Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Alright. Welcome back, everybody. It's House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Thursday, February 24. And we are here with folks from the Land Use Review Board to talk about two different bills. One is our committee bill, 26,781, and the other is H727, our data center bill. And we'll go around the room and introduce ourselves and then ask everybody who's here to say hello, and then we'll turn it over to folks for the record. So I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell, I'm in Saint Johnsbury.

[Representative Richard Bailey (Member)]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four. Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Laura Sibilia, Windham too. And

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: rep Torre.

[Representative Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Representative Torre, Washington too.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. And in the room.

[Jared Carpenter]: Jared Carpenter, Lake Chittenden. TJ Poor, Public Service Department.

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: Jenny Ronnais, general counsel for the Land Use Review Board. Great.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Dana Lee Perry from the Crassing Group.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alrighty. And, Janet.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Hi. Sorry not to be there with you, but, I don't wanna give you the virus that I picked up. So, I'm here. I'm Janet Hurley, chair of the Land Use Review Board.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. And Pete

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Gill, executive director for the Land Use Review Board. Thank you so much for having us in today. And, Janet, I'll let you chime in wherever you wherever you would like, but I'll get, get us started, on the two items, today. First, starting with the draft fill there on energy, enhanced energy plans. So specifically, you asked about section two, and the wording there inserts up here. Inserts a sentence here. The submission shall happen when the draft regional plan is submitted to the land use review board for the review and adoption pursuant to section forty three forty eight of this title. Again, this is, related to the enhanced energy plan, and what it does, my understanding here is it syncs up the, submission of that with the process that's ongoing, with the LERB that we have talked to you guys about, previously. The board would, has had some conversation about this and would support that general concept, of that inserted language. However, I'll just note that there is, and we can supply some, wording, for you if you would like. But the section there that says and adoptions, it would probably be good to remove that. The board is not doing the adoption portion of that. They are the approving approving body there, but just having it for the review, I think, is probably sufficient. And then it might be helpful to cite more specifically to forty three forty eight subsection b, a little B there, will be that process that I think the committee is referencing.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So, strike and adoption because the Land Ruse Review Board doesn't adopt these. Correct. And then add 4348B.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Correct. Yeah.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't think you

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: need to send

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: that to us. Yeah?

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Just that the board wholeheartedly supports this. The idea of the pre application was to get as much input to the RPCs as possible before they go through their adoption process. So far as getting the enhanced energy plan determination of compliance in line with their determination from us, we very much support that as a board. Great.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, that was fast.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Excellent. So you said split the time between the hour. We will unevenly split the time. We're ready for the next, next section here. So h, 07/27. This is a slightly different posture for the board. As you know, we have five board members. They have not had a chance to have a an official position on 07/27, but I can provide you with some insights on that. I do understand there's a suggestion in language related to this about the citing portion and kind of the it sounds like the committee wanted to have a a discussion in terms of citing and the role that the board potentially could play in that versus PUC process. So let me take a few minutes here just to tell you a little bit about, what we're thinking that way or some things that you may wanna, consider.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Doctor. Sibilia?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Just, before we start, I just wanna make sure that I am on the correct draft that your comments are attached to. Is that the original draft or I'm looking at red line draft?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: I'm looking at the bill as introduced, but I guess on the side, I'm also looking at the red line version. And specifically there I was commenting on one of the comments here of TJ Poor, which we have in the room, on the citing portion.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: So Pete, can help rep Sibilia? We did look at the bill as introduced as a board, and we just didn't see where it implicated the board. And then we saw in TJ's redlining that he mentions the board in a comment. And so I think what Pete's gonna explain is where we think I mean, maybe we need to hear from you first as to what the intent is. And I think the intent from the original bill, and you should tell me, I guess, is to have the PUC do it and not implicate the LERB. Is that the intent of that bill as introduced? I

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: think that we expect where Act two fifty would come into play, it would come into play.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Okay.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Where there's a CPG, that would also come into play.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Okay. So it would be a sort of split jurisdiction. And in that case, we do want to think about language that would make things very clear as to the different jurisdictional triggers here. So I'll let perspective.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That may not be the committee's, but, you know, in terms of if what we've been describing is if the data came and landed from out of space in Vermont, you know, like, let's walk around, what would happen? You know? So we presume that it would likely trigger F250. We also know that with that much, that they would they would also need a CPG, like, so

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, that so the board did discuss this, but that wasn't entirely clear to us. Now it is. And, we've discussed with TJ earlier today, some some ways to make, you know, and I guess the other question is the intent to get all of these data centers because there could be a smaller data center that doesn't trigger the need for an act two fifty permit.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. This is specific to 20

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: The 20 megawatt.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: 20 megawatts. We're aware of smaller existing, centers. I it is not my intent

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Okay.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Capture those here. Okay.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Okay, thanks. So I'll let Pete, proceed.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah, so one thing I'll say just with that understanding is, there isn't anything in the bill as, originally introduced or the red line that would trigger act two fifty specifically, for these. It would be our standard, jurisdictional triggers as it's drafted now. Yes?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: For those of us in the room who are a little bit newer to Act two fifty, so what I really need to understand the jurisdiction here. So we have everybody in the room and we've got some time. So I really want to take a minute to understand when a data center would require only a CPG and go and in other words, nobody would be involved but the PUC. And when it would trigger a CPG and act two fifty, I I am not understanding the lines of authority here. Sure. And I know we've taken testimony on that, but it takes me a while to wrap my head around some of this stuff. So

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Sure. Let me start with one, point. So within Act two fifty, we have a definition of something that is not development. Generally, we take jurisdiction over, projects that are development under our under our statute, and there's that's where we get our jurisdictional, determinations from. The where something is not development within that, that would be outside of our jurisdiction, there is a specific provision that speaks to the PUC process. Two forty eight is is mentioned specifically in there. Those projects would not go through active 50 because they are not development. And

