Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright, welcome back everybody. We took a

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: quick

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: break. House Energy and Digital Infrastructure, it is the February 24. And we're going to talk about our data center bill, H727 with direct report from the Department of Public Service. I'm Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell. Richard Bailey, Lamoille too. That's it.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor Bennington.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Michael Southworth, Caledonia, Christopher Howland, Rutland, four. Graham Kleppner, Chittenden, 13, Burlington.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Laura Sibilia, Wyndham two. Maria

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Royal with blanket of counsel.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Jared Carpenter, Lake Champlain Committee.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Great. Dara Torre, Jr. Crafts neighborhood.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Rectori?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Is here.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Dara Torre, Washington.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. Alright. For the record.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: TJ Poor, director of regulated utility planning, public service department. And thank you for the opportunity to testify again on h seven two seven and the opportunity to provide some edits, to the original bill. And I'll just start. The primary intent of our edits are really to ensure that the rate regulation and electric generations electric generation siding remain with the PUC, and under their jurisdiction, while land use siding remains under the jurisdiction of the land use review board. That's the primary scope of our edits. The it also incorporates a number of things we talked about the last time I was here on this bill in terms of trying to set the appropriate guardrails for ensuring protections for ratepayers in view of a a tariff for a large load customer while while encouraging load that could be beneficial for all ratepayers and for Bram. So we're trying to strike that balance here, and I will walk through the changes if there's no other questions on it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Could you just say again, because that was helpful to me, that the overall intent of your of your suggestions is to ensure that that, what remains with the

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Rate regulation. So, electric utility rates, rate regulation, and, electric generation citing. So the, you know, if there's a generator, then those section two forty eight pieces remain with the PUC, while land use citing and provisions that, the land use review board are really expert in, remain with the land use review board.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And so the electric generation citing would only come into play if if we're doing a bring your own power thing. Am I understanding everything?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Generation. If there is a export, if a generator if a data center were to come to Vermont and have a generator that at any point can export to the grid, then that, two forty eight is implicated.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So bring your own on its own does not duplicate two forty eight. It's if it can export.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That's my understanding. Yes. Currently,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: we don't have bringer required. Correct.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So it's only if we if they either require bring their own power or they do bring their own power, and they generate more power than they're consuming, and it goes to

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the grid.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. That's

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: what you're talking about.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So am I by

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: the right regulation? Generation siding. Yes. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That seems totally clear to me. But then this electric generation siding part of it could be not relevant or relevant.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. And I think as we go through there, we'll see how, even electric generation could be implicated in a large load tariff, even if it was never going to export to the grid. And, in terms of economic benefit and not, causing harm to ratepayers as it relates to resource adequacy or market price pressures, you know, bring your own generation could be a solution to those problems or to those issues and, you know, opportunities and some may say, you know so it could be a solution and that then it would be incorporated into the tariff review. And I'll I'll point that out as we go through Okay. The language. And I'll also you can also share my screen here so that's Okay. So, there are a couple of other, smaller wording changes here on page one, line eight here. We added the word resiliency, but that could be resilience with just an e at the end instead of a y. But, just a acknowledgement that resilience of the grid is is elevated. It's part of the comprehensive energy plan as we talk about grid evolution, and, it's elevated, all of our discussions now. And so I wanna recognize it here and that you'll see that as a common theme when we propose changes these days.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I have a question, director, before you go on. Sure. I think it would be beneficial Unless Rep. Sibilia thinks this is premature, but it doesn't feel premature to me as the Glock ticks. As we're going through these suggestions from DPS, this is really the time for committee members to understand the changes they're suggesting, ask questions, raise a flag if a section is really problematic for you. Okay? Because I don't anticipate we're gonna have another comprehensive walk through with DPS. Yeah. Like this, so I I just wanna flag this for everybody because this conversation is important. And I'm definitely gonna be asking questions and saying like, don't like that. I like that. Okay? So I there I don't think there's gonna be a round two of this with DPS. Okay. Great.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Okay. In that same paragraph on page one, we added the, potential language around the potential opportunity that there, are there could be benefits from large electric loads located in Vermont. So acknowledging the regulation of data centers, but also acknowledging the potential benefits. And that's just sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Go ahead.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And that's just leaving it vague because you don't know what those benefits could end up being. Right?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Right. Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I mean, there there are things like you know, conceptually, you could imagine things like they're contributing to the fixed cost of the system without creating additional new costs that other ratepayers pay. And so in that in that sense, it has downward rate pressure for all other ratepayers, and that could be a benefit. More broadly, there's, you know, economic benefits that, you know, a common section two forty eight criteria is economic benefit to the state. And, knowing that things like property taxes and jobs get counted. I'm not saying that those will happen with data centers, but just like those are the types of things that would be kinda considered under a potential benefit. Maybe

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: it should say potential benefit. They're undetermined.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm just talking about Maria's infinity. Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I was tempted to actually just write it in there and Oh. I have,

