SmartTranscript of House Environment Committee 2025-02-26-1:15PM

[Speaker 0 ]: Hey, we are live. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Afternoon and welcome to the House Environment Committee. This afternoon, we're going to be discussing the budget and our budget letter. But first, we're going to hear from a couple of businesses. Welcome, Jared Carpenter. [Witness Jared Carpenter]: Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. It's been so long. Good to see you all again. So as I've mentioned in previous testimonies, I spent a fair amount of time on behalf of the environmental advocates, looking at ANR's budget, including not forest parks and rec, but, but of course DEC and, Fish and Wildlife. In general, if if folks have questions during the course of the conversation, I can certainly help to answer, what I can. I wanted to highlight a few items that the advocates are going to, put in our own letter to house appropriations, once it goes through the pub you know, our internal process, so to speak, in hopes the committee would also consider highlighting these, in their letter as well. Just budget in general. This is a smaller budget than it's been in the past couple of years, but that's okay. This is the first one in three years that hasn't had either the ARPA money or a lot of other federal funds. So when I have come before this committee in past years and asking for, you know, committee support and funding for specific, specific issues, it's, you know, it's been we've, like, twenty million for this or fifteen for that or whatever, and it's it's been a lot of money. And I think somewhere in terms of the ARPA money has been under ninety million dollars over the course of three years on water infrastructure projects and programs. You would have told me this five years ago or ten years ago when I started doing the Clean Water Fund issues that, you know, the the federal government, for better or for worse, you can talk about, you know, deficits and all of that, would drop just over two billion dollars into the state. We could spend a hundred and ninety million on infrastructure, thirty million on CSOs and, you know, money to help people, their private wastewater systems, and village expansions. I mean, it's it's been phenomenal. There's always more work to do, especially with a lot of these. So with water infrastructure, the projects are expensive. I mean, you know, a lot of it has replacing pipes and things of that nature. You get down in places like Rutland, and there's pipes over a hundred plus years old. It's it's, and it's it's a real process to try to turn these systems around. So it's a leaner budget than it normally is. It doesn't raise in going through it, it doesn't raise any red flags. There's nothing per se that we are against. There's some things that we we like better than others. Of course, there's things we would like to see more money spent on than other areas, but nothing nothing major. So I could just briefly go through. I have a few slides, talk about the comments of folks who have been looking into the budget area for the committee, have any questions about specific areas, clean water fund, fish and wildlife budget, things of that nature. I can do the best that I can to answer. But, otherwise, thank you so very much for the time. I appreciate it. I think there's always a bit of a dough. Yes. Look. So there's three three key areas I wanted to highlight, and then there's a request that has to do with a bill that hopefully your committee will see after crossover, in regards to the Chloride Reduction Act we are highlighting as well because there's some funding requests there. There's three items, but I can go into more. There's the repeal of the sunset of the property transfer tax, which you've talked about a little bit in terms of the three acre bill. Dollars fourteen point five million to draw down more money for the, the, state revolving fund, which we've talked about a little as well. And then there's some funding. Number three is, you have h one forty six before the committee that has to do with the ANR, AFM enforcement. ANR has asked for some funds for that, of which we are definitely in favor of. So you've talked about this as well, and I've talked about it with you too. We transfer taxes at integral part of the Clean Water Fund. If you can see, it started off in FY nineteen at about a little less than five million dollars in the beginning once we hit the housing crunch during during the pandemic, it went up to twelve million dollars because when prices of houses go up, so does the search so does the revenue coming into the surcharge. It is expected to level off at about eight and a half million dollars That's thirty one percent of the clean of the clean water budget. So to go all the way down the clean water budget here, [Chair Amy Sheldon]: the PTT is thirty one percent. [Witness Jared Carpenter]: Meals and rooms is definitely the the biggest of it. That's six percent of the general meals and rooms taxes diverted into the clean water fund. So for the upcoming year, we're looking at twenty eight million dollars in the fund and then capital bills and one time funds. So we're at forty six million dollars, you in the Clean Water Fund. And you are also talking about this, and I won't get into all the tiers now unless you want me to. You're also talking about all the Clean Water Fund and what's in what tier and and all of that. Mostly, that has to deal with the first several items to state revenue into the Clean Water Fund. There's a little bit of capital bill in those tiers as well. But it's a really integral part of the Clean Water Fund. And it has been cited by ANR, the general need for clean water projects and programs to meet our TMDL requirements. All the stuff that needs to be done is fifty to sixty million dollars a year. So this isn't quite enough. It's close. We can make an argument, you know, about whether or not another percentage or two of meals and rooms tax should be diverted, but that's for a different day. But if the sunset, the twenty twenty seven sunset is not repealed, we're gonna lose a big chunk of money here. It is in the budget as well as in the three acre bill. So it's a bit of a belt and suspenders. In talking to Mike O'Grady, he thinks that some of the budget language needs to be changed just so it all lines up. But committee support for this would be would be fantastic. I will take a deep breath and see if folks have questions before moving on to the next item. I do tend to talk quickly, when we're covering stuff. Second item Just I'm sorry. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Would it be possible we just got the percentages of the property transfer tax, like zero point two two. What's the the sheets, it's the entire sheets from those are the return for those who are new, don't remember Sorry. The bottles that, are not returned for their deposits. Yep. That's the money. Is that [Witness Jared Carpenter]: Always about three and a half million dollars. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: What percent of the rooms and meals comes to the Clean Water Fund? [Witness Jared Carpenter]: We had, six percent. So that was the last provision that was added to the Clean Water Fund. It was the PTT first and then the Estates, and then it was six percent of the meals and rooms tax. Each percentage of the meals and rooms these days is about I'd have to go back and look at could send it. But I think, right now, it's about one point six million dollars. One point five, one point six is one percent. So I've always kicked around the idea that if you change it from six percent to nine percent, you're talking about adding another, you know, four and a half, five million dollars to the meal to to take that up to about twenty, twenty one million for the for the MNR going in. Now, of course, the two percent has to come from. It's not going into ability, and it's going to something in the general fund. So, that is a that will be a big discussion for this committee and also a big discussion for ways and means. I [Chair Amy Sheldon]: just wanted folks to get the percentage. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: We can Okay. [Speaker 4 ]: Go ahead. Okay. Sure. [Witness Jared Carpenter]: This is also something that we've been working on for a couple of years. You've talked a little bit about today with with with, the ledge council with Mike O'Grady about this, clean water revolving loan fund and then drinking water revolving loan fund. Yes, some of that can be used for store for, stormwater infrastructure projects and programs. It's federal money that is drawn down every year in the capital bill. This has been key for upgrading municipal, you know, municipal drinking water systems and sewer systems, especially after the twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four floods. This is the money that, that the, the towns go to to do the rebuilding of that infrastructure. This is the language from the budget. I won't get much into it other than the highlighted portions. There's fourteen point five million dollars has been set aside, but has not been, it's not been authorized by the General Assembly Assembly to draw down, a separate account of federal money. I'll go to the next page to give you a sense. What I wanna focus on is down here. So the fourteen point five million dollars is going to if you go all the way over, it's gonna draw down seventy three million dollars into the into clean water and drinking water revolving loan funds. That's a significant chunk of money for for an investment of fourteen and a half million dollars This is this is a little more esoteric and in the weeds, but it's something we've been working on for since FY twenty three when we've been drawing down various state match for this money, and it's really been integral to to meeting some of our our water infrastructure needs. And now even more so as you're also talking about potentially using it for for three acre and some of the other so the other provisions. So making the pot bigger is always is always important. And finally, the last one is, something that ANR is requesting that has to do with the h one forty six, which is the, the ag water quality enforcement bill that's sitting on your wall. We do different opinion from the administration as to exactly how extensive that should be in terms of shifting enforcement from AFM over to ABC of natural resources. What we do agree with them is we need to start we need to start getting it underway and paying for some of it now. The sooner, the better. For the the ANR has requested eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars in the general fund, to start building up a database. Basically, a CAFO database project and get some contractor support to move that over to help set the base for being able to do enforcement and whatever it looks like. And they would also like to hire, two new FTEs, so two new staffers to do in the CAFO program. We think that some of the money should come from permitting, but I think that's a conversation for this committee further down the road. When we start getting into the extent of the enforcement provisions, but putting this money in this budget right now means that they would get this funding over the summer and be able to start hiring two people and putting this database together. So however it lands, it'll, they'll be able to hit the ground running on being able to do an, ag water quality enforcement over [Speaker 4 ]: the AR. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Laszlo [Member Rob North]: What would the database what what information would it give you? [Witness Jared Carpenter]: My understanding is it'd be an expansion of the database that the Agency of Agriculture already uses and its farm type and locations, whether they found violations, last date of inspection, all that sort of information, nutrient management plans. I think it's just, you know, one of those central holding areas with information for all their inspectors. And our needs to needs to build off of that is my understanding in order to in order to start the project. But my understanding is they would start with what AFM already has [Vice Chair Larry Labor]: and would not [Witness Jared Carpenter]: be building it out outright. So some of this would be for some of this would be for the technology and some of it would be for the contractors to actually do the work. I don't want a split between that. [Member Rob North]: Oh, there is it safe to assume that there are farms that have been targeted because they are not meeting their is that would [Witness Jared Carpenter]: it be used for Targeting would be the right not be the right word. But, yes, I mean, it's so if it just generally in the process, when the inspection occurs and a violation is found, you know, then they have to go through the administrative process of, you know, writing letters and, you know, we we need you to comply with this and scheduling follow-up visits and and all of that. And I think that's, you know, that's all the kind of stuff that goes into this database, keeping it all together. Mhmm. And, like, there would be information, I would assume, there would be information to some degree on on, you know, locations and and compliance levels of every farm or at least within the CAFO program, that needs to be seen. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I'm seeing the deputy commissioners or secretaries here. Deputy secretary. Do you have any more insight into this eight hundred and fifty thousand for the I mean, I I I my understanding is that it is generally as mister Carpenter has explained to the committee, but if you had any other details or pardon. [Speaker 7 ]: It's a great [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Okay. Thanks. So [Witness Jared Carpenter]: those are the those are the three. And I'm sorry that they're a little they're a little esoteric, but I think they're, fairly important. And the last one is really more to put it on your radar. We are gonna we are gonna put it on the house appropriations radar as well. There's a bill downstairs, s twenty nine. The full version is an act relating to establishing the chloride contamination reduction program, the Agency of Natural Resources. The short version is the SALT bill. You've probably seen it in digger in a in a couple of new channels. It's to set up a certification program for commercial and municipal applicators. They use best management practices to keep everybody safe, but reduce the amount of salt that's being applied. You can see it very visually on on Montpelier streets and sidewalks about how much is actually used. You've also probably heard that there has been a salt shortage. People not being able to find it in the last couple of days because it's out, and I would argue if they stop using so much, we wouldn't have a shortage. So [Clerk Sarita Austin]: people have [Witness Jared Carpenter]: been having problems getting more salt. However, in order to stand up this program, ANR has requested down the bottom, some, some one time funding, for external organization to help set up the program, a third party vendor, to come in and help establish the, the education and accreditation program. Largely, we would lift it from New Hampshire. New Hampshire is a fabulous program. At some point, I will come back and testify on all of this. But I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel. I think we just have to, Duplicate from New Hampshire is done. And then, and I would also like one f t e, to run the program internally. At a hundred and fifty thousand dollars is your basic cost for an FTE these days between salary and healthcare and administrative and everything else on this. So, those are my four points. So pretty not simple, but straightforward. But I can certainly provide whoever is working on the letter. I can sit down and provide more information, rather than this high level that I've just sort of given the committee. But members have any questions about this or any other questions in the budget of what you have [Clerk Sarita Austin]: thought about? Senator Boston. [Member Rob North]: Sorry. Yeah. Please. So I'm kind of I'm I'm trying to hold off on making any decisions about any budgets until I have a sense or or bills to support not on the federal funding. [Speaker 8 ]: Mhmm. [Member Rob North]: You know? And I'm just wondering, do you have any sense or any data on what we're not going to be getting? [Witness Jared Carpenter]: No. I'm the same. I've heard of what everybody else has. It's, you know, so this is the and those and so this is part of the the bill, the bipartisan infrastructure law funding that has been frozen and unfrozen and frozen and unfrozen. I mean, it depends on who you ask, and it depends on day to day. I mean, it's, it's I have a my hope is that it's gonna sort of go through its whole process and go through the legal structure and things of that nature. And ultimately, a lot of it will be freed up. It'll probably be such on a program by program basis. I would like to think that something like the drinking water state revolving fund would pass whatever criteria and testing that the that the federal government is running through the contracting and it would, you know, be decided that that money would be released along with a lot of other things. But I understand that there's hesitation. I mean, I sit on the border of Friends of the Winooski River who does, you know, we do great work in terms of culverts and dams and things, replacements and the culvert replacements and dam removals. And it was decided that we can't usually, it's you you do the project and then you bill and you get the money back and which the organization's too small to risk, like, doing thirty thousand dollars worth of work and then billing the feds and then not getting the money back. And as you heard from the testimony at DEC, they're, fifty three percent of their budget is is federal pass through. I mean, it's it's it's not nothing. It's certainly concerning and hoping that it all gets worked out. So, yeah, I know for a lot of groups, they're concerned about getting ahead of themselves and then not being reimbursed and having to, you know, let staff of those. [Member Rob North]: I'm assuming though once it's encumbered, then is it safe to assume that if it's encumbered, then it cannot be withheld? [Speaker 4 ]: I think that's above his pay grade, sir. Yeah. It is. I can It's give [Witness Jared Carpenter]: you my opinion that it Our opinion. [Speaker 9 ]: That it should be. Mhmm. [Witness Jared Carpenter]: But there is a current there's a current debate going on between the EPA and one of their contractors in terms of they have a contract signed and the money is out the door money is out with this distribution agency at twenty billion, I think. And EP is trying to trying to pull it back, so that all remains to be seen. It's uncertain times. I'm yeah. And we're trying to we do the best we can, so to speak, with the budgeting. But, of course, it's it's a lot for our state. There's a lot of federal money. It comes in a lot of different places. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you so much. [Member Rob North]: You're very welcome. Yeah. Thank you so much. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Next up, we have Anthony Arapina, conservation model. It [Clerk Sarita Austin]: worked. Alright. Thank you, commission. [Speaker 8 ]: Good afternoon. [Witness Anthony Arapina]: For the record, Anthony Arapino. I'm an attorney in private practice, but I am also a registered lobbyist for the Conservation Law Foundation. I've submitted testimony on behalf of Conservation Law Foundation also as well on behalf of Vermont Public Interest Research Group. Ben Walsh from v PERT is here with me. Since our organizations are aligned and since your time is precious, I'll just be the one in the chair today. But Ben is obviously here to answer questions on behalf of his organization, either in the room or in the hallway as as they occur. Last session with strong house majorities and senate majorities, including votes of representatives from each party and independents, you passed act one twenty two. That created the Climate Super Fund. In case there's any doubt as to why Vermont needs to keep moving forward with the Climate Superfund, a story in today's VT Digger provides a stark reminder. The headline reads, flooding long past, many Vermont municipalities are still swimming in red ink. The article provides details that are painfully familiar to me as a Montpelier resident who's following closely our city's struggle to recover from catastrophic flooding in twenty twenty three. That flooding resulted from extreme precipitation that prior to global warming was only supposed to happen once every one thousand years. Instead, exactly one year to the day, similarly destructive deluges happened in neighboring communities like Barrie and Plainfield. And I know because this committee is geographically diverse that you know that