Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: We're live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome back everybody. This is House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Thursday, May March 12. And we are here to do a walk through of the latest draft of H727, our data center bill. And we are looking at draft 1.3, right, Maria? Okay. So that's been sent to the committee, and it should be posted. I'm rep Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint Johnsbury.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Richard Bailey, Lamoille too. Chris Morrow in Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Christopher Howland, R. L. N. Thorre.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Dara Torre, Washington too. And in the room?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Zachary Moss, Community Aid Service at University of Vermont.

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

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Kathleen James. Super. Joan Sibilia.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Maria Royal, legislative council. Super.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Greg Baker, PUC.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Does everybody have draft 1.3? Alex, were you couple copies. Thought I printed

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: it on. Can't find it. I have some.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You do? Oh, great. Yep. Okay. I'll take a hard copy if you have one. Yep. Gotcha. Fun. Just a just an update. We heard back informally that house environment has completed their flyby and probably you're not gonna be sending us too many recommendations. I don't know, Maria, you

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: have any further update? That's pretty much what I heard from Michael Grady. This morning they approved the language as it appears in this draft, but that Chair Sheldon might have some other unrelated to water suggestions, but I don't know what they are.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Great. And I asked her to make sure to write to us, so we'll have a letter to look at and post his testimony. And I don't have that yet, but she knows we're on the clock. So just waiting to hear back from chair Sheldon. And but it sounds like it's not gonna be too too much to incorporate. So and they looked at 1.2. Well, the water provisions hadn't

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: changed Yep. At

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Great. So, Maria, know you have color coding and I do. Going on. Okay.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Let me just pull it up here. Yeah. So I had different color coding because everything that was in draft 1.2 was highlighted in yellow, but I left all of that in because I wasn't sure if you had made definitive decisions on any of that. You was really helpful. But then based on some of your concerns and conversations over the last couple of days, I put in some suggested language, again, just for your consideration. Then there were definitely some things, I think, that even the committee acknowledged were kind of to be determined, so I just highlighted a little bit blue. I didn't highlight the whole section necessarily in blue because when you print it out, you can't read it. It's too dark. Anyway, I learned that in house judiciary. That being said, shall we just go through the new provisions? Yeah. The okay. So, looking for the first We're looking for Gray. Blue. Right? Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, this is under required contractual provisions and I am on page four subdivision five on line 12. There was a question by Representative Campbell about how that reasonable charge was to be calculated. This is for any excess demand. I've just added some language here to be a little bit more specific that it shall be calculated by kilowatt hour.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So that's reducing, then not demand charge with with all the And

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: if someone has a different proposal or wants to do it differently, this is just, yeah, an attempt to clarify if that works.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And I don't the answer to that. I don't know what the demand charges are. Something to be worried about or if there's any

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: They're not saying.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. No. They're not saying, but what is this something to be to be that should be referenced here somehow?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I think you're gonna get a utility person Yeah. In here from a major were. No. No. No. But but the particular Yeah. Yeah. No. You're right. The the mechanism of of setting demand is that it it is it's it's on a rolling time clock. Yep. And but most every fifteen minutes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: K. So so we should next, Carrie, for each other to come back.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: K. Sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Hang on.

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: In in absence of if we don't have time to get a utility response, I would think that it would be the that what you may be looking for is they they have a given demand, call it 20 megawatt. And if they go to 21, that additional megawatt of demand, you may want an incremental more a discount for taking that. I think

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Maybe we'll leave it alone for now. My only question was around clarifying what it was about. That's all. Is it usage or is it demand charges? That's my question.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Which will be calculated by demand and let the utility's fifteen minute rolling demand versus what you may be referring to as instantaneous demand. And and I I don't think that's practical or or possible.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I don't know what that said then. Yeah. Dylan's working for GMP. I I'm thinking through how this would work in practice, and and you may wanna strike the new gray in sub five. Just it it does seem like the elements of a large load contract that's negotiated between utility and a potential, data center and then approved by the PUC. You want to have some flexibility, and I just worry about the restrictive nature of this. Demand charges are one thing. The kilowatt hour charge is a different piece, and Craig can jump in here as well. I think there's I think you run the risk

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: of being overly disruptive in the same way. Yeah. I I agree. Mister, you should probably leave this to the these these kind of details to the contract

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: negotiations. So is it better just referring to projected electricity demand? That that's okay.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Just get that. We know what that means. You know what that means. Yeah.

