 Good morning, everyone. It's Wednesday, June 17th, just after 10. This is meeting a Senate natural resources and energy. And we are going to be revisiting our amendment from yesterday because although we had finished our work, the Economic Development Committee had not yet processed, you know, the changes we were recommending the sections of theirs that we review. So with that, I met last evening actually with Senator Sorotkin to go through changes and try to find a consensus position. I think we've achieved that, but I leave it to individual because we're all offering this as individual senators want to make sure we go through it and let anyone who is currently on the amendment decide, you know, no longer for me or they're fine with it or their parent if you looked at it and said, Oh, I, I like it better than I thought you could get on still so any, any way. I just want to make sure we slow down enough for everyone to see it. My understanding is that we may not be offering this amendment till the end of the week in order to provide more time for more colleagues to look at it. I'm not sure if that schedule has been set. And anyway, I wanted us on our side to be already as a committee and understand what was there. So with that preamble, like to turn to Mr. Chakowsky once again. And if you could help the committee by walking through the revisions to the amendment, as a result of the conversation with economic development, please. Sure. I conveniently already have the documents open, I believe. Nice. So, good morning. I sent a Jude this morning draft 7.1 of the amendment as well as a summary document of the amendment. And it is on your website. So draft 7.1 does not have any new language in it. However, language was deleted from yesterday so the amendment is slightly restructured. The first tiny caveat, the number of co-sponsors is changing. So this says Senators Bray Campion of McDonald, but I have some names to add to the list. So that will change slightly. But the primary change to this bill is that the first instance of amendment is now different. The first instance of amendment yesterday, the first instance of amendment was striking section to be. That is no longer in this amendment, which means that the language in to be in the underlying Senate economic development. Recommendation is going to move forward. So. I'll offer an explanation for why. So, you know, I think our concern was we said, can we, can we aim for a performance metric of something like density, a density metric for the town. And there, there actually is discussion of that kind of in this bill still and more broadly in the community. So between the fact that that discussion is going to be happening and I think the biggest thing is, there is an off ramp from any provision that hardwires in the eighth of an acre. That was frankly of concern to me, but because of that off ramp, and because it doesn't make a, which exists through 2023. There's ample time for people to evaluate whether or not this is the best solution. But it does assert that we should move towards greater density. There'll be, I think there will be future legislative sessions I imagine are going to be talking about the same thing again. So, given all the room and the off ramp. I receded from that part of our original amendment. So, so Mr chair what, what did we propose that was not fully embraced in the sense or two. The sort of hardwired provisions around inclusivity in section to be or another my short hand of saying this is too narrow there's more much more nuance to it but it said, you know, thou shalt have a minimum of size of one eighth of an acre. And if you, if you're not going to do that you can you need to say why you're not going to do that. You can get out of that quite easily by filing a report back to a CCD anytime in the next three years. Okay, that provides a an exit. It's acceptable if that was that that was a deal breaker for economic development to not include that provision. Not because I think Senator Sirotkin said he has been working towards trying to get that kind of density requirement move forward for years, and so to get this close and give up on it yet again was unacceptable, I'd say. Okay, well, there's an out for towns that don't want to do it. I don't want to follow my sword over that. We have plenty of other work in here. Thank you. The long two sentences. So yeah, it picks, it picks back up where, where, so you take that out, and you drop right in where we were managing the extinguishment of permits. So Mr. Kawasaki maybe you can resume the tour, unless there are any other committee questions. Okay, great. Thank you. Great so as I mentioned. The reason I changed from yesterday was getting rid of the, the strike. And so I do want to just flag a tiny issue that because this is all happened so rapidly, the, I need to adjust the effective date slightly for the reason you just mentioned about the three year window. So I've left it out of this is the draft 7.1. So I need to just add that three year window back. So that's a small change that needs to be made. But otherwise, yeah, you. I think it's dropped in as another section or is it go just in effective dates. It's just going to go into the effective dates, right, because to to be. Yeah. It doesn't go into effect for three years. Okay, right. Thank you. So what we see will that basically make it a just so I make sure