Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That is Looking nice to you.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Lot. Yeah. 1 zero 7.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome now to representative Burtt who's going to introduce H six 77, which is on our wall.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yep.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. So, Greg, you can just tell us whatever you wanna tell us about the bill, and you don't need to go into the detail of the fine print. We'll have ledge counsel come up afterwards to do that. Sure.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Sounds good. Thanks. Well, for the record, representative Greg Burtt, here introducing h six seven seven. This is about citing of solar mostly. And the main things that the bill is looking to do is to bring the agency of agriculture in to the conversation with the PUC in the process of looking at large scale solar arrays and asking, will they be an actual party in the proceedings and not to guarantee that they're given plenty of opportunity to speak into those proceedings. I think, and that's important because we're definitely seeing some, we're seeing more large scale solar arrays going in in the state and they're basically going farmland because that's the easy place to put up a large array. And so I wanna make sure that the last person in here from American Farmland Trust made it pretty clear that we need to protect our farmland. So that's mainly what the goal of this bill is. And so it'd be bringing in the agency of agriculture to the PUC proceedings. Then it's also talking more about, I did look at the definition of primary. I thought the word was prime ag soils, in the language and statute is primary agricultural soils as defined in 10 VSA 6,001, which I'm looking at line 10 on page four. You scroll down to there. Primary agricultural soils actually defines as secondary and local important soils in that definition, if I'm not mistaken. And it also mentions the Natural Resources Conservation Service in the definition. So we might wanna take a look at that as a committee and see if it's necessary to have secondary and local importance added into the language or if primary agricultural soils is defined well enough in 10 BSA six zero one. But we can do that later. But the next thing the bill does is if you go down to page five, line 16, It would add an audit to this to part of the process with the PUC when a solar developer wants to put in an array. They would have to have an energy audit done and a carbon dioxide emission audit. So I want to make sure that I've done a little bit of research on my own on that. It's actually I'm surprised with how hard it is to find numbers on the internet about how much energy it takes to create a solar panel in the first place and how much CO2 it might take depending on what processes are used to make them. But generally speaking, most solar panels are made the same way and mostly most of them are made in China from my understanding with a similar process. But wanted to make sure that at least the folks at the PUC see what is the energy payback time associated with a panel. So how much time does it take for a solar panel to generate enough energy to replace the energy it took to create the project in the first place? That's really important. Mean, some like hydro, hydroelectric dams are some of the most efficient in terms of energy payback time. Some take less than twelve months for, you know, they fire up and they start sending water through the turbine. You're looking at less than twelve months and they've already generated enough electrical power to offset the amount of total energy of the project. Well, what is that for a solar panel? And it's gonna vary based on the project. So if you're removing forest cover in order to, you know, get enough open land, you know, for the project or where are you buying your solar panels from? How are they made? Are you putting in concrete pads? You know? So I wanted to make sure that that's actually looked at in deciding whether or not the project makes sense. So that's in there. And it also does in that language mentioned foregoing twenty five years of agricultural crops. So if that, depending on how that's made, I know there's a lot of talk about being able to pasture underneath or within a solar array. I'd like to That's a conversation to be had. I'm not gonna make any statements about that right now, but you're probably not gonna grow corn underneath solar panels if there's an array. Cropping doesn't really there's you're limited on the number of types of crops you can grow between around or under solar panels. So it would also ask that that be factored into the equation of analyzing the project. If you keep going down on page six is where I'm at right now. On the bottom of six, one thirteen, The siting of a facility or group of physically adjacent or interrelated facilities such that facility structures and related infrastructure preclude the tilling of soil, seeding, growing or harvesting of agricultural crops on greater than five acres of primary statewide or local importance agricultural soils or reduce future Vermont based food security will result will result in the destruction of forest ecosystems, forest soils and their unique biology or increased volatilization and release of forest soil carbon on more than five acres shall be considered undue and not entitled good. So wanting to make sure that basically once and this is something we can work on together as a committee, this language would say that when you get past five acres, you really need to start to consider whether or not this is in the public good.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Richard, you had all I do.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Thank you, chairs. The value of a crop, great corn crop on a good year would net a farmer $400 an acre. I've heard values on solar rent paid to the farmer at two up to $2,000 per acre.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Per year. Per year. That's a lease?

