Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Members in this 1PM block, we will take up one bill which is house bill seven twenty seven and act relating to sustainable data center deployment. We will then recess and the plan is to come back at 03:30 to take up additional bills. Please keep an eye on your email as those bills come over from the senate or ones that are now could be ready that we have here. So with that, member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to take up for immediate consideration of the notice calendar house bill seven twenty seven which is an act relating to sustainable data center deployment.

[Representative Patricia McCoy]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to take up off the notice calendar for immediate consideration. H seven two seven.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Pulte moves that we suspend our rules to take up house bill seven twenty seven off the notice calendar for immediate consideration. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have suspended rules to take up house bill seven twenty seven for immediate consideration. House bill seven twenty seven is an act relating to sustainable data center deployment. The governor vetoed the bill and returned it to the house. The governor's veto message can be found in today's calendar. Pursuant to chapter two section 11 of the Vermont constitution, the house will now reconsider the bill by voting on whether to pass it by overriding the veto. By the constitution, overriding the veto requires two thirds vote of members present and this vote must be taken by roll call. The specific question the house will vote on is shall the bill pass notwithstanding the governor's refusal to approve the bill. So just to confirm for members, a yes vote is a vote in favor of the bill and over to override the veto and pass the bill. A no vote is a vote against the bill in order to sustain the veto so the bill does not pass. The question is debatable. After the conclusion of any debate as required by the constitution, the clerk will call the roll. The question is shall the bill pass notwithstanding the governor's refusal to approve the bill. Are you ready for the question? Member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: Madam speaker, brief reminder about this bill and why we took this bill up. Demand for electricity associated with large computing facilities is growing rapidly across our country. The ISO New England region forecasts regional electricity use increasing by about 11% over the next decade. And national forecasts project record electricity demand in 2026 and 2027 driven in part by data center and AI infrastructure growth. Electricity demand from data centers alone is projected to triple by 2030. A single 20 megawatt facility can use electricity roughly equivalent to the power consumption of 15 to 20,000 Vermont homes and is around a 100,000 square foot building, which is roughly one to two football fields. A 100 megawatt data center would represent roughly 10% of Vermont's total peak electricity demand and would be equivalent to the power consumption of 75 to a 100,000 homes. These facilities also require millions of gallons of water to cool to cool them. Our committee's approach was to consider what would happen if we had a data center try to locate in the state of Vermont and to walk around that and see where we were protected with our environmental protections and our energy rate protections because these are creating tremendous pressure on electric rates across the country and they have incredible environmental impacts. To, this body which passed nearly unanimously by voice vote. The bill then went to the senate, with where they made some significant improvements in terms of electrical electric rates, and reducing overall environmental impact. That bill passed the senate by a vote of 26 to three, I believe. Madam speaker, the governor in his veto override message made several points that I want to talk about. One was that this is seemingly aimed at data centers. Madam speaker, your committee worked diligently to actually narrow this to be specifically about data centers and not about just large energy users. We've included the definition of data centers in the bill. We also specifically put data centers into act two fifty, which provides the most robust environmental considerations and for data centers, that certainly seems extremely appropriate given their high impact. In addition, we well, in addition, the governor expressed a preference for the house's version with some modifications. Did not detail those modifications. Madam speaker, speaking for myself and and I believe for a lot of my colleagues, always ready to work and try to find compromise. When this bill came back from the senate, it was brought to my attention specifically that there were problems, but that the administration would not be testifying. And we were forwarded one page of written testimony from the senate. So there was not really an opportunity for us to work to find, any consensus. And so Madam Speaker, we actually found that there is risk associated with doing nothing. We do in fact have small data centers in the state of Vermont. They're important for some of our facilities, our healthcare facilities, for running government. These are one megawatt or smaller. That's not what we're talking about here. And so madam speaker, And so for that reason, madam speaker, I will be voting yes to override and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill pass? Notwithstanding the governor's refusal to approve the bill member from Jericho.