that at some point in the future I'll be checking in and what people are looking at. It's going to be a 7.2 version. Is that how this we can, we can call it that yes if you'd like. I'm happy to call whatever you like I just want to make sure I know what number I'm going to be looking for. It's, it's a small clerical error so I will send it right as soon as moments after we adjourn I will send it. Just to clarify, Senator Bray, sometimes when we put things on the website, if it does have a slightly different number, it's more useful than it's the, it's the same number. Sure. Yeah, so we can call it, we can call it 8.1. Great. Okay. Yeah, thanks. Obvious to people. Thank you. I like it to be or not quite to be. Yes, we had fun with that last night in the meeting. It was as much fun as you can have negotiating a bill at the nighttime. Okay. So, and with that, that's it for changes, correct. Yep. So, I will say that I, the only other thing that it that looks different is that the, the numbers of instances are all different now so. Yeah, so the first instance of amendment is this changing extinguishment to the release from jurisdiction. And so the second amendment has that new language, right. The district commission way of implementing the district commission. Yep. And then the third instance of amendment is the language striking out subdivision. And the fourth instance of amendment has the waste water permit language. And then the fifth instance of amendment has all the new act to 50 language. From sections 24 to 27, which was the, the density requirements for neighborhood development areas. The four resonances per acre versus specifying a quarter acre. Correct. From sections 24 to 45 has all the active 50 language in it. Okay. Flipping pages. Man, I'm getting quite a library of copies of this. And so that's all that's changed. So with that, then I think because it has that substantive change upfront, we should as a committee review it and take a committee position on the new amendment. If there's not any more discussion about it, then I would ask for the clerk to make a motion all the role. The, are there sponsors simply moving to substitute what is being proposed for the previous amendment. Is that the Yes. Okay, which makes is the cleanest way and you don't have to explain both of them because the one that's gone no longer is being amended. So, okay. Right. And actually the one that we've reviewed yesterday, because of that pending meeting with economic development, I had had not sent that on to the Senate secretary yet. I didn't want to send on something that was So after change, so this would be, we would actually only be referring to the calendar. This version that we're looking at right now, eight one. So, Mr. Chair, so I'd like to make a motion to approve this new draft of the amendment to s 237. And this is draft 8.1. 8.1. Thank you. Thank you substitute for the one that we approved yesterday. So moved. Thank you. Thank you. Any discussion. Any further discussion. Okay. Then I'd ask, please, the clerk to call the roll. Senator McDonald's. Yes. Senator Rogers, Senator parent. So I want to just ask a clarifying question. I'll support these changes, but I don't still support the overall amendment. So just vote yes here and then that won't mean I support. Oh, it's a substitute amendment. Yeah. So we're going to substitute to all. I'll say no for now. Okay. Senator Campion. Yes, Senator Bray. Yes. Yes. So that's 311. Okay. Thank you very much everybody. Thank you. So, sorry. Senator McDonnell. Cory. Senator parent was asking. I think the appropriate question, which was to say. He was perhaps willing to support this amendment is being better than the proceeding one, but he did not intend to vote for, for it to add it to the. Okay. Is that, is that what? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. It's hard when it's a yes or no, but I'm wishing that would you say that the overall four, right, 01 or 311, which, which would he prefer. I think 311 I guess is fine. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So great. Thank you everyone. Well, we'll see. I was going to say that completes our work on that, but we're, we're not on the floor yet we haven't made it always a third reading so we'll see if anything more crops up along the way. But for now, I think we're settled and I thank people for their diligence and patience in hanging in there because it's never easy to get to the final version of things, especially this time of year. With that, so I wanted to, we'll put this aside, we're going to have a caucus at noon. We'll be talking about the underlying bill 237 as well as I'll wait to see what the signal is from the pro 10 but I think he wants me to go ahead and talk about the amendment now even if it's not going to be offered. My understanding is, I don't know, sir, you're set on this or not. The program was offering to delay, I think, offering the amendment till Friday, if the minority would be willing then to let us do all the work on. I can't speak to that piece but I know about the delay I Joe has to answer if we'll be willing to let it all go Friday I personally don't have a problem with it but okay, I'll leave that to leave that to leadership. I know the feeling. Okay, I'll be happy like the catcher I'm watching for signals as well. I should go the other way around the picture is gets the signals. Okay, enough