Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Up to speed, and

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: we all have the latest stuff. We're live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome, everybody, to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Friday, March 13, and it certainly is Friday the fifteenth. My name is representative Kathleen James. I'm from Manchester. Oh,

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: fuck. It's good timing. Scott Campbell from Saint Johnsbury. Perfect.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Christopher Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia too. Christopher Howland, Rutland Four. Dara Torre, Washington too.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Laura Sibilia, Windham too. Great. In the room?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Dara Torre from the group. Chair of conference,

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: the ex Champlain Committee. John Brown, Vermont National Resources

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Council. Please your mind.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Maria Rutland, state council. Super. Alright. Just to make sure that we are where I think we are, just big picture this afternoon, we've got two bills to vote out before we adjourn for the day so that we can hit our crossover deadline. And I have a couple little updates that we can save till later. But right now we've got a bunch of people in the room so we're going to dive right into H727 so that we can have a final discussion, decide what we have the capacity and the time to do and not do today While recognizing that there's going to be plenty of plenty of work on this bill on the Senate side and then it'll all certainly be coming back to us. And so I think where we are is we have have a new draft. Draft 1.4 dated threetwelve at 02:11PM. We are going to walk through that. We have a letter that we received back from House Environment yesterday. And that has been posted on our website and I circulated that to everybody. We have thoughts some further thoughts about PFAS language that we may or may not have time to hash out today, but I definitely wanna make sure we talk about it. And we have sort of PUC versus ACT two fifty conversation that we may or may not have time to resolve today, but we do have a LERB here and we have PUC here, which is good.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's kind of where we're at.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So why don't we start Marie, if you don't mind, if we could start by walking through the latest draft. And maybe as we go along, yeah, remind us which if anything which if any of these various sources we've got changes and suggestions flowing in from different spaces? If you know where stuff can be found. Sure. That would be helpful too.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And I think I did I incorporated so you could see in your context the recommendations from chair Sheldon

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

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Environment as and also the recommendation from DNRC. Again, just so you could see it in here. Okay. So we'll I'll note that again when we get to those sections. Great. So hopefully this reflect, in other respects, some decisions you made yesterday. The first one being on page three subdivision five. These are the provisions, contractual provisions, and you're I think you ultimately decided to not specify how the charge for excess demand would be calculated. So striking the which shall be calculated by kilowatt hour. Just reading it as written. And then in Subdivision 6, I talked about maybe putting some decommissioning language, I think you're gonna just leave it now as a study and report back. So striking that language. So then getting into the PUC findings that need to be made before contract is approved. I just highlighted some of the subdivisions, just the numbers that have some overlap with Act two fifty. And just because I'm aware that you're kind of thinking about that, whether there should be some whether you wanna leave these provisions in or not. So anyway, just wanted to highlight the subdivision numbers. Page six, striking the decommissioning findings there. And then yesterday, you also requested that new subsection f, which might have to do with the ability of a data center to become a self managed utility, that that was you just wanted to be silent on that as opposed to specifically saying that they have the ability to do that. There's nothing in here that prevents them from doing that. Then under the water use provisions, If Michael Brady can speak to these a little bit more specifically, but I'll just note that on page eight subdivision three, this is just clarification language that Mike added that was somehow lost in translation. So just clarifying the data center shell identify where the data center will. So that's just new language clarifying. Subdivision E1, these are, the new language highlighted here reflects, proposals by chair Sheldon. So a data center shall obtain all applicable water quality and water resource protection permits from ANR including stormwater, shoreland stream alteration, direct discharge, surface water withdrawal, groundwater withdrawal, wetland, and river corridor development permits. Then on page nine, chair James mentioned and Michael Grady agreed, you know, wanting to have a specific date and time with respect to the federal Clean Water Act, section four zero one, because that may be amended soon. And so this just specifies on line six as those criteria existed under the act and any regulations adopted there under on January 1. So just preserving in time those current federal criteria.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And question on that. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Do you know that those criteria have not changed since January by 2025? Do we do we know that?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I actually don't know much at all. It's still that Mike suggested this. Okay. So I can confirm with him, talk with him. And he might actually be here later. So Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And he knew our intent. Yeah. He was here for that conversation. Yeah.

