A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for

Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | April 22, 2015 | Committee Room | House: Public Utilities

Full MP3 Audio File

Members take your seats please. I ask everyone the audience to [xx] any cellular devices take your seats please. I call the public utility committee meetings to order law house keeping. First we want to welcome our pages today, Miss. Ellen Colwel from Aramas county sponsored by Representative Denis Rodell. If you are here would you raise your hand show where you at and page Lizy O'Brian from Randoff county sponsored by Representative Parll Herry . Our sergent of arm today is Charles Godwin Charles and Lay Cook Dean Mashbone. First thing on journal, folks are going to jump around a little bit on this we are going to ask Representative ups and come fourth present house bill 432 for quick discussion. Will there be no vote on this. Representative you have the floor Thank you Mr. Chairman I'll be brief I know there are several bills on the calender today for here at least some bills I'll be quick Thank you again Mr. Chairman for allowing this bill to be heard, members of the committee also like to thank my other primary sponsors with their representative John, Holoween and sensa are working with me on this. In my district probably the number one complain I get is the lack of high speed internet. They say Josh why dont you do more to get us access to high speed wireless internet. This continues to be a problem in rural area all over the State. There are literally, and I'm not exaggerating, there are children in my district and districts around this state, that are have to go to a MacDonalds or a Chickfulate to get internet access, to be able to do their homework. This bill seek to address that problem it's a very simple bill to understand, didn't say that you may have questions, but as far as the simplicity of what we are trying to do, it's very easy to understand. The bill will allow county commissioners to invest in broadband infrastructure, to include conduit, fibre optic cable, fibre optic wire for the the purpose of expanding high speed internet access service, in unserviced area of the county, to promote and encourage economic development in that county. The county may then raise that infrastructure to an internet provider. I believe this would give counties the flexibility and the autonomy they need to make the best decision on whether to invest in broadband infrastructure and then entering into a public private partnership to provide high-speed internet access. Finally, and probably most important to me, I want to porch it to line 32 I believe it, 32 and 33, where it says that nothing in section shall be construed to permit a county to provide internet service only the infrastructure not provide the service itself they're only allowed to provide the infrastructure. If we were actually allowing them to get into the internet provider business. I would be the first one to oppose this bill and I assure you that Representative Johns, Holloway and [xx]  will be right there with me to oppose it, that's not what we're trying to accomplish here. I don't believe there's a switch that we can flip that will solve our broad band issues in rural areas over night. However, I do believe there are things we can do to help solve this problem. House bill 432 attempts to do just that again, I want to reiterate very quickly this isn't an internet provider bill for counties, I want to make that point, and second we can wait on everything to be perfect before we move forward, but something like this I'd only argue that we've tried everything else and if we don't act. Rural areas all over the state will continue to have areas like mine in Beech Mountain Beurodin, Nible and areas in Easter and Western North Carolina will lack the access to high speed internet that they need to move the state forward, so I would ask ask for your consideration for this bill, I'd love to hear some feedback at some point maybe not today Mr Chairman but at some point I'd like to speak to you on this and that's my case for house bill 432 and I would appreciate your consideration. Representative Dobson you did an excellent job in the presentation you have a couple minutes left and I saw Representative [xx] matching for a question. So the chair recognize representative [xx] in need of your time for any other comments and questions that members have. Thank you. You're recognised. Thank you, I apologize for being late over this. When you say provide

the infrastructure and not actually getting in to providing broadband what is the infrastructure and why would the county provide the infrastructure and allow one of the major companies are any company to come in and do the service. First of all what is considered infrastructure Thank you representative Al for the question, it would include, fiberoptic cable, fibre optic wire conduit things that to have to put in the ground to provide internet services to rural ares, that actually the infrastructure they will be providing Follow up. Follow up. Well, wouldn't the provider be willing to do that, I mean my thing is and what I have a problem with is that local government spending local funds to do what our industry is already out there to do, if they're willing to come in and to do and that's my concern is that for local government  to spend their money doing it, why not let the provider do it? Thank you Representative [xx] for the question. What I'd say, this Bill was not intended to impose anything on counties, counties came to me to request this bill to have the flexibility to do that. So they're asking for it because in some of these areas, mountainous areas, coastal areas, it's just not, without a public-private