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: But what does that mean, development?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: So development

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Welcome to? It's yeah. It's a it's a long long

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: definition, and there are a lot of different triggers for it. But let me start with a couple that are straightforward, as a starting point and most most common, really. So, one of those is the acreage that the project is on. So if you have a you gotta start with a commercial development. Right? There's an exchange of of money that's happening with this. You have to have construction of improvements. You gotta have some sort of building or structure or something going on to the land. Right? So that and then you look at the acreage. You say, okay. How big is this parcel? Is it one acre? Is it two acres? Three acres? We have two different triggers there. One is if the town has no zoning, no subdivision bylaws, or doesn't have one or the other of those, then, it would it would trigger jurisdiction on a smaller threshold. It's a one acre, threshold there. But if the town has zoning subdivision bylaws, then you then your acreage trigger is expanded. You can do larger projects without triggering through act two fifty up to 10 on a 10 acre, parcel. If you're above that, then, you would go into, act two fifty land.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I remember this.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yep.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: So Mhmm. So it's a if a town doesn't have zoning or bylaws, it's a one acre trigger. If a town does, it's a 10 acre trigger.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yes. Correct.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So alright. So first it was development to acreage. Okay.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Yep.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Then there are probably other things.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: And there are other things.

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: Of the parcel, not the project.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yes. Yes. So Jenny is just reminding me to to specify for you all that it's it's the track, it's the it's the, parcel size. It's not the building size Right. Or the impact size of, you know, the parking lots, etcetera, everything. It is whatever that is. So you could have a three foot by three foot project on a 11 acre parcel, and you would trigger under the 10 acre trigger just to make that just make that fit for everyone. Okay. So acreage. Right? One bucket that triggers, that's that's development. Another one that I was thinking about in terms of data centers, and this is just I am no, data center expert by any means, but I will say that, certainly heard news, about the amount of water that they use for those projects. And, we do have a, gallonage jurisdictional trigger, so how much water project would be using. And so that could trigger, jurisdiction. Jenny may have it at the tip of her, fingertips. I think it's 300 and something.

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: It's a lot.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. She's looking for it, but we'll we can get that for you. But there is a water usage trigger that could trigger that.

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: Thousand gallon.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: 340,000. Per

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: day? Per what?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: I think it is per day. Yeah. Okay. So that could be another jurisdictional trigger. Doesn't matter what your acreage size is, matters your water usage size for that. Another jurisdictional trigger, and this is outside of the development bucket, that's one big, trigger that we, collection of triggers that we have. The other is subdivision. So if there was if they needed to subdivide that property for any reason, that could trigger an act two fifty jurisdiction as well. Okay. That's based on the number of lots.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. So we have these triggers that are now all coming back to me. And is there a decision at is there a determination at the outset of a project like this about whether it's CPG or Act two fifty? Or could it and who decides that?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. So anyone can ask for essentially, if it is let's see. Let me step back for a second. If it is, requested, that they're going through the CPG process and they're gonna get a certificate of public good, then it is outside of ours, and that's by definition of being not development under our statutory framework. So if they if they are intending or going through that process outside of our, jurisdiction if they, intend to go that route.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, so if and who decides that? Then they're gonna go for a CPG?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: So the developer would be able to make that decision If they wanted to do that in terms of them asking about whether a project could or would, they can always ask for a jurisdictional opinion from our district staff.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So it it wouldn't be both?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: It would not be both. The review process would not be both.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: So the split I'm sorry. I'm just done. So the split jurisdiction you were talking about, Janet, isn't that a project would require both. It's that it would require one or the other.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Well, I think what we're saying is if you want split jurisdiction you have to change our statute somehow.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah, there was so that that the comment red line version Yeah. Did make it sound like maybe that there was a contemplation of the split jurisdiction, so that's kind of where we were looking at that. And in that case, as Janet said, we would need, statutory language that would make that happen.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Sorry. So, this is, exactly what I wanted to end. The red line version that we've gotten from the department has, changed the requirement that was in the original, for a certificate of deposit good to a long term, it's called, large load service and equity contract, which I think has some similarities to a CPG, but is not in a CPG. And so that would not be exempt. Right? A large load?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Not unless it was not unless it was, put into the statute to be exempt for our proactive handling.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, looking more about this change here, but with the proposed red line, you

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: would have both the process over at

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the apartment and two fifty.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Seems that way, yeah, that it's contemplated to have two different

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. And I I think when the board looked at the red line, we didn't understand that distinction. So, Jenny, I would ask you, whether that's clear from the redlining that TJ provided.

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: I think it will obviously we didn't pick up on it so I think we make it more clear that I

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: think the concern is that

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: as a project the data centers would only be captured under Act two fifty under the circumstances that he was already explaining. A nine acre project, a project that didn't take that much water, things like that would not would simply be non jurisdictional for us and nobody would review them. So, if the intent is that all data centers be reviewed under Act two fifty, we would have to change, we would have to get a special trigger for that jurisdiction.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, I think the size of data centers is contemplated here, which is 20. I think they're when you're looking at all in, you're

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: probably over the The acreage. Thresholds. Yeah.

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: We just have different metrics. I don't

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: I don't

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: know if

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: you want to.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. So if there was if there was there was a metric that was put into active 50 in terms of the energy usage, like there is contemplated in this bill, that would be more clear for us in terms of, yep, we are in regardless of the size of the acreage or whatever, if that was if that was your intent.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That would not be my intent, but, again, I'm one person. Yeah.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean, what could you explore a little bit more yeah. I'm sorry. I heard something that struck fear into my heart. Would not be reviewed by anyone. Right. If you said that, but Can

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: Local zoning would still apply, any local regulation, but there wouldn't be an Act two fifty statewide review. I don't know whether electric generation component would garner review under the PUC.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So for a project that is

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: For a project that is less than 10 acres in a municipality that has zoning and subdivision, they could- the municipality could review it under their zoning and subdivision rules.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So this is the same gap that costs are identified?