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Is that right?

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Alright. So strike strike. Line 14 gray. K. So Subdivision 6, this is to be determined. I wasn't about to share where you left off on the decommissioning requirement, whether that should be a plan that's incorporated into the original contract or whether that's something that would be dealt with in our two fifty.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So this is different than the other language that we have in a different place. This is around the, environmental impact and the equipment and the other language is on facilities. Well, it's meant to cover the

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: same thing. This is what you can word it however you want, but this would be a contractual provision. So then when they're right when they're entering into the contract, they need to have a plan for decommissioning. And then when the PUC is reviewing the contract, it would have to be a finding that they have a decommissioning plan. Okay. So that provision is still in there. Mhmm. I wasn't sure. And it's

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: not a mismatch between those two because I think the language in the other one says facilities.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: And and well, let's see. This one says facilities. No. Removal of equipment in the event of any

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Any facilities becoming inactive. Yeah.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So any facility or portion thereof potentially Mhmm. Become inactive. And I didn't know, you know, whether it's a permanently inactive. There's just a lot of I was trying to keep it broad enough.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But Mister Favor?

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I I just can you tell me what you're trying to do here? This is saying that we in in in the contract, there's a decommissioning plan. Are you saying that you want a decommissioning plan done by the Act two fifty Commission before they come to us and we just say, yeah, there's a decommissioning plan.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: This is different. This is a collateral requirement.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: This would be something we would do in in the course of the contract negotiations. And again, like I explained yesterday, we're not looking at the physical site in a contract negotiation. So the wording of this is troubling to me. If you want to have us ensure that the Act two fifty Commission has put in a decommissioning plan, that's one thing. But that's totally different wording than this. This is having us do a decommissioning plan

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: In the contract.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: In the contract without any looking without needing to look at the actual site, the physical site or the construction of that site. We would have no clue as to what's going on there and then have to do a decommissioning. That that that makes it makes no sense. I'm I'm sorry. But what

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: I don't necessarily read it that way. I I read it more as the parties need to come up with their liabilities and right and obligation pursuant to their contract however they wanna do it. Not so much that there's a plan and the PUC then reviews that plan and determines if it's adequate, but that there is some provision in the contract in the event there's need to be. So I'm not sure I read it quite so broad, but if you wanna make that clear or not included at all. And I Ellen had a while ago, in terms of Act two fifty's jurisdiction, she said that and I'm sorry to actually know. I I thought we might have heard by Laura before, but that's she said that decommissioning sometimes comes up at the time of getting an active 50 permit if it's something for a project like mineral extraction or logging at very high elevations. But in general, it's not part of an act two fifty permit. Except that because the permit continues for the life of the development should a project change and become inactive, then there would be a review to make sure that they decommission pursuant to the active 50 criteria. So that's my very limited understanding, and that may be sufficient. I, you know, just wanted to

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That they're bankrupt at that point. Not much can happen. It it seems it seems like what we're trying to do is we're trying to have the parties address the issue of decommissioning. What happens to all of the equipment as you as you as you've worked with here? What what happens to all the equipment, not necessarily the film? What happens to the all the all the servers and and the and the stuff that's inside the servers and all of that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: This I mean, it so I I feel like this has to happen.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: What about, so we did, right now I'm hearing, I feel like I'm hearing different information. We probably should get an email to the lurb real quick and ask about decommissioning and active 50. Can you write to them right now? I think that's the one thing we really need to make sure we have the we know about. But what I was wondering was since since we are in the section of the bill that talks about, you know, what's to be in the contract that the PUC is going to review. And I definitely hear everything Greg is saying. Is it that we want to make sure the contract includes enough collateral to mitigate the risk of stranded costs and decommissioning. That seems like something that could be a that would belong in a contract. And that's not talking about a decommissioning plan and what what we're gonna do with the facilities. I I definitely heard that that seems to be more of an active 50 thing. But I I think we're talking about in my mind, anyway, there's two different things. There's what actually happens to that building and all the equipment, I I don't know. Maybe that's addressed by F two fifty, but there's also, like, the money for it. And so, if we're asking them to include collateral sufficient to mitigate the risk of stranded costs and decommissioning, take out all the other section on the contract. Exactly.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right? So we they should be able to push anything in that contract, including defamation, whether it's isolated or not, I would think. Question for me. Yeah.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: How do we handle defamationing for?