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

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so then subsection f, this reflects some revisions proposed by the NRC. Do want me to read through them, or do you wanna hear from the NRC, or what's one I would find it helpful for you to just do it out there.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. I think let's keep going, and then I think we're gonna have to come back. I wanna make sure we don't lose the Okay. Lose our folks from the

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: land use review board. Got it. Okay. So subsection g, the yellow highlighted language comes as a recommendation from chair Sheldon, and then the gray highlighted language are proposed revisions to her language. This is a whole new subsection. Anyway, we'll let the party speak about that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: The gray are revisions to chair Sheldon's Correct.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Revisions for both of the NRC. And this has to do with PFAS in discharged water. So, and then I just wanted to note section two is the trigger for F-two 50 review and I'm just noting a recommendation by Chair Sheldon who suggested perhaps lowering the threshold for triggering at two fifty review. You have it at 20 megawatts of power. Maybe lowering that or considering a different criterion such as water use. Just noting that. Oh, and I I did look 20 meg in terms of AI data centers, 20 megawatts seems to be the kind of the floor for what other states are considering. Many of them are 50 megawatts, 100 megawatts. I haven't found any yet that were below 20 megawatts specific to data centers, just to put that out there. The other thing I wanted to clarify yesterday Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. And Yep. So let's just get clear on that because we know that there are some maybe we're maybe they're not actually data centers, smaller tiny homes, places that's I think it'll be a center, like, one one megawatt that are here now for Yeah. So what is the can you just clarify the difference, please?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I think there are three big traditional smaller data centers operating in Vermont right now. They do cloud computing services, primarily or data storage, for businesses and so on. Combined, I think they use half a megawatt of power.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So the difference is the amount of power that the data center uses. So we are talking about data centers that use 29 power or not a data center that use less, which presumably is a lot. Correct.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And the other thing you had asked me to look into how much power crypto mining Mhmm. Facilities use, and it's a really broad range. I did this is just a quick Google search, but it could be anywhere from one megawatt of power to 500. Yeah. So Gotcha. You know? Right. It just depends on the size around keeping all the. And This is not applicable. No. Not I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: did talk to chair Sheldon about this her concern or, you know, her flag on this. And her point is because I told her that you had done some research and this was the lowest kind of threshold that any state was looking at and kind of perspective or, you know, considered was legislation at this point. And her response was sort of along the lines of, well, that doesn't really matter. You know, my question is, what is the impact of a 19 megawatt center here in Vermont or a 15 megawatt center here in Vermont? And I don't know the answer to that, and I I don't think we can answer it today. I'm just gonna flag that for something maybe we could think about as the bill moves over to the senate. And I I certainly don't think we have the bandwidth to consider a different trigger like water use unless, you know, when we're done with the walk through, unless our land use land use review board folks could to me, it would be an and, not a not an instead. But, again, I'm not sure we're gonna hash that out today. So, anyway, I just wanted to flush that out because I did talk to her about that concern.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Her other concern is reflected in the application already. We reviewed that. It's for the existing operational data centers that they want to expand. Yeah. Capacity that they would also be covered. Then the new study on data center decommissioning, I did look at there's one proposed bill in Oklahoma that addressed the issue. So I looked at their proposal. I also looked at some of the decommissioning requirements under federal law for data centers on federal land. And we'll just read through this. So the commissioner of public service in consultation with the secretary of natural resources, the chair of the land use review board, and any other interested stakeholders deemed appropriate by the commissioner shall conduct a study on data centers e commissioning and just a reference to the definition in this bill of data center. The purpose of this study is to develop a regulatory model for ensuring responsible data center decommissioning in a manner that protects and preserves the environment and public health and welfare. The model shall include standards and procedures that address approval of a decommissioning plan by the appropriate regulatory entity, regulatory oversight of the decommissioning process, including through site visits and inspections, a bond requirement or other financial assurance to ensure data center is solely responsible for the costs associated with the implementation of an improved decommissioning plan, guidelines for data sanitization, the physical destruction of highly sensitive storage devices, and documented chain of custody for information technology assets, guidelines for environmental compliance, hazardous material handling, environmental remediation and site restoration. A timeline for commencing and completing the deconditioning process after the abandonment, closure, destruction, permanent cessation operations of the data center, and any other matters being appropriate by insurance. And then December 15, the commissioner shall submit recommendations for data center decommissioning regulatory model in the form of draft legislation to this committee, the House Environment Committee, and the Senate Committees on Finance and on Natural Resources and Energy.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks for doing that research.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can I just say one more thing? Yesterday, you asked about the square footage of the data center, and I got my zero's wrong. It's not 10,000 feet. It's a 100,000 square feet. It's kind of the minimum for a 20 megawatt facility. Anyway, I want to share that with the bookstore. You're not gonna be able to Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thanks for all the research on decommissioning. That's great.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I want to just let's see. I wanna find out about people's time. So I I know that the land use land use review board folks have been waiting patiently, and I don't know what your time frame is. And then I also wanna find out how long of attorney O'Grady can stay.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So we have water well. The rest

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: of day. There they are.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. There they are. Okay. Alright. So if you can wait, honey. Okay. So thank you so much. I'm sorry our schedule changed. We had a long floor session.

