 This is meeting a Senate natural resources and energy committee. It's Thursday, May 21st, 10 o'clock. Thank you, everyone. Good to see you again. And so we are going to be turning now to the Global Warming Solutions Act. Everyone should have received hard copy. Thank you, Mr. Martland for getting that out to us because it's a lot easier to use paper and zoom rather than look at a long document and attend a zoom session at the time. And it is. So that's H 688. And we'll turn it over. Sorry, Senator Bragg. I just want to clarify. Did you say by a hard copy nothing did something sent in that the actual mail or are we just talking about email. We got actual United States Postal Service mail. Mine arrived yesterday. I don't know if you have not received. Once again, Mr. Martland is leaving me off of the Christmas list. No, I will, I will go and see the Massachusetts. I don't know if you looked at your mail since yesterday, but hopefully we all got one. I will take a look. It also, I just double check with you, Jude, this bill 688 is posted on our committee page. Is it not? Yes, yes, it is. Great. All right, so that's a backup for Senator Campion and for anyone who's streaming. Great. I posted a Luke's PowerPoint. Yeah, I'm sorry, I'll check and get back to you. I think I did. Okay. So, at any rate, like turned over to Mr. Martland, do a walkthrough of each 688. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much and good morning everyone for the record. This is Luke Martland, the director of legislative council and chief counsel to the general assembly. Today I'll do a walkthrough of age 688, the Vermont global warming solutions act. Can everyone hear me okay. If you can't please let me know. This is the first time this committee has taken up this bill. So today I'll do more of a general or high level walkthrough of the bill. I'm going to read the bill page by page to you. There'll be some sections I gloss over, or only spend a little bit of time on, and there'll be other sections that I drill down on, and discuss a language and more depth. I anticipate this might be only the first of many meetings. I anticipate that there'll be sections of the bill or issues that you want further discussion concerning. I'll always go back and look at something in more depth if you wish. I'll be showing you a PowerPoint in a moment. And what I would suggest is if you have the paper copy of the bill, you have the paper copy next to you, and then you are watching the power point on the screen. And as always, if there's any questions, please ask, I'll let the chair moderate those questions and recognize you. But I always say that when I'm appearing in your committee, and I think with the zoom meetings are always a little slower, a little less efficient. So please ask questions if you don't understand anything I've said or if you want to follow up on anything I mentioned. So before I jump in and pull up the PowerPoint, are there any questions at this point? And should we wait for Senator Campion to come back? Please begin. Thank you. I'm back. Thank you. I received it. I received your card as well in the chocolates. Thank you. Now pull up the PowerPoint and we'll begin to walk through the bill. And please don't hesitate to ask questions as we do that. So all of you should see the PowerPoint on your screen now. As I indicated earlier, this is age 6688, the Vermont Global Warming Solution Act. And let's begin by giving you a table of contents, if you will, of how the bill is organized. It's broken down into different sections using what we call the reader's assistance, which is basically those three ellipses with a heading. That is not legal language. It is no legal import, but it helps organize the bill. Section one is a short title section to our legislative findings, and I don't intend to read those to you or go through them in any depth. We certainly can later. But at this point, I think it might be a better use of time to move on and look at section three, which is the first substantive legal section of the bill. And this establishes mandatory greenhouse gas reduction requirements. Section four is the real meat of the bill. And this creates a new chapter in title 10 that has sections concerning definitions that creates Vermont Climate Council and sets forth the duties of that council. That establishes the Vermont Climate Action Plan and sets forth what that plan must contain. In section 593, there's language concerning rulemaking by A&R. And finally, there's a cause of action in the new section 594. So section four with these new sections of law is really the meat of the bill. And that's what we'll spend most of the time discussing today. In sections five and six, there's some supplemental language concerning the rulemaking process and the appointment of council members. In sections seven and eight, there's amendments to current law concerning the state energy policy and energy plan. In sections nine and 10, there's language concerning appropriation and new positions. And then finally the effect of date in section 11. And we'll go back in a few moments and begin to walk through these sections one by one. Before we do that, I want to give you a visual of how this bill is intended to work. And if you keep that visual in your mind, it might make it easier to understand how the pieces fit together. First of all, the bill creates mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets tied to three key years 2025 2030 and 2050. Second, it establishes a Vermont climate council that will develop a plan to achieve those greenhouse gas reduction requirements. A&R engages in rulemaking to implement the plan and achieve those requirements. And then finally, if A&R fails to engage in rulemaking, or those rules don't achieve those mandatory reduction requirements, there's a cause of action. So if you think of this bill overall, it establishes the emission reduction requirements creates a council, which develops a plan. A&R engages in rulemaking to implement the plan. And if that does not succeed, you have a cause of action. Let's begin by looking at page one of your paper copy of the bill. Section one is a short title. I've already given you that short title. And section two, which begins on page one and then continues on to page three is the legislative findings. And as I indicated earlier, I don't intend to read you those legislative findings. We certainly can talk about them and more depth later you may wish to drill down on them and even change them. Right now, I would suggest we move on to section three, which is the greenhouse gas reduction requirements section. Mr. Marley, can I have a quick question about how the bill came over. Thanks. So, and I don't want to get stuck there. I just want to know. Section nine, the appropriation of $972,000 to fund the project. Is that in any current budget or that any future anticipated expense? I'm just wondering if this has been provided. I don't believe that's in any budget for right now. As you know, the, when this was written, we weren't in the COVID situation. So they're anticipating a big bill to cover all of FY 21 and now they're proceeding differently. So I don't believe that had been put in the big bill at that time. That appropriation is actually intended to cover two years. So it's a little unusual. Great. Thanks. I don't want to sidetrack us. I just wanted to know if there was the money was traveling with the bill. The money, the money is not separately put in a budget as far as I know. Okay. Thank you. So looking at section three, this is a men's existing law under current law 10 BSA 578 establishes goals for the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as follows, compared to the 1990 baseline to reduce emissions by 2012 by 25% by 2028 50% and by 2050 75% if practicable using reasonable efforts, that's existing law. What this bill does is mend that law to make those reductions mandatory. And in their proportion, I set forth on the slide, but let's go and look at the actual language in your paper copy of the bill. So section three begins on the bottom of page three. And it states at the bottom of page three greenhouse gas reduction requirements. So this is now mandatory. The last line of page three Vermont shall reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from within the boundaries of the state and those emissions outside the boundaries of the state caused by the use of energy in Vermont, that's all existing language. As measured in inventory pursuing to section 582 of this title. That's a cross reference to 10 vs a 582, which requires a and R to publish the Vermont greenhouse gas emission inventory, which they do periodically. So page four, you'll see number one says, not less than 26% from the 2005 greenhouse gas emissions by January 1 2025. Number two pursuant to the state's membership in the climate alliance. So this is not changing those reduction amounts or proportions. It's just tying it to Vermont's membership in this alliance and its commitment under the Paris agreement. Number two, not less than 40% from the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by January 1 2030. Number three, not less than 80% from the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by January 1 2050. So for your reference, the amount of the 1990 emissions that baseline was approximately 8.65 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent that's the measurement that's often use and in 2005, which is under number one as a comparison year. It had risen to approximately 10.22 million metric tons. And this is from our data, but you should absolutely check with them to make sure I'm accurate. And these numbers are sometime adjusted as they do more analysis. So there are quantifiable numbers as a 1990 and as a 2005 and under the bill these are the mandatory reduction amounts compared to those baseline years. And on the using different baseline years is is the use of 2005 because the Paris agreement in general use 2005 as a baseline. So we're