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: Likely. Yeah.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And I would say it's unlikely. So you're looking at a data center at the low level that we're at here, But it is a potential gap and that

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: is what we're trying to

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: do is walk around and see if our existing environmental laws and energy usage regulations apply. Yeah. I Yeah, one of

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: the other gaps I'll note, and it depends on what direction the committee goes on this, but if it is that these projects are reviewed by the PUC, I think you've heard testimony previously in terms of the incorporation of, the act two fifty criteria into that review, but it is a subset of those criteria. Under act two fifty, there is or I should say under the, PUC statutes, there are, the nine all except for nine k, public investment, all except for nine k, those, are not included in the PUC review, whereas they are included in the Act two fifty review. Those include, criteria such as nine b, our primary agricultural soils, forest soils. What else do we have? Settlement patterns, so the kind of where something is located, impacts of growth under nine a. There's a a host of different criteria under sub criteria within criterion nine of Act two fifty review, again, that are not in the PUC or incorporated in the PUC process, but are in the Act two fifty, and just to highlight that for the committee depending on which direction you want to go with this.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: So there you said there's some number of criteria that would be included in the Act two fifty review that are not included in the PUC process? Correct.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Right.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I feel like we totally interrupted you. Did you have No.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: We're we've got there in in, various ways here, and we're getting a better understanding of kinda what your proposal is looking at as well, so that's, very helpful. Let me just see if there was other pieces that I thought might be helpful for the committee here. One thought that I did have, and again, I'm not speaking from the board's perspective because they have not, taken an official position on on this, bill or had an opportunity for that, yet, but would be especially if if you are looking at a split process in some way, it would be helpful to have the effective date pushed out some that we can coordinate in some, not only because we have a lot of other obligations on our plates right now, but also just to allow for that coordination with the PUC process, whether it's the creation of an MOU to describe some of the overlap that might occur and how to you know, where that bifurcation exists, just to make it a smooth process.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Maybe a little bit more specific. So are you asking for a delayed effective date for the bill? Are you

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. The implementation of the, of the, jurisdictional trigger depending on it it will depend on what what comes out of of everything and but having that again, just being able to have that opportunity to collaborate with PUC on what that bifurcation looks like. So if there, if there are questions in terms of who's doing what, we can clarify that, so that it's clear for the, folks that are going through the process as well as our own staff.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So could we if we were to look at the process, or the, dual process that's outlined in the red line, which presumes two fifty if there's jurisdiction or it's triggered and it and a contract is necessary for large loads. So could we

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: That would be QC.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So could we, say that these large load contracts would not be issued until date certain, and would that have the effect potentially? Yeah. Yeah. And do you have a sense? Yeah. I mean, would

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: would say it would be helpful even to just have applications don't come in until date, whatever. Do you have

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: a sense of date certain?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: I I don't, but I would say a couple of months, you know, maybe somewhere in the range of like three to six months, something like that would be helpful. Again, not speaking from a position of the board, but I think that would be helpful from a process perspective. Can

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: I ask a follow-up question, Representative Sibilia, on what you suggested?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. You

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: you suggested holding up the the contract until the act two fifty permit was issued. Is that what you suggested or vice versa?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: No. What I am suggesting is in order to honor the request that I'm hearing from the LARC for more time to put in here language about not issuing these large load contracts until date certain.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Ah, okay. Not okay. Yeah. And, Pete, I think we need to discuss this as a board to have an of a coalesced board position on this, but, I hear what you're saying. Thank you.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: I don't know if the board would agree with Pete that we need the time. So, and I don't know if if, I don't know if you have any input on that question, Jenny.

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: If we're going based on our existing jurisdictional triggers, I don't think that having a contract or not would prevent someone from applying for an active 50 permit.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean,

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: what this says Well, let me take it back. What the red line says, which contemplates this, is you would If you're triggered, you're getting an I-two 50 and you have to get this large load contract. So, I mean, one is just your normal kind of big load load large load user for Act two fifty, big development project, and the other is this new large load contract instead of a CPG.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. Yeah. And with that with that bifurcation, it may be clearer than I'm thinking. Guess part of it is that it feels like a little bit of a moving target. I'm trying to figure out where we're where the committee wants to land on that. So it may not be necessary to have time, and I think, like Janet said, it would be good for the board to have an understanding of where you all wanna go, and then we can talk a little bit more about, oh, we need a

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: little more time or, yeah, this would be doable. So I would just add that I am not looking to add load into act two fifty as a jurisdictional trigger at all, ever.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I would add that I am extremely committed to no gaps. So the thought that we would have be setting up a process here where, you know, a 9.5 acre data center could come in and be subject only to local approval, that's a no go for me.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And a large load contract.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. There's a water trigger.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: There could be a water trigger.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's awesome.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Do you know how how much these data centers use in gallons per day? Is that something you know,

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: TJ? Last week.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: I don't know. I don't know the largest of 3,000 a day.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: 300,000?

