Okay, so good morning everyone. It's Friday May 29 10 o'clock. We're gonna get started. It's sent in after resources and energy And we're meeting today to talk continue our discussion of the Global Warming Solutions Act our first witness is Joyce Manchester from the Joint Fiscal Office and I don't know if she's been able to rejoin yet Let's wait just a minute. She was on a moment ago Yes, I saw her is joined morning senator campion And I see Ms. Manchester again. Okay, so Ms. Manchester, if you could walk us through the fiscal note you prepared on the house Global Warming Solutions Act that would be helpful Yes, thank you very much for the record. I'm Joyce Manchester with the Joint Fiscal Office I'm going to be walking through this fiscal note that I prepared based on the version of the bill that was passed by the house back in February and I did hear Peter walk give testimony on Wednesday, and I understand that there may be a change in the way that the council is made up So this refers to the original version of the bill as passed by the house Okay, I'm now going to share my screen I Get made you co-host Joyce Thank you. I'm just not seeing the right screen pop up at the bottom of this of the zoom it shows It shows screen share Maybe click on that. No, I'm there I'm there. I'm just trying to find my here we go now. It should work Oh boy, I'm still not seeing it Hmm. Oh, I see all windows. Hold on. Hold on. I got it. I got it. I'm good There you go. It looks like it's gonna come on Yay Joyce Thank you very much. We're all on the job learning. Thanks. Exactly a New skill. All right. So here we are. This is H688 The Appropriation needed at this point is rather limited in that we're really only talking about the three new FTE positions at an R and the per diems and expenses for Non-government workers who would be attending the council meetings So as the bill was passed by the house The Vermont climate council was composed of 22 people and at least four subcommittees and I understand that those subcommittees could move around but We'll see how that goes as you know, the council in the current bill is responsible for identifying analyzing and evaluating strategies and programs to ensure that Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions Will meet some targets or some goals or whatever you want to call them so the goals are there the Requirement is that the council will adopt the Vermont climate action plan Honor before December 1st 2021 and will update it every four years thereafter So in FY 21, there would be expenses that need appropriations in three areas You will see that in this fiscal note. I have lumped together The appropriations needed for both FY 21 and FY 22 and the reason for that back in the Eight days of February was that we thought that FY 21 was going to look pretty good in terms of revenues coming in and so we thought that Lumping the two years together would give and are a little bit more certainty About the funds they would have to spend over the coming two years Now you may decide in in light of the current Dismal revenue situation that you want to split that out and and that would be absolutely fine with us and I Could simply rewrite this to show that But let's go through FY 21 first and certainly if there are questions, please let me know as I'm going Mr. Chair. Yeah, please. Um, I I'm I have completely misunderstood. I thought that the witness was going to talk to us about the economic issues Surrounding climate change and and the costs of the of To the state of not taking action and things of that nature So this seems to be a report that the appropriations committee would be interested in but But am I incorrect? So, yeah, we'll actually address both. So for now just because it'll be thank you You know every year we send a note onto a probe saying we're we're making an ask and here's what it is and why? So we need to know What we'd be asking for should we move the bill as it's currently constructed, but I take your your points well taken some very large other numbers not on the table about Impacts of the status quo for instance right now. Well, so that's what I thought we were gonna be the the economic you know dangers of doing nothing as reported to us by our JFO and and other studies. Thank you. I'm looking forward to it Well, okay, so Quick question to miss Manchester. So I'm thinking back you were part of the group we Now not remembering the quite the the initials. There was RFF or RSG or you know We had a lengthy detailed study from them roughly a year ago, right? That's correct. And you were part of that group that did the request for proposal and all that so I'm thinking of that document as maybe something that captures Information related to center McDonald's question. Am I remembering that right? Would you say that is that is absolutely right? We we actually Help to organize two different studies one was by RFF and that was looking at Decarbonization methods Approaches to achieve decarbonization and they looked at various approaches from a carbon tax to a an auction And they did a very nice job of laying out the economic implications of Doing that work sooner rather than later We also were involved in a second study that was completed by rap the regulatory systems project And they looked at specific areas in which Vermont could invest What's what's the word for the the heating the heating of homes and so forth? Yeah, okay great. So we'll so so that's all out there and that's been done and also as part of this bill There is a request the JFO put together a new RFP for a study that would look at more of the Mitigation methods that could be used as part of this this whole global warming Solutions Act So that's that's a future study and we need to put together a study proposal for that that could be approved by by folks in the legislature Okay, great. So let's go back to the note you have and then we'll I'll follow up with you about Pulling up the rap and RFS work. We already have to see If we can Reconsider that because we actually had both those in committee But it's been a while so thanks. Yes, absolutely. Good. Thank you. Okay. So we're looking at estimated expenses for FY 21 A&R has requested three additional FTEs a staff director a data analyst With expertise in greenhouse gas emission measurement verification and mitigation and a lawyer with regulatory expertise Now those are general descriptions and those Jobs might change a little bit, but that's that's the general idea So we were thinking salary about 80,000 each benefits at about 40% possible additional costs For equipment space and training and that gives us 336,000 for for one fiscal year for those three additional FTEs Then we were also looking at about $50,000 for per diem's and expenses for the members of the council and the subcommittee meetings who are not legislative employees or government employees And I was guessing that the council might meet 10 times annually If every one of the 14 members not employed by state government would participate and request per diem Then the estimated maximum state cost would be about 17,675 actual expenses likely lower and You can see the math on how that comes about Thank you And then we have four subcommittees if they were to meet six times annually and each of the 10 or 11 Subcommittee members not employed by state government would participate and request per diem And that expense comes out to be about 31,815 per year In addition to those two uses we also Recommend 200,000 in funds for public outreach and or consultants So these would be consultants who would help the the council and a and r and or a and r With with expertise that may not be in-house. So that's 200,000 And and we imagined that that would stretch over the two years But certainly if you're going to hire a consultant it takes time to get up and running and then you you want them to To be part of the process. So it would probably go over the two years. So the FY 21 total estimated spending 586,000 FY 22 we don't have the 200,000, but we have the other two expenses at about the same level So FY 22 would be 386,000 so if you choose to only appropriate money for the coming fiscal year FY 21 You would be looking at 586,000 and then of course there would be indirect effects on state spending We don't have dollar amounts to assign to these categories, but certainly agriculture ACCD Transportation all of those folks would see some impact of implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act And then we would have longer-term effects on state spending again We have not assigned dollar values, but certainly they're out there effects on state government through the fleet as we change from Gas-powered vehicles to electric powered vehicles Buildings heating expenses maintenance new construction and of course fiscal impact on cities and towns that would be coming down the pike Senator Bray you're muted saying thank you for a concise summary of you know big picture 30,000 foot view of what might be entailed and moving forward Okay, any committee questions from is Manchester Your flight certified for screen sharing right Right also on the committee pages is a simple chart that shows you where global how global Greenhouse gas emissions have been in Vermont in recent history and shows you where the target levels are So we don't need to look at that now unless there's a request, but I just thought it would be helpful to see where we've been Where we're going Okay So I'm not sure which documents you're referring to. Can you explain a little more? So let's see. I don't know if it's something we've seen yet we I've I've withdrawn her screen share although it appears she's Still got control There it is Okay, right Yes, so so that's the chart that I put together other people have made similar charts. I just thought it was Perhaps useful to have it ready to to look at and I've labeled The various target dots and explained where they're coming from So you can see the blue dots are our absolute history. That's what we know from an are in terms of greenhouse gas emissions You can see the two estimates that Peter walk talked about on Wednesday are in dark red there The anr forecasts are the yellowish dots The 2025 target Is just below the 26 the 2016 i'm sorry Just below the anr forecast for 2026 So it looks like the lift to get to the 2025 target would not be to burdensome Uh, however, moving to the 2030 and 2050 targets would require significant reductions Right, great. Um, can you send that on? I don't know if it's a link or If you could just send it on to june and she'll put it on. I actually I actually picked it up from your website. So it's on the website It's on today's documents. It's a post You're ahead of me. Thank you Okay, great. If there are no more questions for ms. Manchester. Thanks very much for your help Okay, I don't see any then, um, we'll go next to, uh, mr. Coda. Good morning, matt Good morning. Uh, can anyone everyone hear me? Okay Yes, yes, long clear. Okay. Thank you. Um, and thank you senator bray members of the senate natural resources committee To talk briefly about the global warming solutions act My name is matt coda for the record an executive director of vfda a position. I've held since 2007 Vfda is a nonprofit trading association of energy businesses We provide regulatory assistance while facilitating technical training safety and education programs that are required Here in the state of vermont for certification and licensure We operate the vermont fuel training center, which is the leading provider of technical training for plumbing and heating industry For techs and plumbers a quick snapshot of my involvement in these types of discussions