[Representative George Till]: Thank you, madam speaker. One of the things that the governor mentioned in his veto is that he wants things he wants to encourage job creation in Vermont, and it has been noted that data centers create temporary construction jobs, which we don't have enough of those people to do those jobs today to build the things that we already need like housing

[Representative Kathleen James]: In h seven twenty seven, we have taken a bold proactive approach. We have created a robust regulatory framework to put clear and strict parameters around any prospective data center of 20 megawatts or greater. That's about the size of a typical big box store, which means we need to get ahead of this and not wait. H seven twenty seven ensures that any data center would go through the full act two fifty review and permitting process no matter where it's located. And among other things, as a reminder, these criteria ensure a rigorous analysis of impacts on air and water quality, water supplies, waste disposal, flood hazards, soil stability, habitat protection, transportation networks, local schools and services, municipal expenses, historic resources, aesthetics, primary agricultural soils, forest fragmentation, energy conservation, impacts of growth, and consistency with municipal and regional plans. H seven twenty seven also requires that any data center sign a contract with the utility. This large load contract which must be approved and reviewed by the Public Utility Commission guarantees guarantees that electric rate payers will not be harmed and must benefit. It maximizes the construction of renewable power on-site, and it includes a payment that the utility will use to help its customers reduce the use of harmful polluting fossil fuels and save money on their electric bills. Madam speaker, this is a strong bill. It is an important bill. And more than any other issue this year, I've heard from Vermonters who are very worried about the possibility that a large data center might set its sights on Vermont and arrive here without rigorous review. H seven twenty seven ensures that strict and rigorous review. It protects rate payers. It protects our communities, and it protects our land, air, and water. We cannot let this veto stand. And I strongly urge my colleagues to join me today in voting yes to override the governor's veto.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill pass, not with notwithstanding the governor's refusal to approve the bill member from Burlington?

[Representative Brian Cina]: Madam speaker, I'm gonna just speak briefly in support of overriding this veto. I wanna talk in more general terms about the flawed narrative in the governor's message. Flawed narrative sort of always gets my attention. In in that statement, in his video statement, he writes that this bill, and I'm gonna quote here, broader mess that the bill's broader message extends far beyond data centers. That's the end of the quote. And respectfully, think that's just exactly backwards. This bill is not about sending a message. That's not what this bill does. This bill is about data centers. That's it. That's all. And when we're talking about facilities whose business model depends upon the collection of, the storing of, the analyzing, and the transmitting of enormous amounts of information, I don't think that this is a moment to treat privacy concerns as secondary to the economic concerns economic development concerns. We can and we should absolutely support economic growth. We can and we should absolutely support innovation, and we can and we should absolutely support good paying jobs, and not but, and we can still ask it is our job to still ask reasonable questions about how these facilities affect our communities, our infrastructure, and our energy use, and the privacy interests of all Vermonters. Please let us not get stuck one last time into these zero sum mindsets that show up in these moments. Meaning, it because we're doing this, it means we're not doing this. That's just not the case here. We're talking about data centers. These are not anti business questions. These are simply governance questions, which is what we are asked to do. The governor argues that we already have enough regulatory authority. Reasonable people can disagree, and I do. This bill, though, however, reflects the legislators legislature's judgment. Our judgment came out of committee unanimously. As the member from Dover already explained, came out of this body almost unanimously by voice, unanimously out of committee in the other chamber, overwhelmingly supported, by by a roll call in the other chamber. It is our judgment, which we have already judged, I guess, the that additional guardrails are warranted in this scenario. They were warranted when we initially passed h seven twenty seven and they remain warranted on this question. For me, the question is incredibly straightforward. When the potential consequences involve collection, storage, and use of vast amounts of information, privacy information, I would rather have those guardrails in place before a problem emerges than wish we had after than wish we would have acted after those problems do arise. So for that reason, I will be voting yes to override this veto. I hope others will join me.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill pass Notwithstanding the governor's refusal to approve the bill, member from Barrytown.