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: Really understandable.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, so we really appreciate you being here. So we've had suggestions from a couple different fronts to try to remove language that is duplicative between the PUC process and the Act two fifty process. And just to remind you, and I'm just boiling this down very simply, we have two different things going on in this bill. The siting of the facility, we have added a trigger so that is handled entirely by Act two fifty. And then the contract between the data center and the utility, the large load contract will be developed by those entities and reviewed and approved by the PUC. And so I think the concern is that we have the PUC replicating a bunch of Act two fifty stuff in the contract process and that's not appropriate. Where we've kind of bogged down is making sure that we are not Act two fifty experts in this room, but the concerns that you guys will address in Act two fifty are I think paramount to many of us around the table. And so we wanna make sure we're not accidentally glibly sort of striking stuff that we really intend for someone to be looking at. And so that that's kind of our goal here. And I think that I and I put away my older draft. We had comments on this from Mr. Faber who's here in the room. I can get that draft out. But we are talking about page four of draft 1.4. And we're kind of starting on line six where it says before the commission approves a large load service equity contract the commission shall find that. So we're kind of near the top of page four and what we want to do is

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: go

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: through that language starting on page four all the way down to midway through page six and make sure that we're not sticking stuff into the contract that could, should, will be handled by Act two fifty. And make sure we don't leave anything out. So I think that's where we're at, and we appreciate your time.

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: Great. Yeah, no, thank you for the opportunity. We're happy to be here. And I think your legislative council identified the same areas that we were looking at in terms of any duplication in terms of process through that contract. Let me oops, scrolling too far here now.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And without taking too much of your time, we're at specific line at a time. Sure. Let let me jump in there.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah. Jump in go

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: through it.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: So on page four, thirteen through 20, we believe can be struck. We believe that all of those descriptors of criteria and also the specification of the act two fifty criteria and the other language is we have gone through this, myself, Pete Gill, and Jenny Ronis, our general counsel, we have gone through and come to the conclusion that all of paragraph three can be struck.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And if there are

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: specific questions, we can go through them individually if you would like.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think only the, well, other committee members may have questions, but we've actually, Maria developed a really helpful kind of side by side for us this morning, which I did send around to committee members. I had had a question or many of us had had a question about greenhouse gas emissions, but it sounds like that is included in the Act two fifty process, we don't need to be worried about that either.

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: Yeah, criteria 9F addresses reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, so lines 13 through 20, so

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I just want to make sure that criteria is tied to GWSA.

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: Sorry, the acronym there?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Global Warming Solutions Act. That's where, so our, it's tied to our statutory requirements. It

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: is reduction of greenhouse gas.

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: Yeah, the language in Act two fifty is a permit will be granted when it has been demonstrated by the applicant that in addition to the reflects the principles of energy conservation, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the use of energy. There isn't a specific site to the Global Solution Warming Solutions Act, just if that's the question. Yeah.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: But but it does go on to say it's about including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the use of energy and incorporate the best available technology for efficient use or recovery of energy. So and then they refer also to the applicable building energy standards under 30 VSA sections 51 or 53.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. I think this language that is in here now is specifically referencing because it's saying requirements. What that is, it's the, I think it's the GW, so it's that section of law, I believe. And so, I think it is not I think it's different. And so we had talked about leaving having will not have an un undo adverse effect on the attainments, restricting everything except to that. And I wonder about quick cross reference there to the section of statute.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: R. Kleppner, and then I don't know if Maria has some thoughts.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yes. I, I just wonder how the Act two fifty process is going to be able to evaluate individual projects as they come before it for how they fit in with the state's emission reduction environments. Actually sounds to me as though if the Act two fifty process requires the best technology and reductions that

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So you move this to the contract.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I would agree with that, yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm sorry, agree with what?

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Would take it out of this section, yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: This is the We're in

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the contract.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Think we can leave it out of the contract. It feels to me as though the Act two fifty process does on an individual project basis what the Global Warming Solutions Act aims to do on a statement by basis.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: It's just

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: to say, minimize emissions.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: The Global Warming Solutions Act does not minimize emissions. It puts in place requirements for the reduction of emissions and requires a plan to put forward a plan or make progress.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But I have the same question as rep Kleppner. If the Act two fifty process explicitly requires design principles that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of energy, That's specific to that building. That's what we want. And I'm similarly not understanding how we link one specific project to this state's

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: To a 30% progress. Versus 1990.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Making its GWSA goals.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I mean, I think it's potentially 10% of the state's power. Be in one place. So that's potential pretty significant impact. Yes,