the cost of the climate crisis are not isolated in Central Vermont. According to VT Digger, Linden suffered five hundred thousand in damages from the twenty twenty three flood flooding, while flooding twenty twenty four required the town to take out a fifteen million dollar line of credit. That is twice the amount of the town's annual seven and a half million dollar budget. And that money will go to repair roads, to repair the municipal office building, to repair the water and sewer plants, and a historic covered bridge. Even then, the Linden Town Clerk is quoted as saying that they are not really sure that amount of borrowing is going to be enough. In Sutton, the town just finished off paying a five hundred thousand dollar line of credit from the twenty twenty three floods only to see the twenty twenty four downpours necessitate another one million dollars in borrowing for climate damage recovery. It's the same story in Bolton, Barnet, Bridgewater, Cavendish, Middlesex, Mortown, Saint Johnsbury, and beyond. Compounding the financial strain facing these municipalities as a result of these climate catastrophes is the fact that FEMA has yet to make good on its obligations to fully fund recovery. In fact, VT Digger also reports that full repairs of numerous state office buildings are on hold while the state BGS and FEMA wrangle over whether the fee that is going to pay for the repairs needed to get those buildings back up to speed, to protect them from future floods, and to give our state workers a safe place to work. And of course, that's just the damage caused by flooding that scientists have confirmed is consistent with climate change. The fossil fuel driven overheating of the planet is bringing a whole host of other costs to, Vermont. These include increased risk of forest fires, droughts, ice storms, toxic algae blooms, tick borne diseases, and a whole host of other costs. It's clear that Vermonters alone cannot afford to bear the full cost of climate change. And it is also sadly clear, even before the change in administration at the federal level, that Vermont cannot count on the federal government to be a reliable surety for the damages that we are experiencing. Requiring the world's largest and most, profitable fossil fuel extractors and refiners to help Vermonters pay a fair share of the cost to repair and adapt to the damaging changes in the climate that their products and activities, help to cause is a fiscal imperative. Vermont must, therefore, to continue to invest in the Climate Superfund program you enacted last year. Now act twenty one twenty two tasks the treasurer's office as the first critical step down this path to assess the historical and projected costs up to the state of Vermont and its residents because of changes in the climate attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from those largest from the products and activities of those largest fossil fuel extractors and refiners. Examples of the costs that the treasurer is tasked with assessing include the flooding damages that we just discussed, but it's also a thing like extreme heat, which I don't know if this has happened in your community, but it's happened in mine. We now have, we now have public schools that on some days of the school year in this northern latitude are too hot for our students and educators to safely work and learn in. So these are costs that are coming for us and they go beyond just flooding. Treasurer's job then is to figure out what this is gonna cost us and to do it in a way, that is both legally and scientifically defensible. During the consideration of act one twenty two last year, this committee and other committees, in the house and senate heard testimony from leading technical and scientific experts indicating that we have the science, we have the engineering know how, and we have the economic methodologies necessary to complete the task that you've assigned the treasurer to do. What they did also say, however, is that additional expert analysis will be needed to tailor and apply those methodologies to the unique geophysical characteristics of the state of Vermont and to the unique aspects of Vermont, Vermont's economy. Now the treasurer and ANR, since you passed Act one twenty two last year, have been busy to try and test that assumption. And in fact, in the fall, they issued what's called a request for information. It was a nationwide call for the experts out there to say, this is what we've been tasked to do in our law. How would you go about doing this task if you were gonna do it? Good news is they got robust responses to that request for information, and those responses are summarized in a report that is on file with you from the treasurer's office, and A and R was filed with you in January. It's called the Act one twenty two Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program report to the General Assembly. The report affirms that, quote, event attribution has developed as a scientific field in the past two decades and includes scientific methods that can quantify the effects of climate change on changes in the probability or intensity of a wide variety of extreme weather events, including extreme precipitation. Recent scientific developments allow these methods to be extended to assess climate change impacts on economic losses and human health, end quote. The report also notes, however, that, quote, while attribution science is key to the development of the cost assessment, it will require further development to address the full scope of climate impacts contemplated by the act. This additional work includes a specific focus on the type of extreme precipitation river flooding events that we talked about at the beginning of my testimony as well as, things like extreme heat. Now fortunately, right in our backyard at Dartmouth College, one of the world's foremost experts in this scientific field is working on tailoring his peer reviewed methodology to this problem, and he's reported that he's making good progress. In addition, since he last appeared before you, he's been appointed as one of the lead authors of the National Climate Assessment, which is the most rigorous, and prestigious, climate science document produced by the United States government. So we have expertise here in our backyard. That expertise is being applied exactly to the kind of work that the treasurer's office will need to understand and digest as they implement act one twenty two. Similarly, the report that ANR and the treasurer filed summarizes another response from a group of experts that has completed assessments of adaptation costs in other jurisdictions due to flooding, erosion, heat, and other hazards. Examples would of that would be like, what do we do with our schools that can't handle the heat, that we now experience? What kind of air conditioning and insulation upgrades are required? What do we do with our bridges that have shown that they cannot withstand year over year these kind of extreme flooding, events? What do we do with our sewer and water infrastructure that is shown to be so increasingly vulnerable? That's the kind of work that that other group of experts does, and, ultimately, that's the kind of work that the treasurer will have to wrap that office's arms around in order to produce to produce the kind of legally and scientifically defensible assessment we're gonna need if we ask for help from the corporations whose are immensely profitable and whose activities and products are at the root cause of the climate crisis. If you wanna have a deeper look, I submitted into the record two of the responses. You wanna understand the scientific and economic and engineering methodologies that those that that will be brought to bear and get a sense for why the dollar amounts and the appropriations asks are what they are. This is not simple stuff. It can be done, but doing it is hard, and we wanna get it right. We wanna pay for the work to be done well. So not only is the work hard and difficult, but the report from the treasurer and ANR made clear, we don't have the in house expertise in state government to do this job. We are gonna need some contracted support. This is not positions that we're adding to state government for all time. This is a time limited task. We need the experts for a period of time, and when their work is done, they'll be done. There's also some staffing support for that, which is time limited. Do the work, and when the work is done, that position will no longer be part of state government. So you're currently, the the it's it's for that reason, though, because of the complexity and the limited duration that the treasurer's office has requested a seven hundred thousand dollar appropriation for contracted support along with one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars appropriation for a limited, service position to oversee and coordinate the work of contracted, experts. Now, as the law is currently written, the treasurer is supposed to complete this work by January fifteen, twenty twenty six. Unfortunately, because the treasurer's office has not has not yet issued RFPs because they don't wanna do that, so they don't wanna go through the trouble of seeking contracts they may not have the money to spend. So we're in a little bit of a chicken and egg problem, and for it's for that reason as well as because the work is complex that the treasurer and ANR's report have asked that you move out the deadlines, for this work to be, completed. So even if you put aside the climate, super fund aspect of this, the treasurer's work has merit unto itself. We know these costs are coming for Vermont. We have no idea what scale they are. We have no budgeted reserve to pay for them. And from a future budgeting perspective, even if we are never gonna collect a penny from the fossil fuel companies, we need to have this information to be fiscally responsible when it comes to planning what's coming down at us in few in fit I would argue in the current and in future budgets. There's also an ANR piece to this. ANR is supposed to complete a technical analysis to identify which of the world's largest fossil fuel extractors and refiners bear the most significant responsibility. You've set a one billion metric ton threshold of attributable emissions, so we're talking about some of the bigger, corporations in the world that this would affect, but we have to figure out who they are and then legal that's a technical analysis. Then there's a legal analysis of which of those corporations has enough