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: but I I would not.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Whatever you whatever you want.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I'm gonna

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: knock that here,

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: if that's alright.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: If it's helpful, I could do it instead of having know, but.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think this this will be

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: good Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Probably from you guys, and then we'll take it through there.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. That's

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Teaching moonlighting and drafting ops over there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hi, Eric. Sorry about

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: this. I know. Okay. Okay. Going on to page two. In the first paragraph there on line two, I removed the

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: word

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: essential. I don't think of data centers in the same way as, like, hospitals or other things. So let's remove

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: remove that. Should we say emerging?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Or I

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: don't really I I can't believe I just said that, but I'm looking at the sentence, and I'm wondering, like, is it necessary if we pull out essential? Like, I think emergent would work. Otherwise, it's up on industry. I mean, it's or we could say a large load industry load entities.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Sorry. I mean, emerging sounds good for now, but if this lasts for ten years, then it might not be an emerging industry anymore. But Just a new industry. Right? So but I wouldn't object to that.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: K. Great. And

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: then we added the word economic in line four. The we're talking about a regulatory framework and what that regulatory framework promotes and sort of added economic economic, as an outcome received equal to other out outcomes in the list.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Can I just really quickly? Mhmm. So this red line incorporates the PUC? Yes. Okay. The

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: PUC saw a drop to this red line before

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: we send it to you.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But it includes the the changes that they suggested to us. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: One thing for the committee to discuss might be if when we have a list like this, if all the criteria are meant to be weighed equally, it's easy for me to see foresee a situation in which climate and environmental outcomes would be at odds with economic outcomes. So I'm concerned about that. So I will just flag that for discussion.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I will note that that those kind of trade offs and conflicting priorities are well, as you know, they're all over statute. Right? And in our energy policy, in particular, is the one that I have kind of stamped on the back of my head or back of my eyelids, I guess, so I can see it. I and that has things like affordability and and environmental sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions, economic vitality, and it has those trade offs in the same way. So I I don't I don't know. I guess not unusual, I guess, at my point. But And I would argue that that that is all the same anyway, actually, because environmental sustainability is is economic.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But it doesn't seem to get considered in that way. Well So I'm Yes. Unfortunately, it feels like This

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: is There's a a

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That is not the framework. There's a time frame difference. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: It's kind like, long term Yeah. Economic versus short term economic.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Well, we can discuss that. I'm just

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: We can I will actually, probably, if I'm still coming back tomorrow afternoon, if you still are having me, when I talk about the energy plan, that's one of the things that's in the energy plan is talking about the different ways to look at things from a societal basis or different frameworks, whether it you draw the borders of the analysis around Vermont or around ratepayers, similar to how I talked about in kind of a net metering discussion, ratepayer versus societal? It's kind of those different frameworks and how we think about that. Okay. It all applies here. Okay. The bottom of page two, this section covers the tariffs and contracts with the data center. And as I, so I testified last time that any data center in Vermont would need to be served by a retail electric utility. So this section requires any data center over 20 megawatts to enter into a, what we termed here, a large load service equity contract. These types of contracts aren't unusual in regulated utility service. We've talked about earlier like a snowmaking Tara Global Foundries before they became a self managed utility was on a contract of this type. So they they do happen and and there are guidelines that the commission as well as approving the tariffs. These and really, one of the main principles there is cost, cost, or pays for upgrades associated or cost to the system caused by the the end user. And and the commission's one of the commission's rules is to ensure that other the rest of customer classes are not by the this contract. Go ahead. I have

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: a quick question on that. Is is is the large loan service equity contract, is that is that a thing? Is that something that that Yeah. Was

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: my question.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: That the BDC does, or or is it is it establishing a thing?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So this is establishing a thing. So there's what what it's sorry. It's naming a thing for data centers called to be called a large load service equity contract. In the past, these have been called a number of things, but special contract is a charm of ours that has been used. And I think most of the snowmaking ones or, you know, the global founders want it. At least at one point in its history,

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: was called a special contract. Okay. It's sort of

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: creating a discrete category of of of tariffs, I guess. Right. And this one of the one of the reasons, I think, to do that is, you know, Green Mountain Power right now has a, large load tariff on the books and that it's basically the one that global foundries use, but it's still on the books. And so, you know, if a customer interconnected at the transmission level and met the requirements over 10 megawatts, then they may have the option to actually use that Green Mountain Power tariff if, you know, it's to their liking and just you know? So this would actually say, you can't actually even use that tariff that's on the books. It's gotta be this specific contract that meets the requirements that we lay out under this provision. Terms, so what do you want? 70, I think. Yeah. 70. I think it's 70.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So so these two paragraphs that you suggest striking are language that the as introduced draft was using to try to say this is what this is gonna look like. I'm looking at Maria. And it's striking out our kind of description of what we think it is and just calling it a large a large load service equity contract, which is a new name for something similar that you've done with scaries before. May

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I? Yeah. So and I think so this is part of the PUCs. The PUC had I think our original bill required us to develop tariffs for each utility area, perhaps.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can't remember where it was. Landed. I actually thought it was the PDC having a general tariff applicable to all data centers, and then each utility has their own contract Yes. With specific provisions. So I think I was wrong.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: How is this different from that?