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: A. They actually went in before we started doing decommissioning plans, but they set up a fund

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Who did that?

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Which they manage.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: We approved it, but they manage all the funds. They didn't have they don't have a traditional decommissioning plan like the like, let's say, some some of the wind projects.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Who does the decommissioning projects for the solar?

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: We

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: do. Okay. And so and this is different because

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: But that's be that's part of the review of all the environmental impacts in the first place. So we're looking at the whole project. Yes. So we're taking the place of Act

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: two fifty in that case.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right? Because we're looking at the whole project. We're applying all the Act two fifty criteria. And we're also typically, they they put up a surety bond

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

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Based on the cost of salvage the salvage value of the equipment at the site after twenty years or so, the useful life.

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

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: And then we we hold on to those bonds.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: K. Thank you. Rick Southworth? What is the proper sequence of events with start up of this? Is it PUC first? Is it active fifty first?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's what we talked about yesterday. So,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I I mean, I will just say for a regional development corporation and having seen a lot of development projects, I mean, I think projects like this start in multiple different you know, like, big projects like this will probably start in different places. I don't think they start do something, and finish. Parallel. Exactly. Yeah. So, I mean, we're working on, like, a storm water mitigation project in Bellis Falls. And, you know, they're trying to get water and other permits, army corps of engineer, and fact two fifties. They're, you know, working on those in tandem at the same time. So I don't know if that's helpful, but I would say I'm I am not necessarily I don't think it will be helpful to us to prescribe an order.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. But I'm just trying to fit this in somewhere that makes sense.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Well, I think we just we just have to require somebody to do it. So it's either the PUC or the letter. I think

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: it could be. With the land use review board having jurisdiction over the siding and building of that property, will it make more sense for them to be the ones looking at that and making sure that that's in place?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm still seeing two different two different I'm I'm seeing I can see it both ways, but Yeah. I I'm I all I need to hear, basically, is that $2.50 is gonna cover the bulk of the in terms of the building and the facility and the site. But I also want to see in the contract that there's money set aside from that. I think that bonds in the contract. That doesn't feel like a $2.50 thing to me.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So we want to include the collateral requirements sufficient to mitigate the risk of the stranded costs. Decommission. Well So do we want to make sure that that collateral collateral requirement is connected to a decommissioning plan, which is that then not necessarily prescribing that to the POC. But so I because I think you need the POC and the lawyer both really thinking about that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Attorney Morrow. Do you have any thoughts? I mean, it sound we definitely need to hear back from the about their role and what role the decommissioning plan plays in an f 50 permit. So maybe that'll put much of this to rest, but I still think there's a part that belongs in the county having to do with the money. Yeah. Greg.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Just just further on this. So typically, when we do decommissioning plants or let's say large solar, we require them to put up a surety bond.

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

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So that's money. Yeah. So if you're asking us to do it and act two fifty to do it, are you asking for both? Or

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do you know if act if the act two fifty process includes the money piece?