partnership, where it keeps the counties out of the internet business but provides the infrastructure, without that partnership it's just not feasible or financially beneficial to be candid for those providers to go into those mountainous and coastal areas. So that's the intent for our counties at their request to work with these providers to move as forward with internet access in areas of the State they don't have it. Members, The Chair anticipates there's a couple of bills on the agenda, they are going to be or maybe controversial and some folks have asked to speak from the floor, from the gallery on that. So I have a list here, Representative Collins, Representative Brown, Representative Velmore[sp?] have already been recognized with the question, Representative Meyers I'm going to ask you if you can wait and I ask everybody else please keep your questions concise, this is just for discussion only. Representative Collins. Yes Sir. Representative Dompson, in 2011, I had a local bill passed House Bill 593 that basically allowed counties and companies to go into private public partnership for putting down backbone for broadband internet and the senate thought it was such a good idea they produce Senate Bill 572 which made it available to the whole state. I've asked broadband here in my area and my County hasn't really even taken advantage of what's already available to them. So I was wondering if you were aware of this and why we are not getting movement in this direction from the authority we've already granted. If I may Mr. Chairman, excellent question. I was aware of that bill and I appreciate you bringing it forward. I don't have an explanation to why, I don't know enough about the details of why that was not advantageous. I do know that, I think atleast eight or nine counties have come forward with this request, so maybe you are not going discuss that and find out how we can move that forward. Thank you Representative. Representative Bilmore. Thank you Mr. Chair. The section down here at the bottom, line 28, it talks about the county may list the infrastructures, so this is not selling the infrastructures that's put in the ground to the company. Could that not be construed as the county being in the broadband business because of the connection there? And also too, isn't there, you may know more about this because you studied the bill, is there a law suit that's dealing with this subject matter of county hailed services? Thank you Representative Bilmore for the question. I'll take them in reverse, the second one, this one does not apply to that law suit. There is a law suit out there that's working its way through, but this bill is separate from that because some others have raised that same issue and it's different, I'd love to talk to you some more about that, but it doesn't apply to this bill and and second, I don't believe it would give the county into the business if the lease it because they're not actually, no one is paying they don't have any customers, it's just

a partnership, there'll be no customers paying any internet bills to the county. So they they wouldn't be considered a provider, only a public-private partnership in my view. Representative Dabson, she appreciates your attention or time, and your presentation. I think you'll be presenting this again in your caucus, here other folks have the opportunity to discuss it another time. Thank you very much sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you members of the committee for allowing me to bring this forth. Our next bill will be house bill 349 Representative Tine will give us with this presentation. Thank you for setting a high expectation Mr Chair. No problem this bill has basically two parts to it. Representative, excuse me, chair failed to realize you had a PCS on this, and representative Brown puts the motion before us to accept the PCS, all in favor say aye? Aye! It's accepted, OK representative Ty? Thanks sir. This bill has basically click two portions of it, the first portion is, as representative Dobson took care of setting the table of why this is necessary, talking about a lot of areas that are so unserved on underserved. The first section actually is trying to develop a plan at a state level to say what are our assets available to us to to assist with infrastructure development and bringing broadband to those unserved undeserved areas. The governor has recently established office of digital infrastructure to make sure that we are looking at these types of issues, and this legislation would then allow them to go ahead and use the different resources inside the state to develop a plan. One of the big issues is, there's federal money that's being reallocated use to be towards phone bring phone service peoples homes now is being put into probane and we want to make sure that we are taking full advantage of that. The only policy will section is section five, we have some areas that are under served and we have some small [xx] or being rather areas that would like to get into them right now we have a restriction that they have to be [xx] to their service area in order to bring in phone services as well, but it going to take in [xx] areas that aren't paying you back much money because it's low density than you want to be able to offer as many services as they can so they are willing to go in there we should make it available by removing that contiguous and if they want reprog somebody to go into un-served area they can do that. Did you have any comments? No comments other than if you look at some of the agencies involving North Carolina State university to North Carolina Charlotte, some of their data analytics programs and things of that nature. This is a wonderful opportunity for us to get a real assessment of where we are in terms