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Now, it is basically just combining a general tariff with specific contractual provisions. It's almost combining the two.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Would it not vary by utility then?

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, these are the minimum requirements.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That likely would vary by utility. So that this I I think the original language as I understood it, as, as Rural said, would have the commission developing a general tariff and then each utility under that would then propose their version of it. Mhmm. And and and then the commission would actually, I think later on, have to do a rule making as well. This actually just takes out the step of the general tariff where we we proposed and, you know, in alignment with the commission and just has the utilities proposing the tariffs to the commission for approval. And so there could be 17 different ones of these, but it's just if you or 16, let's say, GlobalFoundries probably would not have one, but you the commission could have to approve 16 different of these tariffs, but that would be appropriate because all the ratepayers are are different in the costs. The cost structures of each utility are different, and the embedded costs are different.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Thanks.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So is there a definition somewhere of what would be included in the large load service equity contract?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes. So right underneath, so starting on line seven of page three, it starts to get into so just above that is the what is, is deleted, or we just talked about that kind of general language with the need and replace, and it says the large load service equity contract shall and then we get into the, a number of, of requirements, which the next couple of pages address. Some of which were in the original draft and some were are either clarified or added here. Oops. Too far. Okay. So first and, Yeah. You know, including on on line nine there, it starts with the original language that includes a method of allocating costs that's equal or proportionate to the cost of providing electric service to the data center. So it's like a cost, cost or pays. If they're causing costs, then they need to, they need to pay. And then including, what we added here to the original language was the, just to be clear, is the embedded cost, equitable contributions to the embedded cost of the system. So that's they have poles and wires now that ratepayers have already paid for, and then the data center's gonna use some of them. They should chip in.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Mhmm. Sure. Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: The neck provision on line 15 of that page, we first, we took out the word solely. So it would it was you know, the whole provision says that the contract shall mitigate the risk of other ratepayer classes paying unwanted costs and including generation and infrastructure costs incurred solely to meet the load requirements in the data center. There could be other other costs that were incurred by the utility that are not just to meet the specific direct load requirements of the data center. So that's why we took out the word solely.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So that serves to expand the coverage of costs, not Correct. Correct. Yep.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And then we added some language in line sixteen and seventeen there to even further give some shape to that in terms of energy capacity transmission or resource adequacy costs incurred as a result of the addition of the data centers load. This is, like, things like the data center uses more energy, so market clearing prices are higher for everybody else because they use more energy. It's or same thing with capacity and resource adequacy. Well, now the region is you know, they're using, you know, 20 megawatts is a small example, but if it was a bigger one, a 100 megawatts more load or a thousand megawatts more of load, well, the region is, you know, doesn't have that available now in the winter and cold snap, and so has to contract out of market at a really high rate. Just wanted to give the commission a chance to review that and incorporate that into equitable cost sharing.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm. Great.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: That's great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I actually have a question about the next one that I know you're not making any changes, But I just wanna make sure, maybe this is a Maria question. I I think for I think we structured the bill or we should structure the bill to make sure that any data center is compliant with the RES. Is this due then?

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think, well, not certain. I'd have to confirm with Ellen just to make sure the language is accurate. But this may have also been borrowed

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: from, I was

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: gonna say, February. Maybe that's not it. No, I didn't have to check. Let me just confirm. Make sure that that's comprehensive enough.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. To me, that would be yeah. To me, it's really important that that's sorted Okay. Correctly and that there's no loophole. Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: For the record, that's important to us also. I and we took that language to to serve that goal, but if there's edits to make it more clear, we didn't touch it because we assumed that's what the intent was.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I'm just realizing now. We never I'm not sure we ever really took a deep dive on that. So Language. I I'm seeing, like, promote or not impede. So that feels a

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: little squishy to me. So right now, the way that this bill reads, I believe that it's being serviced by a utility and the utility is purchasing the power. And so this language says the location, you know, this that it will consider the utilities utility that this is not competing utilities that will meet their requirements of the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So you're saying the data center is served by utilities, the utility that's required to meet the RES, so we wanna make sure that a data center doesn't get in the way of that in any way.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That the commission will consider that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, so I wanna make sure that's