just keeping Vermont language in line with the Paris agreement baseline year. That is my understanding yes. Thank you. And as I indicated the 2005 baseline was substantially higher than the 1990 levels. Now this section section three, and this section of law 10 vs a 578 will be cross reference repeatedly throughout the bill. So as we go through the bill you'll see over and over language pursuant to section 578 of this title is referring to this section of law. And I also would alert you to that later on, we'll be talking about net zero. So you'll see that these requirements max out at 80% in below the 1990 levels in 2050. You'll see later on in the bill on page 13 and then on page 20 will be the concept of net zero which is a little different but I just want to give you a heads up. We'll discuss that a little later. So once again section three sets the mandatory greenhouse gas reduction requirements. Are there any questions about this section of the bill. So moving on to section four. We now have set the baseline requirements for the mandatory reduction. And now we begin to get into section four section four creates a new chapter 24 entitled 10. This would be chapter 24 Vermont climate council and climate action plan. Now just so you know if you ever were to pull a green buckle off the shelf or look at the statutes online. There already is a chapter 24 pertaining to outdoor lighting, but that was repealed in 2009. So what this basically does is eliminate that repealed law and any reference to it and create a new chapter 24 pertaining to the Vermont climate council and Vermont climate action plan. So the first section of this new chapter is 10 v say 590 with definitions and if you're looking at your paper copy the bill this is on page five. And it defines terms such as adaptation mitigation and resilience. By the way you'll notice that resilience is given number five that's a typo. It should be number four, we can fix that if you make any amendments to this bill going forward. So those adaptation mitigation resilience are not really legal terms, but it defines them because they're used repeatedly throughout the rest of the bill. You'll see that greenhouse gas is defined in two as cross referencing the same meeting section 552 of this title, and I put the definition this is existing law, the current definition of greenhouse gas under 10 v say 552. This includes any chemical or physical substance that is emitted into the air, and that the secretary of a an army reasonably anticipate to cause or contribute to climate change, including substance such as carbon dioxide methane, and some other listed substances. So obviously greenhouse gas is a term that will be used repeatedly throughout the bill, and it is cross reference as the current definition in 10 v say 552. Thank you very much from our link. Can you say just a little bit more when you, you know, when we put in definitions, you were saying something about these definitions like adaptation mitigation resilience not having legal meaning but our, I always think of our definition section as creating legal meaning for the, for any bill. So, maybe I'm not quite following. It's unclear I didn't say legal meaning I said legal term and what I meant was, it's not a specific legal term like some definitions are, but those words were defined in this context, because they're used repeatedly so it does have a legal impact and make sure every time you read that word in the rest of the bill. It has that clear meaning to you, but it's not a legal term like you see in some other statutes. Is that helpful. Sure, sure. I don't know Mr chair if it means if it really in the end it's exactly the same result that helps you at all. Any questions about the definition section. Moving on then to the new 10 v say 591, which concerns Vermont climate council, and I'll be walking through the next few pages pages 6789 in some detail, because this sets forth the composition and the duties and responsibilities of Vermont climate council. But before we walk through that line by line. Here's a quick overview. There'll be 22 members. Eight are from the executive branch. Seven are appointed by the house and seven appointed by the Senate. And the duties and deliverables of the council include at a high level, identifying and analyzing and evaluating the appropriate strategies and programs to achieve those mandatory greenhouse gas reductions to adopt the Vermont climate action plan. There's also language, including measurement of various things. And there's language concerning guidance to an hour concerning its rulemaking obligations. There are various subcommittees are for that are required. And the council can establish other subcommittees. And then there's language concerning supporting the council and reports that the council must issue. So that's the table of contents of section 591. And now we'll go back and begin to walk through it in more detail. If everyone goes to page six of your paper copy. You'll see that section 591 begins with a list of the members. Already there's 22 total members. And under subsection a the first eight listed are from the executive branch. They include under one, the secretary of administration, who shall serve as the chair of the council. Number two, the secretary of natural resources. The secretary of agriculture. Commerce and community development. Human services. Public safety and the department of public service. Nine on page six states that the following members shall be appointed by the speaker of the house. And they include a member with expertise and professional experience in the design and implementation of programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A member to represent rural communities. Governments. Distribution utilities, in other words, electric utilities to represent a statewide environmental organization. The fuel sector. And G on page seven, one member with expertise in climate change science. All of these are once again appointed by the speaker of the house. On page seven, you'll see 10. The following members shall be appointed by the committee on committees. In other words, the Senate. A member in the expertise in design and implementation of programs to increase resilience and respond to natural disasters. Be representing the clean energy sector. Small business community. Vermont community action partnership. A member in the farm and forest sector. A youth member. And under G one member of a Vermont based organization with expertise and energy and data analysis. So those members would be appointed by the Senate. Are there any questions about the members and their qualifications. Going on to page. I'm trying to scan the whole list. Mr. Chair. I'm scanning the whole list and I'm out of the 22 members. There seems to be a member with expertise in the design and implementation of programs. Having to do with climate change and the other 20 members. That's the only one without skill. Thank you. That's the only one that's specified to have that skill. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions. Thank you. Any other questions. Proceeding to page seven. Subsection B. So we've gone through the list. Of members and who will appoint those members. Now we're moving on to the duties and deliverables. Of the council. Be states. That the council shall. Identify analyze and evaluate strategies and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Achieve the state's reduction requirements pursuant to section. Five 78. That's a cross reference. I explained to you earlier. The greenhouse gas reduction requirements. And build resilience to prepare the state's communities, infrastructure and economy. To adapt to the current and anticipated effects of climate change. Including if you flip to page eight. And identify and analyze strategies and programs that impact the emissions and their efficacy. Be evaluating and analyzing the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of existing strategies and programs. And identifying evaluating analyzing new strategies and programs. And see analyzing each source or category of sources of greenhouse gas emissions. And identify and analyze strategies and programs will result in the largest greenhouse gas emissions reductions. In the most cost effective manner. In other words, the biggest bang for the buck. D. Identifying analyzing and evaluating public and private financing strategies. To support the transition. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions economy. And identify and analyze existing strategies and programs that build resilience. And identifying evaluating analyzing new strategies and programs. To prepare the state for the impacts of climate change. So these are five factors, five high level factors. That's a council shall look at. In its process of identifying, analyzing and evaluating strategies and programs. And identify and analyze each source of greenhouse gas emissions. On page eight. Excuse me. You'll see. That secondly, the council will develop a plan. So at the bottom of page eight, number two. Honor before December 1st, 2021. The council will adopt Vermont climate action plan. And update the plan. Every four years thereafter. And we'll talk about the plan in more detail in a few moments later. We'll talk about the plan. And we'll also talk about the state of states that the plan will set forth this specific initiatives, programs and strategies. That the state shall pursue to reduce emissions and achieve the mandatory reduction requirements. Going on to page nine. So the council is obligated once again. As we began. To identify, analyze and evaluate strategies and programs under the five factors we looked at. And now on page nine, number three. Identify the means to accurately measure. The state's greenhouse gas emissions and progress towards meeting the reduction requirements. B, the effectiveness of the initiatives, programs and strategies set forth in the plan. See the effect of climate change on the state's climate wildlife and natural