of broadband as we continue to move forward in North Carolina. So I appreciate your support on the bill. Thank you gentleman. Rep. Brown, you are recognized for question. For motion when appropriate, Mr. Chairman. Thank you members. You've heard the presentation. Are there any questions from the members? Rep. Brown, I guess you are recognized for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For a favorable report of the proposed committee substitute to House Bill 349, unfavorable to the original. Thank you. Members, you've heard the motion before you. All in favor signify by saying, aye. Aye. Those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the ayes do have it. Members, the Chair is going to turn the gavel over to Rep. Arp. The Chair does intend to have a vote taken on this next bill, House Bill 681, by 11:45. Rep. Arp. Thank you mager 145 Is the motion to have the PCS reforced? Motion on Representative Brian, all those in favor say Aye "aye", oppose, motion will be force. Representative Mills  Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you ladies and gentleman, today we are pleased to present to you house bill 681 which the North Carolina energy rate payers protectionary. Give me a few seconds to explain to you the need for this bill and actually cover what is in legislation [xx] to do to the benefit of our citizens. proud[sp?] 2007 the energy policy in our state is based on providing the opportunity for the citizens the benefits from reliable and full energy that focus on this course to the rate payers.

In 2007 with the passage senate bill 3, we then became a State that spoke out of both sides of our mouth, the section our statutes in one place would charge the utilities commission and the public staff the very individuals who are fighting on behalf of the rate payers to provide least costs to our constituents in the form of energy. Then in a later statute to mandate and subsidize one form of energy through the force of law above and beyond all other and regardless of cost. In 2007 established the renewable energy portfolio standard commonly referred to as REPS which mandated regardless of cost that a rising level of energy production in our State be generated by renewable energy. As an inside I can confidently confess that I'm not against to one form of energy at the benefit of another, but I'm strongly against mandating and subsidizing one form of energy by the force of law especially when the highly cost on the backs of our citizens all the very vehicle to do so. In order to cover the cost of such a maintenance subsidy of one form of energy the legistrator sprinkle the sticker shock of such call all over the place, a little bit in the power bill, to the right base, some through the [xx] rider on the energy bill, some through tax code both local and state. Why the reason for this action? It's because there is no doubt that amending the subject of such action was going to cause some [xx] and the mystery was to be spread [xx] in order to avoid consequences and repercussion from the public. The action was to turn off the [xx] calls that affect all individuals regardless of income, even those who are struggling to put food on the table to the families are badly [xx] this yolk of high energy falls, and the fact that our current laws harm the poor at the benefit those who are not make me even more a passionate to present this bill to you, our citizens are force to fund the pocket is a special interest on multiple layers and and the energy they use at their homes, the energy they use at the place of their work, Nickle dam to lower wages, higher cost of goods and services and don't forget this state government is a large purchaser of energy and that causes the tax dollars of the citizens not to go as far for the role government our constituents are paying for this mandates not once not twice but on multiple levels. Even a recent report by Dina March this year read and I will quote North Carolina remains the only state in south east to have an added leaps as a result of this geographic isolation long term energy prices may adversily impact economic growth an challenge recent improvements in the employments in north North Carolina considering the source this should be alarming. Ladies and gentlemen we are blessed to be here today today to consider this bill on your behalf and to the half of your constituents to protect them from the trejectoory that North Carolina is on because of past actions by this legislature today we have the opportunity to right the wrong, the PCS before you graciously aims to hold harmless those who have benefited from this mandate of noble energy by the force of law the PCS does not are aimed to pull the log beneth anyone. This bill is the rate payer and the tax payers most compassionate to the very special interest that have extorted their hard earned money. Let me go through the bill section by section if you don't mind flipping with me Section one, this bill makes our laws consistent, in that it explicitly rights renewable into our resource planning for distributed generation, and it does so with respect to lease cost. I repeat we're explicitly having renewable energy production at the table, as long as all these studies that proponents claim are true regarding the cost and affordability of the product they offer. Then there should be no concern. If their studies are not correct, then at least our rate payers are protected from this error. Section two of the bill deals with technical changes for qualifying facilities. We simply clarify some provisions catifying decisions made by the utilities commission we establish ourselves to this federal standards and not above, and we protect the rate payer from being forced to pay for power when the power is not needed.