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: I know it's even more. Guess it depends on

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: the power. So 5,000,000, yeah. After 5,000,000 gallons. 300,000 gallons a day was average, but larger ones could go up to 5,000,000 gallons a day. So,

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: since we have you here and we have a little bit of time, do you guys have a sec? One thing I wanted to understand a little bit better is that we, you know, on a different bill that I don't remember the number, I'm sorry. On our cell tower bill, you guys came in to talk to us. And I came away with a pretty clear feeling that PUC's the 248A process was really hard for citizens and municipalities to engage. And I don't want to set up a similar problem here with projects that are way bigger and have a much more significant impact. And so I'm worried about that, about how a community would really engage with a CPG or a large load contract process that might be going on in its backyard for a big data center. And we started to talk a little bit more, a little bit last time when you were here, about how or whether the Act two fifty process might be more citizen friendly. So could you guys just talk a little bit about how it works? If there's a big project and it's triggered Act two fifty, does it what happens? How do people engage? How do they find out? How do they testify? How do they impact the process?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Sure. So as as you recall, there's kinda two processes within act two fifty. The first is the minor process. So same application form that, is submitted, still up on the, on our public database so all all can see whether it's a major or a minor. All those materials go up onto our public, facing page. And then, the commission will review that and determine, those applications that come in. They'll they'll determine, oh, is this is this, going to go through the minor process or the major process? Major process being that a a hearing is held. That's the main the, main distinction between those two processes. Let me start again with the, minor process. So if it's going that route, it will get posted, on our website, it will get, a notice of that will get published in the newspaper, and there'll be a thirty day, comment period. It could be twenty days, but, at any rate, there'll be a comment period, for folks to comment. During that period, they can say, this needs to change, that needs to change, or they can say, we think this needs a hearing and needs to get, scooted over to the major, process. Yes.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Can anybody comment, or do you need standing?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Nope, can comment. Whether they have standing later on in any court proceeding would be another matter, they can supply comments through the process.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, so notices published in the newspaper.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Fourteen day equity.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Are adjoining, are abiding property owners notified even if it's minor?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yes.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because I always wonder how the word gets out. Right? So Yeah. So property owners are notified. So we can assume that the word's gonna get out, and anybody can comment. They don't have to have standing. This is not yet any kind of a quasi judicial or quasi legal setting. It's just Correct.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. And then for those that go through the major process where a hearing, have all that notice, that same similar notice processes, but you will hold a hearing, and there'll be notice about that hearing, occurring as well, and folks can come in and participate in that process. We pride ourselves in having district commissioners that are part of the community, part of that district, that are appointed from the governor, by the governor's office. And they are welcoming to the public in terms of that process.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: We

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: have parties that can come in, and state their claims of why their, aggrievements are, could be addressed by the Act two fifty criteria, those 10 criteria that we've gone over, previously. And if they can do that, then they're gonna be granted a preliminary party status, so a starting point. If they learn more and find out that party status, doesn't fit that, individual, they can make that determination, in their final, issuance. But at the get go, preliminary party status is is granted, So that's one avenue for the public to participate. Another is what we have is called, friends of the commission. And these are individuals that are not seeking party status formally in that way. They won't have appeal rights, under that approach, but they can offer, information and comment to the, commission. Commission can weigh that as it does, with all of the, evidence. And then the, commission will review everything that they've, that's been submitted on the record, as well as part of that, the hearing process and issue a decision, that is then posted on our, on our website. And, there's appeal rights for those that participated and have party status at the end of the day.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. Can I just clarify one thing? So initially, if something is proposed as a minor and there's a comment period, parties can request a hearing and that forces it into the major category.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: That's right.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: And do you have to be do a you have to be a party with status to make that request?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. You

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: do need to have a a party status petition attached with your request for a hearing.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Okay. But if you don't get that party status, then does the commission can the commission not hold a hearing?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: I suppose the commission could, based on evidence before it, still request a hearing. The Commission, even without a request for a hearing, could decide that a hearing is warranted in a case that is before them. They can make that determination.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rep. Sibilia? I

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: just wanna go back to the split jurisdiction if that's alright. Yeah. And just, as someone who represents, a couple of towns where there are ski areas. I think we have So, areas in particular have that type of a split jurisdiction. A lot of them. I mean, they have Act two fifty permits and then with, a lot of them have renewable or other CPG, I believe.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Or tariffs. Like Special tariffs, especially economic Right. Right. Snowbanking tariffs.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And that was just reflecting that was, something that chair Matt Morrow had brought to my attention. He initially reviewed this, like, we we have seen large load entities before in Vermont. He keeps contemplating the amount of birth.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: So something like Escarea, they have all their after 50 permits or permanent.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's what I heard.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then they have to go through do you see for the for their water use? Is that what we're talking about? Sorry. Could

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Well, so if I may Yeah. Think, the distinction is I mean, I think it maybe it'd be useful to imagine a ski area expanding, right, and a new side of the mountain. Right?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: If it's over 10 acres, it's definitely in act two fifty or and please correct me if I'm wrong, but it would be act two fifty. But then they wanna do snowmaking on there, and so the load associated with it, the electric usage

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, see.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Would be part of the tariff that that is approved by the Public Utility Commission. And and so that that's kinda where that split jurisdiction, I think, would come in. And I I don't know if it's split really. It's just Dual. Different dual. It's like different areas. Exactly. Exactly. And so the PUC in that instance wouldn't wouldn't have jurisdiction over water use, I don't think. It would

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And they need A and R permits as well. Right. Yeah.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: That's great.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: And, they would but they just have it over. Okay, this additional load is going to cause a need to upgrade the substation. And so that then goes into, you know, the tariffs that that the company has for snowmaking would then be reviewed to see if it continues to meet the requirements of cost, cost, or pace.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: So I think the analogy that's helpful is if you have or the thing to think about is it's more a matter I think when you think of split, it'd be same project, two different entities reviewing versus same development, but different areas of of project. You know, one would maybe be a solar installation on a ski mountain, separate projects, separate processes for regulatory review.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: For me, it really helped Paul. I was I definitely got lost in the split jurisdiction phrase.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I have a question,

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: doctor. Okay.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Is the trigger for act section two forty eight review the volume of electricity being used, or is it ski area's request for a special tariff because of the

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: It's the the latter. It's the special tear the tariff. It's