[Rep. James Masland]: Essentially a lease of the Yeah, the

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: farmer retains ownership of the land, they get $2,000 per acre. Are they typically 25 a year? Yeah. I'm $20.25. This is I I've never been offered this, but it's what I've heard. You know, and you you spoke of the the the using the cleanest of technologies to make this. Is this the same country that's banned Paraguay? And they must do everything exactly, right?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think there's some sarcasm in that comment that I

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: No. It's also it's also where all the leather goods are made because they don't have the bio you know, they don't care about the environment the way we do, and they can take their caustic chemicals from making leather and dump it into the Yangtze River. But they banned

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: paraquel. Well, that's that's good. I'm glad we haven't forgotten about that. The irony being is

[Rep. James Masland]: that it's a Chinese state owned company that makes fireflies.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: True tope. Target has to beget sarcastic. But it it there is that wonder about you know, we talk about farm viability, and Brian Patch is clapping. I can hear him across the road clapping, and with your desire to preserve primate lands, and they are vitally important to us. And they're probably most farms have places like some farms have vast rooftops to put these sites on. Also, hillside pastures that are no longer being used, places to site the solar and won't impact the ability to grow food or feed.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Bos- Michelle.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: I'm wondering, the part that you just read was talking about over five acres is not in the public good. So presumably, up to five acres would be considered as an okay option or a possible option. How big in general are big solar arrays? I mean, because like I'm trying to think, like, only one I can picture in my community is in Putney. I can picture there's a there's a stretch of Route 5 that has a big solar array, but I would say it's less than five acres. So, like, is that a standard size for a big array, or what is a standard size for a big array?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I don't know if there's necessarily standard size for large array of A and M. I don't know. You could I mean, from what I understand, there's there's I mean, in Shaftsbury, that one's what? A 100 acres? 80 acres?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Oh, wow.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: 80. Yeah. There's another application for one in. So, Either that's a 100 or 300 acres.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Okay. So much And and Panton has already bought very large solar array.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: So I'm wondering how you can compare five just as a small number that would not be impacting a lot of ag land.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: So then I mean, just to clarify too, this is five acres on primary ag soils or, you know, that would, destroy or interfere with forest soils. So if it's a gravel pit, then I believe from the wording that I have here that it would, say you had a 100 acre gravel pit for some reason where you're not gonna have a whole lot of productivity, then there's a chance that you could have a, with this language in which we could look at that, or obviously, you know, parking lot or rooftop of of Walmart, things like that. You know, those some of those are greater than five acres. Right? So it's not gonna inhibit a an array from happening on on that, but it would be for primary ag. Also, like, that would make it so that, you know, you might put it on, you know, one corner of the field, you know, around an edge where, you know, you're not able to crop that as well, or then maybe there's a bank that goes up on one end or like you were talking about pasture land. The idea is to keep it in my mind is one one we don't our fields on average are in Vermont are 20 acres or less. So if you say 20 acres, then you're looking at putting up you're covering entire fields. Whereas, you know, if we in my mind, you know, keeping them smaller, maybe The idea of keeping it smaller is that it mitigates how many, you're not taking up the entire field. You're looking at places around the farm where it makes more sense to put it in rather than just. Because more than likely, the larger that area is, the more likely it's going to cover primary ag soils. Yes. Thanks, Jim. Greg, do you

[Rep. James Masland]: know I know with the PUC, it's a they generally have priority over I-two 50 permits. So is there similar mitigation for, you know, saying, with Shaftesbury as 80 acres of farmland, do they have to do a like one to one or one to three mitigation that's