baseball metaphors, which I'm not doing so well on. Got it backwards. Let's switch over to our other major piece of work for the end of session, which is the Global Solutions Act is with us. I didn't know if we were in the process of doing this amendment, if we were going to be spending 15 minutes on it, or 75 minutes. I think for now we'll have just a brief discussion about the balance of this week and work on GW essay. Well, a lawyer who played a significant role in the development passage, etc, and work on Global Solutions Act Massachusetts. Now the Dean of the law school at VLS, or Dean of the might be the environmental program at the law school. Jennifer rush out. She's going to be joining us tomorrow so I figured this is a chance to hear from the inside someone who went through the entire process as well as took it all the way through the court case that helped lead to his eventual implementation rules. It'll be a helpful thing for us to hear because I think I would characterize some of our own questions as centering around. How does this process work. Regardless of what you're thinking of the goals. How does the process work and are there any points at which we might want to look at making improvements. So for instance center McDonald pointed out that if if the chair of the clean of the energy planning group that he sorry about using the right name was not inclined to meet, they might never call a meeting and that would pretty stymie the work of the group. It would mean that roughly 18 months later and our would just go off and do rulemaking without that. That climate plan. So, I think that's something we might consider addressing. I have had conversations with people over the month or so since we started where some people said have you is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the state is agriculture. Do you have anyone adequately representing agricultural interests on that panel. A similar question came up around manufacturing. We, we heard from Professor cash, who said one of the strengths in Massachusetts was that manufacturers were part of crafting the solution. So I thought we might want to look at the membership from to what degree have we adequately brought manufacturing in so on my short list is. Are those three things. Another thing was kind of who legally owns the plan does a legislature need in some way, even though we don't have an official way of saying this, does the legislature have a way of ratifying that doesn't. It is something other than writing a bill and going through the entire bill making process to sign off the quote unquote plan. Tomorrow I'd like to, I don't want to put Council on the spot since I didn't ask that question ahead of time but I don't know if if you can, Mr Mark Land look into. Are there formulations that constitute something like ratification that would not be overly burdensome and time consuming, which is a concern. I think many people have center McDonald. One of the things is to put into the, into the bill that there shall be a ratification. The other way to do it is that the rules will not be promulgated or started until a specific amount of time after the, the plan has been adopted. And that gives the legislature an opportunity to get in front of it and or modify it or, or revise statute. The shortcoming in that particular approach is the, the tendency of administrations to ignore the date by which plans are supposed to be completed. Yes. So, so noted center camp. So what's our plan, we have an hour and a half today to sort of get through most, you know, a lot of this, but I'm not, I'm a little confused by what exactly we're doing today on the bill. Yeah, so again, because I didn't know when we were to get Ellen, Ms Chicago back from economic development where she was right moments ago, how much change they were going to ask us to reconsider. I see. And how long it might take for us to look at it and discuss. I didn't want to have, I didn't want to have a collision. Yeah, so are we so I'm sorry so our have we finished our work for the day or is Mr. Martin here for something specific related to global warming Solutions Act. So we didn't add I did not ask him to prepare anything. He's, he's had so much work on this he probably can answer questions on the fly but so the things I had wanted to do was just pause say what's coming next. I just wanted to ask some questions around this notion of ratification center McDonald pointed out you could just have a rulemaking timeline that allowed for legislative intercession, because of when the rules would arrive. I didn't compare to their effective date. So there's that possibility, and I just wanted in case we have requests of Mr. Marlin. I don't know if people have ideas they would like to float out now so that he can be prepared for the balance of the week while he'll be joining us. Well, I, the only thing I would say is any questions that we have for tomorrow's witness I suspect, aside from a little bit of insight from Massachusetts, I suspect Mr. Marlin will be able to answer any legal questions. Right. Okay, so that's that's the. Mr. Marlin you want to say anything about the notion of what might constitute a pathway to protocol ratification. Other than a bill. Is there any tool we have that we, well, we may not have it yet. Is there a possibility of creating such a thing I was thinking about that later like, why do