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: and I think it's also, I think covered in that the the other ratepayers shouldn't have to pay for cost of the renewability of a utility on behalf of a data center. Right? So if a data center comes, like, whatever the contract price is, it's gotta include whatever cost necessary to meet the reasonable energy standard requirements for their load. And so whether that's you know, and and that would be for each tier even. Right? Like, they need to be as it is now if it was under green mile power, right, a 100% renewable by 2030. And if that's, know, done by existing hydro wrecks, then the cost of those wrecks need to be included in large large load service equity contract. So I think there is it it's kinda covered there, and I think this language gets to it. But if there's more clear language, then we're just open to that.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Would that affect any new new contracts that that would would enter into to to secure power. Because most because their their contracts typically are are long range contracts. Right? Except for what they have to buy at the spot market. Mhmm. Right? So this really addresses if if they have to enter into new contracts for more power. Right? Because it because of the of the data center, and those contracts are not for power that comes comes with REX, and they have to buy REX to to cover them. Right. Right?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yes. Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. I agree with that. Okay. I I also think that the language above that we talked about would also cover the fact that, okay. So there's a thousand megawatt data center, and, that means we need 200 megawatts of new, new solar in in Vermont because or new renewable energy in Vermont. Well, that could push up the cost of all Right. Right, new contracting for solar. I think that maybe Yeah. What you're getting at. Right? Right. And so that have a dimension. Not only the cost, but then the incremental cost that everybody has to pay Yes. Should be considered by the commission in in this contracting. That that's the goal. That's not in this provision. That's more in the one above, I guess, on one sixteen and seventeen. And you could even add the word renewable energy standard cost into 'sixteen and 'seventeen there to be clear. We think that'd be appropriate.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: If it's not, then it's okay. Okay. K.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So we're on to page four. So on page four here, we're still under all the requirements of a large load service equity contracts. It shall we deleted lines one through six because it now was duplicative of the lines above. And on line seven, for the duration of the contract, The original language had shall not be less than ten years, and we removed the specificity of the years on that. And the reason that I did that was because it really, the the length of the contract could be shorter or longer just as long as the protections, in particular, the stranded cost provision that's later on that was in the original are accounted for. And so, you know, there there's a there's a world where a eight year contract, the data center pays for any of the transmission upgrades that it caused and any of the energy that was procured and etcetera, and that still is beneficial. It just the specificity of the ten years, so that's why we took it.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I think from hearing you say that that the stranded costs kind of cover I'm worried about the evolving nature of this whole industry, that it could collapse, that, you know, it could get much more efficient. Like, all sorts of things could happen. And so don't wanna see a community with something huge erected that's there for, you know, five years and they go belly up and, you know, so you're saying that that will be addressed under the

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think it's addressed under in in two ways. One, with a stranded cost provision, that is later on. And then two, in the, previous provisions where we're saying that that data center needs to pay for all the infrastructure costs that are necessary, and they really they they could set up the contract to pay for all of those in eight years and, you know, just have a, you know, an eight year contract, and everything is gonna pay for. But in that way, think you can it's possible to get the same protections in a year less or two years less. So this allow for, like

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: let's go out for any, like, there's no minimum.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Right. So

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: at some point, there's a business decision calculation that Right. Right. Have to build something. Yes. That's a lot of,

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: yeah, investment. Right. The Right. The other center will want certainty also in terms and so I think that the market will it wouldn't be a one year contract, that's not gonna be worth it for anybody, and so I think you would see some number of years, but I don't know what they I don't know what the right number is, and so having it having the contracts, the guardrails on the contract to protect what we wanna protect, I think, kinda makes the specific number of years not as

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: relevant. But don't you need to have so when you're thinking about, like, the costs that will be incurred, don't you have to measure that in time? Yes.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: But it could you could measure it over any number of time periods. Okay.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So So that'll be up to the PUC to determine we're gonna think about this being in place for five years or twenty five years?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. And the contract would be proposed, you know, the tariff would be proposed and, yeah, it would be up to the PUC to consider is the length of contract appropriate to recover all of the necessary costs from the data center. And

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It makes sense to me. Mhmm. Exactly.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Question? Yeah. I haven't read through the end of this, but can we talk about decommissioning funds anywhere? There

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: are is a stranded cost, and I and I think there is a

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: decommissioning. It's later in the belly. Later.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Happen. Thank you.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: As we're talking about Yeah. They're going belly up in five years and leaving the community with a big metal building filled with a whole bunch of electronics Mhmm. That need to be removed before you turn it into a paintball facility.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So line line 13. Again, the the the data center will need to pay a minimum amount or percentage based on the data center's projected electricity usage for the duration of the contract. So this kind of gets to, like, they're gonna pay a minimum amount to cover costs, and then we just tie added to tie it back to section b one, which is ensuring that ratepayers are not