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I know nothing about it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: See, that's that's I think that's what we're waiting for back. I just wanna make sure the money is somewhere.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. It just yeah. It it it should be somewhere, but maybe not both places because then it's double.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. If I mean, if we hear back from the land use review board that they're that them granting a permit includes a robust decommissioning plan and a surety bond.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, actually so this may be to I I actually I don't think that it is. So the there's a decommissioning fund. This is the one that I'm most familiar with, which is at. Okay? And so that is for decommissioning the plant. But, there are a lot of other impacts that were not considered as a part

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: of that. And,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: you know, we're trying to change federal legislation now to make sure that we do think about those things when a plant is sited and then decommissioned. And so

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: What what kinds of things?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I mean, community impact. Community impact. So yeah. I mean, these these Like, loss of jobs and property taxes or more A nuclear power plant, actually, unlike a data center, provides a lot of very high paid jobs, which is not the case for a data center. Both of them will provide property tax, communities will come to line.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: yeah. Have we looked at where data centers exist now? And if there's decommissioning involved with the permitting event and how that is overseen. So

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: that's a I have not. I don't know if our attorney has or any of our stakeholders, but we're all running on this and, you know, examining policy as it's emerging in all these different states. So, madam chair, I have an email into the lab. Yeah. I just wonder what is the most simple thing we could do knowing that we absolutely are working on this with our colleagues in the senate.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And this is also a new practice development that we haven't Yeah. Had before.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Why don't we just move on? Let's just flag it for now. And unless unless somebody sees I mean, I suggested that it just say mitigate the risk of stranded costs and decommissioning. To me, that implies they've got collateral. Oh, that sounds yeah. But okay. So that was

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: I think that and that made me find a why the issue the one thing that just occurred to me is, and I'm now responding to something that had said. So the collateral requirement for stranded costs, I think that was contemplating if the electric utility invests in the infrastructure. Right. Right? So the utility is not on the hook nor are other rate payers that it if there's decommissioning, the utility isn't necessarily on the hook for that. Right? Mhmm. So it's almost a separate so I don't think the utility necessarily has a vested interest in making sure that the data center

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Gets decomposition. Utility who who would

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: hold that collateral or surety bond? Right? Because it's few safe. That's gets to the

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, that's a bit that's a different issue then. Then we're doing a decommissioning plan. But, again, we haven't commissioned anything in the first place. This is purely looking at a contract like Maria is saying. The contract between the utility and the data center, the electric the electrons flowing between the goods. So we're not looking at at at commissioning the physical site here. It says that has nothing to do with the utility. So this isn't the right place for it for a decommissioning plan. I still maintain that that should be with the entity that's reviewing the site in the first place, which would be Act two fifty in this instance. But you need to check with Act two fifty as to what they do. You know, I think about this, and what would prevent someone from buying a large warehouse, an existing warehouse, and just putting servers in it? What kind of decommissioning would be involved there or commissioning, frankly? I just I just don't know.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Getting getting rid of the servers at the end of their life or kind of end

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: of their life. Maybe. But I mean,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: if if if the owner is just just, you know, drops keys on a desk of the town local Right. Town clerk and says, I'm gone.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right. But

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: who's the Who's who's who's on the hook to clean it out?

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Exactly. And and what does Act two fifty do about that now with Yeah. The other warehouse uses? Yeah. Hazard stuff in all kinds of warehouses. Right? So what are they doing right now? I I just don't know.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I mean, I don't think it's that simple. Right? I mean, it

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: It may not be. It may be a whole a whole

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: new building. Structure.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well It could.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I mean, maybe you're reusing a building. But, I mean, these are pretty big buildings. You need some sort of cooling. Right? I mean

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I I don't

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: know. There's still a lot a of utility yes.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: You're we have three of them. Right?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: They're not 20 megawatts. Right?

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I I don't

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

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: I think they're I think they're, like, one megawatt.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Right. Right.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I think we're talking about something that's bigger.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, this this is every data center.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: This is 20 megawatts and

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: up. Okay. I don't know. I just don't know enough about the active 50 process to really make Maria's

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: gonna save.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Let's hear from Maria.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: I never save you, but

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: you need one thought

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: unless we get a definitive answer and you feel comfortable. Because the department's not in the room right now, they won't mind my while I'm questing them to work with the land use review board just to consult with and come back with a recommendation.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Next year?