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I think I can't speak about that, but I don't believe the PUCs going through Act two fifty sits on Temporary. Let's ask I can't really answer that well.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's something we can dig into later. That's a good Yeah. But it's yeah. It's a two forty eight process instead of act two fifty. John?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: What what do you envision the role of the agency being as a party? It looks like if I'm reading this correctly, both that they would join the agency natural resources to be to provide evidence and recommendations and but no real authority in the decision making. Am I reading this correctly? I'm not too well versed in how that process looks like. I've never really researched the actual process with PUC myself and what that looks like with ANR currently. It's a party to the proceeding, which so obviously they can come and present what they feel strongly about. Beyond that, I have enough expertise on that. I wish I did, but I haven't talked to Steve Collier and I don't know if he's looked at the bill yet, but I'd like to have more conversations with him and see where the agency is on how they would like to be involved in that way.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, any other questions for Greg? Greg, was there anything else you wanted to add?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Think that's it. So I mean, about the you were asking about Act two fifty, would say that this amends section two forty eight, which is the PUC section, which is what they work under. Yeah. I'll just point out that with this if if this section about audit were to stay in, I'm guessing it would have to go to energy technology or at least for drive by.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: But yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Yeah. I I questioned the ability to farm underneath the solar array besides branch giant sheep up there and have them graze because that is high voltage. And they're you know, they run those wires, and I I don't know how deep they run them, but

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: and, you know, when you

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: think of solar arrays and the water coming off them and, you know, they're they're blocking the sun. I I question whether you can effectively fire them under them at all. Do they wanna site them high enough so you can get a little cadota tractor underneath them or something? I I I really

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I I definitely know. I mean, I looked a little bit like Massachusetts has their statute talks about different types of what is it, agrivoltaic farming, and they have different statute for that. Mean, from my perspective of farming in Vermont, you always put your garden in the sunniest part of your lawn because if it's anywhere near the trees, you're just going to get less production. It might be possible, but I you know, unless this was Caledonia, maybe there's enough sun underneath the panels that you know, this is me talking as a farmer with regard to the bill I'm introducing, but my perspective is you need all the sun you can get to crop in Vermont period. And even grass, I mean the grass, when you hay the last 30 feet of a field, if it's a tree line, you get half the amount of grass. So you might be able to pass through under a solar panel, but you're going I would love to see the data on the amount of tonnage of grass that's grown underneath the solar panel. And from my experience of hay fields, you're gonna get half the tonnage. You get a lot of mold check panels. You're gonna it's it's gonna if you're in the middle of prime ag soil and you're used to cropping that, I would venture to guess and speculate that it's you're looking at half the tonnage of a crop underneath the solar panel or glass.

[Rep. James Masland]: Your shade grown in coffee doesn't do too

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: well here either. Well, let's

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: let's bubble

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: on these. This is a fairly valid conversation. I'd like to dig into it more regardless of what happens with this or any other bill. Why don't we have Ellen come up and walk us through, this is a seven page bill.

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ellen Jacobson, the Office of Legislative Counsel. I think I can answer a couple of the questions that came up. But I'm here in age six, 77. It is seven pages, but it's shorter than that. Cause I tried to include language in the statute for you to see to give you some context, but I will try to explain some other context. So this is amending section two forty eight of title 30. Section two thirty eight is a permitting process for energy generation in Vermont. It is called the certificate of public good process, but it has a lot of similarities to act two fifty and differences, but it is the permitting process that the Public Utility Commission does for energy generation facilities. So there is on page two, some of the statute is not being amended, but there's some context here about the PUC, depending on the size of the facility and the level of complication with the facility that comes in as part of the application, they may or may not hold a hearing as part of the process. For larger facilities, you will see later in the bill, there is a hearing and there are required parties. Otherwise, though, there is a list of required parties that need to be notified about an application, and they have the option about whether or not to participate in the hearing. Currently, the agency of agriculture is one of the optional parties. So, for most applications, so along with the agency of natural resources, and the municipality and the regional planning commission, they get notice of an application and they're allowed to participate if they would like to. At the bottom of page two, as representative Burtt already mentioned, the language is being changed to say, the agency of natural resources and the agency of agriculture, food and markets shall appear as parties in any proceeding held under this subsection. And then yes, provide evidence and recommendations about what the applicant has put in their application. On page three, you can also see though that subdivision F currently exists, which requires the agency of natural, the agency of agriculture to participate in large energy generation facility hearings. So currently there's already this provision that says if the facility will have capacity greater than 500 kilowatts, or it's an energy storage facility greater than one megawatt, they shall appear as a party and provide evidence. So that's already in there for the largest projects, but the amendment that's being added is then for any project. So, you could potentially get rid of this section if you'd like and just say the amendment is that the agency of ag shall participate for any project.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do you mind if we interrupt?