Section three allows us to continue to move to greater energy efficiency measures as not having to consume energy is often the most cost effective and beneficial measure for the purpose of conservation. Section four prevents the potential tripling of the ability of covering incurred cost on your constituents. As you can see, the current law maintains the cost interest of the commercial and the industrial energy consumer, but allows an almost 300% energy cost increase on the residential consumers. Those customers are in homes in your various districts. Part five, it freezes, not repeals, it freezes the Reps mandate. The mandate will still exist by the way of this PCS, but the under riding of the special interest on the bank versus citizens, will be allowed to softly taper off. This section does not alter the set asides for swine, for poultry, or even solar. We hold harmless all set asides. Part six, this provides a very important study for the citizens as well as for their proponent of a new energy, we charge the energy policy council with executing and independent study of the cause and the benefits of distributed generation. From those in this chamber that desire to properly accomplish fair, just, and equitable third party sales and that metering policies. This study will give you the proper information to do so. This study should be praised by all instead of maligned to the public by way of misinformation. This is another way in this bill that we actually keep renewables at the energy table while protecting the hard earned dollars of our citizens. Part seven provides an explicit costs recovery, and hold harmless language as another compassionate grant by the taxpayer and the rate payer to softly and respectfully prevent any unintended consequences to all parties involved. ladies and gentlemen I'm happy to answer any question, and I hope that you see that this PCS is a balanced and measured approach to write the wrong for the benefit of the citizens that we have the privilege to represent, I humbly ask for your support and we know that the citizens of our state are attentive to the pass of action here today. Any questions? Or if the chair would like other members to speak with the public. In the interest of time, if we could go to the questions from the members, Representative Hastings. Representative Millis, will this effect raise, and I need a all up to. Would these effect rates involving Duke? Cities who are let's say part of electral cities or the core opts Mr. Chair to answer that question of full confidence. This bill you have before you, this PCS holds all aspects, all individuals harmless in regard to the explisive[sp?] culture recovery and hold harmless language, as well as the fact that they were able to recoup cost in the right base through qualifying facility as well through the renewable energy, as well as through the renewable energy rather. Follow up. Do you have, let's just take [xx] for example, do you have any anything in writing today, that you can show not an expert?. Do you have anything in writing from Duke Power, that the promises that rates will be lower? Do you have anything in writing to assure me that rates are going to go low from Duke Power? [xx] Representative Haustone, I'm more happy if Duke is here, and they are  wiling to actually  speak about that. Follower. I see, I'm not being rude you're [xx], do you currently have anything in writting, any promise from duke the, I will the 1650 she will be highway in Chillabe[sp] North Carolina or going down, they have anything in writing that I can hang my hell on the day, from duke saying that my race are going down. The follower, I'm born happy to replace that in writing representative Haustones, I'm not happy to get them to come up right now and speak that they would like, but I have not requested such previously in

writing but I can explain the way that this bill works is that the major of the comments lead to nothing else to defect and they were going to be the course code on the bench mark constitutuents, and I can see that confidently but I will put in a request for ragging for and I will provide it to you as soon as possible. Thank you sir, Representative Dollar Several points I just want to make, first, sometimes I think one of my question, common sense brick making being used in the same phrase, but I think more to more serious note I don't think anyone can guarantee rights one way or another simply because rights are a component of a million factors and once there within this bill or just once a countless others that have to be taken into account at the time you need raid adjustment up or down is being addressed, I want to speak for a moment I was here when senate bill three was put together, and voted on, and I voted on it. Now the way it came out of senate It was kind of a shell service speak, and I got to the house and the part about senate bill three there were lots of debates, lots of discussions but you had everybody at the table and they were shuttering between rooms they were really working it hard and that's the part that I don't think she get lost from any time anyone gives a historical reference to senate bill three is that it was truly hammered out with all the stakeholders at the table and all the stakeholders participating and so when we finally got that bill on the floor of the house and I'll never forget this, we had some people like it more than others, but everybody