over the past 13 years or so I've served on the governor schumlin's thermal efficiency task force And governor scott's climate action commission I I pushed in 2010 for vermont's ultra low sulfur fuel mandate, which has taken effect To reduce emissions and increase efficiency in heating I've spent the past decade advocating for renewable biodiesel for heating and transportation here in vermont Have advocated for regulations that ensure that liquid fuel is delivered safely and stored securely through the passage of vermont's above ground storage tank regulations I've distributed over 200 000 dollars over the last two years in rebates directly to vermont consumers so that they can Install safe fuel oil tanks that are compliant with these ast regulations I helped create the efficiency excellence network with efficiency vermont about 10 years ago And was an original member of energy action now, which is now called energy action network I say all that to underscore the fact that i'm not just here saying no to the gwsa But I am saying no to the gwsa and I ask you not to pass this legislation as written in here is why Having served on these kinds of committees has stated prior similar to the proposed climate council either informally or formally Let me pull back the curtain for those that don't know suggested solutions by these volunteer committees Are often done in self-interest For instance in page seven of the climate council number f or letter f There is a member Representing the fuel industry I tell you if i'm named to this committee, I will advocate for policies that focus on deliverable renewals biomass and biodiesel Um That's going to happen. I'm certain that the representative from electric utilities will push for more electric heat understandable Um, it's happened in the puc for the 2015 energy act when we meet every year to talk about tier three How to reduce fossil fuel consumptions and and usually The geothermal guy advocates for more geothermal the biomass advocate wants more to burn more wood The solar company wants to sell more solar panels. This is perfectly understandable and I'm a part of it too But because of this These committees should be advisory only I listened to the testimony on youtube last night to it did it to get uploaded Thank you for for advising me on that Um, and I was struck that I had a very similar concern As senator mark mcdonald if i'm paraphrasing the senator correctly There was a concern that you expressed that the agency wouldn't get put together a plan Wouldn't get anything done as evidenced by past committees meeting In my concern, I think is on the other side of the exact same coin. What if this client? Permits inherent in the law, but has other negative Consequences and the legislature has no opportunity to weigh in it will go through the rulemaking process El car will listen and the agency has the authority to enact the plan as they've devised it No votes will ever occur on the house or senate floor and the reason why this is a concern is that there will be Will be solutions suggested in which uh, in which someone has an idea That on paper makes sense. Here's a common one that I hear I'm the chair of the self-prolonged development review board. I've served on numerous energy efficiency committees I hear this one all the time update the stretch code To eliminate fossil fuels and apply the same efficiency standards to all residential housing in brahman the common request And it hasn't happened. It's not new to brahman. In fact the next week in massachusetts The board of building regulations and standards is considering modifying their stretch code to quote limit restrict Any installation of any fossil fuel infrastructure in new construction for home modifications? There's no question if you don't install another oil burner in another house in massachusetts or brahman Or a gas burner you will reduce emissions But it'll also drive up the cost of housing and it will make it much more difficult For those of us in our individual states and individual cities and towns that have affordable housing goals to meet those goals Furthermore, it would require an enforcement mechanism that we don't doesn't exist in most of brahman Sure, if you change the stretch code to say no more fossil fuels You may prevent a utility gas company chitting county from laying any more pipe How do you prevent a homeowner in brandon? from installing an oil burner in their house You can't because they don't need to pull a permit um Here's another effective, but unpopular climate solution that this council could come up with and implement without the vote on the floor Tell you could eliminate 10 million gallons 10 million gallons of fossil fuels overnight overnight All you have to do is ban the use of federal light heat funds for oil heat kerosene Propane and natural gas all we have to do is tell the 20 000 low-income brahmat families that if they want free heat Call the electric company or burn wood on paper. It's simple The government can stop paying fuel dealers to deliver fuel But in practice thousands of remoders Go cold in the effort to prevent global warming I don't think anyone on this committee wants this I don't think anyone in the senate for the house wants this But what are the guardrails to prevent the climate council? from implementing such measures the guardrails are The legislature the legislature should ultimately give Thumbs up or thumbs down to whatever an advisory climate council Suggest don't reject. Uh, don't give up the authority To reject a well-meaning of a misguided plan Thank you for the opportunity to talk Well, I appreciate that you've provided some examples of Uh, you know laws or rules that could be passed because um When we leave it as rules will be written To reduce emissions. It's uh, it all sounds rather attractive to most party to every party really But uh, in the end we need to say well, how are you going to achieve that? What's the what's happening out there in the real world that gets you there? and Those decisions as you've pointed out become Uh, political ones like what are we willing to do as a society and So it is a little hard for me to imagine that the legislature wouldn't be part of Speaking on behalf of the people that represent to make those choices for this the state Yeah, um senator campion Uh, mad I apologize. I had to step out for a moment Would you mind just shooting me an email or maybe we can talk later about uh, what you shared with the committee? Sure Okay, great. Thank you. I'll look for an email. Just a little just a little bit of a summary. I apologize that I had to step out Uh senator mcdonnell Thank you. Um Matt Matt gave us a list of things that he's done that have been environmentally sound and the hard work he's put in for Low so so for sulfur fuels and um and other such work During that time Our thermal and highway Work has been graded to be d-minus to an f We continue to buy huge amounts of fossil fuels and ship 80 of the dollars out of state um, how would um, perhaps the witness could Tell us what the number one way he would deal with reducing Transportation uses based on fuels well They and the combustion engine right that's not my suggestion, but that has been suggested Um, put a for a stop date when the car dealer can stop selling a gasoline powered car That's not my suggestion. These are the hard choices that the legislature should make not this climate council in a laboratory We can figure out how to reduce emissions well below the the The benchmarks that we've created The goals that we've created, but there are consequences and are we prepared now? I know there's some people that are prepared to accept those consequences um If we stop letting people, uh, you know COVID has revealed that our sales are down for the for the four five six weeks right after the stay at home order our sales were down 50 60 percent in terms of Gasoline sales that's an effective way to reduce emissions. It also has a negative effect on the economy So what's the tradeoff? Ultimately 22 people in a room Making whatever per diem is shouldn't be deciding these policies. It should be the legislature I wouldn't advocate for banning the combustion engine But the legislature might and that's their right Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, uh, Okay, um, uh any other Questions for mr. Kota. Okay. Thanks for jumping in and um joining us today like then to um invite next to join us, um, mr. McDougal from the attorney general's office and um I don't know. Good morning, mr. McDougal. We can see you and Sorry, mr. Mr. Driscoll is next. Um Mr. McDougal said he wasn't available until 10 30 so we can switch it if you'd like. I'm just trying to follow the schedule Hey, maybe I didn't refresh my screen recently enough. Um Um Can uh Mr. Driscoll, are you fine going after mr. McDougal? Okay, I'm looking maybe at an agenda that's one one, uh edit back so, uh, again, thanks for joining us, uh and bringing the expertise of the eternal general's office to the committee everyone has a copy of your january 29 memo that you wrote, uh to house energy and technology And we've been having discussions around some of the the questions that you addressed in your memo And I thought maybe if you There's you have four questions for answers in here if maybe we could do questions one and then four And then double back as time allows to get into some of the other questions And you have a colleague from your office on the With you and if you could introduce if you could both introduce yourselves to the committee because I don't think we've seen you this year Thank you. Sure. Well, thank you very much for having us this morning. My name is rob mcdougal I'm the chief of the environmental protection division at the attorney general's office And with me this morning is laura murphy who's one of our great assistant attorneys general in the environmental protection division and who has helped um Work on that memo that you just mentioned senator and also our kind of global warrants solutions act Work this session I just might start by saying that the attorney general Strongly supports this bill and the policies behind it The climate crisis is real the time for environmental leadership is now We view this bill as a strong bold step in the right direction for vermont to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resiliency in our changing climate We're happy to talk about any questions you have or go into different areas of the bill from this point sure um and So working off the memo you've already done I think one question that came up with it won't take you as long as your very first question in the memo And number four. I think is where we've maybe had some of our A lengthier discussion so far. So if we could Use those and we'll work from that. Thanks Or do you want Happy to step in here. So I think for question one this this came up As you know in the house committee And the basic question is whether with the rule The rules that a and r would develop under the global warming solutions act. Could they impose a tax or a fee? Just through the rulemaking and basically for taxes the answer is no That that requires legislative approval. So, you know, potentially the climate council may recommend Some sort of tax that would need to be approved by the legislature. That's the short answer And then for the fee most fees also need to be approved by the legislature. There are some exceptions for for certain small things but and this is this is where if an agency is going to charge a fee for Its services right or or for license or something like that Most of those need legislative approval as you probably know, there's a fee schedule that's