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Sure. Yeah. Big is a 500 kilowatt?

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So five Sure. So roughly five acres is about one megawatt. So 500 kilowatts is half of that.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: So half a?

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: About. And they do kind of range because there can be different configurations, but that's probably too yeah. And so that is the largest size for net metering. And so like schools or town offices sometimes have systems around 500 kilowatts. Anything larger than that is going to get the market rate or, you know, have a contract with the utility. So above that is when you start seeing utility size projects.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. And I think that the Shaft Quarry project, which somebody mentioned earlier, I said it was 80 acres, which I think is about right. And I think it's been described as 20 kilowatts. So quite one to kilowatts? Five. Sorry, 90 watts. Yes. So maybe a little bit bigger or maybe it's a little more efficient or I don't know.

[Rep. James Masland]: Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: How pretty is it? Pretty. How pretty, how beautiful is it for me? Yes, to be determined.

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the next subdivision starting at the bottom of page three and then into four, Subdivision J under section two forty eight is first is specific to facilities greater than 50 kilowatts or one megawatt for a storage facility. For those applications onto page four, they have to include information about or delineates the full limits of the physical disturbance due to construction, including roads and utility lines. And then also they have to address the presence and total acreage of primary, secondary and local importance agricultural soils as defined in 6001, which is Act two fifty, and by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. And so, yeah, currently in the statute, applicants already have to address if there is presence and what the acreage is of the primary agricultural soils. I agree with Rep. Burtt calling out specifically that they have to include secondary and local importance soils. You can do that. I do think it is covered under the Act two fifty definition, but if you want it to be explicit, you can include that. And the active 50 definition does also already recognize the NRCS, and they use the maps for that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And somebody mentioned earlier, and I said, oh, yeah. I agree. We often seem to talk about prime agricultural. Is that a term of art or is that just a misinterpretation of primary or misrepresentation?

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's just catchall because in the Act two fifty process, as part of the formula that is used, there is different weight given to whether it is primary, secondary or of local importance. And so they all are captured within that definition. I think it's just sometimes shorter to say prime ag.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Prime ag. Okay. Yep. And and they're all existing soil types defined by USDA?

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. And our yep. And the the maps the NRCS maps. Yep. Alright. So, onto page five. So subsection B of, two forty eight is the criteria that the PUC needs to look at when they're determining whether or not to issue a certificate of public good. So, first I'll read you criteria two, which is gonna is being broken into 2A and 2B, because I think what is already in the statute does relate somewhat to what representative Burtt is proposing. So what is currently required is that it's required to meet the need for present and future demand for service. So is this project actually necessary to meet demand for electricity that could not otherwise be provided in a more cost effective manner through energy conservation programs and measures and energy efficiency and load management measures, including those developed pursuant to the provisions of subsection two zero nine, is the energy efficiency programs, two eighteen, is least cost integrated planning, and then two eighteen. In determining whether the criteria is met, the commission shall address the environmental and economic costs of the purchase investment or construction in a manner set out in two eighteen C and as to a generation facility shall consider whether the facility will avoid, reduce or defer transmission or distribution system investments. So that is what is already required. They do have to provide a justification for why they're attempting to construct this facility and whether or not they believe it is cost effective and necessary for energy generation energy demand. But this

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sorry. Can I just No? Yeah. Interrupt you there, Ellen. This doesn't seem to although who knows what language is in here for context, doesn't seem to be specifying demand within the state. Correct. So how would one interpret this then, meet the present and future demand for electricity?

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think, so two eighteen C is least cost integrated planning, which is, a process that the utilities go through. So if there's a utility contract that the, that this generation is for, they'll demonstrate that the utility has done that calculation. It is also possible though that a number of facilities that are built in Vermont have contracts not only with in state customers, but also with out of state customers. And so usually I do think that is one of the mechanisms is demonstrating we have been contracted by utility, whether in state or out of state to say that they need this, but also utility analytics and analysts is an entire profession of people who do these kinds of calculations. And so not only is there a state transmission and distribution analysis that happens, but we also are part of the New England grid and there is analysis that happens at the New England level about ongoing demand and future demand. So somebody does those calculations, I only somewhat understand it. And

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think I have other questions, but I'm gonna save them for another, for an expert. John?

