or is that. That was that docket number 7670 with all, you know, with 20 utilities and Vipsa. Correct. So the overall contract just so I understand the overall contractors. Go ahead. Yeah, we're just trying to. Make it specific to that particular contract in that particular PC. So, but that particular docket just so I understand was pretty much many, many Vermont utilities going into a contract with HQ. For somewhere in the 218 to 25 range. Exactly. Okay. Thanks. Yeah, so I mean, big picture. This is language is being added to the definition of new renewable. And that will apply to tier two and tier four. So, if it needs to be specific to only one of those tiers. That could be a clarification to society. If I, if I might, sorry. If I might. So the proposed relocation of it would make it clear that it applies only to the 100% renewable utilities load growth obligation. And not to the other tiers. So, we are, we are not under this bill subject to tier four or tier two. As 100% renewable utility, although we do have load growth obligation. So that the idea would be to move it to the load growth obligations part on page 21 to make that specific and I guess even clearer than it relates to. If it was good drafting procedure, we might have just put our name in as you know it's not so. Thank you. Madam chair, my apologies, I'm going to get the proposed change to you and the console. Right this moment. Great. And change or just moving it. Proposed. Yes. Okay. So, next, at the bottom of page five and page six is this definition of low income customer. I don't know if you have taken testimony on this definition. And I did just want to remind you that the only place I believe it's being used is in regard to how alternative compliance payments are to be spent. So, did just want to flag, I don't, I don't think I heard anything in Morris testimony yesterday about the actual numbers. You want to use to define low income customer, if that's something you want to do, but she does seem like one of the people you might want to hear from that specifically. And any of the, I mean, obviously there have been other people who. I've worked on not only affordable housing, but other issues that have experienced. So I don't. Anyways, I'm just flagging that, especially the last clause of this is odd to me from a drafting standpoint. So your options include changing it or looking at another definition and statute to. Or leaving it definition of low. Moderate income. It's just low income. I'm going to ask you for a second. Are you at the bottom of page 5 into page 6. That's new. Yes. And so. I haven't heard a specific proposal from anyone to change this. Logan do you have thoughts on this? Yes. Working on it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I guess I would ask. Whether or not typically there are different definitions for the electricity world as compared to for the affordable housing world and. If there is, is there a reason. If there is no reason, like maybe it would make sense to have them. Be similar or the same. So the only other statutory provision I can think of off the top of my head entitled 30 is related to the PUC creating what. GMP has the EAP, the EAP energy assistance project program. And so there's a statutory definition there for who would qualify. It was amended recently. So I don't know the numbers off the top of my head. That's a pretty specific program about energy assistance. And so I do think it is off the top of my head. I do think it is definitely different than what we've used for affordable housing. It is. Yeah. Yeah. And then also lightning. But I don't. But I don't know that there's much interest in aligning the language here with language and other places. I think the other place we would need, like we could also consider aligning it with is act 154. And so I think it's important for us to environmental justice focus communities because this is an energy policy and that. Defines. Provides requirements about how energy policy is supposed to be. So we did spend a lot of time on it there and I'm wondering who is it that can help us. And the universe of the what representatives sevens just asked, which is great, like the why is there a reason why we need different definitions in different places. Or would we benefit from consistency. Well, at least in Vermont. The EIC has typically done the energy burdens report. So maybe a combination of them with that's great. I think also. You have a policy decision kind of a policy decision to make here and we'll get. It's further in the bill, but really this is establishing something new for the alternative compliance payments. And I do want to spend some time talking about that because that is the only place it's being used here is in regard to. There's a provision later in this bill that says new alternative compliance payments should be spent specifically on renewable energy. For low income customers. And that is a change from how alternative compliance payments are spent currently. So currently, if there are any, they go in generally to the energy, the clean energy development fund, which does list a number of different types of renewable energy projects that the funds can be spent on. Additionally, that statue. Last year was amended to say that starting in 20. 27 alternative compliance payments from tier 3 specifically go to. Projects in a utility near the utilities district. So it's doing something similar to what this bill is proposing. But different. You go. I mean, that was the reason that folks have said, perhaps we don't want to change the language is because there's this reference to low income customers throughout and that's a different. Population. Because it is focused on customers. Of utilities when you say don't change it leave it the way it's been. Yeah, leave it the way it is because it kind of works the same way throughout the definitions that we were working with last year more expansive to include moderate income as well. But in general. Low income customer is defined as, I believe, 80%. And that is consistent with. I can't remember the terminology actually from act 154. That's consistent with the terminology use in act 154 is that low income is 80%. Yeah, as an environmental justice focus population. There's a census track at the census track level where the average household income is at 80%. So. It seems like it. I don't know. It would be nice to hear somebody has. More insight into my why we might want to change it like programming down the road or something like that. Representative. I just. I'm not sure, but the way I read this language, it seems to me that it's, it's at least conceivable that you could end up with two different eligibility numbers. Because it's, it's referring to different standards in place at a particular date and time. And it's just, I just want to make sure that one number. What, you know, could be calculated and says this, this is the number 80, 80% of median, but it then makes other references to as being used by at such and such a time. I'm not, I'm not sure that that's a problem the way it's written, but it seems to me that you could end up with two variations on the number when we really want to have a. This is the number. I kind of agree. Actually, that's why I've sort of suggested the last clause is a bit confusing to me and that's not how we've done it. It's not how I've drafted it in the past. So it may be how it's drafted in other places, but we could just shorten it if you want to do it 80% am right. Ben, do you have a reason like, do you know why this is written the way it's written. For the record benefit of the world from the government research group. When this was initially drafted, my understanding is it was drafted as essentially placeholder language and subsequently reference to low income, which is worded very slightly different differently than this definition was added to the alternative plans as you've been discussing. So there was not a specific reason for 80%. You know, assuming that recognizing that was a policy decision that the committee would be making. I would also know that there was a different line drawn in the affordable heat act from last year that had a definition of both low income at 60% of AMI. And moderate income, I believe was 60 to 120% of variable income. So there are a number of different lines drawn in different parts of statute. So I would suggest that we take our legislative council's suggestion for clarifying and others observations that it might be confusing and leave it at 80% for now, but then make it clear so then we could talk about what we think of that. Well, and I think when we get to it, you should. I wish I think you should also discuss if you want the alternative compliance payments to go to something different than how they're being used. Yeah. Just, yeah, we're going to get there. So then on page 6, there's definitions of load and load growth. Those aren't being proposed to change. Except that there is this clause at the end of the definition of load. So the definition of load is more broad than electric retail sales. It includes retail sales transmission and distribution line losses associated with allocation to the utility. Oh, and any use by the provider. So. But then it adds this clause provided. However, that prior to January 1, 2025 load means a provider's annual retail electric sales. So this is 1 of the things that I flag the 1st time as a retroactive provision. So it's changing the definition. It's. It is included. So, so throughout the bill, the freeze retail electric sales is being replaced with load to indicate now that utilities. Are supposed to the amount of renewable energy they need needs to line up with their load as opposed to just their retail sales because load in a larger number. So it is requiring a larger amount of renewable energy. But then it, it includes this retroactive provision that I think is confusing because it's saying that before January 1, 2025 load also means retail electric sales. So I do find this to be, I think it was drafted creatively to make sure that if there were other references to retail electric sales. It then incorporated that. But I think it becomes confusing later in the bill, which we do need to talk about in the definition of 100% renewable. And do you have a suggestion for me? I think you should, I think you should just take it out. Honestly. However. Oh, if you do that, you got to make sure we will need to make sure that it doesn't have an unintended effect that I can't see. Because I did initially draft this. You're saying take out the retroactive. Okay. How far are we in the changes? Um, these decently far. Anyway, I guess it's noon. And so I would suggest that we take a pause. I have lunch and Ellen can rejoin us about 2 o'clock. But at 1, 15, we're going to hear. A reintroduction of age 48. Unfortunately, I hope that represents Smith can be here. I do the landfill sighting. It's going to ask to look at it. And we're going to look at it again. So the bill introduces will be with us at 1, 15. So we'll be convening at 1, 15 back here with Ellen at 2.