set Perhaps annually There are some small exceptions. So I I can't remember but things like You know, if you want to charge a transcript fee or something like that that that may not be subject to legislative approval So that's the really short answer on that one and I don't know if if There are any questions on question one Sir mcdonnell. Oh, I'm sorry. I'll wait till both questions have been done Certainly and then for should I move on to question four? Yeah, and if you could just in case people don't have your A memo right in front of you could read the question of people to them Sure So this question was whether the legislature is see being too much policy making authority to the executive brand In the rulemaking allowed under the bill So we looked at this question not from as a policy matter should the legislature See this authority to the agencies and or the council but if if Authority is seated. Is it constitutional? Right? So under the constitution? Both federal and state there's a doctrine called the non delegation doctrine And basically what that means is You know under separation of powers the legislature is supposed to make laws and make policy And that's really the role of the legislature. However, as we know Certainly the legislature can delegate authority to agencies to make rules to implement policy And so the question arises under the non delegation a doctrine When the legislature delegates authority to an agency In a statute or to some other body Has it seated too much authority and the question that you have to answer there is well Has the legislature provided sufficient guidance? To the agency about basically how to develop the rules and what to do And the standard as we discussed in the memo is it's not a high standard It's a pretty low bar that there needs to be an intelligible principle that the legislature has provided To the agency to help the agency implement the act There needs to be some sort of policy guidance or or standard for the agency to follow So we looked at the bill With with those principles in mind and our view, of course, there's We never can guarantee anything but our view is that the bill is currently drafted Is constitutional under this doctrine and and that's because there is a fair amount of guidance provided to the agency. So of course, there's Guidance about process about developing the rules There are very specific greenhouse gas reductions that need to be met through the rules There are very specific timelines, but even more importantly in sections 592 b Which is what outlines what the Climate action plan needs to look like and then also in 592 d which is where we have the objectives of the act that need to be achieved That's a lot of guidance for a and r to work with and for the council to work with in developing the programs and strategies to achieve the reductions Um, I mean I can give you some examples, but you're probably quite familiar with those. Um, so so that's our analysis on that issue um and Okay Well, let me look at any committee questions on number four. No, that's very helpful though. Thank you The the another piece of the discussion along the way has been if the council writes a plan and then it's kicked over to Rule mate goes to the agency's a and r for rulemaking Should the legislature play a role in approving the plan Or you know that that was There's two flavors to that one is Because the administration alone actually, um send a plan over having worked with A smaller version of the council with non People who are not part of the administration Performing an advisory role so that it stays the administration speaking to the administration With outside advisors. So that's one version of things another version was No, you might keep the entire group of 22 together but to provide a Check-in with the legislature and that any plan before rulemaking was invoked Would have a legislative approval. So we don't have a ratification process resolutions aren't binding Probably that would mean that we would have a bill that would include the plan so do you have any thoughts about the desirability necessity of Uh enhancing the legislature's rule in that way by sort of coming back to the legislature So I think I would say from a constitutional perspective. I don't um I don't think that that really has an effect I and rob you can correct me if I'm wrong that I think that is more of a policy matter What what's the legislature's preference really? One thing that I think we have mentioned before of course is the more steps that are in the process the longer potentially things might take to happen Um, but I think that that would be our response on that And that that's what we've testified to in other committees that you know the vermont has fallen behind its neighboring states in achieving our greenhouse gas reduction goals and so that um idea that this Creates an ambitious timeline and an ambitious schedule to meet these goals Uh, they're they're not goals any more than requirements. Uh, and so that um, whether it's a policy question to insert More steps into the process, but that would just have the effect of Perhaps stretching out the timeline in a way McDonald For um miss mrs. Murphy, um the I believe your testimony Explains what the What would happen when this committee came up with its plan? If the committee comes up with no plan And the administration is then sets for sets forward to come up with rules Is that not a different situation? So I don't think it is um under the The act is it's currently drafted The if there's no plan right the agency still has to develop the rules And currently I believe the language says when the agency does that it has to write the rules to Achieve the objectives and the act which are in section 592 d Um, I don't think the legislation currently says that the rules should also follow 592 b Which is what outlines what the plan needs to look like um, so I think one could read the statute to say well if the agency is going to have to write the rules without a plan Certainly, they have to follow the objectives and 592 b It would be wise probably to also follow The guidelines and standards in 592 b That's potentially something the legislature could make explicit in the event. Um There's no plan But I I still think it's currently drafted the agency still would have even without a plan sufficient guidance in the statute from a constitutional perspective and then you also I was going to say you also have those cause of actions to make sure the rules are doing what they're supposed to do as a kind of Backstop on the rulemaking process uh that the the ability to be a backstop and in an appropriate time is limited by When the legislature happens to meet and when This administration and past administrations, you know, this is not a criticism of one have often from you know promulgated rules when the legislature wasn't around to um to object and My concern is in the absence of the of a plan And the bill doesn't call for doesn't have in it a mechanism for That the group to meet if it's not called by the secretary of administration in the absence of a plan There's no opportunity for the legislature to exercise its authority Or not exercise its authority and That's my concern with the way the bill is drafted at this time And I senator only meant backstop on the the causes of action So there's three causes of action created by the global warming solutions act Of course one is the deadline suit where someone can bring a lawsuit if The anor does not write the rules the second is a suit if the rules don't meet the goals as specified in the legislation And then the third is the existing um, it's not created by the the bill But it's that existing apa rulemaking challenge. So if the rulemaking process isn't um Going appropriately then someone can challenge the rulemaking process. So there's the opportunity for individuals to challenge the rules that are coming out if not the legislature And we're We then we get into days and months and years on on something that we consider to be um more meat That last question. I think I already know the answer to um, which is attorney general of this office ever Intervened to say that the administration was failing to carry out the laws of the state of vermont Not to my knowledge senator. We um, you know, obviously we're typically in the the position of defending the state and making sure that um People are working when we work with our client agencies to make sure that we're following the laws But I don't know of a case where we've intervened to say that We've not met The goals or rules in place Which is why we have I guess the conservation law foundation that occasionally steps up and fulfills that role Thank you on the Soup being the potential to bring soup. Um, we've had a little committee discussion around Rule 75 is an existing opportunity to bring Suit a written mandamus. I guess it is as opposed to the explicitly adding a cause of action clause in in this bill Can you say a little bit about uh, how? Rule 75 has or has not provided opportunities for runners to bring You know actions a cause of action suit Sure Laura go ahead Yeah, sure and rough. Please jump in. Um, I right so to rule 75 is Provides the procedures that apply once you get into court under for instance a writ of mandamus So there's still so it's not a cause of action of itself But there still has to be some underlying cause of action to get you into court and for rule 75 It's it's one of the old rits basically In terms of the deadline suit a and r just fails to to adopt the rules on time It would probably be a writ of mandamus I do think that that Is an existing cause of action However rule those rits can get confusing and complicated and so having this very clear cause of action in the statute Only helps I think to make it clear that yes, we have a suit here Um, there's no question about getting into court under one of the rits I mean, I do think you could that would be the right view, but I I certainly think having the cause of action helps to make that clear Okay, great And rule 75 senator is a cause of action that courts are very familiar with there's hundreds of rule 75 cases Pending at any given time. Um, it's a very common cause of action Okay, um the other another provision in in the bill was uh, and Just historically speaking this committee's twice past cause of action bills as part of the clean water act They didn't survive the full legislative process. So I'm not leaning again. I'm not challenging on these things. I'm just trying to test a little There is there are provisions uh for covering costs and A&R's proposal and response Doesn't include such a feature. Um, I don't know what kind of costs someone would incur but, um Does it seem a reasonable thing to empower citizens of the state To cover costs if they bring such a suit and prevail So the um attorney general when he testified in the house committee Believes that that's a very important government accountability piece of this bill And it makes sure that the state lives up to its end of what it's supposed to do Parties can recover costs already But the fees is the new piece and maybe lord you want to explain that just a little bit more. Um the existing Sure, right. So under existing law Um Normal types of costs can be recovered by the prevailing party filing fees things like that It certainly doesn't hurt to spell it out either. Um, certainly and for attorneys fees in vermont We basically follow the rule that there has to be some sort of statutory authorization For a party to recover attorneys fees unless it's exceptional circumstances So having it spelled out here that the prevailing or substantially prevailing plaintiff