we have to stick to what we've always done. A way to craft sort of like protocol ratification step thing center McDonald has his, his, his hand up I don't know if you Mr. Chair. Excellent question before we try and answer that one is there. Have you summarized the things that are first option is to, is to, is to agree with the house. The other body there are there technical corrections that, that we have before us that are generally regarded as necessary on this bill, or have the questions you've been asking here in the last few minutes, the what we should be focusing on. I would ask counsel for to check me on this one. I'm not aware of any required technical corrections that have emerged since the bill came over from the house where someone sort of is catching an oops that we would need to address. There's one oops I caught I think it was numbering. So you could have an amendment to correct that it's, it's not substantive and we could even do it in. If you were going to concur with the house we could do it instead rev. But there's at least one oops that I'm aware of. Okay, but we wouldn't have to have a new version, it could be concurrence with a change by sense, we treat it as a scrivener's error or something like that. I believe so. You know that's if you're going to do that that's something I probably want to double check with secretary but I believe so. It's certainly not a substantive change. Okay, thank you. So, can you just pop me a note so I'll have that on my in basket of what that catch is please, or to the whole committee actually, certainly. I think Senator Campion was asking about scheduling and I completely leave this up to the committee. But if you wish we could discuss some of those issues or begin that discussion, or we could wait until tomorrow. So if we, we are in hurry up land these days so if if we can have a bit of meaningful discussion around it, I just because we hadn't had the chance to count on this. I didn't want to say oh well you should just be able to respond on the fly but if you're prepared to do that great. Well I appreciate that courtesy and I will do my best to begin to answer the questions and of course I want to check my notes and maybe flesh that out tomorrow. As background first of all very quickly a great that you're going to hear from the witness tomorrow. That was basically a writ of mandamus which is something we talked about in Massachusetts to require to use its executive branch to promulgate the rules to achieve the numerical greenhouse gas reductions. So we talked about that concept a little bit a couple weeks ago. I think she'll probably flesh that out tomorrow. As to the ratification of the plan or rules let's separate them a little bit in the discussion as to the ratification of the plan. I think that does raise some of the same concerns I discussed about separation of powers and it may not be a crystal clear it's a little bit of a gray area, but if you're asking a non legislative entity this council for example to come up with this plan to then say you're pulling it back and you need to approve it or ratify it. I think you perhaps could do that, but it does raise some of those same concerns that you're handing it off to another branch or another entity, and then you're pulling it back and saying you have to approve it before it becomes complete or reality. So it's just anything to think about. And I asked a quick question and I want. So in what way would that be different than we create working groups, you know, at the council, the commission on Act 250, although that had legislators on it but we asked we create working groups we say please report back. And then we use the report as the basis for either legislating or rulemaking. Very good question couple things number one this council is not legislative. It doesn't have at least doesn't have required legislators to be on it. It doesn't necessarily preclude that there's could be some experts in certain areas who who might be legislators but they're certainly not designated number of reps or centers that's number one. Number two, you're not just asking for a report. You're asking for a report that then in statute is the basis for rulemaking so it's a little different process wise. So it's something that you could consider doing I just think it raises some of these concerns about handing this duty off and then pulling it back and saying the report is in final or valid until you approve it in some manner. Certainly having them do a report that they provide to you for review, not a problem at all, but saying that you somehow have to somehow have to approve it, or rubber stamp it, that's a little different and I think it raises some of those potential concerns. Yeah, I agree. I think pulling it back for a rubber stamp doesn't doesn't make sense. Now the other issue was the legislature's rule so the comments I just made focus on the plan. And you approving the plan or something like that. The other issue was the rulemaking and whether the legislature could have a role in approving the rules before their final separate from Elkar. I had mentioned to you that you could not withstand the current administrative procedure act in Vermont or somehow add another layer, but that that even more so raised those separation of powers concerns to me. And I also talked to you about how I wasn't certain the mechanism or vehicle to do that, that a