[Representative Gina Galfetti]: Madam speaker, I am also a member of an act two fifty environmental commission. I am well aware of how difficult it is to develop here in the state of Vermont. I also believe that act two fifty is an adequate regulatory information to make sure that we protect our environment at

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: Madam speaker, as previous speakers have noted, concerns about the impact of data centers are all over the news with dramatic upward pressure on electric rates, worries about high volume water usage, complaints about noise from dozens or hundreds of cooling fans, and resentment that these large loads are being dropped on state and local governments unequipped to cope with the plans of trillion dollar tech companies. H seven twenty seven equips Vermont to deal with this specific potential development. I think nearly all members have heard from constituents about this issue. I know I have. The federal administration is not looking out for us. It celebrates support from the captains of tech. Think of who ran Doge and who shows up at White House photo ops. As the bill presenter has detailed, House Energy and Digital Infrastructure spent weeks taking testimony, extensive testimony, to craft this bill. It's specifically the bill specifically focuses on data centers. The bill is entitled the Vermont Sustainable Data Centers Act. The purpose is listed as establishing a regulatory framework that ensures responsible growth of an emerging industry that financially benefits in a manner that financially benefits electric payers and protects them from additional costs, etcetera. The term data center is referenced throughout the bill. The bill does not ban data centers. It is not a moratorium. It addresses electric rates, holding Vermont ratepayers harmless. It addresses water usage. It adds data centers to the list of project types that act two fifty specifically applies to so that the physical siting of these facilities goes through full act two fifty permitting guaranteed. It sets out guardrails that the Public Utility Commission will follow to control impacts on the grid. And those impacts could be positive under the right circumstances where a data center owner is willing and able to flexibly moderate the electric load. As has been noted, the bill passed your House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee unanimously. It passed the house on a near unanimous voice vote. It passed the senate 26 to three. The legislature approves of this bill. Vermonters want this bill. I will vote yes to sustain the bill and override the governor's veto.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill pass notwithstanding the governor's refusal to approve the bill? Are you ready for the question? Member from Williston.

[Representative Angela Arsenault]: Thank you, madam speaker. Just a couple of thoughts. One is that we have already missed the opportunity several opportunities to have any hope of getting ahead of technological advancements and have any real meaningful preemptive impact on the negative effects of some technologies. And I'm thinking especially about, you know, pretty much anything related to social media. Currently, AI, we're falling behind on regulating AI. We're woefully our our regulations are woefully inadequate when it comes to a lot of technology. And the people who pay the biggest price or bear a disproportionate amount of the harm for our inaction, our failure to act, really is our kids, young people. And I was

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: at an

[Representative Angela Arsenault]: event just a few weeks ago at which high school students were given the opportunity to ask questions of congress our congresswoman. And, you know, there were some pretty typical questions or maybe questions that one would expect about what is it like to work in Washington and things like that. And another student stood up and said, I'm really worried about our democracy. How do we protect our democracy? And then another student stood up and said, I'm really worried about data centers and data centers in Vermont. Do you know what's going on with data centers in Vermont? And it was just a moment in which I realized, you know, there's an obvious connection between those two questions in my mind. The detrimental effects of social media on our democracy and ability for to have civil civil discourse. And as we let regulation opportunities slip away the way that we would if we fail to override this governor's veto, Again, it's the harm of our inaction or our ill advised action really falls on our kids. And I see seven twenty seven as part of the efforts we need to be making to whenever possible actually get ahead of or keep pace with technology. And we have an opportunity to do that here. If if, I may slightly respectfully disagree with the member from Burlington and say if there is a larger message here as the governor, implied or said in his veto message, the larger message is that we're watching, we're paying attention, and we understand the need to regulate these types of advancements in technology while leaving space for innovation, encouraging innovation, being mindful of economic development, but watching for impacts on our environment and our kids. This bill helps do both of those things, and I urge members to vote yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill pass notwithstanding the governor's refusal to approve the bill? Are you ready for

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: the

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: question? Member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: Madam speaker, I just wanna make one more point, And that is we regularly discuss the appropriateness of being the first state to do something or being one of the first states to do something. And I think in this instance, we're one of the last states that has not really had to deal with this. And we have a lot of lessons from across the country that have motivated us to act. And so thank you for allowing me to make that final point on that perspective and I will be voting yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the bill pass? Notwithstanding the governor's refusal to approve the bill. Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Arsenault of Williston.