can recover attorneys fees Is is very important and I think it's true. Um, the attorney general did testify earlier that this isn't an important accountability piece It can help and certainly at the federal level these types of provisions are used to help citizens um Have the means to actually hold government accountable in certain places I would mention here if I can They're currently in the bill. It doesn't say that the state can recover fees and costs. It only says costs We believe that was an oversight So we would just ask that the state can recover fees and this is only if the suit is frivolous So we we would ask for that provision to be added Okay, um Since uh, this is your billy. What can you send an email to the committee expressing that in What you believe is an appropriate manner. Thank you. May I ask a quick question? Of sure and then center well center parent then center campaign. Okay. I apologize. Thanks So I I have a question. So at the state gets sued, you know for not meeting these goals or perceived to not be Meeting these goals. How vigorously will the attorney general's office actually defend the state or are you gonna Take more of the side that yeah, we didn't defend these goals You know, I always figured that the attorney general's office is job to fight for the state Um, you know, you know, what would you do in a situation like this? We would defend our client zealously and vigorously as we do in every case It's a ethical obligation of our office and um, we would absolutely And certainly for if I could also add for the for the deadline suits, um that first cause of action That's really straightforward. Either the rule was adopted on time or it wasn't so We would probably think that those cases would be really straightforward wouldn't last very long There wouldn't be much to dispute about I mean, it's the second cause of action where where it gets more complicated. Um And would require, you know, honestly, probably factual testimony and expert testimony That that's a good point laura the um the first cause of action the deadline, you know, whether we Did the whether the state did the rule on time or not that's a very Uh straightforward case that probably believe wouldn't be decided on paper and there would not be a lot of cost for fees associated with it The second case, uh, the challenge to whether the rules were effective or not is where there'd be more exposure to uh, attorneys fees and costs Did this uh go through house judiciary? Uh, yes, we testified in house judiciary. Yep. Okay. Terrific. Thank you because i'm just thinking about timing here and it should Probably end up in a senate judiciary as well Okay, thank you We testified senator just basically on the cause of action section there in the house judiciary at least for more Yep, okay. Thank you um, and can you uh explain a little bit about the the term substantially prevail How to i'm always nervous when i see an adverb Sure, so um, I won't be able to give a lot of detail. This is a really a common standard um under federal environmental laws um And and so it gives the court discretion basically so there may be for instance a case that has multiple theories or multiple causes of action or um multiple Asks for certain types of remedies and so the plaintiff may not achieve all of that in the case But may achieve most of it right or may get to the goal of having the agency write the rules in a certain way So that basically just gives the court to discretion discretion to decide. Yeah, this the plaintiff's suit was really a big piece of us getting to the finish line um, there there's certainly going to be case law about How courts have assessed prevailing versus substantially prevailing, but it is it is a standard It's common and it does give the court discretion to make that judgment Um the last question um is and we can schedule more time as we get closer to uh, you know, a finished bill but the um Is around exit. Did you spend any time analyzing the extent of existing rulemaking authority of any state agency that might actually be brought into Making the global warming solutions act Work, you know, like do they have rulemaking Powers in terms of defining um performance standards for buildings instructors or Gas mileage for vehicles. I mean, I'm wondering some of the tools they might use some of the rules They might write. I don't know if you've looked at whether they they already have the power to do that or they need a Direct authority granted through legislation Senator that's not something we looked at and we would defer to the agencies In their own expertise about their authorities under their rulemaking powers Our suggestion would be that the clearer the finished product is The better it's going to be for the agencies to Determine whether they have that authority or not Okay, great Any other questions from the committee? Okay, so thanks so much for your help today and I'm guessing more questions will come up as we keep working our way along and we'll get back in touch. So thanks again Thanks very much Um, with that I'd like to turn to mr. Driscoll. Thank you for Joining us this morning and accepting a little reshuffle on the the batting order there Oh, no problem all this chairman. Thanks. And before I start I do have a little bit of background noise where I'm at Can you hear me? Okay, or? Sounds good here. Thank you Prefer not to turn off my fan in this I agree Yeah, so thank you. Thank you again for the record. William Griscoll with associated industries of Vermont I appreciate the opportunity to touch on this bill. I'd like to just address some of our You know broad concerns and we can certainly I'm more specific In writing or as you continue working on this I think maybe touching on a lot of the issues the committee has already been considering and looking at and I think I start off with similar area of concern highlighted by mac coda earlier and this comes down to The authority of the council Relative to the administration and to the legislature And this and other things are this is largely these are largely process issues I think this is this is largely a process bill as opposed to you know debate over substantive policies But when it comes to substantive policies or responses when it comes to specific direction to A&R or or potentially other agencies to get into specific rules and regulations There are obviously many different ways to approach greenhouse gas reductions and controls and those different approaches. They all have their own Cost effectiveness. They all have their own trade-offs And when it comes to Trying to make the best decisions There are at least two factors that are important to reach those decisions that I think are are are not best served in the bill as it's currently structured. There's the question of adequate input and And and control from various stakeholders who may have different and or competing Interests or priorities and there's also the accountability for the decisions being made And I think the more the authority rests within this committee that raises the question of What is really the accountability of that committee or council for its decisions? And Our different stakeholders are interested in either represented or listened to You know, there's the question of do you have the right people at the table? Are there issues raised when some stakeholders have a vote at the table and other stakeholders don't? And then again I Think in that Mr. Driscoll, can I ask a quick question? So In terms of representation are there Are you in part, are you in for A broader council like more more people like that there are voices missing I Yes, and actually and I am going to get to that What I want to address is the question of legislative approval primarily, which is the first one Then there's issues of the membership and focus of the council And then there's also the questions of the cause of action and the mandatory nature of the goals. Those are the The topics I'll try to get through And sorry one more interruption I'm going to ask we have 30 minutes with a totally hard stop called the senate floor So I'll ask you to try to wrap up by five after. Thank you. Oh, yes. Yes. I don't I don't think I should be very long I so what we would primarily recommend is when it comes to sort of specific or substantive directions such as in the plan for actual rules and regulations that The that would require a legislative review and approval so that If Given given direction what they need to do that direction should come from the legislature as it would with any other Issue area in the normal We think that would be most appropriate Give the in our world not earlier this week, which makes the Council made more advisory And then while it falls primarily upon the administration, there is some accountability there, too That's a somewhat different approach. But I think our primary concern is to have the legislature approve the substantive direction for You know, we can have a longer discussion of issues that you've already addressed in terms of the inadequacy of L car or the opportunity to step in and intervene or try to reverse things By the legislature being a substitute for that initial approval You don't believe that those are adequate substitutes to that approach This should instead be that the council will make its recommendations and then the legislative legislature will adopt those or not adopt them As that process unfolds Sir Going down the line from that backing up a bit and this becomes more of an issue the more authority the council has It is the question of representation I think from our perspective, obviously we represent primarily manufacturing You know industrial processes are obviously a part of the greenhouse gas emission issue It's an important Part of the economy and definitely both a contributor to and an impacted party As these kind of policies are pursued and we do believe that that a manufacturing representative Would be a good addition to the array of stakeholders that are on the council And on a related matter You know one of the big impacts and and concerns for manufacturing Is transportation and I think having a more transportation A more dedicated transportation representative on the council would also be would also be helpful given that that's such a big part of this whole this whole debate Beyond membership there's also focus And not surprisingly obviously one of our big concerns in terms of making decisions between What kinds of different policies ought to be pursued in the overall goals of climate of greenhouse gas reductions is How do you How do you minimize cost impacts? And administrative burdens and how do you maximize positive positive economic incentives or assistance? For companies and I think to be fair Some of those factors are interwoven to some degree within The bill if you look at the second and third subcommittees the cross-sector mitigation and The just transitions certainly some of those elements are included within the charges of those subcommittees, but We believe the bill with the the process would benefit by having a more dedicated And focus to focus look at that Balancing that criteria in the process whether that's By amending the charges of the existing grading a subcommittee that looks specifically at trying to Work various proposals through that through that filter through that matrix They that would all move that that would also be helpful And then finally it's a somewhat interconnected issue of the cause of action and the mandatory nature of the goals We generally have a concern about private rights of action, whether they be against the state or against other private parties Yeah, it tends to Create more of