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So scary. That's Because it because they're using so much electricity, they're requesting a special special tariff. Right.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: And Yes. Or discount. Well, the tariff is is because they're kind of like their own customer class. Right? They're not like a residential customer Yeah. Or a traditional commercial customer, and they have very specific uses, and so that it's to balance and appropriately allocate costs to the, you know, the end user. So, it the $2.48 actually isn't implicated unless there's generation. And so and even that generation, this is subject to check, but I'm pretty sure that it has to export to the grid. So if it was just a, generation, like backup generation that was never ever going to export to the grid, then the public utility commission would not it doesn't need a two forty eight approval. It still would need air permits and other things from ANR, but not What's the air permits? Air permits. Yeah. Like emissions permits. It goes like diesel generators or water permits Right. Right. And those types of things.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: But, again, but, again, the tariff is at

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: the request of the ski area. Or the utility. I mean, the it's actually the utility that would would petition the PUC for a tariff and approval. So Okay. Use presumably with support of the end user, they would come in, together.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to clarify that. Yep. I think

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: TJ answered it, but I was gonna bring up we talked about bring your own generation. Does that kick in anything with act two fifty or no?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: No. We don't have any triggers based on the amount that's being generated or used. There are review criteria that we'll review actually under the nines. One of the other ones I didn't mention was nine f, and that's, your energy conservation. So we would review that, but it's not a jurisdictional trigger. One other thing I was gonna mention in terms of, Cherry, your question in terms of, engagement was the agencies, including PUC, would be able to obtain party status within any Act two fifty proceeding. Provide comment and participate in that process. Pardon me, Quest. Yes. Oftentimes, of Agricultural Food and Markets comes in on prime agricultural soils. The Agency of natural resources will come in on a variety of natural resource issues.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: All they have to do is raise their hand and say, We like party status. They're inautomatic.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do we have more questions for the lurb?

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Chair James, are you interested in getting any language from us? Yeah. Can you? So, so we have a meeting on Thursday as a board, and, it sounds like you're probably moving forward with TJ's redlined version. Is that an accurate portrayal of where it looks like you may be going?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't know. TJ's going come up and present his redlined version right now.

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: Okay, okay.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: We're happy to stick around.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: If you can stick around. I mean, we haven't talked about the different suggestions and the implications of all the different suggestions, I think that's next.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Yeah.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I would note that there has been identified by both ANR and the LRR potential gap in a 10 acre town for a nine and a half acre site, which I think is unlikely, but that is a gap that has been identified.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. So we'll listen in and I guess Mhmm. Try to try to get you language after Thursday that, may address any sort of, issues that the that the LERB sees from our perspective on this.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: One

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: sort of caution I do want to toss out there though is that I'm always aware of how good bills could fall into a very deep hole. And I'm not I'm a little somebody had mentioned changing an Act two fifty criteria or adding a criteria to Act two fifty. A little concerned about that's not just a life little

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: No. That that requires rulemaking. And so No. Know and a half.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: That could be something that we all never emerge from. Ever. I'll send our bill. We'll just crawl off and no one will ever know what happened to us. So I don't know. I mean, it's just a thought. If there are other ways, I feel super concerned about a gap and also concerned that we not start rewriting Act two fifty. That's not even our, as you could tell from some of my earlier questions, that is not our committee jurisdiction or area of expertise.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So, mean, I think we're talking about two things here, madam chair. I could be wrong. Possibly. One is this gap that has been identified in the exist in existing act two fifty language, and the other is the potential to move large loads into two fifty. Those are two different things. Moving large loads into Act two fifty is one way you could deal with that gap, but that would be hugely problematic for me and others. I would much rather deal with that or have the two. So I don't know if there are other ways of dealing with a potential gap. Am I did I articulate that?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. I think the other way to deal with a gap would be a specific jurisdictional trigger for act two fifty in those in those particular circumstances where a large load is needed and act two fifty otherwise wouldn't be triggered based on the acreage or other jurisdictional trigger. But Well, it's adding a large load trigger. Right?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: I guess it it would be. Yeah.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: But if that I guess if if you were intending on having those projects go through Act two fifty and you were concerned that there was a gap, that's how you would Yeah. That would be a mechanism to do that. It wouldn't be a stand alone trigger to bring in all, you know, other projects. It would be just for that specific purpose. But, again, we're not the board's not advocating for anything there, just giving you all the information in terms of how that could work if that is a direction you wanted to pursue.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I have a thought about maybe kind of gut checking this. So GMP in their testimony provided a list of sites that they thought would make sense. And so maybe we should just look. That might be helpful to think about those specific places. And that yes?

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: That's an interesting concept that we actually talked with TJ about this morning, the four of us. You know, the idea that maybe they have to be in one of the enterprise areas that are mapped on the future land use maps.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm not sure what that means. Okay. It sounds I am not sure what that means, but it is not what I had said, which was there are only certain areas that GMP had identified in their territory as suitable. We haven't had all of the utilities, but I mean, these are not, you know, kind of drop in places. I'm wondering about looking at, well, is this a 10 acre town? You know, what is the getting a sense of the parcel size if there are to see if there is I'm gonna stop talking and continue to process that internally.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: Okay. And we can talk further too.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Yeah.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Timing wise, we had talked in committee earlier about, so crossover is the thirteenth, Friday the thirteenth.

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: Oh, perfect.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know. So, we had hoped to get all kind of outstanding testimony, thoughts, comments, ideas in hand before this coming weekend, and then that gives us town meeting break to try to work on a a draft. Yeah.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Tentatively, I was trying to schedule with Maria Friday for us to compile what we know. Okay. As you just noted.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So I guess that's a day that's a day earlier than I had maybe just said. If we were gonna try to walk through all the testimony we've heard and the ideas we've heard and have a committee discussion about the bill on Friday, then we would need to hear from you, like Friday morning. Yeah.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: So we we do have a meeting sort of an emergency meeting to deal with these legislative matters that

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Legislature. I know. Yeah.