[Representative Angela Arsenault]: Yes.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Two minutes. Will the house please come to order? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats. I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during the roll call. When the clerk calls your name, please answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the bill pass? Notwithstanding the governor's refusal to approve the bill, will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Austin of Colchester, Bailey of Hyde Park, Bartholomew of Heartland. Bartley of Fairfax. No. Rebecca of Winooski. Yes. Birong of Vergens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Black of Essex. Yes. Bloomley of Burlington.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Bosland at Westminster. Bosch of Clarendon. Boonton of Cambridge. Brady of Williston. Yes. Branagan of Georgia. No. Brigham of Saint Albans Town. No. Brown of Richmond.

[Representative Jana Brown]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Burditt, West Rutland. Burkhardt, Brattleboro? Yes. Burrows, West Windsor?

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Burditt Cabot? Campbell, St. Johnsbury?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Canfield of Haven? Carris Duncan of Whitingham? Yes. Casey Montpelier?

[Representative Gina Galfetti]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Casey Hubbardton? No. Chapin East Montpelier? Yes. Charlton of Chester? Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington.

[Representative Brian Cina]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Coffin of Cavendish. No. Cole of Hartford.

[Representative Brian Cina]: Yes. No explanation.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Conlon of Cornwall. Yes. Cooper of Panel.

[Representative Jonathan Cooper]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Corcoran of Bennington? Critchlow of Colchester?

[Representative Wendy Critchlow]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Demar of Venusburg? No. Dickinson of St. Auvinstown? No. Dobrovich of Williamstown? No. Dodge of Essex? Dolan of Essex Junction.

[Representative Karen Dolan]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Dolgin of St. Johnsbury. Yes. Donahue of Northfield. Yes. Duke of Burlington. Yes. Durfee of Shaftesbury. Yes. Eastes of Guildford. Yes. Emmons of Springfield.

[Representative Alice M. Emmons]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Feltus of Linden. No. Galfetti of Barrytown. No. Garifano of Essex. Yes. Woman of Rockingham. Yes. Goodnow or Brattleboro. Yes. Ghostland of Northfield. Branagan of Jericho. Yes. Greer of Bennington. Yes. Greg Burrow Fairfield. Hango Birkshire. No. Hartle of Glover. Yes. Harvey of Castleton. Hedrick of Burlington?

[Representative Troy Headrick]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Higley of Lowell? No. Hoecum of Norwich? Yes. Cooper of Randolph? Houghton of Essex Junction?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Howard of Rutland City? Holland of Rutland Town? Hoeder Hartford? Yes. Hunter of Manchester? Yes. James of Manchester?

[Representative Kathleen James]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Gisenska, Burke. No. Keyser of Rutland City. No. Kimball Woodstock? Cutner of Burlington?

[Representative Brian Cina]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Kornheiser of Bratibaro? Yes. Krasnoff, South Burlington? Yes. Kerowinski of Burlington?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Labour of Morgan? No. Lally of Shelburn? Malone to South Burlington?

[Representative Martin LaLonde]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Lomonomorristown? Yes. Lerush of Franklin? No. Lipsky of Stowe? Logan of Burlington?

[Representative Kate Logan]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Longanu Feltus? Yes. Leonora Dodge? Yes. Leaders of Lincoln? Yes. Luno of Saint Albans City? No. McGuire of Rutland City? Mollie Pittsford? No. Mark out of Coventry? Maslin of Thetford. Yes. McKenna Montpelier. Yes. McCoy of Pulte. No. McGillard Report. Yes. Nicholas of Milton. No. Mollie of Callis. Minnie of South Burlington. Yes. Morgan Ela Milton. Morgan Emma Milton.

[Representative Christopher Morrow]: Hello.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Morris of Springfield.