[Rep. James Masland]: Just to follow-up on that, and then these are green renewable projects, right? So it's a slightly, you know, a subset even of what you were just talking about?

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not necessarily. Is two forty for any electric generation, including natural gas and or nuclear. And so it may or may not be for renewable generation. The language that representative Burtt is presenting specifically is about solar, which is renewable, but this entire scheme of permitting is for any electric generation.

[Rep. James Masland]: But does it help as far as getting your certificate of public good if it is a renewable project as opposed to an incinerator plant?

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Potentially, if they can demonstrate that they're going to be used in fur Like if they can say they've been put on contract by a utility in order to help them meet their goals, I think that potentially weighs in. But there haven't been any recent non renewable ones. So I don't know that the I think the factors all sort of are part of the individual project. There's not necessarily as many, there's not much fossil fuel being proposed. So then that brings us to related criteria that representative Burtt is presenting. And so as part of this and what the applicant has to show down on line 16 on page five, with respect to specifically a solar energy generation facility to meet this criterion, a Vermont licensed engineering firm approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation shall perform a full spectrum audit of energy payback time and carbon dioxide emissions at the cost of the applicant. The audit shall include a cradle to grave calculation, excuse me, including resource extraction, mining and procurement, production, manufacturing and transportation. Come to page six. Deployment and disposal of all technologies requiring required, including solar panels, concrete footings, transformers, batteries, forced ecosystem destruction, foregoing twenty five years of agricultural crops, and construction and landscaping of the project. So this does this is a cradle to grave analysis, including a lot of the externalities of the project. I so I was going to ask representative Burtt, does DEC already do approval of engineers? I know they have engineers on their website who do different types of work, but do you know if they do approvals?

[Rep. James Masland]: That I'm not sure.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I mean, I I'm I'll definitely check-in on that. I'm sure we could also look at a

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: different part to do that, but

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: that's something that I don't know.

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But ANR does keep various types of lists of engineers in the state who do the various types of work for permits that they give out. You may need to give them additional authority specific for this, or it might be covered. I don't know specifically.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We might need to write that in.

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Potentially, yes. All right. So then the last piece of amendment is here on page six. And so still in the criteria of what is needed for an application with respect to an in state facility will not have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water, water purity, the natural environment, the use of natural resources and the public health and safety with due consideration having been given to the criteria specified in 1424A, which are outstanding waters and 6086A one through eight and nine ks. These are the ACT two fifty criteria one through eight and nine ks. Nine ks is public investments, so like it's specifically utilities. And then also impacts to primary agricultural soils. Again, adding the reference to agricultural soils of statewide importance or local importance as defined in Act two fifty as designated by the NRCS and greenhouse gas impacts. So, applications already have to address impacts to primary agricultural soils. And this is adding some more specificity starting with line 13. So it's adding the siting of a facility or a group of physically adjacent or interrelated facilities such that the facilities and structures and related infrastructure preclude the tilling of soil, seeding, growing, or harvesting of agricultural crops on greater than five acres of primary statewide or local importance agricultural soils, or reduce future Vermont based food security, or will result in the destruction of forest ecosystems, forest soils and their unique biology, or increased volatilization and released a forest soil carbon on more than five acres shall be considered undue and not in the public good. So I think one of the questions that came up is, is this the same process for Act two fifty around primary agricultural soil mitigation? And no, Act two fifty has a specific formula that it uses to determine what kind of, how much mitigation is required when soils are impacted. This just asks the applicant to address the impacts to primary cultural soils. I will say that a section that I did not include in here that already exists in two forty eight is that there is a provision that says there is a basically a presumption that if a solar facility is put on primary agricultural soils, it is presumed that the soils have not destroyed the facility has not destroyed the soils in the same way a different type of construction project would have, I think, due in part to the nature of these have a technically temporary life cycle of twenty to twenty five years. They're not putting an impervious surface underneath them to the point that the soil is being destroyed. And so I know there is occasionally some debate on the accuracy of this, but there is a presumption in the statute that the soils are not destroyed by the addition of a solar facility, and so that they're not being degraded in the way that putting down concrete or paving wood.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So the it's a lower bar here essentially than the FQ50 process in terms of?