resolution does not have the force of law does not bind parties. So merely passing a resolution I didn't see how that really achieved that objective or at any force of law. And if you of course were passing a bill to approve rules, why not just pass a bill. And so I wasn't quite certain how that is different than simply passing a bill. Plus, once again it has those same concerns in my mind about the separation of powers and giving the executive branch. In this case would be a and R that authority, but then pulling it back and saying that you have to approve the exercise of that authority. Now, so these are things to flesh out. Sure. There are concerns. I don't think it's crystal clear. I think this is a little bit of a gray area in the law, but I do have those concerns are issues. There's one other issue I wanted to raise that I think I mentioned, I just want to make sure you folks are aware of it. Is that even if you concurred with this bill. Even if you agreed with what the house had done and you gave this rule making authority to an hour. There are certain things that they can't do that only the General Assembly can do imposing a new fee appropriating funds and any effort to address climate change may involve additional funding. Passing a tax, for example, if you're seeking to impose a fee or pass a tax that would guide consumer behavior, only the General Assembly can do that. And of course, under current law. There's many areas where what you're currently doing is dictated by statute. So any changes to those areas would also require statutory change. For example, earlier in the session you looked at a bill that would increase the requirements pursuant to the renewable energy standard. You can't change those requirements by a rule, because they're set in statute. So if you wanted to go to 100% under tier one, you'd have to pass a law to do that. If you wanted to increase distributed generation under tier two, you'd have to do that by a law. For various reasons, there's areas that the General Assembly would still have to be involved. And our position in Ledge Council is that includes joining TCI. And that's something that the executive branch may not fully agree with. But that's our position as your attorneys that the General Assembly has to give approval before this day can join TCI. Sorry, the Transportation and Climate Initiative, which would establish a cap and invest system for transportation related fuels. Okay. You brought up TCI so let me ask two questions start with that one. I know for the General Assembly, have, is there any activity underway on TCI. I mean, COVID is changed a lot of things. I don't know if it's affected the rule out of that but back in January or so we heard that we thought there might be a rule and a sign on period that would happen something like April, May. So you are in delay. So you are correct. Because of COVID they delay that I believe until the fall. Okay, so they've moved back their deadlines for the final rule and the window for states to decide whether they're joining the initiative or not I believe that's into the fall at this point. Okay, thank you. And on the legislative approval of rules so yeah from serving with Senator McDonald on Elkar I would, I would seem like a bad idea to me that a rule, we would ask for a rule and then ask to have it approved to where we have the APA to take care of it. However, to Senator McDonald's point if if the timeline for the development of that rule, span the legislative session. And provide an opportunity for us to act if we saw something that seemed problematic. And I don't know if we have any kind of, I don't know that I remember a rule that said, for instance if you don't show up on time, like you bring your rule in June, which is generally right after we've left, if that we would ever provide a provision that would say then that rule. Is there any way to say that you can't wait for us to go home basically and then bring the rule forward. Well I think I think that's a valid idea which is modify the time periods to make sure that there's a sufficient window for the General Assembly to take action if you choose so you could definitely do that. And right now the time periods are really, really condensed and optimistic so you could stretch them out a little bit to make sure that you folks are in session. We have time to review the proposed rule and then have sufficient opportunity to take action if you choose to. I think you could definitely do that. You have a timeline document don't you I think so I've seen that. I do I'm not sure if I provided this committee but certainly Ken is one of the slides in fact I'm sorry I do have it. And I can email you what what PowerPoint to look at I don't think I can take out that slide but yes you could modify the time periods. Time period is what is anything. Is there a time period for when the rule comes back. Let me if you give me a second let me pull up my file and look at it. There are time periods right now set in the bill, but they're, as I mentioned to you, they're quite tight, they're quite optimistic. Senator McDonald you've been around this block on rule and timelines many times what's your advice to the committee. Well there, there are two examples that I that I have mentioned before but I will mention them again today because we're, we're thinking. I will mention them again today. Was the how we got rid of