was holding hands and saying, yes we are behind this bill we are going to support this we are going to move forward and people made private sector investments based on that and my concern is for the private sector, private sectors made tremendous investments over the years based on that bill and while I understand and the bill sponsored which is so eloquently stated, he has certainly dialled back narrowed his ambitions, dialled back a number of the provisions I think from the original bill that he's thought about it and that's certainly greatly appreciated I don't want to take away from that right, but at the same time the bill does concern me in that in that regard what we've done in the private sector and the fact that bill still even the PCS it seemed to me had some uncertainty long term and it does seem to me that we've been before in front striding courage and all of the above energy policy . In this day we know we don't have a completely free market in energy that would be a far different concept so Mr. Chairman and all other staff I would like to speak but for myself I think we need to stick with where senate bill 3 lets play this out, lets see where we can get in the state in terms of all available energy so we're choosing the things that ultimately will work, will work and things that ultimately will not work will prove themselves not to work and we'll be done with those and own to other innovations. Mr. Chairman thank you representative Dolla for that comment and I want to address this comments that you made. This bill actually protects which you actually shared. We're actually preserving reps, we're actually doing the way that actually protects the rate payer, for me they're further increased calls. You are correct. There's a lot of complicated aspects that goes into rate making. All that we're doing is protecting the rate payer by the way of the writer that exclusively says, I [xx] addressing those things this bill was not actually hammered out on a vacuum, I had all the stakeholders actually at the table. Now, in regard to the actual new blended, the industry that's not the case, but as sits[sp?] have actually voted to the bill to the PCS, we actually have had an open dialogue. Now. Alright, if we could if we could to a couple more questions. But if I could. Make just a few seconds.  Briefly. But just to be clear, you're right about

the legislature process 2007. Everybody got what they wanted but the actual rate payer, the tax payer assist and lost. We're trying to hold everybody harmless and to make sure that the stake holders that you mentioned are good to go as well as our citizens we represent are actually protected for the higher cost trajectory of energy prices. Representative Horn. Question for representative Robinson. Question for representative Boston. Representative follow up a bit on wht Representative Hastings talked about and Representative Dolar, friendly question like Representative Hastings mistakes that they're your friends as well. We we weren't here in 2007 I think we came in together but Representative or mention the stakeholders, and where there were 65 I've never represented, consumers, energy, environmental groups as well as Duke then progress. I guess the main question I want to ask is-- I'm aware that Duke is been meeting all of the standards which is extremely commendable. Did they request these changes? These requests were not made by Duke Energy. This was the effort by myself and other legislators that actually protect our constituency from rising energy costs, especially for existing businesses and new businesses we want to call home. Mr. Chair if the Utiliies Commission want to step in and ask to address the rates, do you want to recognize them to speak more? I'm happy to allow them to speak. Follow. Let me get Representative Harrison. Actually I'll be interested in that if that's possible, but I'll start with comments on the bill. I'll be interested in hearing about the potential free rate increase just from utilities. Members the more we toughen the less the public can. OK. Then I'll just make my point very quickly. I was here with xx. I appreciate his comments. I've actually sponsored the house opinion to xx three, and and I think it's been a real booster say to economy. I always bragged about it when I ran around the country talk about renewable energy. We at the time we had double digit inflation figure of 11%. The renewable energy drop blog was double or triple every year, and that was a silver lining, and the other was bleak economy, we had something like 25, 000 clean energy jobs in our state now that didn't exist in 2007. As is to the rate issue, it was our expectation when we passed the bill that rates will actually reduce ultimately because reduced need for new power plants, investments in new power plants which are super expensive, it's very efficient to invest in energy efficiency and now the renewable energy rates cost of energy production has gone way down. So I think that the fact that this is a blog statement act and I really appreciate representative Miller's scaling back the impact of this bill because I think the previous versions of it were worse and this is a much better for I think the consuming public and for the industry, but I don'r want to take the public's time because I'd be interested to hear how both Arg and renewable energy feel about this bill, so thank you. Representative [xx]. I'd like to answer