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: January next year. That sounds amazing. December next whether there is this is a gap. This is a whether there could be some kind of accounting for decommissioning, whether it's through the department or CE or

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, tasked the department with coming back in December with a recommendation on how we handle decommissioning. I think Since we seem to have stumbled into a pending some sort of definitive re reassuring response from the land reviews board. We're we're in a gray area. Yeah. And we cannot afford a gray area here. So I think that's a great idea. Yay, Maria.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: And maybe it'll get addressed in the senate in the meantime, but at least you'll have the fallback. But Okay. If it's not,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we're gonna add that? Yeah. Okay. Moving on.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Fantastic. Okay. Thank you, Maria.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Thanks, Maria. Sure. So then at the bottom of page four, this was the issue about demand side management. And I think there was a request instead of using the general phrase, harnessing load flexibility to be a little bit more specific about what that means. Yep. Demand side management operational measures for the purpose of maintaining grid stability and efficiency, demand response and flexible load management practices such as load shifting, peak shaving, and the use of distributed energy resources. So this is gets to everything. Demand response, as I understand it, tends to be more reactive. If there's a critical event in the grid and an industrial user has to immediately get off or asked to move their loads on-site generation or battery, that that can be possible. Whereas low flexible load management has to be more proactive than just the general business practices, not maybe trying to reduce consumption during peak periods. Same same kind of shifting to on-site consumption, on-site generation or storage to address the grid supply. Anyway, I think these are pretty familiar terms to those in the industry. Mhmm.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Everybody okay with that?

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

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Quick break. We always ask people who join us to introduce themselves. So I think we have some members of the Youth Climate Lobby who are in the state house today who came to listen to our discussion of the data center bill. So do you guys want to say just a quick hi?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Hi. I'm Simon, and I'm from thirty two.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Great. Simon, u thirty two. Karen, also from u thirty two. Super. Love to meet you. Great.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Ben, that's really awesome. I'm Justin

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: from u thirty two. Hi. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks for being here. Everybody else already went. Okay. Back to the bill. I do wanna give everybody a heads up. I I do have to be down in a probes at two to walk through 740.

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

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: So turning to page six, that's where I highlighted some of those subdivisions. I think you haven't decided yet. For example, line six on page six. Some of these overlap with the Act two fifty criteria, whether you wanted to keep those in here. These are the findings that the PUC needs to make before approving a contract. So I just flagged that one. At a minimum, I think you did say though, lines twelve and thirteen, you wanted to include a reference to the state's greenhouse gas emissions production requirements, I think. So as far as I know, that's still on the table. And then I'll just go through the other ones that are five page seven. We will not have an adverse effect on any segment of the waters of the state that have been designated as outstanding resource waters. Also, on line seven, this is the federal clean air act. In the event that you do keep it in, I just had some suggested language having to deal with the event potential amendments to that federal act.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So that's the that's backdating Yeah. So that we're pegging the air quality standards to to pre Trump. Case of 01/01/2026.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: And I think there hadn't been any changes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. But if they roll back or shift or change, we pegged to And previous clean air then you've also said, except to

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: the extent such requirements are inconsistent with any other applicable state law or rule. So, if you state level wanna change it, line 11, again, the harvesting procedures, you know, whether this is all part of that two fifty. Same thing, line 14, energy efficiency requirements, commercial building energy standards. And then 18, decommissioning. We're gonna have another proposal for that. So then the other provision on page eight, there's new language, line three, a new subsection f. And this is getting at, I think clarifying that a data center could potentially position the PUC to become a self managed utility and go through that process. So the way it reads is this section, so the whole section of this bill shall not be construed to limit or infringe upon, I don't know if right is the right word, maybe the ability of a data center to petition the PUC for a certificate of public good to own and operate its own public service company pursuant to section two thirty one and subject to limited regulation appropriate to its function. The term, is it, SMEO, self managed utility, isn't actually used in the statutes. So this was taken from the global foundries order the way the PUC described what it was. It's a public service company that, you know, typically, as in that case, a wholly owned subsidiary that basically becomes the power company specifically for the data center.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I have a question. So before we added this, the bill was just silent on it. And any data center could petition to do this anyway. Right? I'm just wondering if we need this.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: I I'm not sure. I didn't know if there was some confusion about that or yeah. I don't know. I don't know if you've heard anyone suggest that they couldn't or wanted to clarify or just remain silent. I don't know.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't think we heard they couldn't.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: I Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think we talked a lot about whether that contract process would be as transparent, and we decided that it would be easier. Right? Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I think there was I I may be mistaken, but I think there may have been testimony asking us to know about this. Oh, that's right. And that actually fits problematic to me. So I'd like to just be I don't think they have to be a self managed utility, but I do think you need to leave that option on the table. If this if the language is not necessary in order for that to be considered, then, you know, great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I feel kinda neutral about it. Right? Like, I I don't I don't know right now that we wanna. I'm not sure if you wanna specifically call it out.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And encourage us. So

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: I guess if I were if I were reading it, I wouldn't necessarily presume based on the language that they could not pursue this process. So I don't necessarily think you need to clarify what Global Foundries did. Nothing in Vermont law says that you can become a self managed utility. It's something that they applied for, and it was a long proceeding that worked it out. So, you know, there was no specific authorization to do that. They just took, you know, use the CPG process for doing business as an electric company, and that all work. So I don't necessarily think you need it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. I think we should strike it then. Okay.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Oh, I'm sorry. I haven't even been scrolling. I'm now gonna go page 10. That's the statute technical change. Typically, we don't refer to a specific entity in statute. I'm just referring to its underlying statutory authorized legislation under the consultation. I have

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: a question on page 10. Yeah. I feel like we didn't resolve or maybe I didn't resolve. I was concerned about pegging PFAS water quality standards to the EPA in case something changes there. And I'm not sure we fix or change that.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Oh, underwater? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So this is a this I know this was a long conversation we had with O'Grady, and this is probably what the environment committee is also looking at. But I think that the way the PFAS language is worded here, it pegs it specifically to the standards at the federal EPA and just like Clean Air Act, I'm concerned Okay. That if that changes or gets weakened, then we'll be holding our data centers to weaker water standards, and I don't wanna do that. So

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Let me check with Mike Okay. About that. I don't know if he tried to incorporate the exact language

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: in here. Oh, right. As opposed to referencing

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: the statute. Referencing the statute? Right. But I'm not sure, so I'll double check with him.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I get that marked as a

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So this We talked about the governor, which is referenced by statute.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It is. And we didn't I think that we didn't know whether to backdate this as well or what. But there was also the question of the EPA test for 40 specific PFAS.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: there's there could be broader testing you could do Can the test go wider would you float down? So I I think I just have some water questions. Something

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: This was this was what we asked the environment committee to look at?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: They they were looking at Water. Watering. So we just need to hear back from them. But I just wanna flag that as Okay. To my mind, that's still kinda unresolved. Okay.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Alright. So then that's just a technical change on page 13, think, line six.

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

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: think then that brings us to, oh, well, okay. So, two things. So, on page 15, this was an issue that Sharon Sheldon brought up. This is the application. She was concerned about what if an existing data center that's in operation on the effective date decided to expand and become if it were capable of becoming a larger capacity data center, she wanted to make sure that they weren't exempted from these new laws. So I think that's what that language is intended to do because right now the law applies to any data center that's operational.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So one of our existing three.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Right. The law applies to any data center not operational on the effective date, which are any large data centers because we don't have any. But it doesn't address the the data centers that are currently exist even though they don't meet the 20 megawatts. Her concern was, well, what if they wanted to expand their operational? So, anyway Press that. That was her

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Amy mentioned this to me yesterday. I'm glad she thought of it. Actually, I don't see why we would not put that in. And

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: then Oh, sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But I have a question about that. This goes back to our very first walk through of the bill, which now seems like five years ago. But can rep Sibilia, can you remind me? Why do we pick 20 what's why do we pick 20 megawatts? I know there's a reason. I can't remember it.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So this is a moving target working with council and looking at, you know, trying to see what is happening across the country and looking at the range of sizes. I don't know if Maria Yeah. Their moratorium is for the moratorium bill is for a 100 megawatts. So it's only for data centers that are larger than this. So we're just 100.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: This is significantly smaller than the Senate's proposed