[Representative Brian Cina]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Morris of Bennington. Mora Weston. Roeke Putney. Yes. Nelson of Derby. No. Nielsen of Brandon. No. Nigro Bennington. North of Ferrisburg. No. Moise of Volkert. Yes. Nugent of South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien of Tunbridge. OD of Burlington. Oliver Sheldon. Olsen of Starksboro. Yes. Paige of Newport City. No. Parsons in Newbury. Heather of Colchester. Yes. Pinson of Dorset. No. Houtin Hinesburg. Yes. Powers of Waterford. No. Presley of Bradford. Yes. Bridget of Pollock.

[Representative Brian Cina]: With explanation.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Wendy of Linden? Yes. Rachel's in Burlington? Yes. Zach Witza Randolph? Yes. Shy of Middlebury? Yes. Scully of Burlington? Yes. Of Middlebury? Yes. Subiga Dover? Yes. Susie of Berrytown? No. Southworth Of Walden? No. Square Of Underhill? Yes. Steady Mill 10? Stephens of Waterbury.

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Stone Of Burlington. Yes. Sweeney of Shelburn.

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Tigla Villa Carris. No. Taylor Munden. Thomas and Winooski.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Torrey Moore Town. Walker Swanton. Wasses at Akbaria City. Yes. Waters Evans of Charlotte. Yes. Wells Of Brownington. No. White Wakesfield. White Bethel? Yes. Winter Of Ludlow? Wood Of Waterbury? Yes. Yacarfonia and Morristown?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Bartholomew of Heartland? Boslyn of Westminster, Christie of Hartford, Dodge of Essex, Gregoire of Fairfield, Cooper Randolph, Howard of Rutland City, Lipsky of Stowe, Maguire of Rutland City, Nigrov Bennington, O'Brien Tunbridge, Parsons and Newbury, Scully Burlington, Tory Mortown, and Winter Of Ludlow.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: For purpose of explanation, member from Hartford.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle]: Madam speaker, many commercial developments do not trigger act two fifty jurisdiction. By doing nothing and sustaining the governor's veto, we put the next generation in harm's way. I greatly respected, the collaborative effort and hard work of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in crafting this legislation and I'm really sorry to see this result.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Pollock.

[Representative Brian Cina]: I supported this bill and voted for it in committee. This is not the same bill that I voted for, and I cannot support it today.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Weston?

[Representative Christopher Morrow]: I explain my vote.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: You may.

[Representative Christopher Morrow]: We've had many discussions about the cost of energy in this body. The clean heat standard and the renewable energy standard are reviled for their perceived potential impact on prices. Here, we had an opportunity to protect Vermont ratepayers from electricity price increases, and we have failed. The hypocrisy will not be lost on Vermonters.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Guilford.

[Representative Zon Eastes]: May I explain my vote?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: You may.

[Representative Zon Eastes]: Madam speaker, I represent Vernon, a town in Southern Vermont that will likely forever be forced to address potentially crippling issues around the energy and environment. I, for one, welcome the protections offered by h seven twenty seven.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Burlington?

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: You may.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle]: Madam speaker, Vermonters have made clear to us that data centers are not part of an acceptable economic development strategy. We need a governor with a new vision for our future.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Castleton.

[Representative Zachary Harvey]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: You may.

[Representative Zachary Harvey]: Contrary to what some members have heard, I have not heard any concerns from constituents about data centers. Instead of focusing on a problem that is never coming, we should focus all of our efforts on a problem Vermonters do face, sky high energy costs they can no longer afford.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: You may.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: Madam speaker, Vermont's electric rates are being impacted by data centers in other parts of the country and in New England. We had an opportunity here today to put downward pressure.

[Representative Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members please listen to the results of your vote. There were 135 members present for the vote. Two thirds of that number is 90. Those voting yes, 83. Those voting no, 52. Two thirds of the members present not having voted in favor of passage of the bill. The governor's veto has been sustained. Members at this time we will be taking a recess. We will be coming back at 02:30. Please keep 03:30? 03:30. Please keep an eye on your email for bills coming back from the senate. With that, the house is standing recess to the fall of the gavel at 03:30.