connections to the state of Vermont doing business here, selling products here that they are eligible as responsible parties under the statute, that they that asking them to pay their fair share for the climate damages we're experiencing would pass constitutional muster. That's something that you took a lot of testimony on last year, but A and R needs to put meat on the, you know, skeleton of that legally. And that's why the A and R has also asked for both contracted support and legal support. Fortunately, in the case of the ANR piece, the report confirms that existing peer reviewed carbon majors dataset is both suitable for and available to ANR to complete its technical analysis. And unlike the scientific and economic models the treasurer's work will rely on, the report doesn't really provide any indication that the carbon majors dataset will require substantial refinement or state specific tailoring by contracted experts. It's more that they need contracted experts to help kick the tire on the data, make sure that the data is reliable, make sure that they understand what's in there and how it works. That's why their ask is lower. And, also, it should be noted, while this task is no less important, it is both less complex and it is also less time sensitive because of the way the act one twenty two works. The treasurer's work has to be done first. ANR's work could be done at the same time, but it also could be done, slightly afterward. The deadlines ANR has to meet fall after the treasurer's deadline. So because of that, there is the possibility, given budget realities, that you might be able to phase the appropriation for ANR into the next fiscal year and and and think about that next year. And I wanna be clear, CLF and VPIRG do support additional funding for ANRs, portion of the implementation. We're just being mindful of budget realities. And so if this committee chooses to recommend, funding for ANR, given the interplay of the treasurer's money and the A and R money and the relative priority for the treasurer's money, we hope that you can communicate that to your colleagues on appropriation if they have to make hard choices. We can sort of the the A and R money it wouldn't be devastating if A and R's money was in next, neck the next fiscal year instead of the current fiscal year. So just wrap up in saying that, you know, last year, the legislature passed in a very important law. The governor allowed it to go into law. It's designed to ensure that the world's largest and most profitable fossil fuel companies pay their fair share to help Vermont recover from and adapt to the climate crisis that their products and activities are at the root of. Given the back backbreaking costs that Vermonters are already facing as a result a result of climate change, it would actually be fiscally irresponsible for us not to make the modest investments needed to ensure the success of the Climate Superfund program. So I appreciate your taking this under consideration. I appreciate the time to explain to you, why we support this money and what this money would go to help fund. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: We're having a little technical glitch. Okay. Don't take it personally. We're not sure. Are we still online? [Speaker 11 ]: Yeah. Since we're live [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Okay. Well, we'll figure it out, but hopefully, folks can still hear us if they can't see us. Representative, I have maybe a [Vice Chair Larry Labor]: A couple of questions. In the event we lose lawsuits, apparently, we're being sued by two entities. Correct? Is that correct? [Witness Anthony Arapina]: Two entities, same lawsuit. [Vice Chair Larry Labor]: Same lawsuit. Do you have any idea, an estimate how much Vermont will be on the hook in the event you lose that lawsuit. These fees and any damages that may or may not be There [Witness Anthony Arapina]: are no damages. They the the only the only relief they can seek is that the law be stricken. And attorney's fees, no. What I can say as an attorney who's litigated cases, including environmental cases against the federal and state government, the claims that they have raised in their lawsuit are claims that are typically decided, as we say, on the papers, not with, like, extensive expert trials, but lawyers filing briefs. So not I I don't know, but we have experienced with this before. And I can also say that the amount that we stand to recover if our law is upheld, far, far exceeds the amount that we would spend if we lose and we're unsuccessful. [Vice Chair Larry Labor]: Are you familiar with volcanic activity and how it affects climate and weather? Yes. Are you familiar with the Tonga volcano? Not specific. About three years ago, it below the surface of the ocean, it erupted and put it north of a hundred and forty million tons of water into the upper atmosphere. And there are no estimates of how long it's going to be taking for it to come out of the atmosphere in the form of rain. Is there any, idea that this may be used in a lawsuit that Vermont would lose? And and the two more questions. Is this are solar fair flares and any geological evidence being taken into consideration prior to trying to sue petroleum companies for natural occurrences? [Witness Anthony Arapina]: The way the Climate Superfund Act is structured is acknowledges that there are natural causes that release CO2 into the air and increase warming. And we are not asking fossil fuel companies to pay for the damages of those natural causes. The scientific analysis is focusing specifically on the fossil fuel emissions. And because the Earth is gonna do what it's gonna do, that's all the more reason why the emissions that we do have control over, are ones that we have to manage where we can and where those emissions have historically been released and are causing damage today. We need to make sure that those, parties that profited from that activity are also paying their fair share to help us recover from those damages we're experiencing. [Vice Chair Larry Labor]: So you maintain that c o two is causing the warming? [Witness Anthony Arapina]: I don't maintain that. It's a overwhelming consensus of very well credentialed international scientific community that maintains that. Is there other scientists who maintain that the warming comes first? [Member Rob North]: I'm just gonna make some assumptions here. Okay. My assumption is that, like, fifty years ago, when activists or scientists started worrying about climate warming, If we had paid attention to the science, we wouldn't be here right now. And Vermont would be spending a billion dollars a year on remediation and flooding damage. Is that a good assumption? [Witness Anthony Arapina]: Well, it's more than an assumption, and it's not just activists. What actually happened was that some of the same fossil fuel companies that would potentially be responsible parties under the Climate Superfund are the ones who develop the science that said their products and activities, if they didn't make a change, were going to lead to the outcomes that Vermont and other states are suffering from. So it's not just, you know, people like me who care about the environment. It's the scientists that were in the employ of the, fossil fuel companies. And if you go back to my testimony from last year, I quoted at length from things that they were saying in the sixties and seventies. So we definitely had time to steer this car away from the cliff. And in part, we knew that we were heading to the cliff because of science that the very same companies themselves developed. Now the Climate Superfund Act is not about punishing them for any kind of deception or covering that up. In fact, some of the videos you can see are still on YouTube that were produced by, like, Shell for Royal Dutch Shell, for one example. But it is about saying since you knew this was an outcome that was likely if you continued to increase the production and release your products in the market, It is fair from a constitutional perspective that a state like Vermont that's experiencing these damages could look to you for help in paying your fair share of our recovery and adaptation costs. [Member Rob North]: And the other the other question is, my concern is about home insurance, the insurance industry, and looking at what's happening in Florida and California. And my concern is that eventually, either FEMA is gonna stop, run out of money or, insurance companies are gonna not insure, you know, any floodplain or fire, you know, potential, and then municipalities will have to incur those costs. Do you think that's a logical thought? [Speaker 4 ]: Well, The [Witness Anthony Arapina]: New York Times did a story about, nonrenewals. And I looked into this with our department of, like, Vermont was kind of identified as one of the hot spots on the map where home insurance policies are not being renewed by insurers. I did ask the Department of Financial Regulation if they could tell us why that is. And at present, insurers are not required to give a reason, but it's already happening. And and it's it it should be very concerned. And I also wanna just point out, you bring up a good point. Our current treasurer is Mike Piechak. His job before this was as was as the commissioner of the Department of Financial Regulation. When he testified on the Climate Super Fund last year, he actually explained that when he was commissioner of the Department of Financial Regulation, he commissioned a study to look at what the impact of climate change would be on the insurance industry in Vermont. Results of that are available, but it's it's telling in terms of the faith that you can have in entrusting his office with this money. He's already done an exercise like the one that he's asking to repeat, but on a broader scale for the entire state of Vermont and for additional categories, like the one you're raising. So this is a the the office coming to ask you for this money to do this work that you've instructed them to do is an office that has experience in exactly the kind of task. It's just the task that you're now asking them to do is to look with a broad, not just on the insurance industry and people who have insurance, but much more broadly municipalities, the state farms, small businesses, etcetera. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Actually, can be helpful. My question. How [Member Rob North]: imperative do you think it is that we act immediately to take action, you know, or the legislation that we've passed? I mean, like, if we don't act, I'm I'm thinking it's too late. You know? That's how I'm beginning to think it's too late. [Witness Anthony Arapina]: Well, I started testifying on climate action in two thousand five, and the predecessor of this committee and committees downstairs. So I share your sense that we have lost time. The problem is, for us, things could get worse. And like, what already has happened, having lived through it here in Montpelier, the trauma I still like, coming to this test to give this testimony is retraumatizing for me, and I suspect for some of you who might be from communities that have borne these effects, but it's not too late, number one, because it could get worse. But number two, what we're talking about is recovering money to help pay for the damages we're sustaining. And we shouldn't wait because I just told you what VT Digger told me is facing communities across the state come town meeting day. And knowing that regardless of what we do, the effects of climate change are with us and are driving costs. We cannot afford to hesitate to seek help financially to bear those costs because they will crush us if we try to do it wrong. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you for your testimony and for the two of us. Representative Norwe. I do. We have time for a couple more, but I just want to remind everyone that we're trying to get to our budget letter too. So it's fine. [Member Rob North]: We're not going to have [Clerk Sarita Austin]: too much work on. [Witness Anthony Arapina]: And I'm around generally most days if people wanna catch me outside. [Speaker 4 ]: You guys are asking for an an additional funding beyond what the governor's budget included. How much did the governor include in his budget for the finance super fund activity? [Witness Anthony Arapina]: I believe he didn't include anything. [Speaker 4 ]: Do you think he was aware of the act one eighty two? One twenty two was in place if it's a program. So his administration was aware of that. [Witness Anthony Arapina]: I'm certain that he was. [Speaker 8 ]: That's for sure. [Witness Anthony Arapina]: I'm I'm I'm frustrated that he didn't ask for money because he hasn't proposed an alternative source for relief for municipalities and small businesses and farms. And he's been governor for a number of years and has understood that climate change is costing Vermont lots of money. He came into being governor after tropical storm Irene. So as an alternative, we've done nothing. We haven't planned. We haven't saved. We have no reserve. So I would I I don't know. It's a hard job being governor, and there's a lot of funding priorities. And I imagine he had to make some difficult choices, but his budget is the beginning of a conversation with the legislature. And I hope by the end of the conversation with the legislature, he would and seeing stories like the one that are in today's VT Digger, he would think, yeah. You know what? Maybe we should make the modest investment to keep going with this program because we really could use the money. [Speaker 4 ]: And to follow on to that, have any other, entities other than the state of Vermont, been successful with this type of lawsuit, defending this type of law or or extracting damages from fossil fuels? [Witness Anthony Arapina]: So there are a number New York passed after Vermont passed its law. New York also passed the law. They've also been sued. It's my understanding that Vermont and New York are pooling legal resources to defend these cases, so we're not in it alone. I also know that, legislation is pending and moving through, Washington. Got Oregon, New Jersey, Massachusetts. Rhode Island is about to introduce a bill. They're all doing this knowing that we we have been sued, that New York has been sued. Other states are following suit. But in term [Speaker 4 ]: in terms of extracting damages from fossil fuel companies, has has anybody been successful in doing that? [Witness Anthony Arapina]: Vermont was the first law that's ever been passed like this, so it's too it's too early to know. But I I understand, representative North, you weren't here for the testimony last year, but this committee did hear from from legal scholars and from trial attorneys who've litigated environmental cases about the probability of success in that. And I think your colleagues wouldn't have moved forward if they weren't assured that we have strong arguments to make. Thank you. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you for your testimony. [Speaker 0 ]: Yeah. Thank you. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Thank you all. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Members, we're going to turn to our budget letter next. And I believe we have our copies. Paper. [Speaker 11 ]: Sure. [Member Rob North]: Sorry. Sure. [18 seconds of silence] [Clerk Sarita Austin]: If we can start already again. Okay. So myself and representative Logan and representative North, went through a lot of data from obviously, from the agency natural resources, but also the loan and peace review board. And, we also heard about money for that we need for the Climate Superfund and a few other agencies, which we'll we'll we'll get to. And we can talk about what what the request were and the following letter. They're roughly in order of priority, although that's something I think we'll need to you know, part of our conversation as well as the the numbers involved. So the the first part first entry on our list is additional money for [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Logan. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Fish and Wildlife. [Speaker 11 ]: I I'm noting typos in this first section [Speaker 8 ]: Oh. [Speaker 0 ]: That I had corrected and then backed up and then forgot to yeah. Forgot to correct the typos. So, the bullet point should read a hundred fifty k or a hundred no. I'm sorry. A hundred twenty five. No. First bullet point. Yeah, Two hundred fifty k, then a hundred twenty five k, then a hundred twenty five k. [Member Rob North]: Fifty what? [Speaker 0 ]: Two hundred fifty k and then a hundred twenty five k and a hundred twenty five k. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: K. Good ones to catch on. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So so that means, basically, it's it's it's about a hundred twenty five thousand dollar per for such a deposition. [Member Rob North]: Could you just speak a little bit [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Yes. I will make that attempt. [Member Rob North]: Absolutely. Thank you. It's just a it's a fan of something that I hear. Thank you. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: So the the the the first two positions have to do with following up on legislation, act one eighty one, to to complete rulemaking and and looking at other for for tier three resource areas. The other the other position is in the is actually in ANR's office of planning connect also connected with that legislation. And then the the fourth position is is a mapping position associated with work that needs to be done regarding at fifty nine. That's also our position model for mapping. Given the importance of those two acts and the overall need for bodies and that we've been hearing about for a very long time and property efficient wildlife seemed like a high priority in the quest. K. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: If you have questions along the way, we can answer them or we can just get through the letter and then discuss priorities. [Speaker 4 ]: So what regulatory things would Fish and Wildlife, on one eighty one, on that? [Clerk Sarita Austin]: What [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I think it's for the rulemaking. And I guess I have a question. Deputy secretary, are you able to help us with the answering questions on this? So are these all new positions? Well, three of these bullets, I mean yeah. The one act act one eighty one, are those people? [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. They don't exist. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: None of these four positions that we're talking about exist. Who's doing the GIS mapping now? Sorry. Representative Richard, what was your [Speaker 4 ]: Well, so Oh, what are they these two positions that they need for act what things would they be doing under act eighty one eighty one, [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I guess, is what Well, there is rulemaking that needs to happen on a number of of things in there. So we're developing a new criteria for forest blocks and habitat connectors that involves pretty significant public outreach and rule rule make for the rulemaking and then the tier three. That's what's coming to mind right now. I think it's probably in the secretary's budget presentation. [Speaker 0 ]: It's in the letter. It says right there. Just support participation in complex rulemaking proceedings before the alert focused on tier three slash critical research Yeah. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Yeah. Kind of books. [Speaker 4 ]: I I might wanna provide additional answer to to Chris's question that the the reason why they're they're permanent positions and not temporary can see it does specify specified rulemaking is that once the rules are put in place, there's some enforcement against those during adjudication or fact to the department. Proceed. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Yeah. And just a little bit of history. The Fish and Wildlife Department does end up participating in permit review, and we have, as representative Zachary Woods mentioned, perennially heard from them that they need more resources. So [Clerk Sarita Austin]: I think [Chair Amy Sheldon]: that's I'm assuming why our budget committee has put this first in our letter. We're, always rooting for that team to get more resources because they do an awful lot with very little, and they do deserve more. [Speaker 4 ]: There are act two fifty criteria that really deficient wildlife regularly with that. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: In in particular to wildlife habitat. And they're already doing that work and often report not being compensated for various internal reasons. There are permit fees established to cover those costs, and they end up going to administration at ANR. Although that's the next point. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: And and we know that to comply with a lot of these the permitting that they're asked to do, they they pull people off of other work, which is sensibly, you know, why we have them in the first place. So there's a lot of value that we're that we'd be gaining by funding these positions each time. [Speaker 4 ]: Act two fifty has a lot of tentacles, and it's reached into the FWD. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Well, they're certainly filling it that way [Speaker 4 ]: here. Yeah. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I mean [Speaker 4 ]: yeah. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: But so move move on to the Land Use Review Board. I think we heard pretty pretty clearly in testimony from the Land Use Review Board folks that in order to continue work as their ARCA funds come to an end, that we need to fund two new two existing, I should say, district coordinator positions. And they have requested funding them through the next three years, I believe. But in our letter, we're proposing that we fund them through the next one and a half years. They've made a pretty good case to to us that they really need more than just funding through the end of the next fiscal year, that they're quite concerned that the people that are working for them now may not hang around if they don't have a little more assurance than when you can keep continue to fund their positions and that they do very specialized work. And it actually takes quite a bit of time to, to train people to to do this this work. And we you know, we're fiscally prudent, should we say, to to keep funding these positions to make sure we keep these folks on board. And we also requested, an additional hundred thousand dollars for digital infrastructure to support getting the act one eighty one work that we've tasked in months. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Morris. Yeah. [Speaker 9 ]: And so we're looking at nine hundred and seventy eight k through twenty twenty nine. But down below, recommend one hundred thousand one time fund for digital infrastructure, which I get. Yeah. Two district coordinators for one point five years. Yeah. [Speaker 4 ]: So I'm a little confused, guys. Are those same thing with those? [Speaker 9 ]: I did are we looking at a cumulative result of nine seventy eight, one hundred, and three seventy five? [Clerk Sarita Austin]: No. We're we're looking at one hundred for the digital infrastructure and then three seventy five for the two district coordinators that would cover them through the next one and a half years. Mhmm. And then they're gonna need additional money to get to that nine seventy eight in subsequent years to to fund those positions in the future. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I see. Because that's [Speaker 4 ]: that's asking for nine seventy eight. Right. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: They're they're yeah. [Speaker 4 ]: They're That's [Speaker 9 ]: for three years. Yeah. [Speaker 0 ]: Well, that's for one and a half years. Right. And the they're at the [Speaker 4 ]: That's the three seventy five. [Speaker 0 ]: They're asking for three and a half years. [Speaker 9 ]: The nine nine seventy eight is for three years. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Three and a half. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: So our twenty five. So our total ask for the land use review were the total four seventy five. [Speaker 8 ]: Yeah. Thank you. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: And, Jacob? [Speaker 11 ]: And just to clarify, I think that half year is the second half of f y twenty six because they have funding through the first half of f y twenty six. Yes. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Our next item on the list is having to do with the climate super fund, which we just heard from. And, basically, we agree with the request that we just heard that we should allocate eight hundred and twenty five thousand dollars to the treasure treasurer's office. Since we've just heard a lot of detail about that, I don't know if I have anything to add. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Deputy secretary. [Speaker 7 ]: I'm stressed to note that it's not in the governor's right hand, but I have sort of heard the story in the past that we'll fund it in the future. And I think in our piece of the recommendations we brought forward, we're pretty confident about if we're talking about legal scrutiny from possible resource people teams on Earth. So putting that out there that breaking this up is yeah. Again, not in the governor's recommended budget, but we're confident in the numbers that we provide with the community and the M and A team. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: So I'm sorry. Are you talking about the seven hundred that ANR is asking for separately here? [Speaker 7 ]: And If I understand the letter, you're talking about funding the treasurer's portion, right, specifically? And you're [Speaker 0 ]: playing ANR for a year? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: And you're and you're trying to tell us why that's a bad idea? [Speaker 7 ]: I'm just I'm well, I don't know what's gonna happen next year, but I'm just stating that we're very confident that that number identifies the resources we need to be successful. So kind of leave it there so there's a governor's recommended item. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Okay. Thank you. [Speaker 4 ]: I guess, as as part of the budget subcommittee, I just would like to register my concern. I don't I don't think we should fund this, but it [Speaker 9 ]: it was two against three. So [Speaker 4 ]: I think it's a long shot. Two against three? The five word? Two two out of three. Sorry. Two out of two against one. [Speaker 0 ]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [Speaker 11 ]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [Speaker 4 ]: So so you're feeling wounded? [Witness Anthony Arapina]: No. I'm just letting you [Clerk Sarita Austin]: know. And [Speaker 4 ]: they they were gracious to allow me to to express my interest. Yeah. I just checked that I don't believe spending, you know, the million and a half total. This would have been a tight budget situation. This is correct our model. I think if you go I really thought it was important, you would put it in the budget. Not just Yeah. Thank you. Register my concern. No. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: And then and then on the second page [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Can I [Speaker 0 ]: just ask one more thing? [Member Rob North]: So we're not funding the five hundred thousand for contract and support and one seventy five for a new attorney within the office of the agency of natural resources general counsel? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Well, that's what we're talking about. So we're talking about this we're just having a discussion about it. And and I think our budget committee is recommending based on testimony, part of which we just heard, that maybe there's some space to postpone that right now. [Speaker 0 ]: Thank you. I think one other thing that is helpful to point out is that, one of the reasons why we felt comfortable recommending this portion this year and the other portion for ANR next year is because we're, we're recommending this as one time funds. Not base funding, and so that would keep sort of an even cost across both fiscal years. And then for the land use review board, same thing. Those are one time funds, which is why we didn't ask for it to be put into base funding on an annual basis because those positions will probably go away after we finish the land use review or the, future land use mix. And it would be helpful to say one time funds versus base. We said base [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Okay. [Speaker 0 ]: In one place and everywhere else, I believe, is one time funds. Mhmm. Oh, no. We put base everywhere. It was base. Every everything else is one time, but we should probably amend the recommendations. Does it say [Chair Amy Sheldon]: That says one time Oh, [Speaker 0 ]: that time that says one time funds. It's the climate super fund [Speaker 11 ]: one time funds. It doesn't say [Speaker 4 ]: And even the NW, you shouldn't use the word base there. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Also Five hundred [Speaker 4 ]: k. That's an update. [Speaker 0 ]: Oh, and it says should back for us. [Speaker 7 ]: Pardon me. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Based by FedExback. I [Clerk Sarita Austin]: got see that here. [Speaker 0 ]: But it wouldn't be bad to say it twice in base. Database [Clerk Sarita Austin]: here. So it's other Yeah. We we we we got this one. [Member Rob North]: What is that for? It was it was [Clerk Sarita Austin]: it was money we received. It was I don't know if it wasn't it. It sounds like it's been something else. Regions. [Speaker 11 ]: Okay. Trevor gave us the oh, okay. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Does it show up in the [Member Rob North]: budget book? Did you look at your budget book? No. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: We should. Alright. Let's keep going. [Speaker 4 ]: So what about the six seventy five for are we are we thinking about dropping that out now? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Sorry. Where are you? [Speaker 9 ]: Six I don't know. Fine. [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. Get the eight twenty five for [Speaker 9 ]: the treasurer, six seventy five for the ANR that we just heard from Yeah. ANR [Speaker 4 ]: that we're recommending to postpone that till future budget. [Speaker 11 ]: I guess I've [Speaker 9 ]: Or did I mishear that? [Member Rob North]: Well, [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I think that's what we're contemplating. And I guess now that I've looked at this more I mean, I guess one question is, do you need the attorney sort of separately? You're saying I mean, who's litigating this? It's it's like it's gonna it's gonna be the AG, not ANR. So you you sort of made the link to the current litigation, but I'm not sure that that's accurate. [Speaker 7 ]: I don't wanna characterize how the AG's office handles these cases entirely, and I definitely would encourage you to invite our counsel in. But I know that we will provide certain legal support and expertise to the AG's office when they're involved in these sort of actions. And that's, again, reflected and will be included in the report. We're we're confident about that need. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: But didn't we also just add two two legislative councils last year to ANR? [Speaker 7 ]: I understand that this specific attorney would be a would be included to this issue. That's the intent for this person. Yeah. It's a busy legal team at ANR. [Member Rob North]: Okay. Okay. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Oh, Ben Walsh. [Speaker 7 ]: For the record, Ben is really well with the Department of Public Interest Research here. It was helpful. I'd just like to add one, my understanding from, you know, and are both in reading on the board. And what I heard earlier is, desire to do the work as rigorously as possible and really being the, you know, the organ that asked. We certainly agree with that regardless of any involved direct involvement they have. Or have in the suit. I'd also add just to reiterate what Anthony said a minute ago, we certainly don't wanna leave the impression that we are in any way opposed to this money going to ANR in this moment, that all of the, you know, the full one point five million between the two offices would be entirely appropriate. We're simply focused on the thing that is happening chronologically, which is the concurrence work. And if if hopefully, this isn't too forward, but as a potential suggestion, if both were included in the letter, you could indicate the chronological urgency. Our concern would be both of them getting less than the full amount and then the treasurer not being able to do their work, which is more immediate. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Ready to move on? Ready. Okay. And then on on the back page, we have four topics. These are these are not in a in a strongly ordered way. We heard from Servler and Earn, that they would like an additional five hundred thousand dollars, you know, what the governor recommends. I don't think we've got to much of a position on that. We're hoping to get some feedback from the full committee as to whether we should entertain. Going beyond that two million dollars this year, I'll just go through the rest of these and they can talk more maybe. The the the same same sort of idea of the conservation districts, they're where they've been asking for additional funds for a very long time. We did think, however, that if we give them an additional not an additional if we if we up their their funding to one point two five million, that would allow them to hire a half time position on a permanent basis in each of the districts, which would give them the capacity to get the additional grants they get and give them the ability to more smoothly manage their their work going forward. And what do we give them now? [Speaker 4 ]: Six hundred. Right? Six hundred thousand. [Member Rob North]: Six hundred. That's right. And right. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: And the and the Department of Environmental Conservation has not requested additional funding. They this is all oh, they're they're they're here, they're they're addressing the the work that flowed from last year's act one twenty one. They have people doing that work in its various respects. The Flood Safety Act safety act. Which is not right. They the the Flood Safety Act actually gives them more positions that they have right now that were not funded, and we do have a choice. We could decide to give them additional funding to fund fully fund the positions that were in the bill, or we can extend the deadlines, which is what they've requested. And so that's why I guess they [Chair Amy Sheldon]: And the deadlines and the work is not getting done because they haven't filled the positions for [Clerk Sarita Austin]: They yeah. The work is getting done, but they didn't they weren't budgeted as many people as the bill Mhmm. Had called for, and so they're not getting the work done as quickly as they need to given the deadlines in the bill. And so we we pretty much have a choice of either to extend their deadlines given the current capacity or to expand their capacity so that [Speaker 4 ]: they can get more work done more quickly. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: And then the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board is the governor's, you know, recommended budget fully funds the HCB, and it has not always been the case in the past. And so we thought we would, here it, you know, mark our agreement that we feel strongly that the funding should stay in place. Yeah. Great. [Speaker 9 ]: Plus they've just been proposed [Speaker 4 ]: to get an extra fourteen million, haven't they? I believe. Well, housing board? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Oh, from from the BAA. For budget adjustment. Yes. [Speaker 4 ]: For the current It's currently above. Yeah. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: So one question is we were just heard from Jared Carpenter on list of requests that are not addressed in this letter. So repealing the sunset of the property transfer tax. To do staff at ANR. Is that what maybe the My [Clerk Sarita Austin]: understanding is that those are in the governor's budget and Oh, in them. But we could But [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Right. I see. We could reiterate or if we wanna reinforce our support, [Speaker 4 ]: we could do that. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Members have [Speaker 4 ]: Yes. Question. We are in the throes of considering, potentially, repealing three eight the rule, which employs currently about six people according to testimony that we got earlier within the DEC. And I wonder if and that'll cost, you know, six six FTTs, about about a million dollars. If we were to go forward with that, we were to be successful in that regard, where would how would we reflect that in the budget reduction about a million dollars? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Are we talking about repealing the three acre rule? [Speaker 4 ]: Well, which is certainly one of the solutions that's on the table in our three acre discussion. I'm certainly making sure that it's still on the table. [Member Rob North]: It might have been taken off the wall. It's [Speaker 4 ]: taken lots of testimony on it. It's it's a topic of conversation quite a bit over the past week. So Well, it's I think fixing it has been, which would [Chair Amy Sheldon]: include keeping the staff to keep it make its work better. [Speaker 4 ]: But, I mean, if we did something like that, yes, [Chair Amy Sheldon]: it would, obviously, we could make we could make that recommendation. And then we would say, yeah. We think those six people should go to [Speaker 4 ]: the Flood Safety Act or some other place that we thought they should go. So I guess my my question was about timing since that that discussion, we haven't fully debated that topic yet, and this one we kinda have to do today. How does that work time wise? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Chapin. [Speaker 11 ]: Well, and just to build on that and maybe just so we're all on the same page, there's there's other bills that are coming to us, like this one that we heard from the senate about the salt that would have some appropriations. So just to be clear, we would work on we're giving this to appropriations about the budget they're looking at currently, which is really the governor's budget. But then there will be other bills that may carry an appropriation [Speaker 4 ]: Gotcha. [Speaker 11 ]: Or a savings. Okay. And then that gets That [Speaker 7 ]: just happened. [Speaker 11 ]: It happens in the process of the budget question. Whether it's on the house or the senate side. So we're not necessarily capturing every little possible change to anything related to our Gotcha. Area, but we're particularly responding to things that are in the budget or that we've heard from advocates that are not in the budget and maybe should be. So there are we may look at bills the rest of this session that could impact the budget in the end. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Gotcha. Alright. Process that gets trued up [Clerk Sarita Austin]: at the end. Makes sense. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Austin. [Member Rob North]: Yeah. Just a question. It seems like we put a lot more work on the DEC with one eighty one. Is that [Speaker 11 ]: The EC? No. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: No. Wait. That was the HCB took that? [Member Rob North]: No. Okay. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Oh, but one eighty one. Well, Fish and Wildlife, that's their what they're asking. [Member Rob North]: Yeah. But the implementation of the conservation design, isn't that them? That's actually not. Okay. But is that the Department of Environmental? That's not okay. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Yeah. I think that's more fish and wildlife. That's why that's [Member Rob North]: Okay. Sorry. I'm getting Yep. Sorry. Better reply. [Speaker 4 ]: Just a final positive note. I just wanted to let the the committee know that I did have a conversation with the oh, sorry to interrupt from relative to the con conservation districts. And, the the fact that they're they're leveraging a lot of the funding that we're providing, and she's expecting that that leveraging would continue that, you know, if we apply the funding that they're asking for here in the conservation districts, then that would likewise leverage further. That's what they would be able to to fix. So that's that's what I'm just putting out there as well. Great. Support support for that. Yeah. People aren't thinking that. I think there's a drop Yeah. Folks that need to That's Without that fourteen and a half, you don't get seventy two. Yeah. [Speaker 11 ]: I think you're talking about something different. [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. That was different. [Speaker 11 ]: Yep. But You're talking about ANR and and North is tracking the the conservation. [Speaker 4 ]: System. They asked for one point five million dollars based for a half person offering rather than the three that they asked for. [Speaker 11 ]: I was subject to the conservation districts. It's hard to fathom such a humongous increase to the request of three million. We're also just having worked very closely with their teams. They really are the on the ground work, and because we don't have county government in Vermont, they're not fun they're funded in a really haphazard and unique way here in Vermont, and yet they provide a really essential service that works with the fed and state agencies to get federal and state funding out the door and support undo all the technical assistance around developing those products. So I just would say I think it's a nice balance to recommend a significant increase to their funding even if we're not able to fully cover you know, recommend fully covering their [Chair Amy Sheldon]: their ask. [Speaker 8 ]: Yes. I I'm not [Speaker 4 ]: familiar with all the other districts, but I know that in talking to people that Hillary works closely with a lot of people in my district. It it's it's been [Speaker 8 ]: very helpful. [Speaker 4 ]: They're Ireland that I talked to. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Any other thoughts on this first review of our budget letter? [Vice Chair Larry Labor]: For what it's worth, I I with the Climate Superfund, I am in line with the governor's recommendation. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Noted. [Speaker 4 ]: What is that money actually spent? What [Speaker 9 ]: what what is [Chair Amy Sheldon]: For the climate superfund? Yeah. Well, that that that so that's why Anthony was in here, and I asked him he's provided us the two of the RFIs that they go into great detail about what that money would be spent on because I had that question. So they're up here, but it's collecting a lot of data. He's actually summarized it at the end, the depth and breadth of calculating the costs associated, you know, with climate change and parsing that out. And but those RFIs are there if you wanna dig into them and see where that money would actually go. [Speaker 4 ]: The act one twenty one report was actually pretty good. [Speaker 9 ]: I mean, it really provided all the [Speaker 7 ]: the detail for what what it does. [Speaker 11 ]: I just on the on the Climate Superfund piece, I really support particularly the treasurer's office funding because regardless of where this Climate Superfund process and the litigation related to it goes, this first well, first step, but this next step of the treasurer's office taking the lead and hiring the right contracted support to do the estimates of what what we it's basically looking at the impacts to Vermont and the rapidly increasing cost to Vermont to and to support our municipalities, our businesses, and our and our homeowners to understand the impacts that we're having and how much money that's costing Vermont. And that is information be very relevant to us as a legislature going forward regardless of what happens with Climate Superfund. We need to understand like, we had I can't I can't remember if it's DEC or Fish and Wildlife, and and we were talking about their budget, and they were talking about these really big gray areas that affect their budget, including a couple acts that we've passed where, you know, trying to deal with capacity. But then the big one is, like, impacts to to state infrastructure and and and those losses and what that's costing us, and that isn't budgeted for annually, effectively in our in our annual budgets. And we don't know what the and the costs are changing so rapidly. So I think understanding that is gonna be really important for us no matter what we do about climate super no matter where the climate super fund goes. Yeah. Just has a lot of value to us beyond addressing the climate super fund. [Speaker 4 ]: For planning purposes. Yes. Exactly. On. Okay. [Speaker 11 ]: If we're not gonna pay if we don't end up having the super fund funding come in to help pay for these costs, we should know what the costs are right now. Yeah. How on earth we are going to try and cover these, or are we just gonna expect taxpayers to be on the hook for all of these going forward, which we're we're already in a place where people can are struggling to afford to live in Vermont. How are we need to address that. So I I really want that information. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: I'd like to know more about the [Chair Amy Sheldon]: lack of renewals for insurance coverage. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Yeah. So [Speaker 11 ]: And maybe we could support just the, you know, I mean, I'm struggling. I don't feel like we have good information on how important these other pieces are for a and r. But I guess one option is we could support the additional attorney and wait on the contracted support. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Understand what I was saying. [Speaker 11 ]: So maybe maybe that's a good somewhere a compromise in here because we need the treasurer's office to do the work. And if they need information from ANR, which is maybe what I'm gleaning from the the comments that we're hearing, If these agencies need to be working together, maybe they really need that legal support for for this time period. [Speaker 4 ]: I mean, is this for is I'm looking at this this I mean, the money is to generate this information. Is that what it's being used for? I mean, I'm looking at some of this information, and I, you know, [Speaker 11 ]: Back to one twenty one report? [Speaker 4 ]: No. The Let's see. Yeah. [Speaker 11 ]: I'm sorry. I'm saying one [Member Rob North]: one twenty. That's that's [Speaker 11 ]: the moment. [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. I'm looking at the test point. [Member Rob North]: Right. [Speaker 4 ]: The RFI development Oh, yeah. And cost recovery program. That's what I'm looking at. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Safety address. That's what I [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. That's what that's what general that's what's optic. [Speaker 11 ]: Sorry. Act one point two. There's a typo in the There's something typo in the in the letter, the Climate Superfund that says with the implement implementation act one twenty. I [Speaker 4 ]: should do not follow this. Amy said. So we get a [Speaker 11 ]: twenty nine. It's like taking Wow. I can never remember act numbers anyway. So Yeah. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: And so did you read those? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: The one twenty two report? [Speaker 4 ]: I I read the the report that that whatever report it was that listed out all of these folks that were involved in analyzing climate change and its effect on the market. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: I mean, you're working for two years ago. [Speaker 4 ]: I'm looking at this. I was just going by the numbers that was written down here. Whatever that report was, the I [Witness Jared Carpenter]: have to [Speaker 11 ]: understand too was the climate super fund cost recovery program report to a general assembly. That wasn't I [Speaker 4 ]: can't find it. It's under Yes. These are technical. That should be one twenty two, not one twenty. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Thank you. [Vice Chair Larry Labor]: Is it the second one? It's three three dollars. [Speaker 11 ]: No. Yeah. I'm sorry. I found it under under reports to us, under our reports. It's not actually You can't find that. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Who report under who who gave it to us? Yeah. I'll just because I have reports open. [Speaker 11 ]: You all right. No. Just say about what agency? I know. It was under I think it was under ANR. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: Right. So what I'm gonna propose is this is, great work by our budget committee. I think we all need time to dig into it a little bit, and then we're gonna come back together tomorrow morning and discuss and hopefully vote on the sections of [Member Rob North]: it. Okay? You are you as the chair, will you give your thoughts on it as well? Or [Speaker 0 ]: I will. You will. Sure. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I mean, we'll all give our thoughts. But [Speaker 0 ]: And do [Speaker 7 ]: we vote on [Speaker 4 ]: a best poll, or do we vote on kind [Speaker 7 ]: of line by line? [Speaker 4 ]: I I mean, how does that [Chair Amy Sheldon]: We can do both. So, you know, if there's sections that people you you know, you've already expressed your opinion on some of the sections. We could take straw polls on each section, and then we can take a straw poll on the whole thing. [Clerk Sarita Austin]: Yeah. Yeah. I think oh, go. I just wonder if people had thoughts on the serve learning program. Feedback about that. Yeah. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: But I think I'd like to [Speaker 9 ]: do take some sort of [Clerk Sarita Austin]: conversation and do a a little edit of this draft for tomorrow morning. [Speaker 4 ]: Good idea. Yeah. That that was more of your stuff. I'm doing it. [Speaker 11 ]: I'm happy to just chime in and say that workforce development is a really cross sector, really important, and this is the workforce development collaboration in Vermont for those natural resources agreement. So we wanna see workforce development continue to [Speaker 4 ]: It's very [Speaker 7 ]: niche chunk [Chair Amy Sheldon]: of natural resources. Yes and no. I mean, it's construction skills and Yeah. Weatherization and meeting young people where they are if they're not able to be out or in, you know, classroom type people. And when I I thought you were talking about leverage. Remember the leverage that we you know, they came in with was pretty outstanding. Something like two million brings in ten million or I can't remember, but it was impressive. So we invest a very little amount of money in that, and I think we get it a lot back. And they also steward our trails, which is super valuable to us. [Member Rob North]: And the path pathways, you know, the two years, like, students in high school can use to that's not that like, that's not this. This isn't an addition to this? [Chair Amy Sheldon]: That is that program I think, CERF, Learn, Earned. [Member Rob North]: But is that already we get to get to any information about that. [Chair Amy Sheldon]: I don't know. So I think what happens now this is great. I want people to dig into their areas of interest, go get answers to your questions, and bring them back to the committee. So what I I really would like to do is, adjourn for the floor and then send you on your way to dig in to the parts of this that you're [Clerk Sarita Austin]: interested [Chair Amy Sheldon]: in and

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Environment Committee 2025-02-26-1:15PM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: