Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We're live. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Tuesday, March 10, the policy crossover week. My name's Kathleen James, and I'm from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint Johnsbury. Richard Bailey, Memorial two. Please tomorrow, wind Windsor, heaven fifth. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Rutland four.

[Speaker 0]: Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Graham Putner, Chittenden 13, Burlington.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Laura Great. And in the room.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Dana with Harris in the group. Joan Sibilia.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Maria Royal with legislative council.

[Speaker 0]: Great. You know what, let's leave the door open. All right, just a quick, we've got a walk through of H-seven 27, our data center bill, but just quickly before we do that, I wanted to give a little preview of this week. We have five bills that we are going to discuss and try to get voted out by Friday. Friday is our deadline. And I would anticipate that our schedule might be changing a little bit just as we have committee discussions, as we hear back from people. But the five bills are our conversation around the Joint Carbon Emissions Reduction Committee. We're going to talk about that this afternoon. We're not voting it out. There's no bill yet. Ellen has the changes that we talked about to the statute. I just sent those to her earlier today. And then we were going to talk about a possible session law addition. So that feels kind of on the way. H seven fifty three, we have an updated draft that should be in everybody's inboxes and or posted and or both. And then some one additional piece of testimony and request from Vermont Gas that should be in everybody's inbox and posted. The committee bill, our miscellaneous PUC bill, we're gonna be talking about tomorrow morning. Data center bill we're talking about right now. And the residential building energy bill is

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: There's a there's a new draft of that.

[Speaker 0]: There's a new draft of

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: sending to a palace right now. Great. And you

[Speaker 0]: can send to the committee.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Send to everybody?

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

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Alright. So that's that's the preview. But for now, Rutland. Oh my god. Thought you thought you were gesturing at me.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. I was

[Speaker 0]: Sorry. Movement out of the corner of my eye. Alright. So, anyway, it's gonna be a kind of a could be kind of a stop and go week because I want to allow plenty of time for community discussion, plenty of time for community votes. Actually, I want to allow some time for our committee members to prepare floor reports if they need some time. And I don't feel like we need to dive into all of our post crossover stuff this week. So if we're gaffy, it's because I'm trying to give us all time to do our work and get our floor reports ready and be buttoned up. And then next week after crossover, we'll start round two. So alrighty. So, Rep Sibilia, I know you worked a lot on this bill over break and appreciate all that work. And do you wanna give everybody an overview, or should

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: we just start the walk through? Yeah. Thanks, Madam Chair. We have

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Ledge Council here, so that will be helpful. I just wanted to say we've incorporated a number of changes. Thank you to Representative Southworth and Bram, representative Kleppner, for their comments and their very specific comments about water. Hopefully, we've gotten those buttoned down, in this. There's been a lot of stakeholder engagement. And I think it is fair to say that we may hear from a number of witnesses who will be coming to testify that they appreciate the work so far and are reserving the right to continue to make changes in the senate. I will say personally, I think that's appropriate given how big this policy area is, how new this policy area is. And we certainly will have to decide if they like what the senate does with this.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: If they're not

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: We'll continue to think this is really important for us So we've done a lot of work and discussion with the administration, with, energy stakeholders and environmental organizations as well as council. And and Maria, in particular, thank you so much for all the revisions that you've done here. So we're doing our best in an area that is rapidly evolving and changing. And so I feel like we've got a a decent frame

[Speaker 0]: to move forward. Thanks, Rep. Sibilia. What I what I heard you saying and what I'm taking into this walk through is and that I saw the extent of the stakeholder engagement over town meeting break. It was it was awesome. What I'm hearing you saying is that probably not everybody is getting every single thing they want or probably not everybody is completely a 100% like this is done, but you feel like this is a draft worthy of our consideration for a vote so we can get it over to the senate because who knows what's gonna happen over there.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Maria.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want the door open? Skills is hot. Is that why?

[Speaker 0]: It's it's so

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: hot. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Unless it gets distracting.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: May I ask you one more thing?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So this is an unusual in terms of just the scale of the subject matter that is being in the statute area that is being considered in here. So we had three different attorneys in the campus, which is unusual. Yes. And especially during crossover as this thing is starting to scale up. So, again, wanna thank all of the alleged counsel. Michael Grady has also done a lot of work on this for for a lot of support.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: So I'm only seeing the as introduced, my h seven twenty seven page.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Might not be posted. It's posted. I just posted, like, ten minutes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I know

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: they might be Okay. Yes. But it should be on Alright.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Here we go.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Drop 1.2.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Posted on today.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, and house environment is not taking possession of the bill, but they are doing a walk through and fly by tomorrow morning?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Today, I think.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Today, Michael Brady Yeah. Is in there to go over the water provisions. And then tomorrow, I'm gonna be in there and see Ellen, if she's available, review the rest of this.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I have it. Okay. So Maria Royal with Legislative Council. And so just a few kinda introductory clarifying remarks. The changes that you'll see in this draft that are highlighted in yellow are changes to the bill as introduced. Because I know you saw some other proposals, some other draft language, but this is just to the languages introduced. And then also really big picture before we start going through, I thought it might be helpful to tell you what is in here and what isn't in here. Then it'll become, I think, a little bit clearer as we go through specifics. In the bill as introduced, you have the PUC coming up with a general tariff that would be applicable to all data centers, kind of terms and conditions generally applicable to data centers in the state. And then each data center would enter into a specific contract with the utility and electric company. There were required contractual provisions that needed to be included in the contract. There was also a section that required a data center to get a CPG, kind of the citing piece of it, which was modeled after two forty eight, two forty eight a, those CPG requirements. That has been taken out, that CPG requirement. There's language in here that makes data centers subject to act two fifty. And then in terms of the tariff contract issues, basically they've been merged into one requirement. So there's no longer a general tariff that the PUC developed. Instead, it's the contract with the utility and very specific criteria that need to be met subject to the PUC's review and approval and the specific findings that the PUC must make. So anyway, that's big picture. I just wanted you to have that in the forefront of your mind as we start to go through it. So, that being said, so it's a proposed strike ball amendment. A couple of changes. As representative Sibilia mentioned, some of these changes reflect what you heard proposed from the Department of Public Service. For example, the very first change on line 16, just changing the word essential to emerging. A regulatory framework that ensures responsible growth of an emerging industry in a manner that protects existing electric ratepayers from unwarranted costs and promotes sustainable climate, environmental, community, and equity outcomes consistent with state policies. The definition has not changed. So the data center is a facility that has to have to use 20 megawatts or more power. And then the facility is all of the infrastructure equipment structures associated with the data center. So that brings us to line nine, section two eighty four. So this is a new subchapter in title 30 and specifically in chapter five. Just to orient you a little bit more. So, as I mentioned, there's no longer general tariff requirement. There is just a specific requirement that a data center enter into what's called a large load service equity contract. This is similar to the language that was proposed by the department. So we'll just read through that first subsection A so you get a I

[Speaker 0]: hate to interrupt you. I need to understand a little bit better what the general tariff would have been. Can you just remind me of like, so tariffs out and instead we do these large. Could you just back me up there?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, sure. So the terminology actually was a little bit confusing for me, I appreciate the question. But before getting into it, so the general tariff, that would have been something that the PUC developed that applied to all data centers, minimum kind of requirements. This is how you have to operate. These are the terms and conditions of operating in Vermont. Every data center applies to every data center. Right? So that was just a requirement in your original draft that the PUC had to come up with those generally applicable terms applying to all data centers. That requirement has been removed. And instead, there's just the contract between a data center and a distribution utility and very specific provisions that need to be in that contract and then specific findings that the PUC needs to make before approving a contract. Right? So individual contracts or tariffs. It's it's just another form of tariff. The special contract, another form of tariff unique to each distribution utility. Okay. That makes sense?

[Speaker 0]: Yes. So instead of the PUC at the 10,000 foot level, saying we're going to develop this set of the general tariffs that would apply to any data center that tries to come, here are the guidelines, that's out. And now we're saying instead, if any specific single data center wants to come and or at any every data center that wants to come, each one will have to have its own contract with utility and that contract will have to be worked out according to the points that we put in. Yep, and approved. And approved. And the PUC has to approve it. Okay. That Uh-huh. Is now very clear to me. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: And the they wouldn't be able to do what with the new IBM Oh, the company. Global boundaries is doing with with the doing your own utility?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: This doesn't specifically account for that now.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It doesn't say one way or

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: the other.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't it doesn't address that at all. And if yeah. So if you wanted to make room for allowing that, you could add language. That's a little clearer because I I'm not sure

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: that that's the language. Like a a large load. Yeah. Let's well, I think that

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So far, self managed. The utility is it. Yeah. Yeah. And the only the reason why I'm saying it's not necessarily permissible under this is because you'll see, you know, in in that very first subsection a, line 17 through 19, the data center shall be served by an electric company Right. Pursuant to.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's best. So that's why

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I would I would wanna open up that line. Notwithstanding this, you know, if you wanted to include something like that, the data center could be approved for. No. I I

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: was just wanting to get clarity on language. I don't have a strong opinion about it.

[Speaker 0]: And I've got one more. Sorry. And, again, back to your high level stuff. So, in addition, what's out is that, a data center would have had to go through the two forty eight process with the PUC and get a certificate of public good. That's out because instead they're going to have PAC two fifty review and they will have to have this contract.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Correct.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Except any improvements that the utility has to make to make this, to service this load. Those improvements will go through the two forty eight process.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: If they separately trigger two forty eight, there's nothing that would, Right. Correct. So, any all the laws and regulations still apply. If there are any other triggers for any other review, nothing's being waived. And I'll also just mention there are some findings that you can probably eliminate now because they're covered under Act two fifty. So just kind of holdover language that can probably be stricken, but we'll address that for those provisions when we get there. So, again, this contract must be approved by the commission and then the large load service equity contract shall. And we'll go through each of these. Some of this is just combining subdivisions but there is some additional language. I'll read the first one. Include a method for allocating costs that is equal or proportional to the cost of providing electric service to the data center, including providing for equitable contributions to the embedded costs and the efficiency, reliability and resiliency of the electricity network. In particular, that embedded costs language was proposed by the department. And I believe what it's getting at is not just the cost of any new infrastructure, but any, to the extent the data center relies on existing infrastructure that they pay their fair share for the use and upgrade maintenance of the existing infrastructure.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Does electricity network include distribution and transmission?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: To mitigate the risk of other ratepayer classes paying unwarranted costs, including any electric generation distribution and transmission infrastructure costs incurred to meet the load requirements of a data center or the energy capacity transmission or resource adequacy costs incurred as a result of the data center's load. And again, this reflects language that the department proposed, not just looking at the specific infrastructure costs, but also kind of the regional needs in terms of adequacy of the existing grid and capacity of the existing grid. So then you'll see some provisions restricting here, and actually, I'm gonna need to renumber this, so it hasn't been permitted yet. No longer including, or not mentioning the renewable energy targets, all of those currently exist in law, there's no change there. Mandatory capital provisions, that's no longer relevant. And then the general, any other conditions that commission required, that's stricken. So, then what's being stricken is, so what had preceded this were the general tariff requirements and then what came next were the specific contractual requirements. But as I mentioned, they're merged. So, subsection C, that language on page four lines one and two is stricken because we are talking about the contract provisions. So, specify the duration of the contract, longer requiring that the contract be not less than ten years, but instead saying that the duration that specify the duration of the contract and the date or the estimated date that the electric company will be given to provide electric service to the data center. That obligate the data center to pay a minimum amount or percentage based on the data center's projected electricity use for the duration of the contract to ensure compliance with subdivision B1. That's the allocation of costs. The data center being responsible for its proportion of any incremental costs, new costs. Include a collateral requirement sufficient to mitigate the risk of stranded costs. Yes?

[Speaker 0]: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, Rick Southworth?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think I asked this before, but I want to make sure that that one's number seven, the collateral requirement will cover decommissioning.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Or is there that

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it's sort of getting to that, but there is another section on the document that was put back in in response to the questions that you raised.

[Speaker 0]: And I have a question back on page two zero one. Okay. We are able to so that all the stricken language there, three, four, five, and so on, That was tariff related?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. With the exception of the renewable energy standard, which you're just not you're just not including in here, but those standards would still apply to utilities. The rest of the language is, you know, reflects the mandatory contractual for the Right. This is the contract.

[Speaker 0]: So Yeah. And I remember we we did talk about this. It's it's the utility that is compliant with the rest. So, and they're entering a contract with utility. Right.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So, I'm now on six, which gonna be five next draft. Line 10 on page four include a reasonable charge for demand in excess of the data centers projected electricity demand at the time the contract is entered into. So, to the extent it goes beyond what it anticipates using, that there should be some s some charge for that usage.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: The collateral requirement to mitigate the risk of stranded costs. Then, new language, and this is very yep. I'm sorry. I'm going

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: to keep interrupting you. That's fine.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Is is is this this appears to be kilowatt hours demand rather than a demand charge.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Total kilowatt. So if you may look at me, but demand when I worked for the utility, a demand charge was rated as the peak Yes. Rate of usage over a fifteen minute increment. So my

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: question is, is this referred to the demand charge, or is it referred to just the total usage?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a good question. It doesn't specify, so how that charge would be calculated. So you might wanna do that.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: It seems it seems like we should clarify that.

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

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's a good idea. So then bottom of page four, this also largely reflects the proposal by the department that the contract include provisions requiring implementation of demand side management operational measures, including harnessing load flexibility for the purpose of maintaining grid stability and efficiency.

[Speaker 0]: What does that mean,

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: harnessing load flexibility? This could be anything from requiring, like, on-site generation or storage or its own flexible usage. So if there's too much demand on the system, the data center can switch to its own power or to its own storage. Sometimes referred to as load shedding, so the load on the system as a whole is not overextended. It's just way of mitigating any risks to the reliability of the system as a whole.

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

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Certainly, a good question if you want to, again, clarify what that means. Do have any concerns about that? That's

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: it might be a good idea. Okay. Well, well, yeah. Either either either better or on-site generation of some sort. Right? That's

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Including on-site storage or load shedding.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Right. Yep. Okay. Okay.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And then Subdivision 9 includes provisions for the collection of gross receipts taxes, energy efficiency charges, and any other fees or charges that may be applicable to electricity revenues. So they would be paying the energy efficiency charge and their portion of the gross receipts tax, which is the regulatory tax that utilities collect.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: This is all still in contact. Yes.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Then finally, just a general on page five, meet any other terms or conditions required by the condition consistent with the purpose of this section and in the public interest. So, the new subsection C is the section that specifies the Commission shall not approve a large load service equity contract unless the commission first find that the same will promote the general good of the state. And then subsection d yep.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: So we took out all the language previously about the commission and then and went back with the commission.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Or I'm sorry?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: So this is a contract between the utility and the data center?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That the commission has to approve it. The the commission has to approve. I see. It's a that's

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: that's I see. In any other terms or conditions required by the physician. So they can require extra stuff, not just a crew or or Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: It has to

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: be promoting the general good of the state. And

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: so approval fee commission approval is required. And then, basically, subsection c, if they the commission should not approve a contract unless it makes specific finding, but it promotes the general good of the state. And then b are very specific findings that the commission needs to to make. So before Subsection D, before the Commission approves a large load service equity contract as required under Subsection C, or it should be just under this section, the Commission shall find that the proposed data center, including any upgrades to electric generation distribution and transmission facilities necessary to power the data center, one, will not adversely affect the efficiency, reliability and resilience of the electric power system. That what is stricken there is basically a reference to municipal and regional planning commissions. But because you have that at two fifty book now, that subdivision is supposed to be stricken. It will result in an economic benefit to the state and its residents. On the top of page six, subdivision three, this is one of the subdivisions that you may most of it anyway, you may be able to delete because it's covered by F-two 50 or not. But they're a couple of them just flagging. So whatever however you wanna address those. Yeah. That's an open question. To what extent this overlaps with or the criteria in act two fifty, etcetera. Also, would be definitely, with the exception of what's on line seven and eight, the attainment of the state's greenhouse gas emissions production

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: requirements.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Any event to be determined, Subdivision 4 is consistent with the principles for resource selection expressed in the applicable electric distribution companies approved least cost integrated plan. And that those plans have to be consistent with what's in Subdivision 5, the electrical energy plan that's approved by the department unless there exists good cause to permit a variance. There was a proposal to strike a reference to the Vermont long range transmission plan that Velco prepares. I think because that's incorporated in the energy plan and the lease cost integrated plans of the utilities that they take account of those the long range transmission plans. And I think that was the GPS situation. GPS. I believe. That's correct. We'll not have so some of the water and air requirements might might be able to speak to these, but there may be some already covered or not. So I'm just gonna read through them. So six will not have an adverse effect on any statement of the waters of the state that have been designated as outstanding resource waters by the secretary of natural resources. Sorry. Can you just remind me what

[Speaker 0]: waters have been designated as outstanding resource waters?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is Michael Gray with legislative councils. Those that are of a higher quality and meet certain criteria of a specific nature to require designation as outstanding in there. Then manage differently than say, pass a, pass b water. The designation of an outstanding resource water needs to be done by coal.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: When you say higher quality, does that mean drinking water purposes?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's general quality, meeting all the traditional uses of a of a water. It's aquatic biota. It's aquatic habitat, aesthetics, recreation. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: That's helpful.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Question for So that would cover most waters in the state? No. Some of Some surface and surface or no? No. Outstanding resource waters are a subclass of most of the waters in the state. They are limited in number when compared to the total university waters. They are such high quality that they exceed most of the other waters out of the state. So

[Speaker 0]: This is we're calling out specifically here this kind of gold standard category of water, and then we get into the rest of the water language.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. I mean, to to an extent, because of act two fifty, you might not need that language about outstanding resource waters. It's about how how confident you are that act two fifty is going to cover all of your concerns about water. That's why you have that separate section. That's why you have this separate call out about protecting outstanding resource. And and, actually, it's roughly

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: what proportion of 58 waters would be outstanding resource water? I

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I can look that up. It's it's don't have that on top of my head. 5%, 40%. I'd say probably less than one. Less than 1%? Okay. So

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: half of page seven, subdivision seven, finding can be served economically by existing or planned transmission facilities without undue adverse effect on Vermont utilities or other retail ratepayer classes. Complies with applicable air pollution control requirements under the federal Clean Air Act. Yeah. That's a good question.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. Why did we choose federal instead of state? Like, I know the next one we're referencing is NVSA. This is the federal Clean Air Act, cleaner than the American I mean, the state Clean Air Act.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I think originally it was in there because it was part of one of the two forty eight a figure, But, I know somebody in the room who might be able to answer this question better than I can. Have a similar

[Speaker 0]: question for Ellen, I assume, which is, is the federal Clean Air Act More stringent. At risk? Well, no.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I just

[Speaker 0]: think it is at more risk.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Exactly.

[Speaker 0]: So we

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: That's what

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I asked.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So Yes. Clarify my question. So if we're concerned about this federal Clean Air Act being potentially at risk, Is there a reference in Vermont statute that is similar? What are the differences that we could put in instead?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: You have a chapter in that?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I can answer this question because in the miscellaneous environmental subjects bill, there's a provision that's intended to address when or if federal programs are amended in a way that the state programs at risk. So it allows the public agency, not just environmental agencies and public agencies to go to emergency rulemaking to put say that reference to the federal clean water act was no longer relevant. That has been repealed. By taking that away, you you make the state program kind of a house of clearance. So the ANR would be able to go to emergency rulemaking and set what the standard in narrative form would be under 42 USC 70, a cancellation of four zero one Okay. For a 188. Sorry. And then they could go to permanent rulemaking to make that to make those substantive provisions permanent or prescave proceed application. So they're able to. They're not required to. Yeah. They're able to, but in the testimony that that was provided on the emergency rulemaking provision under, six twenty three, There are programs like the clean, the air pollution control regs at ANR or the Medicaid. It

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: would create a lot of disarray like that.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And and there there is an executive order from president Trump to direct agencies to repeal rules that were adopted in part under standards that the US Supreme Court has said are no longer relevant. And if that happens, we were supposed to do it quickly, but there's been litigation about it. That happens. A lot of state programs are at risk of. I I don't even know how to characterize it. They they will be subject to challenge.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Not checking. I'm just is it I'm sorry. Where did you say that that existed in a bill that's moving now?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. It's in 06/06/1932. June, which is in house appropriations. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: But we do have state

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: a state cleaner act as well. Is that fresh? Like, chapter 23 of any BSAs. Mean, you have you have air pollution control statutes and air pollution pollution control regulation. But like this reference, so many of them cross referenced federal clean air act. Right. And if the federal clean air act cross references change, then, technically, the provisions that you've cross referenced may not be enforceable or administratable. And so that's why the six thirty two has a provision. Right? It's both a bridge and a safety map.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: So it

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: bridges you over the repeal, but it also saves the state program from disarray if it's based on cross references to.

[Speaker 0]: But it's an age bill that's in approach. Right? So it has its somewhere on its journey.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It I I thought it was gonna be on the floor by the end of this week, and I was told that's not gonna happen. Okay. Again, the the six thirty two six thirty two covers sort of the spectrum of happens for any public agency in Vermont, know, just the environment. So,

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Mike, I actually have a question. I don't if this would work, but would if you there be a way to just say complies with the federal cleanup as effective on such and such date subject to additional rulemaking? Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Great. What date?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Could

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: go 01/19/2020. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I mean, you could pick from last year. I don't know

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: if there's been any updates this year, but you could pick from last January or January 2025. I don't I do not have specific knowledge about what changes have happened since then, but You did in the year. January 19.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I mean, there was the the ruling that the the basis of the California standard was no longer relevant. And so we probably can get back before then because for.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, sure.

[Speaker 0]: But I I like to pick a date idea.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: When when was that? I

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: think it's.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: We'll we'll look at that a little bit more and see if we can find something. So, the nine complies with harvesting procedures and procurement standards that ensure long term forest health and sustainability, including the guidelines and standards adopted under title 10. It's consistent with state energy efficiency requirements, including commercial building energy standards. It's consistent with environmental justice and equity policy as established under title three, chapter 72. And then finally, Subdivision 12 adequately accounts for potential facility detention. And so, a new subsection proposed and specified in E, no data center shall be eligible to participate in an energy savings account or a customer credit program pursuant to subdivision two zero nine b three c of title 30 or self managed energy efficiency program pursuant to the same section, different subsection.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So this is language that we heard from Peter Walk asking for there to be both an initial consultation to make sure that we're holding the most efficient, building possible, which might result in a pretty significant investment from Efficiency Vermont. Then also saying, now you cannot manage your own efficiency charge. I mean, if you're particular if you're building with new

[Speaker 0]: What was the earlier reference to the initial consultations on this building? I never talked about it.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's not we haven't gotten there yet.

[Speaker 0]: But we haven't gotten there yet.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's a two eighty

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: five. Yep. Okay.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So then subsection the old subsection c is striction, and this is just a criteria related to a citing proceeding that's no longer applicable here.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And this is all DPS strips.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So that's all the two forty eights. Yeah. All the two forty eight related stuff. Also stricken is the demand side management program. That's a POC has authority to establish, but this gets to the harnessing power to meet demand and the load shedding the on-site. That provision is in a contract, specific contract, and that's where such issues on the demand side would be addressed. And so there's no longer a requirement for the or authorization for the PUC that's set up a general program related to demand side management. And then section two eighty five is the energy efficiency design that representative James, I think, just mentioned. Early in the design development phase of the data center, the owner or operator of a data center shall consult with Efficiency Vermont to ensure compliance with state energy efficiency requirements and best practices.

[Speaker 0]: Any data center would pay their efficiency charge just like we all be is that just implicit or did we say

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: No. That We said that. And there was a section that said provisions requiring of their growth receipts passed, the energy efficiency charge, and any other. Okay. And so I'll let Mike talk about the water use, section two eighty six, but maybe since there's not a whole lot after that, maybe I'll just go through the unless Mike, you are you in you need to go somewhere?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm not looking for an interest.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So, just a couple more sections to the proposal section two eighty seven. This is in the bill to introduce, requiring us for quarterly and annual reports, quarterly reports by the data center. Oh, I'm sorry. I jumped ahead. Yeah. So page 12. Everything before then where we left off is related to water. Yes. Mike, we'll we'll go through that. So with respect to the reporting requirements, data center submits quarterly reports to the Department of Public Service, specifically with respect to the data center's water and energy usage, including its peak usage per day. And then a proposal to strike the interconnect any interconnection requests that it may have submitted in other states, but also include in their quarterly report an itemization of the data center's payments towards shared infrastructure constructed to support the data center. So just keeping track of consumption, water and energy, and cost payment towards infrastructure. And then the department beginning on or before 01/15/2028, And provided at least one data center has entered into a large load service equity contract under this subchapter, the Commissioner of Public Service. Do I need language service shell? Oh, no. So, in the department's existing annual report. This is the annual I believe the annual energy report. It's due on January 15 annually. Include in that report findings and recommendations related to the energy, environmental and economic impacts of data center construction and operation in Vermont, as well as any impactful developments within the region, including any benefits to all ratepayers from infrastructure projects undertaken to provide power to one or more data centers. Section two eighty eight follows the strike. This was just kind of a general provision. Looking at ways of maybe some of the revenue generated by the data centers to pay for other state policies and initiatives. Proposal is to strike that provision. The rule making section has not changed. Section two, this is the Act two fifty book, if you will. So, the construction of improvements on a tract or tracts of land or a data center as defined in the sub chapter we just went through would be subject to Act two fifty. So

[Speaker 0]: any data center of 20 megawatts and as we defined it way early on would be subject to Act two fifty. So,

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: it still applies to any data center not operational or before the date of this act. Section four is a reporting requirement. This just is asking the PUC to do a written report on projected regional renewable electric generation market conditions. And in preparing that report shall examine the cost and availability of new regional renewable electric generation resources during the years 2027 through 2035, including with respect to any changes in federal tax law, tax incentives, or tax credit availability, changes in federal permitting requirements and processes, federal trade policy, including tariffs or import restrictions affecting energy, equipment or components, federal energy, environmental, or land use policies, supply chain constraints, interconnection timelines, and regional transmission development, and any other matters being developed by the Commission. So just keeping an eye on developments and availability of renewable energy over an extended period of time.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Go back to section two there. So this line seventeen ten VSA, all that stuff is the act two fifty.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, section two. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: That's the act two fifty

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: Statute. So this is just dropping in another Yeah. Element to that statute.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's adding into the definition of the word development.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And Ellen can probably speak more specifically to that. But, yeah, I think that's it's the definition of developments which are subject to activity. There's a whole list of adding one more.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Alright. Subject to 50. See. Pretty narrow entrance. So

[Speaker 0]: development is the list of things that require act two fifty review, and we're adding one more thing to that definition. Okay.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: And so, again, back to the report, this is just saying the commission shall provide an opportunity for written input from various stakeholders that are referenced here and any other members of the public. Commission may consult with the Department of Public Service and other relevant state, regional, or federal entities as deemed appropriate. And this process is not subject to the contested case procedures under the administrative procedures act, which are the formal process. It's just more open ended review. And then the report comes to this committee and the senate committees on finance and on natural services. So those are the changes I was gonna go through. Mike has a bit of water, but in the meantime, if there are more questions for me, happy to

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'll just note that this section, I am very interested in given what we are seeing, particularly because of data centers and other large loans going to the markets. Of course. Okay.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is

[Speaker 0]: just A report.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Session off one time report. Right? Yes. One touch. And so that would you would have that this year, December 15. Great. Any other questions for me? Or you hear about the water? Just comment. Yeah. Okay. You so much, You're welcome. Wow. And, Mike, do you want me to just leave it up on my screen?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Or Whatever. Whatever you

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. I'm gonna stay, so have your answer.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. Is. I'm gonna take you to page nine, section two eight six, and talk about water where I go through the specific text. I wanna talk a little bit about the concept of why this is being added and how it overlaps with Act two fifty review. I mean, it was Act two fifty review when there is development and there's an application. The district commissions review multiple criteria, and some of those criteria, several of them apply to waters and use of waters, groundwater, etcetera. And there's also a provision in act two fifty that says when ANR issues permits for certain activities, those permits are rebuttably presumed to mean that the criteria for water has been met. But a district commission isn't always bound by those permits and can go beyond those permits or could not honor a brief provision in those permits. And so even though act two fifty is a comprehensive cumulative review of many issues, including environmental issues, The language here is being included to ensure that when there's a data center proposed for construction and operation that certain aspects of water quality are addressed and managed according to however you want to manage them as the policymakers for the state.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So with

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: that said, I'm gonna skip over the definition sections on page nine and go to 10. We're gonna come back with the definitions, but they only kinda make sense in the context of the substance.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: So

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: on page 10, line 12, a person applying to operate a data center, and you already know what the definition is as as as Maria referenced. They shall identify to the commission, the PUC, and to the district commission because this is going through act two fifty, reviewing the data center's application, how the data center will cool the facility. Sure you've heard about the need for cooling, about the energy use, how cooling is is a necessary component of these data centers, and how water is potentially how they are cooled. But on page 10, line 16, if water is used to cool a data center, your data center shall use a closed loop cooling system to minimize impacts to the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater unless the district commission, the entity reviewing the act two fifty permit, determines that the use of the closed loop cooling system is not feasible at the proposed data center. Now let's go back to the definitions because that's where closed loop pooling system is defined. Now when I got this definition, I drafted this definition. I looked around the different states that have significant debt centers. I landed on South Carolina, which apparently has several of them, and this definition is drawn from that South Carolina law, but with tweaks for. So closed loop cooling system is a sealed cooling process in which the same water or coolant circulates continuously within the data center's cooling system without withdrawal of water from municipal public water supplies, groundwater, or surface water. Right? Stop there. It's not getting its water from public. It's not getting it from groundwater. It's not getting it from surface water. It's gotta bring that water in from somewhere else. It has to identify a source of its water it is not getting it from the traditional sources of water. And it cannot have the discharge of wastewater to municipal wastewater systems, groundwater, or surface water, except for de minimis discharges authorized under a discharge permit by. A and R is all discharge of waste or pollutants into a surface water. And so if they're discharging this coolant and it even if it was just water, it will have been heated or cooled to a point that when it enters a a surface water, it is technically a pollutant. So for example, for Miami, the cooling water there, when it was discharged in Connecticut River, it needed a discharge permit because it effectively was an addition of heat into that water, which created issues with the water quality stand. So That's systems, they're not supposed to be taking water from the traditional sources. They're not supposed to be discharging into groundwater or surface water unless or those de minimis discharges approved by a and r.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: The the sorry. Withdrawal. Does that imply a need continuous withdrawal as opposed to initially charging a cooling system?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's it's any effective withdrawal, and we'll get to that in in a minute. So, I mean, I guess a couple of questions is whether somebody could interpret this is is to say you have

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: to suck in water to be able to

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So, basically, you have to identify your source, and it can't come from a public water supply. It can't come from groundwater. It can't come from surface water. Where are you getting that water? Yeah. Well, what I'm what I'm asking is the initial let's say there's a, I don't know, a thousand gallon, 10,000 gallon

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: loop for cooling the system

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: including the data center, and and that water that 10,000 gallons has to come from somewhere. Right. And and if if it's feasible, it's not supposed to come from groundwater or surface water. Okay. So this prohibition includes the initial charging of Yeah. The system. Okay.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: That's what I'm asking. Question about the word person on line 12. That legally includes

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: entities, companies. The definition of person in title one, which is the statutory interpretation or statutory construction chapter defines persons to pretty much every entity that you can think of.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: so remember, the closed loop is subject to that determination of whether it's feasible. And if it's not feasible, then there might be a need for groundwater or surface water for cooling. So on page 11, line one, if water is used or through a closed loop or through another type, the person applying has to identify the source on where it will be discharged. They also if page 11, line six, if the person is that's going to run the data center is going to use groundwater if they have to get a groundwater withdrawal permit for any withdrawal of groundwater by the data center, notwithstanding the existing permitting threshold. So right now, you only need a large volume groundwater withdrawal permit If you are withdrawing 57,600 gallons a day, that might seem like a strange number.

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

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But that's 40 gallons a minute. So if you that's what triggers the groundwater withdrawal permit under existing law. But you are saying regardless of that threshold, the data center has to get a groundwater withdrawal permit if it's using groundwater to clean its system. And similarly well, actually, before I go on to the next sub section, page 11, line 11 through 12. Right now, geothermal closed loop, the standing column, heating pumps are exempt from a groundwater withdrawal permit. I added this language to say that for purposes of the data center, that exemption, it does not apply. But the data center cannot say, we don't need the groundwater withdrawal permit because we are a geothermal closed loop standing column heat pump. So moving on on page 11, line 13, the person's operating a data center, and they're gonna use surface water to cool the facility. They have to get a surface water withdrawal permit underneath 10 BSA 1043. You should know that that permit is not available yet. That permit is supposed to be available 07/01/2026, but ANR has indicated that they won't even go to the rulemaking for that permit until the end of the late fall, early winter is when they estimate going to rulemaking. So this permit won't be available most likely until 2027. So if a data center is gonna use surface water, it's gonna have to wait until 2027 to get that earned.

[Speaker 0]: That was the bill we passed

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Couple years ago.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So sorry. So has

[Speaker 0]: to be a closed loop unless most of isn't feasible. Right. If not feasible, then you need to get a permit

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: if you

[Speaker 0]: wanna use groundwater or Sure. Permit if you wanna use.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, even for sorry. Even for a closed loop system that any any withdrawal of

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: of water Or really, it's any discharge that in the closed loop system because remember, you're saying you can't get come from any of the traditional withdrawal sources. So they're gonna have to identify. Maybe they bring in a coolant, probably what they're gonna do for a closed loop system. And they use that coolant, but that coolant these systems have leakage. They have discharge. And so they're gonna need a permit for that discharge. Now they're gonna need to get every other potential applicable water quality permit too, and that is a pretty significant list. So you will see on page eleven nine eighteen to 21, they're gonna need a state stormwater operating permit because stormwater will be coming off of the that facility. They'll probably need what's called a standard industrial classification stormwater permit, which is a federal permit for certain industries so that certain industries put up stormwater management specific to their industry. They're going to need if they're located in a lake shoreland, they're gonna need a shoreland permit. If they're located within a river corridor, they're gonna need a river corridor permit. Those permits aren't available yet either. So they are gonna be twenty twenty eight underneath eight six thirty two. So if they're gonna locate in a river corridor, they won't be able to get that permit until 2028. And if they're gonna alter the stream in any way, move 10 cubic yards of in stream material, they're gonna need a stream off permit. They're If gonna be located in a wetland or a wetland buffer, they're gonna need a wetland to burn. And so this is basically what the development a large scale development needs to analyze before building on a site what they need. And so they're gonna need everything that they than any other development needs, if applicable. Just a minute or so ago, you mentioned about bringing a cooling system. I'm assuming that's adding into existing water. Yes. Or is it separate from the use of water? I I am I am not the expert on that. I tried to figure out if coolant is just they're just using the coolant. And when I look at the different definitions and the different specs on these, I could argue it either way. So with that being said, will water discharge permits take into account whatever's added into water? Yes. So the discharge permit will be specific to the pollutant and the effluent. So and and there's there's many different things that could happen. So if it's if it's a toxic chemical enough that would violate water quality standards for that chemical, there's something called the the q bells, the water quality based effluent limitations. And there are specific things that you need to do in order to get to that to get that to that. And so it all depends on what your dish truck. If it's heat, they'll probably they'll probably require you to basically have a system where it's it's stored until it it gets to a point where it's no longer of the temperature that it's gonna cause harmony. It's discharged into the water. Thank you. So we're moving on to page twelve one. Sorry. Rutland?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So what what happened in

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: the case of they decided to build a cistern, collect water on that for all? Oh, a cistern? I forgot about that. Yeah. That that's technically your water. And you would still need that discharge permit, but you could use that water because that's technically yours. That's a good question. Is it?

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: It'd be a big sister.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I know. Thank you. You you need a big, big sister. But still

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Was the comment not made last time we reviewed this that 80% of the water evaporated in in these systems? Because there was a significant amount of evaporation.

[Speaker 0]: That was what I think without a closed loop system. Right? The closed loop system had significantly less evaporation.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: That's the point.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: But

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: if you did have the operation, you might need an air pollution control. Because of the sea potentially, like That's okay. Discharge. So

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: On

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: page 12, line one through four, this is this is novel, this requirement. And I and I'll I'll have to go into a little bit of detail why it's novel. Under the federal clean water act, if you require a federal permit for a discharge in a state, you have to go to the state and have the state certified for the federal entity issuing the permit that your activity is gonna meet state water quality standards. So if you are a dam and you need a FERC license, you have to go to ANR to get a certification that that dam and its activity is gonna meet the state's water quality certification standards, and then you have to give that certification to FERC. If you need to disrupt the federal wetland, you need to do the same thing. You have to go to ANR and get that certification that you meet the state's water quality standards, and you give that to the US Army Corps of Engineers. This is saying that for a data center, the data center, which is a state permit and from what I know doesn't require a federal permit, that that state permit facility is going to need a certification similar to the federal four zero one water quality certification. And that is not currently done in Vermont for any state. Mhmm. And why would you do this? Well, a four zero one cert requires more comprehensive analysis than just every individual permit that you may require. Remember that list of permits that I've listed? This is about the whole effect of a proposed activity on a water through its discharge. There's typically, studies are required about the the fact of the activity on the aquatic biota, the aquatic habitat. Basically, its uses for irrigation, recreation, or or otherwise. And so you will be overlaying that federal analysis on the state permit, which would be the first time that you have done that for state permit. And you should know that a water quality certification under federal law, the agency has up to a year to issue it, but it often take longer if they're diligently pursuing the issuance of the certification. So this adds more comprehensive review. It adds the ability to ask questions like, how is this gonna affect the wetlands? How is this going to affect animals or biota? How is this going to affect PFAS discharge? It allows for that more comprehensive review, But it is an overlay, and it is partly duplicative of some of the other permits that are issued.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: What types of projects need to get those types of permits now?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So anything that needs a federal permit that's gonna have a discharge to the state's waters. So, typically, when you look at the ANR list of four zero one certs, it's for dams, and it's for disturbance of federal wetlands. And so those are but it could be hold on. That that's that's pretty much it. Yeah. Some stormwater permits, some nuclear regulatory commission permits that I don't think we have anymore. But those are

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: That's.

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

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: page 12 line one through four, a person applying to operate a data center has to get a water quality certificate from ANR that meets the same criteria that ANR requires to be met between the federal clean water act section four zero one. And then last page 12, I think most, if not all of you know what PFAS are. They're often referred to as the forever chemical. And let's go back and look at the definition segment again, specifically on page 10. This is the US EPA definition of what PFAS is. And this is based on the specific one of three specific chemical structures of a chemical. This is different from how some Vermont programs define Some Vermont programs define PFAS as any chemical with a fluorinated fluorinated compound or just maybe just a fluorinated compound. And that's a significant difference because if underneath that chlorinated compound definition, there's 15,000 chemicals that meet that definition. Okay. Underneath the US EPA's definition, there are substantially fewer that meet that definition. And why is that an issue? Because on page 12, lines slide through feed. Language would require a personal client to operate a data center who intends to discharge wastewater to submit a plan to ANR establishing a program that monitors the discharge for the presence of PFAS. So if you have the definition that's 15,000 chemicals, they're gonna need a plan to monitor for 15,000 chemicals. If you have the EPA definition, EPA has an assessment method for for monitoring PFAS under its definition. They already have that assessment method. It only measures for 40, but it's there. And this is a policy decision for you because some of the advocates will say for the 15,000, they can test for any chlorine or fluorinated aspect that's going into water. And that's true, but they're not that's not gonna tell you the specific chemical that's being discharged. That's just gonna tell you that there's fluorine or fluorination in the water. When you do it with the EPA assessment method, you are specifically monitoring for 40 PFAS. That's your choice.

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

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right now, it's at the 40 because, honestly, I think I pushed for it in the discussions with the advocates and the co chair. And so but that's your choice. Just putting that on the table. Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, Southworth?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So based on that, you would say that the federal guidelines are more encompassing and capture more than the individual, a testing of the 50,000 or just opposite? I think it's the opposite. I I think the the the EPA assessment for the 40 that they monitor, it actually specifically has testing for those 40 specific chemicals. For the 15,000, it's just as generalized if there's a presence of a fluorine or fluorinated compound in the water. It won't tell you what the specific chemical is. So the federal guidelines pick up the absolute PFAS that are there. It's those 40. Okay. So there could be others. Remember, there's 15,000 of them according to some people's definition. And so and this this is this is not this isn't you're not the first entity to to debate this question. It's been debated by your other committees, health and welfare. It's been debated at the federal level. It's debated in agriculture about whether or not there's PFAS and pesticides. Well, it depends on how you define PFAS. And so it's a policy.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So did you have your hand up? No? So,

[Speaker 0]: I mean, my general healing just from bills we voted on the floor, bills that I followed. Mean, even going all the way back to Is that the EPA standards are generally less stringent, and I feel like right now are unreliable. So I I don't know what the EPA standards are gonna be tomorrow. And so wouldn't you if you if we're basing our we're basing our decisions on the EPA standards, that feels feel like shaky ground to me.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I I think your point is valid in some respects, but also recently has been addressed in other respects. It's valid in in the respect that there is no PFAS standard for surface water right now. There is no discharge standard. There's no. There's no effluent limitation right now because they they can't really figure it out. There's pretreatment where you try to filter it out, and then you have to deal with that filtrate filtrated liquid. But you are correct that right now, under both EPA and under the state standard, there's been surface water. The the state and EPA just adopted a a a pretty strict standard for PFAS for drinking water. It's now five nanograms per liter or whatever the metric they're using is, which is and they they they just confirm that they're not gonna change that. So to an extent, that EPA standard, when it was adopted, it was stricter than Vermont. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So that's gonna stay in place, and it's pretty it's pretty protected at both the federal and the state level. But but you're right. The PFAS for surface water, there is no surface water standard.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Do have a question now. So pairing the two methods. So this is requiring monitoring. And so I

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: think it's gonna come down to what ANR approves as monitoring. Like, they can approve a method that monitors the broader definition that's provide surety about what it's monitoring. I don't know the answer to that.

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

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Southworth (Member)]: this would only apply if they're using a coolant that contains PFAS.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a good question. Maybe, maybe not. Because if you're using certain kinds of piping, it's gonna likely have PFAS in it. It'd be great. And then whether or not that's leaching until whatever is discharged. And then there's the question if this PFAS arrived in your equipment to begin with.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Or the initial water you asked. Potentially, in initial water.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So It's everywhere. It's in you. It's in me. It's everywhere.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Right. If I'm not mistaken, I think we can. So I'll be just calling you out to talk to you around and talk to you. You're so things on this.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm going to house environment to talk about this now if that's what

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's what I just said. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I would really I I would definitely appreciate their I'm more well, definitely out of our wheelhouse here. So I I would appreciate their feedback. I'm just I you know, I'm worried about relying on EPA standards.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So one requires monitoring 40 specific MMOs.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And that's if you use their e the EPA's assessment. That's right.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: If you were discharging into the surface waters. The other requires monitoring of

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: 14,000. But you can't even you're not monitoring the specific. You're just monitoring That's true. To see if there is any presence.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, so

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: so what is the usefulness of the information that is being monitored there? Is is either more useful than the other?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, if you know what your what's being discharged, you can come up with certain methods for trying to control it. If you don't know the specifics, basically, you have to implement more broader blunt force controls that might have more consequences than just on the discharge.

[Speaker 0]: Or further testing?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Or you could do further testing. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Like, more specific. That's what I'm wondering. Like, if you for testing for 10,000 compounds with this high level test, and it

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You could

[Speaker 0]: up positive, would you wanna do then more specific testing?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You could. You could. You could say, alright. Well, let's reverse engineer this to an extent. Like, what could be contributing p phos or fluorinated compounds to this water? Oh, we think it's this or this. We should test these specific compounds using this method. I I think you could do that. But, again, that's that's what ANR is gonna require. And this is just requires a monitoring plan be submitted to ANR for approval. Now what they submit really depends on what the universe is that they're testing for, But then it'll be up to to the for for the monitoring.

[Speaker 0]: Think we'll let environment know that we have a specific dilemma around this section. Is

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: that it? Yep.

[Speaker 0]: Is that the bill?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Wow. Okay. So, yeah, thank you so much.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: In Okay. The affirmation.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: We'll text. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: You think folks feel like we could take a five minute break and actually be back in

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: five minutes? I will. Let's go

[Speaker 0]: off