resources. And then we'll talk about. D, the resilience of the state's communities. So the measurement. Duty imposed on the council. Is not just measuring greenhouse gas emissions. But it's measuring its progress towards the goals, the effectiveness of the programs. That it recommends the effect of climate change on the state. And the resilience of the state's communities. And the resilience of the state's communities. And the mitigation and duties. Are multifaceted. Number four. The council is also required to provide guidance to the Secretary of natural resources. Concerning the form, content and subject matter. Of the rules to be adopted. Pursuant to section five 93 of this chapter. That section is on page 18 and we'll discuss it in a few moments. We've now reviewed the duties and deliverables of the council and we'll talk about some of these in more detail when we get to the plan, but are there any questions so far. This is not so much a question that we need to dig into. But I'm just wondering, number four on page nine, providing guidance to a and R. Are there other precedents in state law where we have a panel majority composition, unelected officials, providing guidance to an agency of state government. I'll just leave that as a question to get back to the staff used to be. Pardon me, Senator McDonnell, I can quite catch it. The Vermont state nuclear advisory panel used to provide such guidance to state government when it was in existence. Okay. What I will be doing is as you raise issues I'll try to take notes. And if you also do that that might be helpful but I'll be trying to take notes of these type of questions. Thank you. So I don't want to just wanted to flag that while we go because thank you. So let's, I think you are going to go on to subsea right. Yes, I'll go on now to subsea which concerns the subcommittees but before I do that any other questions about what we've just covered. I guess, I do have one more that a backup and three a in terms of measuring emissions. I mean, we have a protocol now is there. Can you speak a little bit to the, since you helped participate in the writing the bill, was there a sense that our current inventory of greenhouse gas emissions is in some way inadequate. That's why this is an assigned task, or it's just for the sake of completeness that they should visit that protocol and make sure it's sufficient or something like that. My sense was not that there's a feeling of inadequacy. But it was more how you expressed it. But I'm also hesitant to try to read the minds of the member of another committee or another body. If you wish I would strongly encourage you to hear from the chair of House energy, who's very involved in this very knowledgeable and I'm sure you can answer your questions very well. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, please. Senator Campion, or Mr. Mc, Senator McDonnell. I flipped ahead to page 18 because I was going to wait until then but this has a question having to do with the meetings of this advisory panel, chaired by the secretary administration. How was the panel, how was the panel meet if the secretary of administration might be busy and choose not to call the panel together. What are the provisions in the law for such an event. I have a question, a question about format when you say Mr chair, are you asking the chair to answer that are you just, are you really asking me to answer it and just directing my fight. I'm asking a Luke, if you could please answer. Great. I got stuck on protocol. No, no problem. There is a mechanism in the bill that if the council doesn't come up with a plan and are still has to promulgate rules. So there is that safety if you wish if the council doesn't meet. You had the scenario of the chair not calling the council to meet. That's what would happen. But there's no other language about someone else convening the council or something to that effect. There is such language. No, I said I don't believe there is any such any other such language. So it's if the chair doesn't ever call the council to meet. So that can fulfill their duties, but in our would still be obligated to pursue rulemaking to achieve the mandatory greenhouse gas reductions. So that would empower the administration to choose not to call the council together and do it on their in the way that they fashion the administration like fashion to do it without having to consult with the council. Correct. I wouldn't phrase it that way I wouldn't use a word and power. I viewed a little differently. Grant the authority council doesn't meet. Leave them in the default position of whatever. Is that. I'm sorry breaking up. So can I make a suggestion? If the chair did not call a meeting for members of the council majority could call a meeting of the Vermont state nuclear advisory panel. That was the way in which the panel could operate. If the chair did not call a meeting for members of the council. So there appears to be am I correct there is no such mechanism in what is being proposed in this bill or there is such a mechanism. There is no such mechanism in this bill. I'm scanning some of the later pages and we can look at them again. When we get there, but I do not believe so. Thank you. So. Thank you, Senator McDonnell for your. Vigilance. So we'll. Let's flag it and dig into it when we get there. I think you left off. Mr. Mark Lane on page nine sub C. Yes, thank you. So see now we're moving on to language concerning subcommittees. There are four subcommittees that are required and I'll go through the mission of each of those subcommittees in a moment. But the council can establish other subcommittees if it so wishes. And you'll notice at the end of the meeting, there's language stating that the council may appoint members of the council to serve as members of the subcommittee. And also appoint individuals who are not members of the council to serve on the subcommittees. So they have authority to create other subcommittees and to appoint folks who aren't members of the council to those subcommittees. The first mandatory subcommittee is on page 10 number one. The rural resilience and adoption subcommittee adaptation subcommittee excuse me. And it states that that committee subcommittee shall focus on the pressures that climate change adaptation will impose on rural transportation, electricity, housing, emergency services and communication infrastructure. And the difficulty of rural communities in meeting the needs of its citizens. Proceeding on page 10, you'll see that the subcommittee shall develop a vulnerability index under be developed best practice recommendations specific to rural communities for reducing municipal school district and residential fossil fuel consumption and other issues. C recommend a means to securely share information concerning vulnerable residents with emergency responders and utilities. Proceeding to page 11 D recommend tools for municipalities to assess their climate emergency preparedness. And under E utilize Vermont emergency management reports to recommend programs and policies and those reports will be referred to in a moment when we get to page 14. So those are the duties and deliverables of the rural resilience and adaptation subcommittee. On page 11 number two is the next mandatory subcommittee is the cross sector mitigation subcommittee. And number two states that this subcommittee shall focus on identifying the most scientifically and technologically feasible strategies and programs that will result in the largest possible greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the most cost effective manner. So once again, this is the idea of the biggest bang for the buck. Number three, the third mandatory subcommittee is the just transition subcommittee. And this subcommittee shall focus on ensuring that strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to build resilience. We shall benefit and support all residents of the state fairly and equitably and the subcommittee shall ensure that the strategies consider the impact of climate change on rural low income and other marginalized communities. Number two page 12 at the top number four is the fourth mandatory subcommittee, and this is the agriculture and ecosystems subcommittee. And it states that this subcommittee shall focus on Vermont's natural and working lands and the role they play in carbon sequestration and storage climate adaptation and community resilience. In the summary of the four required subcommittees and their missions. Are there any questions about those issues proceeding on page 12. I'm a little slow sometimes here. Sorry, I'm going to quickly. No, no. Page 11 so the phrase dish with disproportionate impact is there. I understand how we know what's meant by that, you know, as measured how by whom kind of a thing is that address later in the bill, or is it just considered a fact. Are you asking how it's measured or how the House committee determined that this was an issue. Well, and maybe it's not appropriate for me to ask you to explain it to be more a question for a member that committee. There was definitely a discussion of this issue in some length in the committee, but I think it is more appropriate to circle back to the chair and another member of the committee about why they thought it was important or how they arrived at that decision I don't want to paraphrase their thought process. Thank you very much. Any other questions about subcommittees proceeding on to page 12 under D in the middle of the page. It states that the council shall recommend necessary legislation to the general assembly concerning under number four, any matter the council deals a deems appropriate. Under one, two and three issues such as adapting a market based or alternative compliance mechanism. Two changes to land use and development. Three any statutory changes necessary to implement the plan. So the council has the ability to recommend legislative changes that it deems appropriate. Under D, there's language that I will not read