the 10 acre loophole for for septic. We directed the, the administration to come up with alternative septic rules so that they had to be in place regardless of the size of the plot. And we demanded that that in the statute we legislated that the proposed rules be available to the legislature on the 15th of January, but that they not be submitted. Put forth promulgated until sometime in June. The legislature's business was completed, and the, the rules were done on time the legislature went through the committee had hearings on them. There were arguments made, and the legislature did not interfere with change or diminish the proposed rules in any substantive fashion. When the legislature adjourned the rules were put forth as called for, and they took place. We mimicked that exact that experience in our rules about renewable energy and and that metering and directed the administration to come back in January and presents proposed rules for changes and that metering. And the administration did not do that. The legislation that we had in place said they should come back on the first of January, and they should not promulgate rules until after the legislature had had an opportunity to review those that those the rules that were being outlined and proposed, and we gave the authority after the legislature had done its review or made some changes we gave them the authority to implement the rules by order, so as to have them done in a timely fashion. And what happened was the administration failed to present the rules. They didn't present them on time didn't present them at any time during the legislative session. And then after we went home, they implemented new rules that had not been presented to the legislature in the statute, and they did it by order, and they said the authority gave them the authority. Elkar objected and said that this was not legal they had exceeded their authority, and our counsel and those of us in Elkar believed that the objection was was appropriate, and we, we objected. At that point. And then a couple months before the next legislature met, and when the next legislature met. The utilities all came running in and said we've changed our computers we've done this we've changed our building cycle the paperwork is already been printed. And if you if this order is overturned, it will cause us great problems and hassles etc etc etc, and the legislature. Either wisdom principle or cowardice. My editorial comment, Kate, and allowed the rules to go into place that had not gone through the, you know, the public hearing process that had not been presented to the legislature as called for, and that's what happened. So the one is an example of the legislature doing something in good faith. And the other perhaps was in administration didn't get their proposal stone on time to the legislature. But they use, you know, we, we in the legislature made a mistake and gave them an opportunity to do it by order. If after we reviewed it, and they did it by order without us having had a chance to review it so those are the pitfalls in the examples of how the system system has worked and how it failed to work. Our solutions were probably that's, it was a long explanation of the tribulations. I'm fine with concurring with the House bill, and then being, you know, like hounds behind the administration and if they don't move forward and say that and you know complain and wine and, and, and, you know, nip at their heels. So that's one way of thing we could do, or the other is to follow the example that worked and not give them the authority to initiate new rules by order if they haven't completed the, the committee has not provided its advisory opinion on what the rules ought to be. That's those are our choices. And show the deadlines, the time periods, if you wish, Mr chair, I had that slide up. Okay, and can you. Thanks for pulling that slide and we'll look at that. Do you have any comments on Senator McDonald's narratives there like it sounds like there's no question on legality like separation of powers that the fact that the legislature built in a creative schedule designed to let it have a look at rules move forward. Does that sound correct. There's no problem with constructing a timeline to ensure that you have an adequate opportunity to look at the proposed rules and take any action or give input, as your team appropriate. I do not think you can build in a requirement that a committee or the General Assembly both to approve those rules. I don't think you can do that, but you can build the timelines to give yourself an opportunity to weigh in, and you review as you think appropriate. Okay, or as they don't need to follow your suggestions. That's the other part of that. Center McDonald's story shows we're batting 500 I suppose using that approach. All star mature house please. Right first baseball 500 be pretty good. The legislator, I'm not so sure I don't like my bat 500. Jude, could you make me coho so I could share my screen please. If you want, I could just verbally read you those. Great, thank you. I've got it. Thank you very much. I'll just expand this. So can everyone see that okay. So it's effective on passage. The climate council is appointed. The council adopts the plan on or before December 1 2021. And our develops rules from roughly the time of adoption. Hopefully they'll have some advanced notice of what's in the plan until