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it's a higher bar to say that the soils are being damaged.

[Rep. James Masland]: Yeah. I

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: just I've heard of the small nuclear reactors that are emerging technology. I believe Bill Gates is really championing them. And the US Department of Energy identified potential of over 60 gigawatts, which is 60,000,000 kilowatt kilowatts of new advanced nuclear capacity at existing or brownfield sites. So I've heard it, which would be at brownfield, I think. I think. But these little solar things are fifty fifty to 200 megawatts each one. They take a lot of solar panels to create that, you know, on a just, you know, a ranch house size project.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: But nobody wants nuclear on their house.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Well, yeah, I I realized that. My answer to that is in case it's cement, put it across the bay from my house because I got everything else over there anyway.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: What's across the bay?

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: The cellar. Yeah. It's only sure you work like Vermont, so I think Yeah. Operate. Yeah. I I could house that stuff for a price.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm I'm not sure if there was something that someone wants to address there.

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was just gonna say, I think last year, FERC approved the first test license for small cell in The US, and so it is not readily available in The US, although it is beginning to be under testing. So while they may say that there's available sites, they haven't actually approved further instruction yet.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: He said

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that there's some kind for waste. He I think I didn't see the statistic you were referencing. I think it's for construction.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: I'm I'm not sure. I I think I believe you're right. It it Bill Gates has really been spearheaded this project. Who's he?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Other questions for Ellen on the language and the bill as introduced. At this point. Ellen, anything else you wanted to ask, Greer?

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I think you had a couple of questions for Rep Burtt that I may be able to answer. So there is a list in two forty eight of the parties who get notice when there's an application. Most of the state agencies are given, the notice and our does, participate in basically every application. They sometimes have very strong feelings about the impacts on the, natural environment and they participate in those hearings. The agency of agriculture is only required to participate currently in the larger development hearings. Sometimes ANR when they participate, don't have much to say on a project, but sometimes they do weigh in. There's like a pretty notorious case about like when there was a proposal to have energy generation built in bear habitat, they weigh in on things like that and say, this would be very bad for the bears that live here. Please don't do this. And so they get to weigh in with using the expertise of their agency that, goes into the PUC's decision on whether or not to issue the permit and also, set conditions that are part of the permit. So being a party gives you that additional access of weighing in and participating. The agency of agriculture does have experts on primary agricultural soils. And so they do currently participate in the largest projects. This would be requiring them to do so for all the other projects as well.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Can you

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: speak to how changing it from they may participate to they shall participate would have an impact. They were required to participate, it's something that they might not have chosen to otherwise. I'm just imagining, well, they have to do some more work perhaps, but how much more work? I have no idea.

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it really would depend. When you are required to be a party, if you don't think there's anything you have to add, you can have sort of minimal participation. Maybe it wouldn't be potentially a big burden if they say, well, we're required to be here, but we actually don't have anything to add. I'm not sure you could hear from the agency how they feel about that. It may, they would be getting all the notifications as the hearings are held and discussions are negotiating on the permit condition. So they would be included and cc'd on all those emails and things. It could cost some staff time, but I can't speak if it would be burdensome.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And where would we look to get a sense of how often in cases, So just similar cases, since that's what the bill is addressing, how often the agency has chosen to be a party. The PUC have that information?

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, the PUC or the agency themselves. The PUC's database is not the easiest to search, but they would have that. Because that is something I did not fully prepare on is how some of these cases that they have, what they have decided in regard to the primary or cultural soils. I know it has come up in cases in the past, and I know they don't necessarily use the specific act two fifty formula, but I don't know a ton about what other. Permit conditions or what kind of things they have required. So yes, the PUC would definitely have that information or the agency of AG could give you some examples.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, Gregory.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: If there's an opportunity for me to speak a little bit more. Sure.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, come back up.