through, but there's language concerning the administrative technical legal supports of the council and this will be provided by an our and the department of public service. Under F, there's language concerning a quorum and voting, and it does authorize the council in the middle of page 13 to adopt any other procedural rules it deems necessary to perform its work. Under G, there's language concerning per diems that is pretty standard for most study committees and other similar bodies. Under H at the bottom of page 13, there's language concerning staggering the terms of the members and the length of those terms and how vacancies will be filled. So I can pause here and give you a chance to look at that language or I can go through it in more detail if you wish, but most this language is fairly standard or has been used in other contexts. Do you want me to pause or run through it or should I proceed. Okay. And as I said earlier I assume that this is only the initial higher level walkthrough and we can always go back and drill down and any section of the bill, as you think best. So, going on. Let's, let's keep going as you suggest. Did you want me to do you want to stop for a moment and go back. Yeah, I think it's not I don't see any committee questions so let's keep proceeding thanks. Page 14 under I there's reporting requirements. And the first requirement is that the Council on or before January 15 of 2021 and every year thereafter will report to the General Assembly concerning its activities and the state's progress towards meeting the greenhouse gas reduction requirements. So the Council has a reporting requirement every year. Secondly, you'll see in the middle of the page on or before November 1 2021 and every second year thereafter. The director of emergency management will report to the Council concerning Vermont's overall municipal resilience to increase hazards presented by climate change. If you remember a few pager few pages earlier in the one of the subcommittees there's language about this report. So this is a report from emergency management to the Council to help guide its work concerning resilience. That is the conclusion of section 592 concerning the Council and its duties and structure and obligations. I'm about to move on to 592 concerning the climate action plan. Any questions before I do so. So 592 starts on page 14 towards the bottom. And this is a remote climate action plan. It requires that on or before December 1 2021. The climate Council adopt a climate action plan and update it every four years. Now, you'll see, and we'll go through each of these in some detail so we'll walk through the next few pages of the bill. But the specific initiatives programs and strategies to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions. If you include under be initiatives and programs and strategies that achieve seven sort of higher level goals. See then sets forth the basis for developing those initiatives programs and strategies. And under subsection D, there's additional language concerning more specific objectives that should be achieved by those initiatives programs and strategies. So let's go back and begin to walk through subsections B, C and D. B starts at the bottom of page 14. And it says that the plan, which of course is adopted by the Council shall set forth the specific initiatives programs and strategies including regulatory and legislative changes. It is necessary to achieve the state's greenhouse gas emissions reductions requirements and to build resilience to prepare the state's communities infrastructure and economy to adapt to the current and anticipated effects of climate change. The plan shall include specific initiatives programs and strategies that will. And you'll see that there's seven listed higher level goals. Number one, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation building regulated utility industrial commercial and agricultural sectors. Encourage smart growth and related strategies. Three, achieve long term sequestration and storage of carbon and promote best management practices to further climate mitigation. Four, achieve net zero emissions by 2050 across all sectors. So if you remember when we were going through section 578, which established the mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets, I had mentioned to you that later on in the bill will touch on net zero. This is the first time we've seen that term used. And the plan must include strategies and programs to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 across all sectors. Five, reduce energy burdens for rural and marginalized communities. Six, limit the use of chemical substances and products that contribute to climate change and seven, build and encourage climate adaptation and resilience of communities and natural systems. So these are the seven higher level goals that the plan must further. Now we're moving on to the basis for developing these higher level goals and see states that the analysis development and selection of the initiatives programs and strategies contained in the plan shall be based upon number one at the bottom of page 15. The council's analysis and evaluation of the strategies and programs. And there's a cross reference that goes back to page seven and eight. That's a language when we were looking at the section of law concerning the council and the council's duties and deliverables. Flipping to page 16 to reports plans and information from a and our department of public service, other state agencies and the state comprehensive energy plan. So this is saying that the plans strategies and initiatives and programs to achieve these seven high level goals are based upon information from various state agencies and entities. And number three other reports plans and information. So it's quite a broad catch all that allows the plan to be based on information from multiple sources. D on page 16 states that the specific initiatives programs and strategies contained in the plan and any updates to the plan shall further the following objective objectives excuse me and there's eight listed on page 16, continuing on to page 17. The first number one and page 16 is to prioritize the most cost effective, technologically feasible and equitable greenhouse gas emissions reductions pathways and adaptation preparedness strategies informed by scientific and technical expertise. Number two, to provide for emissions reductions that reflect the relative contribution of each source or category of emissions. Three to minimize negative impacts on role and marginalized communities and upon low and moderate income individuals for to ensure that all regions of the state benefit from emissions reductions. Five on the top of page 17 to support economic sectors and regions of the state that may face the greatest barriers to emissions reductions, especially rural and economically distressed regions. Six to support industries technology and training that will allow workers and businesses in the state to benefit from emissions reductions solutions. Seven to support the use of natural solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase resilience, including the use of working lands to sequester and store carbon and protect against severe weather. And eight to maximize the state's involvement and interstate and regional initiatives and programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build upon those partnerships. So once again, we're walking through what the plan must contain, or the objectives and must further, and we've seen under B that the plan must include specific initiatives programs and strategies that achieve seven higher level goals. In C we talked about the basis or the information sources for determining those initiatives. And now we've just gone through subsection D, which states that the plan must further eight more specific objectives and we've just walked through those. Any questions about this structure and these objectives or this process. Proceeding to E towards the bottom of page 17. Now we're moving on to language concerning rulemaking and estates the plan shall form the basis for the rules adopted by the Secretary of Natural Resources pursuant to section 593, which we'll get to in a moment. And Senator McDonald this is the language I cross referenced earlier it states if the council fails to adapt the plan or update the plan as required. The Secretary of A&R shall proceed with rulemaking to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reductions required and across references section 578, and you'll see similar language in a moment on page 21. So even if the council fails to fulfill its duties fails to come up with a required plan and our must proceed with rulemaking to achieve those mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets. I have a question. In the event that that Lucas just brought to us. I think we have problems now with, for example, the Vermont telecommunication plan that's supposed to be in place does not exist. And the committee put together to propose it and put one in place has failed. There is no plan, and there hasn't been a plan it's overdue. And now, as we speak, the Commissioner of the Department of Public Service is crafting a plan that comes as a result of what she, what the Commissioner believes ought to happen, and is being put together independently from the way the law was crafted to have a plan. And this is causing consternation. And that will be resolved somehow. So having said all that. How is what is before us different. Then what we had in place we believe we had in place to get and be able to work on a telecommunications communications plan. How is this different. Where do we, where does this plan permit the majority to act in the absence of administrative enthusiasm. Mr. Martland you have anything you want to say in response. It sounds like more of a statement than a question. I mean, I think you're advocating for potential changes to the bill. I can't answer your question. Mr. McDonnell, I