a tense or litigious aspect of things that raises issues of litigating rule and legislation rather than legislating them And we believe also If that's combined with making these goals mandatory Uh, it creates a lot of undue complications or or issues You know when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, you're really talking about in many ways modifying human behavior Trying to try to policy goals that encourage and discourage certain behaviors And that is a fuzzy process You can certainly try to bend curves, which is you know, even more popular term these days And things like that, but it's not precise science And I think the perp the prospect that say we hit, you know, we're one percentage off of a goal when one of the things come up that either a That's going to lead to a litigation fight or be It may try to force the hand of decision makers into just simply Using through solutions just to meet that goal Even if the trade-offs involved or maybe not what we would prefer in the long term or in the broader picture I think it's just a recipe for potentially rushed or overly contentious decisions that If we know the goals and we're we're focused and invested in reaching them If we're off by a bit, there may be a very good reason and there may be more flexible and reasonable ways to To stay on the long-term track rather than having to artificially meet a specific goal at a specific time And also involve the potential for litigation in that whole mix As well So we would recommend not including the cause of action and we would recommend keeping the goals as as goals rather than hard requirements And frankly if the legislatures were invested in the process by having to approve things and you know, I think we have to have some Faith in the process and faith in ourselves to To reach those goals that we have rather than trying to construct artificial constraints that You are meant maybe to force us to do what we want what we say we want to do But then I think in the real world you can run into some practical practical and process problems if you if you don't quite meet the the strict strict directions Those are the sort of the four sort of broad three to four broad Uh Popics and recommendations that we make in terms of approach There's at least two more specific ones. I just want to note real quickly may for further discussion and I apologize if this has been discussed further I had not seen that it was Is the concept of the net zero requirement across sectors I think it'd be good to have a better understanding of what that means in practical terms The scenarios I would be concerned about is even if you have the most, you know Environmentally clean and efficient operation if you're in a situation where because it's almost impossible for any operation to have no impact If the net zero requirement is actually would actually be a constraint on say for example attracting New businesses or expanding existing existing businesses in the state That would be I think a concern for us and I and I think it'd be good to have a better understanding of what exactly the bills Practical impact would be in terms of having a net zero requirement at the end of this process Um, and then the last one I'll do and feel free to cut me off if I'm pushing the time a little bit on page 25 in the energy policy section uh, it makes bill makes changes to uh What is the least cost uh standard for for setting energy policy? Um, and least cost is a concept that is supposed to encompass and balance many competing competing factors and interests from economic to environmental and and whatnot and Uh, that I think it's a recognition that there are those many factors that need to be balanced With each other and I think existing lease costs has terminology that would include greenhouse gas reduction but this bill Takes lease costs which encompasses all those various factors and takes out as one factor greenhouse gas reduction and sets it separate and equal to the entirety of the lease cost basket and just from um, you know sort of a framework and criteria perspective in terms of pursuing energy policy and regulatory decisions um I think we're concerned about sort of tipping the scale in terms of what the various balance what the various factors are currently being considered um, I guess I would submit that lease cost already Has a an approach that tries to incorporate and balance environmental goals with others And if you separate one of the ingredients at least cost and treat that as equal to all others I think it it runs the risk of upsetting that balance and um It may not seem like the biggest issue to its own folks, but just from a A policy and process perspective on energy issues We have concerns about that. So it's wonderful. I had that issue for folks too Great Thank you for uh making hitting the mark on time And thank you for your input Just as a quick note on that lease cost principle There is a docket open at the puc and an investigation as part of act 62 That does a much deeper dive on cost benefit analysis. So hopefully we'll get something from the puc That will assist us on just that question um, and with that I want to move on um and Thank, uh, I don't see Karen horn at the moment Yeah, she's there. Oh there. I should recognize your picture the the flower garden. I've seen it before So to our last two witnesses, I apologize. We're gonna need to ask you to aim for about 10 minutes of testimony, but uh That's our tight window today So, uh, if we have other questions, we'll certainly schedule more time with you In the future, but so take it away mishorn We can't hear you quite yet. You're muted I'll I'll while you're getting yourself unmuted You know in reading the bill. I see there's a lot of uh opportunity and requirements actually as well for Municipalities to be involved in this process So as I read it through many times, I said I wonder what vlct thinks of The bill so and you can't hear you there you go Oh No, that's Jude's voice. I'm trying to unmute her. But wait, wait, wait. Oh, there we are Okay, great. Great. Okay. So, um I came down to the schoolyard for the internet and that may have been a bad decision because there's a lot going on here today So I apologize You don't get hit by a ball or If It's an aot construction Thank you for the project Noisy, um, thank you also for the opportunity to testify It's it's so ironic because things have changed completely since we testified in the house energy committee back on january 22nd Um, the global economies shut down completely and it's really shown us what the possibilities are in terms of environmental quality It's also shown us what that hazards are to um really to to Human human human welfare in in the economy when everything shuts down Um, we are living disruptive history. You know that But we feel pretty strongly that we need to learn from this um, and you have the opportunity to um Find the balance between global health a global healthy economy and one that serves, um people Um, and I I come at it from this direction now because we've been spending a huge amount of time in the money committees in the Legislature ways and means finance and appropriations So I I would really urge you to look at the legislation with the lens of What can we learn from the last three months and what do we need to change in our approach going forward? Um, and then I I'd like to just talk about a few specifics Uh age 688 would create a climate action council of eight members and an advisory council of 14 members We think both of those should be attached to the governor's office. We actually did testify to this in the house energy committee Um, if it's attached to the governor's office then They can require action from all agencies and departments So we would urge you to consider creating an office of climate resiliency at the governor's office or administrative agency level um, and uh The model that worked very well in the past was the uh Irene recovery office after tropical storm Irene. So I would just ask you to give some consideration to that We also urge you to require the council and the administration To consider current programs that are related to energy efficiency And renewable energy climate adaptation. There's a lot that's on the books today And if we are going in, um, this new concerted direction We need to focus on what We do need to do at the state and local level and then also at what we don't need to do What's not, uh Really effective anymore Apologize for the background noise Um It would be helpful to include language that authorizes municipalities through their local legislative bodies To enact ordinances to address climate resilience league generally um We think that local governments have really proven themselves to be leaders during the covet 19 crisis and Granting them some flexibility in this regard Would let them, uh Develop local solutions that might show the way for the for the state moving forward And then finally, I wanted to mention the cause of action as many of the other folks have We've opposed the cause of action um to an individual person Uh being able to sue based on the quote failure to adopt or update the plan or rules Uh, we testified in january in the house energy committee that are experienced with the clean water act This is hitting close to home for you all Uh was that it took seven years of litigation before anybody was really willing to invest any money in infrastructure improvements to actually mitigate the effects of Of phosphorus discharges to the waters of the state Nobody really wanted to spend money to address those issues Without assurance that there was that that money was going to be well spent in the final analysis And I do think that that's a problem generally with cause of citizen cause of actions I think more importantly the covet 19 experience has shown that there may be priorities that co-opt a schedule That turn the economy upside down and the demand that government focused its attention on something other than the priority that quote any person deems most important We do think that the government has to be able to address those emergencies when they occur without the threat of citizen cause of action on on other issues So, uh, that's it for my testimony. I'm happy to take questions Um, I did send my testimony to jude and so I believe it's posted on your website now And it's fairly short. Thank you Well, thank you for doing that. You you always send in your written testimony and it's helpful to hear it from you And then be able to read it again after I have a brief question. We have two minutes left and that is um on empowering local governments to Enact local solutions. I mean, I think as I was saying while we were sorting out your connection As I read the bill, there were a lot of places where I said, I wonder how municipalities Are feeling as they read thinking as they read this because There are many many impacts and they're going to happen at the local level So what kind of uh What would be the hang-ups right now? That would include local governments from stepping up in just the way that you're talking about Well, um, we are a dylan's rule state So so if we want to do something that hasn't already been contemplated in legislation We need to come ask permission and you are all very well aware of that right now as you've been Amending laws to allow towns to act during the covet 19 crisis in innovative ways. So um, Uh Our concern is that um, there might be something that is uh determined to be very helpful to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions at the local level That hasn't actually been authorized in um specific language in the statute and it's sort of an