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Moratorium. Moratorium. But it's significantly larger than the data centers that mister Faber referenced that we have in the state already. K.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: And I'll just mention it's been a while since I've looked at kind of the other jurisdictions. I do know that there is a range. Some are as low as 20 megawatts. I think Oregon maybe. Some are 50, some are 75, some are 100. So there's There are a bunch

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: of states looking at, like, 10.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: I'm not aware of anything lower than 20. Great. It's type of regulation, but I can double check that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And we took testimony on the I was trying to picture things on the physical size of your 20 megawatt. How big

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: is the warehouse? Yeah. It's, like, 10,000 square feet. Right. And it's usually on at least 10 acres of land. I think it was, like, 10 to 40 acres of land on average.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So compared to a Walmart superstore, Not very good at math. I have no idea how to go to a Walmart Superstore. No.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's a thousand. Like It's not that big. No. The bookstore is 20,000 square feet.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Excellent. Great. That I can picture.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. But, yeah, the bookstore is 20,000.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Alright. The the that building. Yeah. So 10,000 is not that much. Great. Which books are great? Bookstore? Bookstore. Bookstore. It's multiple levels. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Multiple rates.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. That's helpful, Don. The last servers. Yeah. Okay. So there were

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Week one. And then number four, a couple of suggested changes from the PC and GFP about the report changing the date, the due date, from December year to January 15 year, and then starting to take some of the specific considerations and just leaving it open more open ended.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That is it.

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Hey. So we are waiting to hear

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: back from the land use review board. Specifically on decommissioning. Specifically on decommissioning. We're waiting to hear back from Sheldon on water, and I'm going to write to Bird. The question?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. We have an answer. Yeah. So going back to the 20 megawatt, and when we think about other large loads like crypto, for instance, do you have a sense of the size of those type of

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: Crypto Yeah. Or data?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Data mining. Yeah.

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

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: I think AI is definitely requires the most computing power by far, but but I I'll find out. Bitcoin. For crypto mining, I think yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We have an answer from the LERB, and this definitely brings us back to your elegant solution, Maria. Thanks for reaching out. I'm booked for the rest of the day. With that said, Act two fifty does not typically involve decommissioning per se, as our permits generally do not expire. However, we do include reclamation slash rehabilitation plans and provisions on permits within set term limits, I. E. Gravel pits, waste facilities, and logging above 2,500 feet. You may want to connect with the PUC. So we're circling around. I do have some time tomorrow.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, yeah, I I I definitely think Maria has given us a great solution for this for our colleagues in the

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: senate to. Yeah. It sounds like it's it is falling into a a gap then. If great. So let's strike. So are we gonna leave any of the decommissioning references in, or are we gonna take all of those out? And then just

[Maria Royal, Legislative Counsel]: out and then add a new provision. With a report. Yeah. Great. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Let me connect with really quick and see what her timeline is.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I think it's her.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I I've

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: she I specifically asked her. Feel like they needed something in writing. Yeah. Okay. Alright. So next steps. Let's see. We've got floor at 03:30. I've got approx at two. We've heard back from the alert. We have a solution for the decommissioning. We're really just waiting to hear from environment. And then we've got our committee discussion and vote scheduled tomorrow at one. But I wonder about are you free earlier in the day? I'm wondering. Is there any there's no reason, I don't think, guys, for us to wait till one if because we're voting on the committee bill at

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: What's the calendar? No. What's on the floor? Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I mean, one is certainly safe.

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

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Can Greg give us a little more detail of the fee commissioning for Rite Aid? What exactly is the you said they they issue bonds. No. No. Typically,

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: in a decommissioned plan, we get surety bond. However, right, it is so old that they just basically set up their own decommissioning account that they managed. It's very unusual. I don't think anyone else does it that way. And they have money sitting in an account to cover decommissioning supposedly.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And you monitor some stuff too.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: They do. Very unusual.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Who does who do they report to?