mean, that is the occasionally planning groups run into issues around getting a plan done. And sometimes we are left hamstrung for can be years. So, okay, so thank you for flagging that something for us to come back to you. If you have any more questions on page 17. Then I would ask Mr. Marland to continue. We've looked at the sections of the bill concerning the council. We've looked at the section of the bill concerning the plan. And now we're going to proceed to the next section of the bill concerning the rule making process. So this is on page 18. And I'll walk through this, but at the very end of my presentation, I have a slide with a list of potential other issues or topics that the committee may want a more in depth discussion concerning and the rulemaking process and the limits to the process. And also the extent of authority given to an hour under this bill, maybe an issue that you want to drill down on in the future. But let me for right now go through the language in the bill concerning the rulemaking process. So what section 593 does is it mandates it in our will adopt rules that are consistent with the initiatives programs and strategies set forth in the plan, and also develop a detailed record as to its process. And then it sets forth various time periods to adopt and update those rules that are tied to the greenhouse gas reduction years of 2025 2026 and 2040 I'm sorry 2025 2030 and 2050. There's also language concerning an alternative reduction mechanism. And then there's language similar to language we just looked at about in our duty to proceed with rulemaking, even if the council fails to adopt the plan. So that's the overall structure of section 593 that begins on page 18. Let's now go to page 18 and walk through this language. Under a it states that the Secretary of A&R shall adopt rules pursuant. And there's a cross reference to three vs a chapter 25. That's the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act consistent with Vermont Climate Action Plan. So it has to be quote consistent with, but it doesn't mandate that it follows the climate action plan as to every specific detail. In adopting rules pursuant to the section the Secretary shall number one, ensure that the rules are consistent with the specific initiatives programs and strategies set forth in the plan. Follow the Vermont Climate Council's guidance. And further the objectives pursuant to subsection 592d of this chapter. And 2, develop a detailed record containing facts, data and legal scientific and technical information sufficient to establish a reasonable basis to believe that the rules shall achieve the state greenhouse gas emissions reductions requirements. This detailed record shall be included with the rule and filed with the Secretary of State. It's a little unusual and different than some rulemaking requirements in that an hour is mandated to develop and file a detailed record that establishes the basis for what it will seek to include in the rules. And this record is relevant later, when we look at the cause of action section of the law of the bill, excuse me, be at the bottom of page 18. So we're moving on to the targets for greenhouse gas reduction, and when the rules need to be adopted to meet each of those target years. So be states that on or before December 1, 2022, the Secretary shall adopt and implement rules consistent with the initiatives, etc. to achieve the 2025 greenhouse gas emissions reductions. So if remember we had the timeframes of 2025 2030 and 2050 for guaranteed or required emissions reductions be states that honor before December 1, 2022 in our will have adopted rules to achieve the reductions mandated by 2025. See, the Secretary shall conduct public hearings across the state concerning the proposed rules, and the Secretary shall conduct a portion of those hearings in areas and communities that have the most significant exposure to the impacts of climate change. And if in the future this committee wants to drill down on the rulemaking process. There's other requirements concerning the rulemaking process set forth in chapter 25 of title three, the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act. So this, those requirements still would be in effect. This supplements those requirements set forth in title three. So I would. I would like to flag that as a section I know that will want to revisit. I'm not familiar with it. Senator Brad, I don't know if you can hear me but we just lost you I couldn't hear the last sentence you said. Senator Brad I don't know if you can hear me but we can hear you. Press me give him a call. Should we just pause or should I just pause and. Yeah he's showing that he's not muted at least on my screen. He's not he's disconnected right now. Luke I may have to. Oh, here he is. Why, thank you. Chris, we just adjourned, but do you want to. The last, the last ages I wasn't easy, easy reading. So thanks. My question was just, you know, my the fundamental as I've learned it is that the sole lawmaking body in government is the legislature, except for when we delegate to agencies through the process we generally call rulemaking. And there is a an obligation on the part of the legislate the rulemaking body to delegate that authority with adequate direction. And I'm just wondering about the issue of creating a non legislative panel that then provides the guidance that the rulemaking must be carried out under and I, I don't know of a precedent for that, that level of, I guess I'd call it. I think that's a legitimate issue to discuss it wasn't discussed in depth in the House committees. And I think you put your finger on a good issue to be looked at in greater depth. And we can certainly do that for this committee. Okay, so let's just plan on returning to that part. Mr. Chair, the your, your point is on target. And on the other end of the of that spectrum is when the legislature creates a group to come up with a plan. And the group doesn't come up with that plan. The default position is that the administration then goes ahead and does rules that they feel they have the authority to propagate in the absence of a plan. So it's, it's a danger. It has risks on both ends. So I, as we go forward, I look to see that how we might mitigate those and keep and keep any planning from escaping in either direction. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for the reminder right there's more than one way to have some challenges and I know that as an experience of serving at Elkar it's made me much more attentive to how we invoke rulemaking. Because sometimes I think we invoke that rulemaking with scant direction and I don't know that it's always appropriate so Thanks for that and Mr. Martland so we'll flag this as a major subtopic to come back to thank you. Thank you. We're now in page 19. Subsection D. It states that the secretary shall honor before July 1, 2024 review, and if necessary update the rules required to ensure that the 2025 emissions reduction requirements are achieved. So if you remember we just covered on page 18, the requirement that honor before December 1, 2022 rules must be adopted to achieve those reduction requirements by 2025. This requires that on July 1, 2024, the secretary look to see if those rules need to be updated to achieve that requirement. E. So we've looked at the 2025 reduction requirement. Now in E we're moving on to the 2030 reduction requirement. And he states that on before July 1, 2026, the secretary shall adopt and implement rules consistent with the initiatives and programs set forth in the plan to achieve the 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reductions requirements. He also states that the secretary shall observe the requirements in subsection see that was a subsection that required public hearings, including in areas of the state that were most significantly exposed to the adverse impacts of climate change. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Can I ask a little bit about this? So in sub D, for instance, this first target, the secretary honor before July 1 of 24 reviews, in order to ensure that we're basically on a 2025 greenhouse gas reduction requirement. And that is that I'm just trying to understand them, kind of the mechanics and thinking behind this we haven't yet hit the milestone. So are we going to be estimating that we're trending towards meeting it, and, or, what's the, what's the, what's the construct, how does this work. If we haven't hit a milestone how do we know, how do we ask the question ahead of time to see if we're on a trend line to get there. So the construct is, and you'll see this for each of the required reduction years 2025 2030 and 2050, there's language requiring in our to promulgate the rules to meet those required reductions. And then, before you get to that year, look to see if the rules will be successful or not and update them if necessary. I think the assumption is that is that you could look at the data that's come in so far, could engage in modeling and see if in our thinks it's on a path to achieve the required reduction or not, and make necessary changes, if it is not. Okay. It is these are very tight timeframes. Did the committee discuss the timeliness of the data that's available to make these kinds of assessments my office. Yes, off the top of my head I think we tend to have data that's lagging two or three years behind because of the way we collect data versus how it gets integrated into the state data and where we have lagging our data lags by several years. So, that was an issue discussed you are correct that that might be a potential problem it was discussed in committee, and I'll just leave it at that but there was a discussion of the data when it comes in, and when you'd have it available. Thank you. I'm going to page 19. He. Now we're going to start dealing with the 2030 greenhouse gas reduction requirement. And it's very similar to the language we looked at a moment ago. Before July 1, 2026 in our will adopt and implement rules