amorphous concern It always is we don't know what might arise, you know down the road So so that's sort of the general concern We are thankful that the bill that passed the house does involve municipalities pretty substantially in the um advisory committees in addressing the specific needs in particularly in rural communities and what the impacts are going to be in those communities as we move ahead and then um calling on I would say both the legislature and the administration to address those impacts and and make sure that that the requirements to reduce carbon emissions or address Climate change and global warming don't Um unnecessarily and adversely impact particularly folks in rural communities And I think we're also seeing that right now. Um, this talks a little bit about telecommunications I think telecommunications when it's available to everybody in the state Is going to have a huge positive impact on the way we do Business going forward from the point of view of climate change Great. Thank you for that. I'd love to stay in touch with you and maybe look at anything that would address empowering local community and decision-making in a way that would Help us achieve the goals in the bill With that, um, thank you Turn to mr. Costello. So I apologize. We have only 10 minutes at the moment, but You've been with us many times before What would you like us to be thinking about as we review the bill and we can't quite hear you yet paul Sorry There we go Thank you so much senator bray and it's nice to see you in your addison county beautiful addison county background there So council on rural development were a neutral facilitator of public process In line with what karen said we are on the ground in communities throughout the state We've done deep processes around broadband and around community organizing and around climate work with 140 towns over the course of our history Today we're leading the model climate economy model communities program We've also held three major summits including a national summit on climate innovation in vermont we've I co-chaired the governor's commission on climate action And I also helped facilitate the working committee of the climate caucus as it said it's the annual work plan We're a neutral facilitator that try to tries to serve Rural communities and the larger advancement of public policy that serves them. So we come into this without A left or right orientation, but much more about what works And fundamentally we're we're in support of vermont businesses And we look to the future of our economy in the conditions of climate change that Where we believe that vermont is a rural state that's in the midst of a competition for market share in the fundamental leading-edge economy of the future which is going to be a low carbon economy and to be successful in that competition we need to look at ways to advantage businesses that will be successful in making adaptations supporting entrepreneurs that are creative problem solvers that are going to Invent solutions and drive solutions into the marketplace that reduce carbon that localize agriculture That produce efficiencies that develop smart grid that advance electrified transportation and so many other arenas of action One of the most fundamental things that we see Today is the impacts of cove it. I am the Governor's appointed leader of his local solutions and community action Working group of the recovery task force. I'm pretty much spending full time on that So I'm going to apologize in advance for not being close to the details of the bill in front of you I'm I'm very aware of the big picture of the global warming solutions act But I'm I'm not familiar with the arguments that have been Before you or the work that you've done to improve the bill to date, right? Well, Paul Can I pivot from a moment from that? Because one of the things that's coming up that's Jermaine is the committee all committees are being invited to think about how we might use COVID relief funds or any federal funds that are going to be flowing to Vermont this year Um to come out of the pandemic better and then we went into it and not just rebuild uh, so one of the things that There's an opportunity for this committee to do and uh is to Participate in that discussion. So since you are working Exactly that and you have this energy background Do you see opportunities? So we're stepping away from global warming solutions act and we can schedule more time with you to come back to that But what's maybe even more timely is this committee's potential input to appropriations and economic development on energy and environmental issues That we could be addressing as part of recovery and maybe we should schedule another meeting actually with you to come back to that But we would like not to miss the chance To make improvements Yeah, I'd love to come back On Monday, you will each receive the report interim report of our group to the governor Which is is coming out with recommendations around Fundamental ways to stimulate the economy respond to crisis at the local community level And also think beyond recovery to resilience and one of the most fundamental ones which which uh Is already part of the conversation here is to drive towards universal broadband solutions You have the ability to invest in that there are Opportunities to work with the CUDs, but also with the electric companies and there's a deep discussion going on around the potential to leverage a partnership with electric utilities and and uh folks that are managing the grid and so there's a there's a lot of work that Is is kind of coming of age in a time where we're looking at Functional injustice around the the connectivity of people to telehealth to educational opportunity To the opportunity to drive and support a business from home or participate in the global economy and These are issues that we've had for That we've all been working on for a generation But covet one of the lessons of covet is we have to answer this as a fun functional challenge because internet is no longer a A nicety it's an essential infrastructure that's necessary for people to participate in their local culture and economic opportunity so You'll see that report and i'd be glad to come talk about elements of it But I think the covet crisis in terms of some perspective on this You know one of the most fundamental things that we see from covet and that Almost everyone recognizes In the united states is the crucial role of science in evaluating The spread the vector the challenge the potential for Minimizing spread all those issues which we're learning in terms of a slow moving pandemic that comes at the You know a relatively fast moving pandemic that comes at the united states and you look at the tremendous job that vermont has done to Frame ways to avoid the worst impacts That could have could have hit us when you think about the climate setting We're scientists are giving us just as clear messages We're looking at a longer timeline But we're looking at the fact that climate change is real today It's already had significant impacts today science can predict the Cascading set of multiple impacts that are going to devastate Communities and the economy of the future unless we're fully prepared for those So when we think about climate in the covet situation, we need to look Much more straight and true to that science and the scientific perspective on what these impacts will be The great thing is we have the ability to reflect and we have the knowledge today to know what some of the major solutions are Like electrification like reducing phosphorus like putting more carbon in the soil We we know these things And one of the things that you know, sorry sorry to interrupt We have to leave for the floor in one minute. Senator McDonald's been holding a question for about two minutes Sarah McDonald, can you jump in and ask our last question in the morning? And paul will come back because we ought to talk more about recovery And see if we can help Align the stars. Maybe it may be the major thing that relates to energy for us will be supporting broadband And the climate benefits there senator McDonald You are still muted Thanks for your work on the governor's commission on climate change issues. My question was As a result of that commission, what was the single most important thing that that commission dealt with? And then what is the next thing that the legislature has to take next? I can't speak for that whole group to say the single most important thing But I can say two things that were at the very top of the list were driving broadband to completion for all the multiple benefits And and maybe the second one may be the first recommendation that we have which is ending family homelessness in Vermont We we don't believe that families at the end of this crisis should be going back to the streets That or or going back to homeless shelters that we need to develop A concerted platform of work to To bring them into housing And and so there's there's a lot more in the report But those are two of the biggest picture drivers that that we think are crucial. Okay. Thank you So I'm sorry to be philosophical when you're working hard on the details of the You glad to think with you again in future So thanks so much Paul for jumping in and we will reconnect. I think on the recovery stuff and find ways As a committee to participate in trying to see that the recovery Is a really energy environment issues Embraces some of the opportunities that are in play at the moment and with that we are adjourned With four minutes to spare before the floor. Thank you everybody Thank you all for your leadership


Welcome to Hard Questions where we gather pastors together to take on your tough questions and answer them right from the Bible. I'm Tom Hollis, the moderator and today our panelists include Dr. William R. Glaze, Bethany Baptist Church in Pittsburgh, Pastor Mark Motor, Berean Church in the South Hills of Pittsburgh, Pete Giacalone, South Hills Assembly Guide Church, Bethel Park, PA, Pastor J. Anthony Gilbert of another level ministries in Mount Washington, pastors, it is great to be with you. We have the plaid section going on here and the tie section over here, I don't know, we'll see. In the new chair. In the new chair. Bless the Lord, oh my soul. Move it on up. That's right, well today's topic is where is our allegiance, isn't that an interesting question? Let's dive in here. So here's the first one, to what extent should a Christian's allegiance be to their country? Pastor Pete. The very first quote I thought of immediately and it wasn't scripture, but I'm going to get the scripture. The very first thing I thought of was in the 60s, of course, you know, I was alive then, you know. A few of us were. Yeah, yeah, yeah. JFK said this, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. And I see that theme and of course back in those days it was always Uncle Sam needs you. People were stepping up to the plate for helping to meet the needs of America. Also I was told that before that World War Two, many, many, many men took their own lives because of the fact that they didn't qualify for armed services. So what I'm trying to say is that the passion for America was quite different than what it is today. And then I immediately thought, now I'm going to bring this more religious, we're going to sanctify it. I immediately thought of Livingston, the great missionary Livingston. And when he left Africa, the natives stopped the coffin, opened the coffin and cut out his heart and said, you can have his body, but his heart belongs here in Africa.  