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: on the hook.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Sorry. So I just wanna note that I just reread line seven, which says the contract has to specify the duration of the contract, which is where I was gonna stop the thing. I don't don't have to specify that. It does say that. It's just it's not. Right. Yes. Sorry. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. On we go. Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Alright. So lines fourteen and fifteen on page four here. This is the reasonable charge for demand in excess of the data center's projected electricity demand at the time of the contract so that I think this was just modification of the language that was already here to get to what it thought was the intent of it is that we're forecasting their usage going forward. If they use more, that the contract will account for that, and they are gonna have to pay, you know, a reasonable charge for that demand.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Line 19 requires the, contract to include provisions for implementation of demand side management operational measures, which would include load flexibility, as well as for the collection of gross receipts tax and any other fees or charges that are applicable on electricity. And so this is really intended to require efficiency and load management via part of the contract. And we didn't did not wanna specify exactly what was to be done for, energy efficiency and flexibility. Again, you know, creative solutions could could be out there. They could bring their own renewable generation plus storage. They could really implement the most cost effective equipment, and all that would be kind of addressed in consideration of approval of the large load contract. Later on in the bill, there was a whole section on demand side management. You'll see that that is deleted for this more concise provision here that just calls for the utility to address it in the contract. So we're on the page five here. On line six here, we we removed the new subdivision or the original draft subdivision of citing, but it keeps some of the requirements of the commission. And so this gets to some of the conversation we had earlier with the Labies Review Board here. It it does continue to require that sorry. I accidentally edited in this Word document. Think it had changed my lines for instance, my notes. Copy.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Just make sure it's saved.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Do have space. Bear with me. So that first section from line six to 11 just kinda clarifies the language. Commission shouldn't approve one of these contracts unless the commission finds that it promotes the general bid of the state and then has provisions underneath in line, 12 to 13, really just changing the language to approve XER service equity contract referencing that I think it's the right, provision. And then on line 17, it removes the orderly development criteria.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So you've removed citing language Right. From this, presuming It sounds like two fifty.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Correct. So

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So you wouldn't have two fifty in February or a CPG. You wouldn't have two fifty in a CPG.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. So the orderly development and then later on, it's aesthetics and natural resources all removed from this language and the PUC's responsibility. And with the expectation that that would go under at February, notwithstanding what we talked about earlier about if there's a project under 10 acres that doesn't use a lot of water and doesn't trigger act two fifty review, that that gap we talked about. We wanna circle back to that gap at the end that I think would probably be the most appropriate, if that makes sense. We can talk about it now if want.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just, So I understand that you're taking out all the Act two fifty slash sighting considerations because that would not be department slash PUC. It's not the part of the project you'd be doing. So I guess I'll just need to sit with our alleged counsel and get back to this, like, deep worry I have Yeah. That this be done. So and I know that's not it's not a new question. It's just when I first read the bill, I was like, alright. This is good because we're you know, everything is gonna be looked at. So I'll I'll just need to talk to Okay. You know, our our alleged counsel, I think, to make sure that we're not creating some massive loophole or

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I am.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But I understand what I I understand what you're doing here, which is that you are stripping out the language that would not be relevant to the parts of the project that PUC would be in charge of. Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So that is on, again, on page five, it's the orderly development criterion. Page six, on line four, that's the aesthetics, historic sites, air and water purity, natural environment criterion, and some natural resources.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. So

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: far. That that originally, I believe, was modeled off of section two forty eight. And so on line 12, it it removes, consistency with the, comprehensive oh, I'm sorry. It removes consistency with the distribution utilities integrated resource plan. The, you know, in the load is really never and end users aren't really subject to the the integrated resource plan. The a special contract would, could be considered, relevant, but these are kind of one offs that, you know, utility as they're planning. As I'm talking about this, I actually am not I I could see a reason to keep that provision in. So forgive me here. But I I think we originally deleted it in thinking, okay. Well, generation developers, that that provision is waived in two forty eight proceedings for integrated resource plan. Load, like a ski area, doesn't need to be consistent with integrated resource plan. A utility needs to be integrate consistent with the integrated resource plan. And so I think just by its nature, it's not something the commission can start to rule on in this in a a large load of tariff. If that were to be kept in, I don't think you may object.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: No.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Well, your your comment here says something about an extreme example being younger generation as it

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: was called. Well, in some of the less extreme,

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: the same idea was, and that's still not consistent with

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: general. Think that Would

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: that go

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: well, would that be consistent with the integrated re well, so we're talking about the utilities integrated resource plan right now. Right? And so, you know, utilities buy gas now in the spot market. You know, I think it I think the more sort of looking for the provisions that have more impact here are the renewable energy standard provisions and the impact to other ratepayers. Yeah. You know, I think a natural gas generation there would hit, you know, air quality, like, permits that need that separate from this process. Sure. It's a better. There that

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: would be underhand over. Yeah.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And if it was electric generation, I mean, if it was like a natural gas plant, most likely, you're gonna be Not not necessarily, but most likely putting exporting to grid at some point as well. Go under So then the other act two fifty

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: or act section two forty eight. Right? Two forty eight. Appreciate it.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's been

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: line ten, eleven. The community noise levels and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. So community with noise noise would be covered noise would be covered under two fifty.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think so.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I think that's important. Confirm that. And emissions reduction requirements. Why strike that?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's not at two fifty.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: No. Yeah. I I agree. I think we should keep that. I think that could be one we keep. K. I think I And the noise I struck it altogether. The noise, I think well, subject to check. I if act two fifty doesn't cover it, then it could be covered here.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But Yeah. I understand they're let me see.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Where are the noise regs for wind? They're not in Where are they? Yeah. They're not in two fifty. Are they No.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: The PUC. Yeah. They're not. Enforces those anyway. And

