Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Navigators topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. McCarthy presents S.219 to Senate Appropriations Committee to design community energy‑navigator programs
Summary
Sen. McCarthy told the Senate Appropriations Committee that S.219 would fund a design for community energy‑navigator programs and asked the Department of Public Service to fold that work into an ongoing study; members agreed to consider an amendment removing the small appropriations while preserving the report requirements.
Senator McCarthy (Addison District) presented S.219 to the Senate Appropriations Committee as a bill to develop designs for community‑based "energy navigators," which he described as "people who help homeowners and businesses save money on their energy bills, and can help them transition to lower cost energy alternatives or transition to energy usage that is lower greenhouse gas emissions."
The bill, McCarthy said, builds on recommendations from a recent joint report by the Public Utility Commission and the Department of Public Service and on local pilot work such as the Center for Energy Action Coalition in Addison County. "If you look on page 4 of the bill, there is an appropriation of $25,000 to the Department of Public Service to hire a third party consultant," he said, and added that the draft also includes $10,000 for the county climate action center to support program design and consultation.
Committee members focused on wording and the role of the Department of Public Service. The chair noted the department is already out to bid or has engaged a consultant for a broader study, and the discussion turned to whether the bill language should read "to hire" or instead authorize payments to add work to an existing contract. McCarthy said the department appeared willing to incorporate energy‑navigator design work into the ongoing study but cautioned he could not speak for the department directly.
A member asked whether the bill's phrase that it would "provide ongoing state funding" referred to the $25,000 and $10,000. McCarthy and others clarified the intent is for the report to recommend how a program could be funded rather than to obligate ongoing funds. As one committee member put it, the study should "recommend...ongoing state funding" and potential sources, but the report itself would not commit state funds.
Committee members agreed to refine the language and consider an amendment at the next meeting that could remove the appropriations while leaving the bill's study and program‑design requirements in place. Staff were asked to draft alternate language so the bill "stands" without the money if the amendment removes the appropriations.
The committee did not take a formal vote during the discussion; members planned to reconvene to consider the amendment and final language.