And again, I am not going political, I'm just using that. But to make America to be what she needs to be, if the believer doesn't have a passion for America, then who's going to have a passion? We have our faults, we have our failures, we have our mistakes. And immediately my mind ran to 1 Corinthians 13. I do it at every wedding. If you love someone, you'll be loyal to them no matter what the cost. And I think if we love our country, now again, what I want to eliminate here, I'm not talking about a political party. I'm talking about the same America my father fought for, your dad fought for. That's what I'm talking about. So I believe, yes, America needs us as believers to be out in front, leading. And again, I'm trying to disassociate myself with political. That's a good point. I like what you said. Let's go over to Pastor Glaze. And it says to what extent should a Christian's allegiance be to their country? And you know, I look at Daniel chapter 3 with the Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. And in Exodus, it says that you shall not worship, you know, create any gods or bow down to them. And we know Nebuchadnezzar set up this statue and you're one of them to worship. And so at that point they had to check, well, where's my allegiance? Is my allegiance to the law or is my allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon? And it says here, there are certain Jews who thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. These men, O King, have not regarded thee. They serve not thy gods nor worship the image which thou hast set up. So you know, to what extent, I say that the extent where it causes us to be in violation of the law of God, then at that point, I think that that's where we part our allegiance from our country. Interesting. You know, quite often in history, religion, and we're going to be talking about this a little bit, that there was like the state religion. And if you didn't worship the way they wanted, then there was a problem. And of course the allegiance is first to God. How about on the side? I know for myself, I totally agree that the word of God has to be the full standard. And if anything the government does is against that, we go with the Scripture. But in my missionary travels, 25 countries, I am so grateful for the United States. It is not perfect, but I honor it, I bless it, I pray for it. And I would love to see us get back to recognizing our faults, but realizing that God has blessed this nation to send missionaries out, to be a beacon of freedom. And we need to stand for that freedom, because that's being attacked. I think of one verse in Galatians where the Scripture says that we need to make sure that our liberty is held fast, hold fast to the liberty that we have as a nation. Jesus said, render to God the things that are God, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. You know, even the Marines, where it's God core country, I think it's in that order. And I think it's the same way. God should be number one, then your allegiance to your country. And I'm not talking about the core, but you know, I think that's the order. So when you're looking at in regards to allegiance, I think you can have your allegiance to both, but not at the expense of our walk with God in the word of God. Absolutely. I think we're all coming to the same conclusion that yes, we should be having allegiance to our country, but not where they would have us cross a line of God's word. Well, let's move on to kind of this is how we're working our way in the world here. Okay. How about this one? Should Christians boycott companies that support ungodly policies and practices? That's right.  I know that they will not let the Salvation Army out in front, you know, during Christmas. And so there are Christians that will not, you know, go to Target, but then there are other Christians that that do go to Target.  I boycotted Target after the Salvation Army thing and they wouldn't let them out front anymore and and then Salvation Army settled with them on that. Just to say, just to say that they made a $2 million donation to the Salvation Army, Salvation Army was like, okay, I don't have to ring my bell. I was in front of them more. But anyway, go ahead. But I was going to say in Romans 14, one man stings another day more than another, let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. And then it goes to talk about, you know, one person regards one day, another person doesn't regard it. And so what I take away from that in reference to this is conscience, you know, that as you spend time with God and as you seek the Lord, that however he speaks to you to your conscience, I think that that determines whether you boycotted or not. And I think the important thing there also is that we don't allow that to divide us. You may have convictions in certain situations and I've seen these the last couple of years that the church has become divided that if you don't agree with me, then, you know, my convictions supersede your convictions. I think a lot of this sometimes is personal convictions. That's a good point and that's something that, you know, kind of Christian believes something strongly themselves, but not put that on somebody else. That's the question. We get a little, if you start getting too legalistic with it, I get to a point where after a while, well, what if somebody is a dry cleaners and they have a homosexual lifestyle, do you not take your cleaners there? Because they're homosexual. I mean, so it goes back to what you said. I think it comes back to the conscience. I think about the scripture in Corinth you talk about, should I eat meat off of the dietels? And I'll actually break down, I said, well, it's not the meat that you're buying and going home and cooking is the problem. It's the worshiping of the idols with the meat. That's the negative thing. So going to Target to buy a pack of bubble gum, which for some people may say, you know, I don't want to support that because of that. Going there, it doesn't mean a person is in sin, but what they stand for is. So now one thing I would say is that if you're going there on a certain day, maybe they're saying, this is transgender day. Come, all your money is going to go towards that. That might be a time that you may say, maybe we should stop and not go. Everybody should boycott that. But just ultimately, if they stand for something that we don't stand for, you got to go back to conscience like Dr. Lacey. And I think there can be two extremes. When I was in Bible school, the thinking was I'm just called to preach the word. I don't need to be involved in politics or things like that. We just preach the gospel. And then on the other side, there are Christians that are so politically minded, they're not even spiritually minded. So the balance is the kingdom is first. I don't want to be so unwrapped in this that it consumes me. But on the other hand, if the other side is going to take a stand against righteousness, the church needs to take a stand for righteousness. It may be a little different from person to person, but we need to let our voice be known. Absolutely. You know, what's interesting about this is one time there was a certain company that we were being asked to boycott. And I found out they're part of a conglomerate. I was going to have to boycott so many companies. It was like impossible, it was going to be impossible to boycott everything. But real good discussion. Well, we're going to take a quick break. Coming up in 60 seconds, we're going to ask, and this is, we just alluded to this, does religion have a place in politics? You don't want to miss that. We'll be right back. Welcome back to hard questions. We're having a great discussion so far and we have a hot potato for you coming up here. Okay, Pastor Mark, I'm going to ask you to answer this one first. To what extent should we obey those in authority over us? Great question. Romans 13 is what most people would probably think about. Verse one, everyone must submit to governing authorities for all authority comes from God and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. Now I believe generally speaking, as Christians, we should submit to our leaders even if they don't know the Lord. But on the other hand, I do not believe this is unqualified blind obedience. And I believe there are precedences in the book of Acts. I can think of two where the apostles were told, do not preach, do not teach Jesus Christ. And they said, well, we're going to submit in our hearts but we're not going to obey that. We have to obey God rather than men. And so I think it's important to recognize two things. One, God does desire us generally to submit but there are two times I believe we have a time to say, no, I'm gonna stand against that one if it clearly goes against the word of God. And we've seen some of those things in the last couple of years. Secondly, when it goes contrary to our human conscience. And I think of COVID and how that there's no verse that says to get the shot or not get the shot. But I know many of our people would not get it based on conscience. And we did not take a stand as a church but we stood with those that had a particular perspective because we believe nothing should override our human conscience before God. That's a great point. Jay. You know, there's plenty of places in scripture where people have over read government because they caused them to break the word of God. One of the great pastors scripture I think in this day and hour that we should all be reading through which I believe is so apropos for this era that we're in is the book of Daniel. Because that's where we are. That's where we are. I mean, Daniel, they said, you're not allowed to pray. What I love about Daniel, he didn't just not say, I'm gonna pray. He opened up and said, I want y'all to see me praying. And then we see in Acts chapter four with Peter and John and how they chose to preach the word of God as well. What was amazing though, which we don't talk a lot about and then I'll pass it on here. Acts two, we see a baptism but they needed a different baptism for that. Acts four, they said they were filled again to speak the word of God with boldness because they were being threatened. And I believe that's what we need that same boldness that Daniel had, Peter had and John had. And they even prayed that grant us more boldness. So the more the opposition arose against them, the more, you know, it was like a pushing battle, you know. The more the government was pushing against the church, the church said, we're gonna push back. And of course, you already talked about them but I think of Meshach Shadrach and a billy goat. Oh, it's a bendy goat.  King, we're gonna let you know right now we're not gonna stutter whether it's right or not. You decide but we know we're not gonna bow down to your God. You know, I just wanna say real quick that I'm not sure about these other pastors but I know during the COVID one of the things that I was getting from my members, they were wanting religious exemption. Yes, yes. And so, you know, I had to sit down with them and they were convinced in their heart that God was speaking to them about not taking it. And so, you know, I did grant religious exemptions but one of the things I found out is that several people lost their jobs because their job didn't accept it. You know, they were being required, you know, to get the shot. So again, you know, this falls out in different forms, right?  Yeah, I think it brings, it's interesting. Again, studying history, Luther, Zwingli, you know, Tyndale, they all disobeyed their governing authorities.  So, that's a whole other subject we can talk about. But let's move on to the next one. So, this is the real hot potato here. Does religion have a place in politics? What is the role of church and government in society?  