consistent with the initiatives and programs that forth in the plan to achieve the 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. And it also states that the secretary will observe the requirements of subsection C. That is a public hearing requirement. Then in F. It says the secretary shell. No less frequently than once every two years between 2026 and 2030 review and if necessary update the rules to achieve the reduction requirements for 2030. Now we're moving on to the 2050 reduction requirement. G states an honor before July 1, 2040. The secretary shall adopt and implement rules consistent with the initiatives and programs that forth in the plan to achieve the emissions reductions for 2050. And then in each there's language similar to what we just looked at saying that secretary shell. At his or her discretion but no less frequently than every two years between 2040 and 2050 review and if necessary update the rules to ensure that the 2050 reduction requirement is met. So for each of the threshold years 2025 2030 and 2050, there's similar language about what in our must do, but obviously for the first two 2025 and 2030, the timeframe is much more compressed. Since we're in the weeds on this a little bit. The secretary is revising the rules in order to try to make sure that we're going to hit the targets. This is the plan, the planning and guidance from the climate action panel. We begin to this rewrite of the rules that come up later or is that already been addressed by what we already went through. Well the language we just looked at there's supposed to be working together and communicating. At least that's the assumption in the bill. We'll see for example on I'm trying to find the language. I mean I see that you look at the bottom page 19 bottom page 20 and that's repeated in the prior subsections it says that secretary shall adopt and implement rules consistent with the initiative programs and strategy set forth in the plan. In the top of page 20 and updates to the plan so the council's meeting developing its first plan. And it's periodically updating that that should inform what a and R is also doing, developing its rules and then looking at its rules and updating them as necessary to see that they are achieving the mandatory greenhouse gas reductions. Great, thank you. That's the process or the time frames for a and R to promulgate rules and update them if necessary to achieve the reduction requirements now on page 20 in I we're going to move on to the alternative reduction mechanisms. Before I do that any other questions about the rule making deadlines tied to the greenhouse gas reduction targets. Okay, no, but, but from it from this rule, the plan is the first mile post and everything that we just look at next will is based on the assumption that there is a plan in place. Is that correct. Not entirely I mean yes I think the assumption in the bill is that there will be the council will meet and the council will fulfill its duties and come up with a plan and updated periodically so I think that is the assumption in the bill. But remember also a and R if that doesn't happen in our still must proceed with rulemaking to achieve those reduction requirements. Thank you. So that I in the middle of page 20. It states that the secretary may so it's not shell it's not required may establish alternative reduction mechanisms to be used if necessary to achieve net zero missions after 2050. The second mention of net zero after 2050. Number one, the use of alternative reduction mechanisms shall account for not more than 20% of statewide emissions, estimated as a percentage percentage of 1990 emissions. So in essence, it's a cap on the extent of such an alternative reduction mechanism, if the secretary establishes one. Number two, the secretary shall verify that any emissions offsets authorized as alternative reduction mechanisms represent equivalent emissions reductions or carbon sequestration that are real additional verifiable enforceable and permanent. The secretary is seeking to ensure that if there is such an alternative reduction mechanism, the impacts are real verifiable enforceable and permanent. The net zero emissions requirement that the first cross reference that is on page 15 sub four. Because that's not established as a group. Well, I'm trying to understand whether that is an aspirational statement or if having a plan for makes it binding. It's a little bit in between I think so on page 15. It is required that the plan will set forth initiatives and programs and strategies that will achieve net zero emissions by 2050 so the plan has to contain that. But there's no mandate that the rules and our promulgates also have to achieve that the rules are guided by what's in the plan. There's no requirement that as to everything in the plan that be reflected in the rules. So, there's no requirement that the rules will achieve or must achieve net zero by 2050. The language pertaining to the rules is what we just reviewed on page 20, which says the secretary may establish such mechanisms. If he or she deems appropriate. I want to make sure I was. It is distinct. It's distinguished from writing the emissions, the greenhouse gas emissions targets into law, and that this is a statement that the plan shall contain provisions designed to achieve that. So there's not actually a hard statutory requirement for the secretary to write plans to achieve it, nor is there a mandate for Vermont to conduct itself in a manner to achieve that. So it sounds somewhat aspirational. I just want to make sure I, I'm seeing a difference that correctly. I think you summarized it well. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to page 21. This is language similar to what we looked at earlier that if the council fails to adopt or update the plan. The secretaries shall adopt rules to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reductions requirement. We've talked about this a number of times. Okay, and L there's further language. Perhaps this language may not be necessary, but it does clarify two issues. Number one. Excuse me. K states and nothing in this section shall be construed to limit existing authority of a state agency department or entity to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and to seek to address climate change. So it doesn't take away any authority of any state agency or entity to fulfill its duties to seek to address climate change. And in L, it states that the General Assembly may repeal, revise and modify any rule or amendment to any rule, and its actions shall not be abridged, enlarge or modified by subsequent rule. And this is on one hand, a statement of the obvious that the General Assembly, if it does not like a rule, can rescind that rule change that rule modify that rule through an act of legislation. Based on language taken from 12 vsa section one concerning the authority of the judicial branch to promulgate rules, and this language is in that section of law, and indicates that the General Assembly can take action to repeal revise or modify any rule that's in the legal branch promulgates. So it, on one hand, maybe a statement of the obvious, but on the other hand is based on law in another context to make clear that the General Assembly still has authority to override a rule, it may not agree with which which, which of course, in many cases with all that is the General Assembly would have to would be subject to being vetoed. In the other way, some thing might be thwarted is through the courts, if the courts found that there was some, those are the two exceptions otherwise it's is that accurate statement veto is absolutely accurate. And of course law would have to go through both bodies and be passed by both bodies and presented to the governor, and he or she could veto that bill you're absolutely correct. Your statement about the courts I didn't quite understand I think if the law was unconstitutional, a court might invalidate it, but I'm not certain otherwise the courts would take action against the law that seeks to modify a rule. Could you explain that a little more. No, no, the, the, the other way in which the unlimited authority of the existing authority of the state agencies would be that a rule was promulgated and put into place. And it was taken to court and the rule was found to be invalid. Yes, thank you. Yes, yes, you are correct and we're actually just about to those in the, in the event that the council doesn't provide a plan and that first mile post, and the administration does its best in the absence of a plan to do what it thinks is the right thing to do. It can only be thwarted by a law that gets passed by Congress or a court action that says what they're doing is beyond the law. That's accurate. You misspoke and said Congress I think you meant General Assembly for my did. Yes, thank you. Okay, so that thank you that. That helps me look from above and and see where the defenses and guard rails are. Thank you. Yes, and we're just about to talk about the cause of action. The one thing I would add I think you, I know you know this and I think you assumed it is obviously Elkar is also part of that process, but Elkar doesn't object to a rule merely on policy basis as you well know we would have to object on some other basis which is somewhat limited, but Elkar could also be a guard rail in that process. Elkar can sound a warning, but Elkar cannot stop a rule. I understand. I'm now ready to go on to section 594 the cause of action. Before I do that are there any questions about we've just what we've just covered which is section 593 and the rulemaking process. I'm looking at K and L so K is basically an acknowledgement that there's already pre existing programs agencies departments, whatever all these people working in other ways, and they're there not somehow constrained in their work, because there's now going to be a sort of a parallel process going on. And that is that is accurate. And L is, I don't think I've ever seen that before. So that's a reminder, just