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: then, that's active. I I'm more looking over. I But she's not

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Maria's not the active

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I know. I'm not expecting I'm not expecting you back. Counsel.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Come back.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Thank

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: you. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But you're not seeing my head.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So, yeah, I'm curious about prime ag. I'm curious about noise and GWSA stuff we need to keep

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: in there. 10 DSA 6,001 is our two fifty. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So then it's really about noise. It's the noise and the emissions. The emissions. Because Yeah. Act two fifty, that could that could have created a. Oops. K. Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. And just to be crystal clear, I agree with keeping the greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirement in here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And what about the next three lines? Are you going through 14?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well, the the least cost integrated resource plan, I don't I don't think that one is necessary if that if we we do have the the next section or the next lines are the energy plan, and I think that my mind is is more important, and then IRPs have to be consistent with the guidelines in the energy plan also. So but if I think I think that's a it's a hard yeah. I think you could include keep the IRPs if you are concerned about it, but I think it's covered by the energy plan. The same types of issues.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Just leave that for later. Yeah.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Sorry. Doing doing some of this on the fly. I'll think about that more too and have a maybe a more clear answer for you, but I do appreciate the feedback on the red line. Greenhouse gas was a mess. Okay. The lines eighteen and nineteen are consistent with the long range transmission plan provided by Velco. That one's it's not it's not really clear how their, those would tie together a a large load there. I mean, the plan just said provide some forecasts of different scenarios of future load and what here are the reliability deficiencies under those forecasts, and here's how we plan for those. If this contract is consistent or not with a long range transmission plan, it's a hard thing to grasp how that would work together.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because these are issues you'd be considering as part of the contract.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: As the core of the contract.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Correct. Yes. Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Page seven now. Lines one through 11 are the other, citing criteria, and those are deleted. Just to point out that I know these are issues of import, so making sure that act two fifty, covers them is important, but adverse effect on waters, the deleted can economically be served by existing or planned transmission because that will be covered elsewhere in the contract. But leave the applicable air pollution control requirements.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's not Yeah.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: That's not an act two fifty. So we 50. Would be covered under an a r. It would be covered in a a and r permit. In in theory, you could keep that here and that then ANR would need to make or the commission would need to be make a finding that it is covered under that permit.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Who might need to get an A

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: and R. That yeah. That was

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: we had a couple of.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm. Who's here? Yeah. But have they seen this?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: They have.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: ANR has?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well, they saw it. Yes. I I sent it to them over the weekend last weekend.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Good for you.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So they I think that one thing that they highlighted is what we talked about earlier, the potential gap, we're okay with the rest of it. You know? I think that applicable air permits would have to be had anyway, and I think that's why we deleted it from here. But I think. K. Let's see. Line 12 keeps it from the original version consistently with consistent with efficiency requirements. We don't necessarily have efficiency requirements per se, but

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I read that to be our, like, broader efficiency Framework. Framework. Yes. Did you hear director Walk's testimony for the

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I did not. And I I I started to read the written, but I didn't get through it. So I So what we've proposed here as it relates to efficiency is that the commission needs to Contemporary. A contract that ensures efficiency. It does not specify how that efficiency is done, so it it provides some flexibility for creative solutions.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I think he was hoping for them to for the efficiency utility to be brought in

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: At the get go.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: At the get go. No exemptions and ongoing, like Right. Of the charge.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So, yeah, I I didn't in my mind, I think there could be value in opportunity for a broader look, and maybe that path is right, but, you know, I think, GlobalFoundries IBM has operated pretty well under a different solution, as it relates to efficiency. And so is there a a solution that isn't through Efficiency Vermont? I I don't I don't know. But I think the PUC is probably best suited to kinda say it's, efficiency, you know, maybe it's efficiency Vermont, maybe it's this other solution that is proposed. And so, you know, with I could imagine language in here that actually says makes that explicit, that kinda choice that the commission, maybe it bulks up what we put in here. It says that, you know, you have to account for efficiency, and it makes it more explicit, like, we'll we'll do, you know, no we'll not be exempt from the, efficiency charge unless it has another approved method that meets certain criteria. So I could see some path there that gives both options. But

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: don't have to switch up on my head. Yeah.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Okay. And then line 16 here, remove the oh, I so, line four 15 here deletes, adequately accounts for potential facility decommissioning. The reason that that was deleted is thinking that it was covered under no adequate, you know, protections for ratepayers and not putting costs on ratepayers. And that along with the stranded cost provision, so that there'd be no stranded costs, you know, cost caused by the facility that that are borne by, ratepayers or others. I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: think we should leave it in. I I don't think that's I think it used too much to assumption.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I don't object. Don't be thinking of anything.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And then the remainder of the page here removes rulemaking by the commission as not necessary under the under the construct of the large load service equity contract. So they wouldn't have to no longer have to do any of this world banking.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So so there wouldn't be a rule making process