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Unless we we can ask them how much they have in there, and you guys have asked them when Rigate comes up periodically. Forget the last time it came up. Renewable. But yes, that's how it's handled, which is very unusual. That's the only point like that. Typically we get a surety bond. So for a large solar built today we would get a surety bond and they would estimate the salvage value twenty years out and that surety bond would cover the removal of all the equipment minus the salvage value and the restoration of this site to pretty much what we're looking for restoration of the site.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: And the state holds that holds that? Yeah. Yeah.

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: We hold it. We we yeah.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: Okay. Yep. So even if they went to phone, we'd still be able to get

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: We would have the surety bond. Yeah. We'd have the money. So we would have to contract with somebody. It's never happened. Right. But we contract with someone to do all that work. Okay. Take out the the, you know, the panels that were Right. To fix like that. Hasn't happened, but that's how we handle it.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Member)]: So we could sort of do that same type of thing for data center?

[Greg Baker (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Absolutely. However, the problem is we're not reviewing those sites to begin with so it creates this sort of that's that's why we're in this gray area. Yeah. Okay. So we're not looking at what's going in, so it's hard to figure out what's gonna come out. And and you know what mean? So Okay. That's why I was hoping that I could you could do it, but if you have a study, maybe we'll come to some sort of resolution.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rick Southworth?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So this is all new. We're trying to meld it in with an existing Should we be looking at it as we're starting fresh as these are the criteria that is involved? And then, sorry, Favors, we need to figure out where it fits in because it sounds like it fits into licensing. Sounds like it fits in licensing licensing. Because this is all new.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's six is not in here, is it?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's not. I don't know what

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: you mean by You mean if they were to have renewables on-site and be like a power generator

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: and Yeah. Get a CPG? Just they're gonna be applying for should I get a public good possibly, or they're gonna be applying through different entities in order to be able to construct and operate in the state. So at some point, we have to figure out what is the best path where they are held accountable through that process.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: They're not required to get a CPG. They are required to have a finding of a contract.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Correct. But if they go into wanting to be managed utility, they have to be a CPG. But this is all new, and we're trying to fit it into what's existing. We're finding that it's not fitting into the existing. Well,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I feel like it's close, though. I mean, I feel like the construct we landed on was $2.50 for the siding and the $2.50 in ANR for the siding, the environmental air packs, the sound, the air, the water. So but I I feel like it fits in there 90% of the way. And then we've got a the new the idea of the large load contract that

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I guess that's where I'm saying it. I think it fits more into the contract. I use licensing, but contract. You're talking about decommissioning?

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah. Particular. I I

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I thought you're talking about the entire deal.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, it's all new. Yeah. So trying to find where it fits by comparing it to the existing, I think, is difficult.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I I agree. But I also think that Maria's suggestion is a great response to your concern and and and and yours. I mean, I think it gets us I think it does what you're saying. Like, let's think about this with fresh eyes.

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Think about this fresh eyes. That's not actually because the interesting thing about the journey of this bill was that we started out by saying, okay, if we're concerned that a moratorium is gonna draw a lot of very negative legal challenges that could set us back. And we wanna be proactively regulatory and make sure that we've looked around every corner. Mhmm. I feel like we've looked around every corner and we have discovered the gaps that we were worried about finding, and decommissioning is definitely one of them.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm. Yeah. I'm feeling

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: feeling kinda good about where we where we're winding up. I am anxious to hear back from from the environment committee. So would you guys be comfortable with I do need to I need I need to go. So you guys could keep talking and I can go or we could adjourn and we could keep an eye on the just keep an eye on the agenda. I can send out a group text. Like, if we hear back from Amy and we can come back here in half an hour and keep talking, we can do that. If not, it's tomorrow morning.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So unless I agree with you. I think we have done what we need to do with the exception of knowing that there's gonna be a lot of work that we heard from a lot of stakeholders that will take place at the senate, which I think is appropriate. I think we're pretty close to done here, and so I would not actually be comfortable continuing this conversation without, some sense of what you're hopeful, you know,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: for Okay. To do. Then why don't we adjourn for the day and or the time of the Gong if we hear back if we can come back on 4th Floor.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So we'll get a

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: text if you hear You'll get a text. Yeah. Great. Alright. We can go off.