That's how I view this question. But anyway. Yeah, we need like a half hour just for this because there's so much to unpack. It's not a small question, you could say yay or nay. I mean, there's so much to it. You look all throughout the scriptures. The scripture clearly shows that the church has a role. I think it's very unique to notice, going back to Daniel, Daniel chapter seven, it talks about, isn't it unique that the Antichrist, when he comes, will be a political leader? This is what the Lord put upon my heart. And I think this is important. Should the church have a role? Of course it should, because whenever the devil wants to change the times and the seasons, the Bible says in Daniel chapter seven, 25, he said he will seek to intend the times and the laws. Then the saints will be given into his hands. And so when the devil wants to change the times, he uses legislation. When God wants to change the times, he uses revelation. And so what happens if legislation is in place and the church doesn't take its place to speak against demonic legislations and to speak to evil leaders, what happens is that legislation can shift times and shift eras, which is why the Antichrist is going to come as a political leader. So we don't need to be involved in politics per se to just say, well, I'm Republican, I'm Democrat. We have to understand the structure of how demonic foes use legislation to put the word of God into bondage and to bring the church into a place where it can keep it down. That's why it says after he changes those times and laws, the saints will then be given into his hands. So it's important that we're involved in politics to the degree that the kingdom of God is greater than Republican, Democrat, independent, monarchy, all those things. And that is what is called to be the salt of the earth. That is what's called to be the light of the world. And we have to make sure that those things that they're doing, we speak to those and be the voice of the kingdom to those areas. And Jay, if I can trump in there, doesn't it also say that if possible to deceive the very elect? Matthew 24. To deceive. So in other words, if ever there's a day we need the, I'm gonna say the light of Christianity. I didn't like that word religion and I'm not picking on you. Because then that means it's open to all religions. That's not my question. Okay, okay. So, but again, we need those people on the front lines to declaring harrowing the truth. That's right. Because if we don't have that, we're just gonna be like sheep being led. You just said, I don't wanna trump in there. You just said that, didn't you? I mean, that's a slip of the tongue.  Well, when I first got saved and was hungry for God, we had a church where a lot of young people were coming in and if someone really loved Jesus, we thought you've gotta be called to be a pastor. You've gotta go into ministry. But to me, what I'm finding is ministry is so much more than just preaching behind the pulpit. And I believe one of the things God is doing in this hour is sending people into every man's world. That's good. Now, you've got religion, you've got the family, you've got education. Think of how our educational system has changed in the last 20 or 30 years. Why? The wrong people are making the laws, having a voice there. We need to get godly people who take a stand for biblical values in all of these different areas. And they're called to do that just as much as we may be called to stand behind the pulpit. So I believe it's the hour for people to go into every man's world, whether they're an accountant, an athlete, a sports figure, whatever it is, to make a difference and take a stand for Jesus. You know, I think it's so good what everybody's saying here. And Bill, I want to get your point. What's left a bad taste in some people's mouth is that the Evangelical Christian Church has been identified with the Republican Party very closely. The African American Church, not so much so. But the White Evangelical Church tended to be identified with the Republican Party and people were saying, hey, I don't like what the Republican Party's doing. I don't like, why should that be part of me being identified? So this is where this religion and politics and people are like, I'm fed up with this. But God has something to say to every area of life, including government. Right, well, I think that our founding fathers put that clause in their separation of church and state for a reason. They didn't want the church to run the country and they didn't want the state to run the church. So we need to be wise in understanding how we can make a difference. And I think that what everybody has said around the table lends to the fact that these are ways that we can make a difference without violating the clause of church and state. So I do think it's important that we get involved even though the church can't run the government because I think that's what you see and that's what happened in the church of England. That's what happened in a lot of Muslim countries that Islam runs the country. So you have to be careful from that standpoint. But as Mark said, we have to get Christians involved or bring God into government through transformation. Yeah, absolutely. It's interesting about England, the queen passed a little while ago and she was the head of the church. And so the governmental figure was the head of the church. It really hasn't stopped England from sliding far away from biblical Christianity in many cases. Sorry if you're British there. But anyway, we're gonna take a quick break. And after that, we're gonna have a question from our Cohen hotline. When a viewer asks, why does it seem that we were better off as a society in the olden days? We'll be right back. You know, one of my favorite things is when we have the Cohen hotline, all the questions for the most part come from you, come from viewers. And so we've opened up our hotline and we have a question now. I read Ecclesiastes chapter seven verse 10 and it says, do not say why were the old days better than these, for it is not wise to ask such questions. And my question is, why is it not wise to ask such questions? Because sometimes it feels like the old days were better than what we are now. So I'd appreciate your instruction on this and comment on this. Well, some of us remember the old days, Pete. So from the 50s rock and roll to the invasion of the 60s with the England and women's live and all that, yeah, lived it all. But here's the part that concerns me. I believe that if we're constantly looking back, maybe I'm reading into this, but if we're constantly looking back to the old days, then we're gonna ignore what's going on right now and the future's gonna definitely look that much more bleak. So I believe that I think what the writer here is saying is don't get caught up almost like Lot's wife as they're fleeing from Southern Gamora. There was a, something, some type of passion was in her heart that she did not, and I'm not trying to judge her, she did not want to leave Southern Gamora. She already did that. Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, I think what Solomon is saying here is that you can't get caught up in desiring the old days because then you don't want to change. You know, I see so many people that are in the church that see the way that it was. And they're not open to the spirit of God. The spirit of God is doing something new. The spirit of God is doing something exciting. And so what Solomon is saying, don't get caught up, so caught up in the old days that you, as Pete said, you can't move ahead. You know, you can't look for the future. So I think that that's the key of what Solomon is saying here. Yeah, that's a good point. Where we going here, guys? I have to say this, you can remember the past, you can honor the past, but don't live there. I know that as a church, what church was like before COVID is different than after. And right or wrong, you're never gonna put that genie back in the bottle. So you've got to recognize where we are and make adjustments. So we can all enjoy certain things from our past, but the reality is we live in 2022 and we need to recognize that and put our hearts there. And not just say, I wish it used to be like us and so it's not God is doing a new thing and let's get involved with what he's doing right now. Remember not the former things. Neither consider the things of the Bible makes it very clear, behold, I'm doing a new thing. So whenever you want, this is the thing and I don't know who's watching this, but many times when you're looking back, God is ready to do it. It's the devil's plot to keep you back there because God's ready to spring something brand new into your life. And you're looking at the old manna when he's got a promise land that flows with milk and honey and you're yearning for the, year for the leaks and greens of Egypt. And now don't understand, he's got a whole food group you've never had before that you're gonna own, but we have to be willing to let go of those things. And I think it's so important in the day and hour that we're living it.  You know, it's almost like, well, God, I wanna go back there.  The same one that blessed those problems in those situations where sin abounds, grace does that much more even abound in our lives now. So instead of looking back, looking for the old days, no matter how bad it is out in front of us, let's begin to thank God that he's still the God that was the God in Egypt. He was the God that caused them when they had all the stuff going on there, that he still brought light to them and there was locust there, but there was no locust in Goshen. He still wants to bless us today. So let's take the limits off and let's believe God for the new thing he's doing today. You know, I was gonna say too, somebody said that COVID didn't cause problems, it exposed problems. And so we need to keep the change and move with the new as the problems have been exposed. And let the problems bring us together and not divide us. You know, the church, we see that in the early church that every problem from serving the widows and ongoing, it brought the council Jerusalem in chapter 15. It brought the church together, not apart. That's right. We shouldn't pine away. I think that's a good way to put it. My wife is real good at turning the page. Me, I'm like, I pine for those old days a lot of times, and we've got, we have to not do that. Well, you know, we have a scripture that we want to end the program with. And here it is. It's the Lord has established his throne in the heavens and his sovereignty rules over all that Psalm 10319. What a great thing. What a great way to remember that his sovereignty rules over everything. I've put the capstone on this program, I think. Well, we hope you enjoyed today's program and we want to hear from you. Email us with your questions to hardquestions.ctvn.org or call into our hotline at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Have a great day.


These are what I call the users, the spenders, and the growers. That's right, the users, spenders, and growers. If you're not familiar with my chart on this, I think it's important that you look into this. But here are the three types of people actively dating today. Roughly about 20 percent of the population are users. Roughly about, and this is not a fact, this is merely an opinion, 60 percent are spenders and the last are the growers and the builders. Now the users are those people that seek a short-term game, love bombers, gold diggers, entitled people, selfish people, all they care about their own needs, that's the users.