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So we need

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I was seeing as another venue for public participation and legislative approval. So not so sure about that.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Well,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, Maria? Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I was just gonna say, I I think that rule making under the original draft, it was the citing process. And so it had all of the criteria that the PUT would look at. It didn't have any of the procedure, like notice goes out when, hearings when, who can participate. All the procedural stuff was left for rule making, but now that that's being removed, that's why that was struck. It cut right? Because 248A and 248A, they all have their procedures that are used by the PUC in deciding whether or not to approve a CPG. Under this construct, it's not following that model. So, it's just looking at the contract, making sure the contract includes all of these provisions and the criteria the PC looks at to approve a contract, but there isn't a whole process for public participation or right? So it's

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: just a question of if

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you wanna add any other process. Or

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, so if I'm understanding this right, so the

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the Siding.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The PUC would be developing a large load contract. And how would that process be public or commiserate?

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, let me just clarify. I think the way I was instructed is at the what you're doing, the legislature is specifying at a minimum, provisions need to be in the large, the contract. Right? You have all of these things need to be met. Then the PUC either approves or disapproves the contract and list a number of things that the PAC weighs in in making that determination. There isn't right now, I don't think,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: A public We could add that.

[Maria Royal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could add a hearing. You could add Workshop. Some yeah. I mean, whatever you feel is appropriate for more public participation.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: And I think there are there are a, you know, a larger load service equity contract tariff would be proposed to the commission, and it would go through kind of the traditional public utility commission process. So Which

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: a public process.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right. Which is a public process, which, as as you stated before, acknowledge that it can be challenging for individuals in particular to join, but it's it's also, it is a public process with public hearings.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But this is really on rate, the impact to rates, that this is the public process that we're talking about for rates. Right. For citing, we are counting on the public process in act two fifteen and contemplating whether or not we have a gap for citing, I think. So, this public process here, what we what we would insert, if we would insert anything, would be specifically on

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Structure of the contract. Right? On how on how Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But it's not on the citing, which is

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. Still, the structure of the contract seems really important because that's where

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I just wanted to have a question. All to talk about, like,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: freight costs and Yes. Decommissioning, and

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: that's super important too. We may not

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: be thinking of everything here. Yeah.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: You Yeah. Know, I think representative Sibilia is right. I think it is all about rates and stranded costs as it relates to the infrastructure developed to serve the load. Right? Transmission distribution infrastructure. It actually makes me think about decommissioning again and, you know, facility decommissioning, like the building itself. It's not something that the commission really it it does energy project generation decommissioning, but the project itself, I'm not sure which bucket that lies in. If it's a siting, decommissioning, or if it's, you know, it's electric infrastructure decommissioning.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I do is depends on

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: where the costs are, and who who who bears to the extent that the ratepayer the cost of ratepayers have to bear, then it seems like a PUC issue. Right? Right. I I agree.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: This says facility adequately, which you've asked to come back in. This adequately accounts for a potential facility decommission. Well, that's the building.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: In which case that I I am gonna go back to where I originally was, I think, and say that the building should be in the act two fifty process, like the building itself. Not sure that that is it's just like a So that You know, the commission doesn't, say, decommission a chair lift. Right. Right? Or a a snowmaking, you know, snowmaking guns that that we load on a ski resort. And so I'm not sure it's appropriate unless we are really specific in this PUC world that we're in in this bill to we could be specific to any adequately accounts for potential electric, infrastructure decommissioning. If that makes sense.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So you're suggesting that decommissioning of the facility actually should be in the other world. We have to check.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Should depend on the group. Big numbers. Could be hard to imagine how the facility decommissioning would hit rate payers. It's gonna be someone abandoned the building with a bunch of stuff in it. It's gonna land on the community, not the ratepayers. Right?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Unless it's pay unless it was paid for by ratepayers, and then we then there's the hook to have it. So if it's a how is this the generator? I don't know. Or how is this interconnection equipment? And just say something about

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: cost the cost that have an impact on on on on great bears or something something like that. And also, could you lean back and put the other switch light switch on or something?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Oh, there we go. Oh, Thank you.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Didn't we put a solar decommissioning clause in an earlier pelvis?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: We didn't. We didn't. It

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: was there, but we took it out. But

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: because we talked about it.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: It was never put in.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It was never put in.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Oh, perfect. Okay. I feel like electric generation projects often have a decommissioning plan approved and have to have a line of credit or a

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: That's where Yeah. Never did that.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I think I feel like it's already

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: It's already in there. Yeah. Okay. So but you're saying this is different because it's