May. That the rules have to be submitted to the council at least 45 days before the filed with iCar, which begins a formal rule making process. So that'd be early to mid May of 2022. They have to be presented to various committees, including your committee, at least 30 days before they're filed with iCar that'd be late May to very beginning of June 2022. They then have to be filed with iCar by July 1. That process proceeds and once again that process is a very tight deadline under these current time periods. It's very optimistic. And they're supposed to be adopted the final rules by December 1 2022. And those rules would be targeted to meet the 2025 reduction, a greenhouse gas reduction targets. Any questions about that. But the notion that the rules to be written based on the plan that was put forth that they would be written in some of the legislature could look at them in May is is totally unworkable. And that just, you can't even, you, that's just unworkable. The rules have to be available in when the legislature meets in a given session. And as some folks, some senators and witnesses have said it's a pretty ambitious timeline but and I have to agree that's a pretty ambitious timeline. Mr. Marley and when you say ambitious. Is that because it is built on the statutory minimum time for each step in the overall process. It's I've said optimistic. Very tight. Yes, it gives the, what we calculated is, is really the minimum time period under the various statutes. I'll see these rules, or at least I assume these rules would be complex and there'd be lots of public input. And it doesn't really expand the time period to take account of that. So it is assuming that they can really keep to the statutory minimum time periods, and they're able to receive public input and do whatever they need to do in a very, very tight period of time. Mr. Chair. Who is the witness who whose testimony focused on the following point that just because if you were to pass such a bill. It is unrealistic that the legislature not to begin to pass some interim steps. Well before the rules are written to pass steps in statute to begin implementing implementing some of the foundations of any rules. I think, Senator. Mr. Martin mentioned things like particular saying I'm not recalling any particular witness saying that, but I know that that's been in our committee discussion. For instance, I know members of this. I don't know if my thing is saying my connection is unstable. Can people still hear me okay. Yes. The We as a committee, for instance, have had two years of work so far on phasing into an all fuels energy efficiency program, which if it were implemented, I would have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions. So I would never expect us or any other committee to tap the brakes and say we need to wait for a rulemaking and a plan from another body to before we should go ahead with our own best work. So in fact, I think in in Massachusetts before rulemaking and was ever invoked, because it was delayed and then it had to go to court in order to force the hand of their Department of Environmental Conservation Arts counterpart to write rules. They'd already achieved 60% of their greenhouse gas productions prior to the rules being written. So, I think we're counting on more than leaning just on GWSA to make progress. The other thing is this program is aligned in the bill has a lengthy phase in and personally I would like to see us take much more assertive action that we know quite well what we can do far sooner. So, I don't know if it's a witness or just your chair, but or maybe Okay, I'm a word. I was pouring through some notes here and I just didn't find Mr chair the I will have gone a week without mentioning 1336, which is the number of days between Pearl Harbor and the Japan suing for peace. And this this bill doesn't, you know, is doesn't recognize that there were many activities that were initiated almost immediately, such as within two months the United States of America quit manufacturing automobiles in order to take on the challenge of World War two. And that was just two months. We ended the manufacture of one of the bills. This bill talks for a couple years and and plans and argues before anything concrete happens. So, it's just suggesting we might move up the, the timeline push it. Or, because I think your point you know your points a good one. In anticipation. Once you get the plan legislature does not on the timeline in the bill. When the legislature gets the plan in January of 2021, it, you know, Dan well needs to pass some laws to begin to implement the basic tenants of the plan, not that to whether it's fees or income or something. It's going to have to pass something in order to have any chance that rules will the rules will be meaningful in any time period. So, we're going to that would we the legislature would be faced with that dilemma, whether we gave the legislature time to review the rules or whether we simply concurred with the bill if we don't act during that. That session, then another year is lost. Well, based on the timeline and my experience around rulemaking maybe yours, I always think of it as taking a year, which would mean instead of having rules coming out in the summer of 21. They would be more like coming back and you know maybe January of 22. At which point then there would be a legislative sessions just