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You probably could sit at the table.

[Rep. James Masland]: I don't know. Welcome

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: back.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You can come to your regular seat and add some color. Do you think you need Ellen to be part of this conversation? I

[Ellen Jacobson (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: stay if you want. Sure. I don't need to.

[Rep. James Masland]: So I

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: was just gonna remark a little bit more about my some of my thinking behind it and why I think it's important than why I introduced the bill. The projects like Shasbury and the larger ones that are going in in is it is it Penn? There's a 40 acre project that just looked at in bowl. I have a little bit, I know, so there's this, I don't know if I call it a conundrum or, like we said, there's a lot of different entities vying for our land, right? And the use of it, we have farmers trying to farm, we have people that need houses, we have energy generation, just to name a few. Everything is about creating the right balance, think at the end of the day, right? We want to have housing, but we also want to preserve farmland. We want energy generation that's renewable, but we wanna do that carefully. In this, what I'm seeing in current legislation and with the renewable energy standard that was put out, The PUC needs a little bit more in their language to work with, to be able to say, is this in a public good by putting in a large scale solar array on a farm like the one in Panton? This is ultimately in a public good of Vermonters, okay? And that's where this is coming from. For farmers, yeah, the reason why they're gonna pay $2,000 an acre per year is because it's a way for, they had more income coming in on that land, right? But where is it coming from and who is it going to and who does it end up benefiting? As I'm thankful for the $2,000 a month instead of 400 or 2,000 a year instead of 400 for a farmer. Farmer could also potentially sell it for development. And is there a whole lot of difference between the field being developed and having solar panels on it if it's there for twenty five years and then, hey, look, you want to renew your contract? Let's do another twenty five years.

[Rep. James Masland]: Hey, you

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: want to renew your contract? Let's do it. I can see how these are just perpetuating themselves for rounds and rounds and rounds as long as solar continues to make sense. It's a balance, think we just gotta be careful and that's why I'm introducing it. And there's a lot of money behind it because there were federal subsidies that I believe are, Maybe somebody can speak to this, but I know they were in place when the Shasberry project was applied for. I don't know if they're there anymore. That was the thing that the federal government put through, was no longer awarding monies to solar panels projects on primary agricultural soil. There's also carbon credits. There's all, as you say, selling the energy that's generated. So they're able to just hand more to the farmer. As far as I know, as a company that went in and Shasbury is an international corporation. I'm just a little bit leery. And like I said, I wanna have a framework for more balance for the PUC to work with, to preserve my farmland. I don't want it to become some situation that essentially gets out of hand and where and all of a sudden, we're looking at a lot of farms that have given up their land. Thank you, chair. Representative Burtt, two of

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: those projects I know a bit about, probably enough to be dangerous. The one in Lowell, absolutely on beautiful climatic land. It's a it's a Moran right there. It's also probably the best site in Lowell if they ever wanted to grow houses for them to have houses, and it's right in town. It is right in town. There's one working dairy farm left in Lowell, and they're not near it, and they're not long for the world because they're aging out, unfortunately. But that that is a beautiful flat field, but it is a place for Lowell if they ever wanna grow their house, and it's the best spot for them too. The second site you had mentioned, the one in Panton, that is on on a farm that does a fantastic job, firemen. They do a great job. They're also under fire from their neighbors. And I'm surprised where they're sighting the solar. They're not sighting it across from their neighbors to to put out two fires or create a fire. And they have a fairly large solar array already on their farm, and they just love it more. And if our temporary committee assistant wasn't so good about not saying something, she'd probably tell us something that's going on in another committee in this building to this issue. But

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Well, mean, you know, I hate to see, you know, when you got milk prices down, you know, this is these are the factors that weigh in for farmers to say, what do I do? And if

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Sure. And

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: And about five years from now, the price of milk's back up, but that feels covered with solar panels.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: You you don't put it in your best fields. You put it on the roof of your barn. You put it on your hillside.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: That's what I'd like to see.

[Rep. Richard Nelson]: Yeah. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the the the signal has been activated since we've pushed the house start back to 03:30, we should probably all be on time. Thank you, you, Alan.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: You, Alan. Good rest

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: of the day.