[Janet Hurley, Chair, Land Use Review Board]: So so we we we could get to you get back to you by Friday morning.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: That would be great.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: You're you're not talking about this Friday.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: I am. Oh, you

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: are talking about this Friday.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. No. We're doing it.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. And the wall just got closer. Mhmm. What other Friday is there?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Unfortunately, yeah. Okay. Great. Well, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate your thoughtful comments, and why don't we go ahead?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you again for having us.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. I'll stick around to you.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks. Great.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Hey. Do you want me to sit in the chair for the first part? And Claire McElvaney is gonna do most of the testimony on act one seventy four. Sure. Or I can just let you focus on the screen. And, Claire,

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: how would you like

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: to proceed?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't care. Whatever you wanna do. Whatever Okay. What easiest for you. I'll take

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: the chair so Peter can sit down. Okay. Great.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Sweet. Did you get this?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, great.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Which committee do you have black guy?

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. A I think

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: it wasn't somebody from this committee. It's a pretty rough building.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Alright. Are we talking about the committee bill first?

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: That's how it's scheduled. That that that'd be great, and then we could let let go afterwards. Yeah.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Great.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: So we're still we we never took a break, so we can just go, I guess.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. We're we're live.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: And just for the record, again, TJ Poor, public service department, and I'm really just gonna turn it over to Claire McEldenney from the Planning Division at the Public Service Department.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Great. And can everyone hear me okay?

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Yes, Yeah. Go

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: For the record, Claire McIlveny. I'm our Data and Equity Policy Manager at Department of Public Service on TJ's team. And I've been, among other things, helping lead the implementation of Act 174 for about the last five years with my colleague, Anne Margolis, who you would have heard from on Friday, but who is on break with her daughter today. So I know Anne had provided some draft language that I'm planning to walk through in a minute. I believe it hopefully was printed out. I would have brought copies if I was there in person. I did not want to share my germs. But I thought I would start with just a little bit of context and overview on Act 174 and why we're asking for these, what we see as largely technical corrections and support aligning with the Act 181 Land Use Review Board process. And then I'm happy to pull up the document and walk through them with the committee. Largely, the proposed changes that the document talks through are largely covering two threads. One kind of, like I mentioned, technical corrections that have emerged over the ten years or so we've been working on Act 174 enhanced energy planning, and then the more recent implementation of the Land Use Review Board process under Act 181. So just a brief refresher, if folks aren't familiar with Act one and seventy four enhanced energy planning, this was enacted in 2016. So like you said, it's been around for just about ten years now. And among other things, created voluntary planning paradigms for regions and also municipalities around energy planning. So under this paradigm, the department creates recommendations and issues standards that are consistent with state energy policies and goals like the Renewable Energy Standard and the Global Warming Solutions Act now that help regional and municipal energy plans align with state energy policy. So the inaugural standards were issued back in 2016, and now we update them every six years alongside the comprehensive energy plan. So the last update was in 2022, and we'll be updating them in 2028 with the forthcoming CEP. The planning paradigm at a high level ask towns and regions to evaluate their current energy use and plan for future energy use across all energy sectors, so really electric, thermal and transportation, while also asking them to identify potential areas for development of renewable energy generation, along with areas that they would find unsuitable for such resources, including specifics around size and generation types. And then if a department reviews a plan for the regions or regional planning commissions review municipal plans and determine that the plan aligns with the standards, they receive what is called substantial deference in a Section two forty eight proceeding. So effectively, plans with substantial deference are given greater weight by the Public Utility Commission when they're reviewing citing permits than they otherwise would. They would just receive due consideration. So that's kind of a high level what is Act 174. And then just in terms of the process, which we'll talk a little bit about in the language, right now the way the process works is we encourage, although it's not required, that regions submit draft enhanced energy plans to the department before they're formally adopted so we can have a level of informal review dialogue before plans are final. We found this to be a really collaborative and beneficial process just to identify any issues, again, before a region adopts their plan. And then in terms of the required process, once a Regional Planning Commission has duly adopted the Regional Plan and the Enhanced Energy Plan that typically accompanies it, they would submit it to the department. And we would have two months to review that plan for conformance with the standards we issue. That process includes a public hearing in that region on the extent to which the plan conforms with the standards. Then we also solicit feedback from several of our sister agencies, like the Agency of Resources and Commerce and Community Development, among a couple others. And then I mentioned we're at the department largely reviewing or wholly reviewing regional plans, and then the regional planning commissions have a similar process where they review the municipal plans looking for an affirmative determination under enhanced energy planning. Yeah, and I think the last, outside of formal reviews, the department provides guidance and tools to help support this process along with a lot of technical assistance. We are grateful for support from Vermont Center for Geographic Information. While there was initially a small amount of funding to support this work, this is something we largely support, also the regions, without additional resources. And before I get into kind of the technical pieces, I just think it's worth saying ten years in, talking about how it's been working, we're not aware of any citing petitions that have been denied because of a plan's substantial deference. But we think that this means that Act 174 and enhanced energy planning kind of working more proactively to help steer proposals to areas where towns and regions may be more favorable to development of renewables. So because regional municipal plans now have identified those who have gone through the enhanced energy planning process, identified areas in their region or municipality where they would like to encourage development and also areas where they would like to discourage it. It allows for those proactive conversations and also signals where a petition may face opposition, and that opposition would just be even stronger if that plan had substantial deference. So on the whole, we think that's been a positive process. And then, like I'll talk about in a minute, there have just been some procedural elements that as we worked through this planning process, we think could be improved through some technical corrections. For example, determinations. When a department issues an affirmative determination saying a regional plan has met our standards, that determination lasts for the lifetime of the regional plan, but it expires once that plan is no longer in effect. So, for example, if a region updates their plan but doesn't make any changes to the energy element and then adopts that new plan, would effectively expire the current determination and require the department to review the plan again, even though it's unchanged and we've effectively already determined that it aligns with our standards. And also, just as we've gone through this process, identified some areas where we could be a little more efficient with our resources, especially as I'll talk about in a moment, we enter or entering a time where the Land Use Review Board process is, in particular this year, encouraging all the regions to update their plans in a very short amount of time, sometimes with changes to their energy elements and sometimes with not. And so that is just causing us to reflect on the resources that it takes to review all those plans in this year in very short order. So yeah, I think that's a lot of the background context I was going to provide before walking into the language itself, but happy to pause if there are questions.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I did have one question. So our draft committee bill, which was draft 1.1, it's dated to February 12.