in part some of the questions that I'd been asked. As far as rates go, what will happen with rates going forward, obviously Duke will never guarantee rates are going to go down under any circumstances. I know that having worked with xx bills only on the electricity's bill we just passed. I represent Miller. So, I represent my clients. I don't represent Duke Energy, I don't represent solar groups, I don't represent any any of those folks. Any of you who know me know that my crusade for the five years I've been here has been to try to lower the electric rates for people in my district, because the inner study found this hurts  poor and poor working people more than anybody else. While we can't predict what future rates will be, because we don't know what the Feds may push down on us or whatever else, we do know what we're will happen if we don't pass this bill. Dino studies shows that North Carolina's rates have increased two and half times the national average since 2008. Now if you're satisfied with that, keep things the way they are. If you can go home and tell people that you like their rates increasing two and half times the national average, preserve the status quo. if you're worried about rate fairs, poor people who pay more for their electricity than they do for rent, mortgage or any other bill, then you need to get behind this effort. If it has been a request for utilities commission to address the committee, is there someone here from the utility commission. If you will please come its your name for the record and please keep the comments to two minute   Dan Corner head of staff attorney with North Carolina, you told this commission, the commission won't take any form of stance on this bill, we see this is a matter of policy so I'm happy to answer any questions, if there are any questions that you would like us to to address we wouldn't have the formal statement. Representative Millis. Yes Sir, if you would address the questions the members had asked

repeatedly about the current cost rejected that we're on if we preserve the status quo for maybe where the rates would be if we actually pass this P. C. S Okay I think it has been mentioned there will be probably impossible for me to project the actual impact on rates. What I can say is that this P. C. S which I've just seen today it The current cost cap is $34 a year, a little less that $3 a month. After 2015 this would freeze that cost cap at the 2015 rate for residential customers at $12 a year which is a little $1 a month on your residential rates. The other cost cash would remain the same, the cost cap applies only to the incremental cost of complying with the laps, so that means whatever amount was above, but the utility would have incurred otherwise if they weren't having to comply with the REPS standard and currently the cost caps I believe range, they cost the rider's range between 15 and 40 cents a month on you average resident and so that's well under the $1 a month that's currently allowed but this would prevent that from going upwards to $2 85 cents or so if necessary, so that's.  All right thank you very much.  Mr. Chairman can I ask the gentleman a question? One question. One quick question. I just want to follow up on Representative Collins and Representative Collins if I describe this incorrectly please correct me, but I believe Representative Collins was saying that either the rate of electricity  increase in North Carolina is 2 1/2 times national average over this 2 1/2 times national average. Is that is the case, then can you tell us what's been driving those rate and what part the noble would be playing in there or have played in there. 30 seconds answer please. I can just speak historically in our previous rate cases so rate case this is most likely not going to involve the costs that are going into the reps, as I said the incremental cost are not going into the writer. The rape cases, the majority, the in recent cases has been to large capital investments, made on behalf of the utilities to support growing population and demand for electricity. At this time I'd like to open it up for public comments, is there someone who would like to speak against this bill? if you got two minutes, if you would please come up and state your name, and if you would please, bear with me and hold your comments to two minutes Thank you chairman, thank you members of the committee my name is John Moores and with [xx] a solar company headquartered in northern chart here in North Carolina a homeground that is where our company. I want to point out that senate Excuse me house bill 681 accessibly favors grayer particularly in section two which was characterized as being technical changes to what's called the qualifying facilities provisions, essentially what we have in our state right now is a provision were we have a standard contract that allows smaller entrepreneurial independent power producers like strators[sp?] Solar to be able to sell their power to sell their power to the electric [xx] at a standard price with standard terms and conditions. We do not have to negotiate with the utility because the utilities commission has already ruled that the price is fair that it does not in-comber the repairs in any way it's called the avoided cost and set the terms for that. What is being proposed in this bill would be to reduce the size of the power plant the we could do and therefore the the contract we would have to negotiate with the utilities to a very small size 100 Kw right now it's set at five mega watts. We're a small company we do not have an army of lawyers to negotiate contracts for every single project that we do. I'd encourage you to vote against this bill and to allow the Davids of this world to continue to be able to be part of NIC's supply picture in North Carolina. Thank you as there is someone and speak for this bill? You will please come out and state your name and limit it to two minute please. Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Doyle Brison state director of the Americans for the prosperity, we are in favor of the PCS, a lot of you have talked to me