starting and you'd have an opportunity to work. But I think, you know what you're pointing out to me is the other possibility is not only having that the rules coming along as helpful. But the plan that's been passed to an hour. That's going to go to drive rulemaking would also be a useful document to the legislature in and of itself and we need not wait for rules, just take it and run maybe that's what you're saying take the plan. If the legislature. Last session, we considered a bill from the house to raise some money with a tax on on heating oils, heating fuels, motor fuels, and it was a tepid narrow tax that didn't do much, and we were hog tied on whether or not to pass it, or to make it a to raise some monies that actually provided money to actually do something. And we, we rejected the proposal from the other body, and we here mark some of our electric efficiency money in the interim to train a host of people to be ready to insulate and work on on thermal heating. That's what we dedicated some money to, so that this legislative session the one that we're in now would have come up with the way to begin to put those people to work. Actually, making progress and reducing the heat loss in the state and putting money into Vermonters pockets, etc, etc, etc. And we haven't done that. We simply haven't done that we've been diverted on other things. So that's the way the legislature have many many excuses, not to tackle what needs to be done, and my final editorial comment would be as we struggle with the COVID response. This is another example of we were told what we was coming and we didn't do much until April. And right now we're debating whether we've done too much or what we ought to do next. So that's that's our nature. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One reminder for us I think is on what we did last year on, I regret along with you that we did not increase that excise tax and move to help create a more robust program. You said hog tide, I'd say beat about the head and shoulders, whatever it was, we didn't move forward on it and the program, I'd say it's been limited ever since by it's relatively low level funding. We did do in 337 this year. There is that $2 million that helps get us ready for next year which I hope is maybe a far more robust program. So yeah, 2 million here and there is not an adequate response. That slow timeline, which has us working through the PUC for the all fuels energy efficiency utility is a direct result of the legislature. I would say needing to have independent expert outside analysis to help buck us up to do what much analysis has already showed would be I think a good idea environmentally and economically. That's, that's the painful nature of a legislative body sometimes slower than we would like. And you know, I'm one quick note, I'll editorialize on COVID. I'd say one bright note to me is that when we see something worth doing, we actually have been able to respond surprisingly quickly. And then when people say we can't afford things, the fact that we can mobilize more money than I've ever seen laying in Vermont when it's coming. It's our money directed from the feds, but I'm just afraid that I agree with the concept that you know that yes if the feds wanted to give us those those dollars to deal with climate would be would be great. Right. So, I'll go back on to topic anyway. So with that, it's 11 I don't know if there's any more comments we any more discussions that it's helpful to see the timeline. So looking forward to tomorrow I think the witness sounds great. And I appreciate you reaching out to her I think it'd be good to hear some on the ground experiences. So the our witness tomorrow is also the author with another partner on an article that examines this whole history and issues that came up. The article's name is behind the curtain insiders view of developing and enforcing state climate change laws by Sue Reed and Jennifer rush while it appears an environmental law reporter, I have a copy of the article and I'll send it to and ask you to distribute it to the committee. If you have the time and interest I think I'm planning actually reading it tonight I haven't read it yet but be an interesting back bit of background reading before tomorrow's testimony. And if you have questions. If you think may take some research or thinking before her appearance. Please send them to me by the end of the day and I'm going to send her a couple questions I'll try to get as much as I can to her so that she knows the kind of things were apt to ask questions about before coming in tomorrow. So if there's nothing more thank you for jumping in Mr Martin to help us get a running start back into the world of global warming Solutions Act. And committee just so the people I have a sense of pace. If we have relatively minor adjustments. Then I would think in order to keep pace with the current Senate calendar. We should be aiming to vote a bill out by the end of this week. The very latest beginning of next, but perhaps as soon as big here. So, we're in time. Friday works for me. Okay. Next week. Cory, are you in on Friday. I'll be here Friday. I won't be here tomorrow. Okay. So, all goes well with your family event. And if there's nothing more any committee members have anything else you'd like to add. All right. There's nothing else then we are adjourned for today. Thanks very much everybody.