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: a building and not a electrical generation. Right. So I I would say that, you know, for here, having some that adequately accounts for, electric infrastructure decommissioning would be appropriate for the PUC. But the facility I mean, facility is not really well defined here, but we're thinking about it as just the building.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: I I guess it seems it seems to me that there might be other on facility impacts of large load that affected contracts that the teams are entered into for for a pending power that maybe now now they don't need or something. Don't know. There's there seems like there are other possible impacts that are not

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: necessarily physical, but but might be contractual or something. Is that crazy to consider that? No. I think that those are the ones that we're trying to address earlier on in the bill when we talked about the other impacts to Well,

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: but I think now we're thinking about in terms of stranded or, you know, stranded cost by because of a facility that was anticipating operating is now no longer operating. So so and and now there's nobody to pay for it. They for pay those costs because the entity is out

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: of business. Right? So stranded costs are addressed earlier, different than decommissioning. I'm struggling with the so it sounds like what you're talking about, stranded costs, which I think are included.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Okay. So we we think that's covered elsewhere.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Right. Would the building itself be considered a stranded cost?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's kind of what I'm wondering because where where do you get to the loss of property tax

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: revenues and stuff? Yeah. Right. Well, public good.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rep. Howland?

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: But it's

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: fine. When you're talking about property taxes, how many municipalities still have a personal property tax on the inventory or the value of the equipment inside the facility. But, I mean, if you just have a bunch of chips in there that are no longer drawn on electricity or and so forth, The worst fact is that they may be hazardous in some nature. That's the site cleanup issue. Right? Mhmm. Alright. That's a site cleanup issue. Well, isn't that what we're talking about, deconditioning here and the whole site cleanup? No.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: We're trying to separate because site fishing was caused, like, a great impact. And

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I was.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: If it's falling on the jurisdiction of municipal zoning, does zoning have any bearing on that?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: There's no way. There's no way that we can have this just the other things.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Is it covered in 1958? Well,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: that's the question. So, I mean and, you know, I mean, Billy said he reviewed Billy Coster from ANR, who's the F two fifty guy, said he reviewed this. So but I don't think we specifically asked him about commission decommissioning.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. Which this this should be Yeah. Correct. Sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So I have I had a meeting. We're running a little late.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So I I can go through well, I can at least go through the changes rest of the changes quickly. I don't know if

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. If we could, and then I think I think you get to come back.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: You sure? I

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: only have two weird stoops here. Okay. So on page eight, this removes the original demand side management section in favor of what we talked about earlier. And so I won't

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: go

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: into detail on that, but it it's since we already did. On page nine, it gets into quarterly and annual reporting. On line 15, We removed the data center requirement to provide a description of interconnection requests in other states. You know, with one I'm not sure how much value that provides and just thinking about other large businesses, you know, we don't ask Vail Enterprises. I I keep going to a skewed resorts because they're a a large load, but tell us if they're, you know, thinking about buying another mountain in another state or so Yes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I think this potentially has value just because we know that they're trying they're getting into a bunch of queues.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Right.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So That's before, not after. So Alright. Right?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Yep. That's right. Okay.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: We did add some language for them to report on info related to the shared infrastructure that was constructed to support the data center.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yeah. I'm just I thought

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: that that could be useful. On line 19 for, public service department reports, we we, modified the language a little bit so that we would just include it as part of our annual energy report. Mhmm. And and then only have it be if a data center locates here, but we'll also then report on developments in the region, like, what's going to happen in Mhmm. So you get some of that from just our experience with in in talking with our counterparts in other states and what's what's really going on elsewhere.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: The region means I South.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes. That's what yes. That's K. How I use that term, but we You know, it could be outside of ISO if it's ISO going on if it's relevant, honestly. And then section page 10, we removed the section on creating a new financing structure from data centers, since we felt like the renewable energy standard, gross receipts tax, and efficiency are addressed elsewhere as part of the approval of the contract that kinda legislatively say, you're taking a certain amount of this money for a to be determined fund. We didn't think that was appropriate.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: And

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: and that's it. I you know, I I'll just close and say we think we'll really appreciate this approach and like this a lot better than a potential moratorium where we can set guidance and say, yes, if and yes, if it is good for the state and really appreciate this approach and appreciate you all letting us give you feedback on it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: TJ, I'm just looking at the I'm just looking at the agenda. So you're coming at 02:00, and we have, like, an hour and fifteen minutes tomorrow. So why don't we Get you

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: another mug.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Set aside a little bit of that time to finish any questions about your suggestions on the data center field. Okay. Is that okay? And Alex, you can just update the agenda to show that TJ's gonna be talking about both of those things.

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Is there is there are there specifics you want me to address? I think I kinda I

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: don't know. Covered

[TJ Poor (Director of Regulated Utility Planning, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: our thinking, but if there's

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Maybe. Okay. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I I mean, I just I don't know. I just wanna put it on the agenda so that we can return to this if folks have questions. Perfect. And then, Alex, 09:00 votes Thursday morning on the committee bill. You can take that off the agenda. That is no longer ready for climb time. Okay. Let's go off live, and thank you so much. Alrighty.