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: Yep.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm sure you guys have seen that. That includes one paragraph on the energy planning with one suggested change about syncing up the timing of the draft regional plan and when that's submitted to the LERB. And that's what we were contemplating. And but you guys are suggesting a more wholesale rewrite of

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: wouldn't

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Lot more here then.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Yeah. I'm happy. I think TJ may have spoken at a high level prior to this, but I think we're not considering the language before you that's not currently in the committee bill, but that I believe Anne provided on Friday for review. A wholesale rewrite, these are really things we've limited or we think are technical corrections that had been kind of surfacing prior to the implementation of the new Land Use Review Board process, and some of which have been exacerbated as we see how the implementation of that process influences the Act 174 planning process. So, yeah, I'm happy to get into the specifics of the language that we've provided that's a little more comprehensive than what is in the current committee bill, but we really do see them these as, you know, a broader set of language changes that would help further that alignment with the LERB process, some of which I think the piece in your committee bill talks about that. Then there's other components in the language we provided that expands upon that. And then other corrections that will help us as we navigate these two processes in the short term. I think in terms of large scale act one seventy four planning, these wouldn't really change the substance of the planning. It would it's really just focused on a few procedural elements.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: That answer your question?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: It did.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Okay. So if there's no questions on context, hopefully, you'll be able to share my screen. I just sent a request for permission to share. K.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: We can see your screen, Claire.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Okay. Great. Thank you. Just reorganizing. Yeah. So here, the attached document and what I think you have before you are excerpts from the relevant statutes where a few these technical corrections would live. And happy to just I'm just gonna walk through top to bottom, and feel free to stop me as questions come up. The first correction that we've or adjustment we've proposed is that currently, as I mentioned, we issue updated standards with the comprehensive energy plan. This would just be asking for up to a year following that plan's issuance to do that. It would give us a little bit of extra time if, for example, we had capacity constraints or there were last minute changes to the conference of energy plan and the public review process that warranted changes to the standards. So I think that's relatively straightforward, but happy to address questions there. The second piece of this is aligned, I think, with the language that you already have in your committee bill. There's actually two pieces here, one on this page one, and I think page three has a related change where we're looking to align when we review draft enhanced energy plans with when the Land Use Review Board reviews draft regional plans, and then also align when regions submit for a formal determination of compliance on their enhanced energy plan. Again, when they submit their regional plan for review to the Land Use Review Board. And again, just looking from a process perspective to align those two reviews, the department participates in both processes, obviously leading the Act 174 review and then participating in review under the Land Use Review Board process as well. So I think formally aligning those. This is in practice what we've encouraged regions to do already, and this would just formalize that. The next change is on Sorry. Oh, yep. Go ahead.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I always I hate to always put people on the spot, but I guess since we have the land use review board here, if you have any thoughts or questions as we go along. Yeah, welcome those now.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Thank you. Sorry, I can't see that language very well, but we'll certainly take a look at it, like we said on our Thursday meeting. Okay. Generally in terms of the alignment, we are aligned with that approach.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Yeah, and I I meant to say at the outset when we developed the language that we're talking through, we have consulted with both some of regional planning commissions and the land use review board. I know you're you'll be hearing from some of the regional planning commissions maybe tomorrow, but they are also generally supportive of the changes that are proposed here. Think they'll speak to the specifics, but have consulted with others as we put this forward.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: I think you can carry on, Claire?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm sorry. I thought you heard me. Yep.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Nope. Sorry. Thanks, Claire. Yeah. One of the other places for process efficiency that we're proposing is to this change speaks to that, have the Regional Planning Commission solicit feedback on their enhanced energy plan at one of the public hearings they hold prior to adopting their plan, as opposed to the department holding a separate hearing during the formal review process, which I mentioned is our current practice. So this language would make that switch. There's language further on this document that would remove the public hearing the department has to hold, And that's for a couple of different reasons. One, well, we've heard there's fatigue in terms of engagement in these types of processes, so we're looking to streamline where possible. Also, our public hearing happens after the plan has been finalized. So, the input we receive really just influences whether the department issues an affirmative or negative determination on the plan. There's no opportunity for the Regional Planning Commission to address the feedback and modify their plan. We think that having the region solicit input at one of their public hearings would just be a more meaningful way for that input to be received and acted upon as relevant. And then later in this document, there's language that would require the department to then consider that feedback during our review process and also how the Regional Planning Commission incorporated it.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Okay. Oh, sorry.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Questions, anybody?

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Sorry. That language you were just talking about is on which page? You're still on page one here.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Oh.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Oh, now it may just switch to page two.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Oh, sorry. There must be a delay. I apologize. Okay. Yeah. So I'm on I should be on page three.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Okay.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: The Regional Planning Commission shall, if it is seeking an optional determination of compliance, solicit feedback of on its enhanced energy plan. So

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Okay. Yeah. You're we're seeing that now.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Okay. Great.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Great. Yeah.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Any questions on that?