role about your thought on the REPS and you wanted something of a compromise and this PCS literally is the bill of the road it doesn't allow the rest to continue of the 12 1/2%, it freezes it at 6% and then it allows you the general assembly to study the effect renewable energy on the electrical grid, we're trying to figure out what's the least cost for the consumer in North Carolina, this is not an inter-solar bill, this is not and I win the bill this is appropriate with all the tax credit and set aside the renewable energy is gotten from North vaccines 2007 I think its recently trying to figure out if we are providing the resource to the consumers in North carolina are the PCS if I'll see letter of 21 different organisations from Americans for prosperity's to the national, like Chamber of Commerce to dispensing leadership fund that are in favour of this bill. Please vote in favour of the PCS. Thank you very much, if there's someone who wants to speak against. Mr Chairman may I ask for a public comment from someone in the audience? Not at this time. It is someone else who would like to speak against this bill, if you would please come out, state your name and you got two minutes please. Good afternoon, my name is Harson hyscreda, I worked at Carolina Solar Energy, we develop solar utility skills for all firms across the state and my personal focus, I've been there two and half years, I work in Eastern North Carolina, in Martin County, Beaufort County, North Hampton, Nash, Pitt, and Bertie counties many of these counties as you know have been struggling since the great recession. Unlike many forms of economic growth, this utility scale solar farms do not require local services like extra schools or extra water services, extra police. They pay county property taxes every year, and help those counties to expand their services to their existing constituents $2 billion have gone into tear one and tear two counties over the last five years, and thats something that I personally feel very proud of about spending all this time in these counties, it feels really good. What my land owner said to me, they're very excited about this projects, now I'm going to be able to couple up, I'm so  proud to be able to leave these to my grandchildren and we feel very proud about what do and we ask you about how, thank you.   Thank you, is there someone else to talk about this? non hearing at this time is there a motion on the floor. Representative Riddell   Mr. Chair it may be appropriate ask for one more publican Not at this time that [xx] motion. Representative Rasel   Thank you Mr. Chairman I move that we report favorably the proposed committee substitute, unfavorable to the original Call for division   Her for the motion is [xx] Mrs. Chairman, call for the [xx] eyes and nose [xx], there isn't call for the division is sustain, the clerk will call the roll. The motion [xx] in favorable opinion, favorable report all those in favor please answer affirmatively as clerk calls the roll or no as you wish. Representative Collins Aye representative Collins yes, representative Won, representative Won yes, representative Canninghim, representative Canninghim no, representative Higar, representative Higar yes, representative Representative Highs, representative Highs no, representative Watford, Representative Watford no, Representative Alexander, representative Alexander no, representative Bell, representative Bell yes, representative Bishop, representative Bishop yes, representative Blackwill, representative Blackwill yes, representative Blandford, representative Blandford no, representative Brown representative Brown yes, representative Baumgardner, representative Baumgardner yes, representative Catherine, representative Catherine yes, representative Conred yes, representative Conred yes, representative Dollar, representative Dollar no representative Allon, representative Allon no, representative Emily representative emily yes, representative Hall representative Hall no, representative Haison, representative Haison no,

representative Highnstins, representative representative Hinstin no, representative Lap Johnson, representative Lap Johnson no representative Luckie, representative Luckie no, representative Morone, representative Representative Martin, Representative Martin yes, Representative Meye, Representative Meye no, representative Millers, representative Millers yes, representative More, representative More no, representative Abattoir, representative Abattoir yes, Representative Ray, Representative Ray no the motion fails, we are adjourn.  Mr. Chairman. We're adjourned. just heard it from the rumours. Just right for discussion so the only one do we have to report out is the last one right? No, the last one chapter 432 [xx] [xx]