the facts of current law. It was that sort of a comfort clause. It's somewhat a statement of the obvious. It may not be entirely necessary, but it was I believe included to make clear that the General Assembly has that authority and can take action if it disagrees with a rule. Okay. I don't think it's going to use any harm in including it. I don't think it has a negative impact anyway. In pay, I'm noticing it says promulgate rules. And I, on my gov ops committee, we were just doing a technical amendments bill. I'll double check. I think. Carby was saying that states moving to adopting rules and no longer saying promulgate just as an FYI, and I'll double check on my end. Gotcha. Thank you. Any other questions before we move on to section 594 the cause of action. So the next section of the bill and we're getting through the real meat of the bill after we get through this section. The rest of it might be a little quicker. This is section 594 on page 21 cause of action. Now this is another topic that the committee might want to discuss in more depth and I'm glad to do that. There are under existing law various mechanisms to challenge a rule. And I think those existing mechanisms would apply to this bill, even if you did not have section 594. So there are existing ways to challenge a rule. But what section 594 does is, in essence, build on that or clarify that. And so let's walk through the language in this section, but this is something that at another time. I can come back before this committee and we can talk about it in more depth. So a on page 21 states that any person may commence an action based upon the failure of the secretary of natural resources to adopt or update rules as required. So person is a defined term in title one. Not separately defined in this chapter, but in one VSA 128 person is defined as including a natural person that's you or I also corporations municipalities, the state or subdivisions of the state and quote any legal entity on quote so the understanding of person, which would apply to the use of this term in this bill is quite broad. Now, what a does if you're looking at the PowerPoint. There's really two different scenarios set forth in section 594. A is a scenario if a and R fails to adopt rules so it does not do its duty. And then be which will get to in a moment under subsection be is that a and R does adopt rules, but those rules fail to achieve the required greenhouse gas reductions. So there's two different scenarios and they're slightly different. How they're defined in the bill on page 21. As I just summarized for you a states that any person may commence an action based upon the failure of a and R to adopt rules or update rules. Number one, the action shall be brought pursuant to rule 75 of the rules of civil procedure in the superior court of Washington County so that's a venue in which this action must be brought to the complaint shall be filed within one year. The expiration of the time in which a and R was required to adopt rules pursuant to section 593 of this chapter the section we just walked through. However, a person shall not commence an action have now turned to the top of page 22. Until at least 60 days after providing notice of the alleged violation to the secretary. So this is a timeframe but also includes the requirement that the person gives notice. And therefore an opportunity to cure to a and R. Three, if the court finds that the secretary has failed to adopt or update rules. The court shall enter an order directing the secretary to adopt or update rules. If the court finds that the secretary is taking prompt and effective action to adopt or update the rules. The court may grant a reasonable period of time to do so. So the way subsection a is structured is that a complaint can be filed within one year of the expiration of time in which a and R should have adopted rules. However, before commencing the action, the person shall give notice to a and R. The remedies are if the court finds that a and R has failed to adopt or update rules, it will order in our to do so. However, if the court finds that the an R is taking prompt and effective action to update the rules or adopt the rules, it may grant an extension. So in essence, if notices filed that a and R hasn't updated or adopted its rules, and it then begins to try to do so, it could be given an extension by the court. Is that reasonably clear to everyone. I know it's a little dense but. So is the effect of court action the same either they're given an extension to finish the rulemaking, they're engaged in, or they're given a new deadline. I wish they must complete the rulemaking either way. There's certainty about near certainty about getting a rule. Correct. They're either told by the court, you shall adopt rules if they fail to do so. But in essence, they'll be given a window to cure that deficiency to try to adopt rules. And if the court finds that they are taking prompt and effective action to do so, the court can give them an extension to do so. No problem there. Moving on to be so this is the other scenario in which. And our does adopt rules, but those rules aren't reducing greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently. So B states any person may commence an action alleging that rules adopted have failed to achieve the greenhouse gas emissions requirements and there's a cross reference. Number one, the action will be brought in Washington County Superior Court. Number two, the complaint shall be filed within one year after the Vermont greenhouse gas emissions inventory. Published by in our pursuant to section 582 indicates that the rules adopted by the secretary have failed to achieve the emissions reductions requirements. However, a person shall not commence an action until these 60 days after providing notice. So the trigger for this action, if you will, is that the emissions inventory indicates that the rules are not achieving sufficient reductions. But before proceeding, the person must give notice to an hour. Under the question. Yes, please. So the first milestone is the 2025 milestone. Correct. And the inventory tends to lag two to three years. So practically speaking, does this mean that there could not be such a complaint filed probably until something like 2025 plus two to three years. 27 2028, that would be the first time that this test might be applied. It's possible the first two milestones are, it's very compressed timeline. So you're going back to the issue of the lag in the data about emissions and what impact that could have. It might make it very difficult if not impossible to proceed under this subsection. Proceeding to the top of page 23 number three. It states if the court finds that the rules adopted by the secretary are a quote substantial cause of failure to achieve the emissions reductions requirements unquote unquote. The court shall enter an order remanding the matter to the secretary to adopt or update rules that achieve the reductions required. If the court finds that the secretary is taking prompt and effective action, the court may grant a reasonable period of time to do so. So the remedy in this second scenario under B. Is if the court finds that the rules are a quote substantial cause of failure unquote to achieve the required reduction. The court enters an order, basically sending the matter back to our to adopt or update its rules to make sure that they do achieve the required greenhouse gas emissions reductions. I don't know about this one too. I mean, I don't know if in the development of this bill, you heard testimony talk reviewed history, etc. The remedy in a certain way makes sense, you know, telling someone to try again on writing rules, if they failed to achieve it the first time. I also present sort of the obvious question of why will they do better the second time. So we can ask the other committee about that but in developing the building you look at precedence where yes, some a agency was sent back to rewrite rules and second time around. They were successful. I don't have any knowledge of such examples but I was not in the committee, all the time. So I don't know if there was a discussion of that or a witness who testified about that I can't say what the precedent is I'm sorry I just don't know. Okay, no problem. Thank you. Mr chair. Senator McDonald. So this section three seems to be a remedy to the following three scenarios. I assume that a plan has been put forth. First scenario was a bad plan, and it resulted in bad rules. The second one is the rules that were adopted simply were not followed and the third one that was that the administration was not following the rules and was busy and found other things more important is that basically what we could expect the court would be those are the things the court would be looking at. Once again you're asking me that question or the chair. I'm always direct questions. The witness please explain. Thank you. Please comment. Thank you. And I'm sorry. Who are your three scenarios I apologize for default. The court would find that what has been called for in statute is not happening. Yes, could be that the plan that was assembled was just a terrible plan, and the rules reflected that, or the court could find that the plant that the rules that were adopted didn't follow the plan and that's why things are not progressing as the law calls for or three, the rules, the plan was just fine the rules were just fine and the administration was preoccupied or thought more things were more important and was not enforcing the rules is that those the things that court can find, or is there something else. Those all seem reasonable and they would fall within subsection be, but the language is written a little more broadly. So that was my next question. So it's you see under three and the top of page 23 if the court finds that the rules adopted are a substantial cause of failure to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions. So substantial cause of failure could be the scenarios