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: I think you can move on.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Okay. Maybe skipping oh, just the next page. Okay. So I'm on page four just in case my screen hasn't updated. This follows on one of the changes I've already mentioned around aligning with the Land Use Review Board timing. So the first language we looked at looked at aligning timing of draft reviews. And then this language here basically says that when a region submits their regional plan to the Land Use Review Board, they should also submit it to the department for a determination of energy compliance. K. Alright. And then I'm gonna go a couple pages onward to page six now. Sorry, these changes aren't really kind of one process change at a time, but there's language here around municipal hearings, and this is really just to align that for asking a regional planning commission to solicit input on their energy plan at their public hearings, municipalities should also be soliciting input on their energy plans at their public hearings. I think our understanding is that this in practice already happens anyways.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Who have generally been done stuff.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Pardon? Is that a question?

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: The question, what that's already being done, Claire?

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Yes. That's our understanding, and that's something you could confirm with the regional planning commissions that you hear from.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Okay. I got to have

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: a few other questions.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Okay. Just

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: a couple more. These changes on this page, I'm on page seven, really, I think do fall under just technical corrections. They effectively update language around greenhouse gas requirements. They were goals when this was passed, and then removing goals that are no longer in effect or that have expired. And then the last change under state energy plans aligns with the change on the first page that would give the department up to an additional year after we publish the conference of energy plan to update the standards. And then Similarly, on page eight, this first track change section aligns with what we talked about with the public hearing. So this would require the department to consider that feedback collected in our determination process instead of holding our own public hearing, which we have sixty day well, two months we're proposing here that we'd be more specific and say sixty days. This the public hearing is one of the more timely and costly components of the review process. And then the changes following that in around the appeals just update the name of the Land Use Review Board, no longer the Natural Resources Board, and remove the last change on this page, removes a provision of Act 174 that is no longer effective. There was a short window where the department could review a municipal enhanced energy plan before regional commissions had the opportunity to develop enhanced energy plans. And now that they've had that opportunity, they reviewed those plans instead. So we're just proposing to take that language out since it is no longer in effect. Okay. And then the last change on page nine, we have two proposed edits, deal with a challenge of Act 174 that we've been experiencing for a little while, but has come up more and more that, like I mentioned, when the department issues an affirmative determination on our enhanced energy plan that provides substantial deference, it is attached to the life of that regional plan. So, this typically doesn't cause issues, except for a couple of situations we run into. One being that a region has to update and adopt a new plan for a non energy reason, such as coming up to speed with new requirements under the Land Use Reborn and Act 181 process, the department would still be required to re review that enhanced energy plan because the region has adopted a new plan, so their prior determination is no longer valid. So that is the first bullet there. It would just allow us to effectively provide a provisional yeah. Sorry. Yeah. A provisional determination. Oh, sorry. That's the second bullet. I am confusing my language. Apologies. So that's the second number two here. The first bullet there deals with another issue around the determination being attached to the regional plan itself, which is that once the plan expires, the determination expires, and the department then needs to review the new plan in order to provide a new affirmative determination, which creates this exposure period for regions where they don't have substantial deference. That could be as little as sixty days, if not longer. So here, we're looking to say if a region's notified us that they have developed a new enhanced energy plan, they could seek a provisional determination from the department that would cover them while we review that new plan, which if we make the changes where we're reviewing draft plans, we would have already had an opportunity to review the plan and have a sense whether or not it conforms with the new standards. So they're trying to both address that exposure period where a region may not have the ability to have substantial deference should something be proposed in their region during that window. And then also dealing with the case of if a region updates their plan, not for an energy related reason, it would give the department the opportunity to kind of extend their current determination with some boundaries of if we've issued new standards, they would still need to update the new plan.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: This one in particular, I think it's this one. There there's a risk of a gap for plans to have a determination from the department, in which case, like, a developer could come and say, well, there's no regional or municipal plan that has a determination from the department that you and ultimately receives substantial deference in a PUC proceeding. And so one of the things that the bulk of these changes does is kind of avoid having that gap where like a regional plan was updated, not for energy reasons, but the department's determination of compliance, kind of just from a timing thing is no longer valid. So now that PUC can't look to something and say you have substantial deference in a in a citing case. And so that's one of the things that these changes address.

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: Okay.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Yeah. And just on the second part, I'll just add, I think when Act 174 was created, we envisioned that regional plans would likely be updated maybe once every eight years. Well, that's their kind of cycle, maybe slightly more frequently here and there. And that has just turned out not to be true for a variety of reasons, whether related to energy planning or not. And I think that's something we had identified before the Land Use Review Board process was started implementation this year, and just as like kind of a sense, because many of these regional plans, I think maybe five or six of them have recently come in for a new determination of energy compliance. But because they all the regions will be updating their plans to conform with the new requirements under Act 181, all of the regional planning commissions will have to be adopting a new plan, means which that the department will be likely reviewing all of their enhanced energy plans again, both those who don't currently have an affirmative determination of compliance and those who we've recently reviewed even as recently as last year and haven't made changes to their plans. So also looking for some process efficiency there with some of these changes. And, yeah, that was I think that's the last of it. And the annotations here try and explain what I've walked through, but happy to answer any questions as you consider.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Claire, thanks so much for, your time and your work. Does anybody have any questions? At the moment? Okay. Claire, thanks very much. Thank you. Yeah. I really appreciate you being here when, you know, when your colleague could not. So Yeah. Great.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: Alrighty. Thanks. I'll leave you with TJ.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Sounds good.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: She said that so apologetically. Wasn't the fastest price.

[Claire McIlveny, Data and Equity Policy Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service]: I didn't mean it that way.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Okay. Alright. Switching gears.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Alrighty. Back

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: to data centers.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[TJ Poor, Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service]: You all ready? Or Mhmm.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Go into it?

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: I would actually like does anybody have a printout of the red line? And or, Alex, could you print that out for me? Sure.

[Pete Gill, Executive Director, Land Use Review Board]: Yeah.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you. Everybody. Everybody. Yeah. Why don't we take a five

[Jenny Ronnais, General Counsel, Land Use Review Board]: minute break? Okay.

[Representative Kathleen James (Chair)]: We can go up live. Sorry, TJ.