you just mentioned. Perhaps there's another one I can't think of, but if the court finds that, then it orders an hour to promulgate better rules and to achieve those required reductions. And if an hour is continues to be busy and preoccupied with other things and finds it's not important. Then what's the remedy. The set forth in this bill. If you look at three and you look at the other language we looked at earlier under scenario a the remedy or result is the court telling an hour to engage in rulemaking there's no other remedy in this bill. But I order certain things. Well, it's free to order what's set forth in this bill. Now, if we talk another day about other options available to challenge rules. We can talk to the rem the remedies under existing law. But I think most laws assume that the executive branch will obey and follow the law and do its best to comply and implement. As would we assume the planners and the legislature do their best. Yeah. Thank you. So just to follow up briefly and center McDonald's last. So there, there is nothing in here that's specific to failure to execute. So you could have that good rule, but inadequate implementation, which might include inadequate regulation. Right. Well, I think that might fall within three the language we just looked at and it also might fall within the other remedies available under existing law. Okay. So it doesn't, it doesn't the good rules that a and r just doesn't implement that is not specifically spelled out in the current language. Okay, Mr chair. Yeah, let's come back to this one. Yes, Senator McDonald just the, this is my personal editorial opinion, but the administration is to be commended on its decision to pursue climate change. Climate change issues. And it's to be commended for having put together a wide group of people to make recommendations on how to tackle climate change they weren't made to rule, but they were made and presented to the administration and the legislature, and where for our monitors. It seems that the reason for this act is that the administration for perhaps has been busy on other things, but has yet to take those recommendations and put them to use. And we have, or if we haven't yet come to the point where they, we can commend the administration for having done that. And we have this appears to have this bill before us, because we the legislature or citizens perhaps are worried that we, we somehow need to prod the next step out of all the parties. So, that's the way I look at this bill and it seems to the next place where it could break down is the courts could say, the next place to break down is there is no plan. And then following that the courts could say you haven't been as aggressive with the rules and go back and do it again. Is that a fair reasonable outline of where we are. No need to comment was editorial. Okay, Kevin. I'm, I'm looking at the clock, and I know that before we adjourn today we're also trying to have a vote on an amendment to 227. And we're getting near the end so. Mr mart, I don't want to rush us. And, oh, I think we're, thank you. I think we can get through the rest of this in five minutes so. I don't know if it's 12 o'clock that I'll have to jump off the floor. And, and Luke, when you. Yes, I am, Jude. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. I saw your email. Okay. Thank you for keeping us on schedule. Mr chair. Yes. So let me close out this section of law 594. And then we'll move on to some of the other sections which we can do more quickly. You'll see that see on page 23 concerns. The what may be awarded in an action. You'll see under it says that in an action brought pursuant to the section a prevailing party, or substantially prevailing party number one that is a plaintiff. The person or entity suing the state may be awarded reasonable costs if the action was frivolous, or lacked a reasonable basis in law or fact, I'm sorry, I was reading to apologize number one, if the prevailing party is a plaintiff shall be so it's mandatory shall be awarded reasonable costs and attorneys fees, unless doing so would not serve the interests of justice and this language is taken from other statutes and tracks the language and other statutes concerning costs and fees. Number two, that is a defendant, in other words a state and our may be so it's not mandatory it's optional may be awarded reasonable costs, but doesn't say anything about attorneys fees. If the action was frivolous or lacked a reasonable basis in law or fact. So costs and perhaps attorneys fees could be awarded to different parties, but there's not that it's limited and there's some language about when those might be awarded. We can talk about that in more depth. If we go back and look at the cause of action section in the future. And then D it says a nothing shall be construed to limit the rights procedures under existing law. Section five, we're now going to look quickly at and I'm having trouble with moving ahead in my PowerPoint. Yep, so we're going to now look at some other sections and I'll try to go through these very quickly. I don't think we need to go through them line by line. On the bottom of page 23, there's session law concerning the rulemaking process. And basically what this did does if you go to the top of page 24 is it requires and are to provide rules and its detailed record to the council 4545 days before it begins the formal process by filing those rules with iCar and to provide the rules to certain House and Senate committees 30 days before filing with iCar. So what this basically is is a check in, if you will, where an hour has to come to the council go back to the council and go back to certain committees of which you are one and present those proposed rules before they begin the formal rulemaking process. So obviously the assumption is is that the council and or the committees could give feedback to a and R which hopefully would be incorporated in the rules before the formal process is begun. You'll see in the middle of page 24 number three. The rules have to be filed with iCar on or before July 1 2022. There's also language in B about JFO, either preparing or hiring someone to prepare an analysis of the economic budgetary and fiscal costs and benefits of the plan. Section six concern. Yeah, I think we're going to want to come back to this one in for instance sub two, although the committee would hear about this we don't have any authority to modify the plan. We don't approve it ratify it, etc. I mean, it's informative, but not. We don't have other than if we were in session, we'd have the ability to change law, but you're absolutely correct Mr chair, and that that is something we could discuss in more detail to check in it's not a required approval you're correct. Section six has session law that simply states that the members of the council must be appointed within 60 days of the passage of the law, and the first meeting must be held within 30 days. So it's an effort to get the process rolling fairly quickly. Section seven and concerns existing law there is a state energy policy and a state energy plan under existing law, and all that this bill does is make sure that current law is amended to include references to the climate council action plan. Section nine on page 26 is the appropriation and positions and it states that the sum of $972,000 is appropriated to an hour for the purposes of implementing this act. Section 10, there are three positions created to help with the implementation of the act and to help the council fulfill its duties. And then section 11 is the effective date and the it is effective upon passage. There are other. I wanted to quickly put on your screen the timeframes pursuant to the bill. So this is just to give you a visual. And as you can see, the bills effective on passage the climate council meets relatively quickly the first plan is adopted by December 1 2021. And our develops the rules and then the rules are filed with iCar. It is a very aggressive timeframe as you can see by what's on your screen. And did someone ask a question. Okay. And last but not least, we've touched on a number of issues that the committee may want to hear further testimony about. They include the delegation or the non delegation doctrine rulemaking process and limits on authority, which relates back to the non delegation doctrine. And then more specifics about a cause of action under existing law and the language in the bill. So these are three the topics we've already talked about in some form. And if the committee wants to discuss in greater depth, I can certainly do so. And I really appreciate everyone's time. That concludes my presentation walk through the bill and do you have any questions and I think Michael Grady's now joined us to discuss the other bill you wanted to consider. Thank you so much for that great walk through very helpful. I think in terms of the things you predicted on your last slide that might be topics for further discussion and end up getting flagged during our conversation as well. So, let's use that list as the basis of further discussions tomorrow I think you know it was great we completed the walkthrough but now that we've had a look. I'd like to go into those and I don't know how far we'll get. But let's plan to start with the delegation question. And if we have time we could go on from something after that but we could at least have a, I think we will end up needing to call some witnesses to discuss that one further but at least tomorrow let's have a little more time on each of those things you flagged that'll be our agenda for tomorrow. Thank you. Okay, so I will thank you very very much for your patience. You need to remake me the host I can't get in to be the host here. I apologize. That's okay. So I'll do that and then I will sign. Thank you. Okay. Thank you again Mr. Marlin. So committee we had. I'm sorry he's still showing up as a host. Give me a second Jude. I'm trying to do it. Just give me a second. Sorry. While this transition is happening.