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I agree, but I don't know how the Land Use Review Board looking at a project will say this contributes enough to the state's goals or doesn't contribute enough. The state's goal is to get to 20% below 1990 emission.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Not asking for measurement. It's saying will not have an undue adverse effect on the attainment of this.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I could see I hear you. It's not the responsibility of one data center to meet our state goals. Responsibility It's of state government to meet our state goals. But what you're suggesting, I think, and I'm fine with this, could be just to leave and will not have an undue adverse effect on the attainment of the state's greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements in this contract to ascertain whether this project is hindering or aiding our state government's responsibility to hit the GWSA. I don't know how we put it in here. I feel like it's an Act two fifty thing.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I will just summarize by saying as a strong supporter of the GWSA, I feel that the criteria in Act two fifty will do their job of making sure that the projects that come before them will help the state with its goals. It will not adversely impact the state's business.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: That's good question. Generating project. Right?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Because of these money. So generating projects And

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: it doesn't have the word generation. It's the

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's a finding that the data center will not have, sometimes due, adverse effect, the state's greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Which doesn't seem harmful to me actually.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I I think it gets us into the territory we've been talking about, which is that the PUC is going to

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: to look at the two fifty permit or something.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: No, I

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: mean it'll cause a little bit of duplication of effort, which we're trying to avoid. We will have both the two fifty process looking at emission reductions and the PUC looking at them. But it's not a huge implication of that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Well, actually, let's ask clarifying question. In that in that criteria, do are you is Act two fifty required to find that a project does not have an undue adverse effect on the state's greenhouse gas requirements? So that is the Globe Global Warming Solutions Act.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: No. I don't I think that the language is a little bit different because it is on a project basis, which in the aggregate would have an impact there. But there is no linkage that I'm aware of where it would be measured against the state goals or measurements. But the because the requirement is specific to the project, and so I think requiring that this includes reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the use of energy and incorporate the best available technology for efficient use to recovery. So that this is a standalone project, and we are having to determine whether or not it accomplishes that singular goal, which seems like it is in concert with the overall policy. But it does not we would not be measuring it versus the state aggregate goal. One one other

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: one other thing that

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: on a project basis.

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: I think that's correct. We're not advocating one way or the other necessarily on this, but want to make sure that you all have the full picture of what we do under 9F so you can make the decision of whether it's meeting your goals and processes there. But I will just say too that under Act 181 we were given a purpose under Act two fifty, which is great. And part of that says that and let me just read it here. The purpose of this chapter is to protect and conserve the environment. I'll give you a little ellipses there. And then it says, and the conservation vision and goals of the state established in Section 2,802 of this title. And then let me go to that, which includes specific goals, including the efficient use of energy to provide to provide for development of renewable energy resources and reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. So that general principle that you're talking about is then again incorporated through kind of the Act two fifty purpose section includes that reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Don't know if that satisfies where you guys want to go with this, but just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that. And then I think Brooke referenced the R. B. S and the C. B. S and sort of in terms of, I would assume it would be the commercial building energy standards that would be applicable in these types of developments. Those benchmarks would have to be met under Act two fifty. But again, under Act two fifty, have some

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright, mean it sounds to me like the Act two fifty, the overarching Act two fifty framework accomplishes what we're trying to get at. And then specifically on the project basis, the Act two fifty criteria ensure that the planning and design of the facility must include the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. So I would be comfortable cutting lines 13 through 20, including the mention of greenhouse gas emissions reductions because what it feels like to me is like we're to apply the state government's responsibility to reach GWSA deadlines to individual projects, an individual contract between a utility and a data center and that doesn't really make sense to me. A much smaller scale, would be like taking the construction of a new campus at the state colleges and making that building individually responsible for the GWSA holes. That's not who's in charge of it. It's state government that's in charge of it. So, I propose cutting those lines.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I am wondering whether we just ask in the contract for the data center to provide a calculation of what their greenhouse gas emissions will be And for the PUC to consider whether those emissions are, let's see, I wrote down, I think, language that Rep. Sibilia used, will not have an undue adverse impact on the state's health questions.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's a suggestion. Rep. Sibilia? Yeah. The interest of not belaboring this, I'm fine with striking this. I would just wanna call to our attention, keep hearing references. Yesterday, I heard references to warehouses with servers. Today, I'm hearing an aspect of the state college campuses. I think we are really, way under the impact, in terms of power and water with those references. So just note that. I think we have still a lot to learn about the size of these and scale of these. So I'm looking forward to learning more about those.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And I did say on a much smaller scale. My point was an individual, you know, project versus who's responsible for achieving the GWSA goals. And it's the state government.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. And so when the state government is issuing or approving a contract, I think right now it says that they would find that this doesn't have an adverse impact. Right. I agree that we could take it out.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: All right. Let's correct those lines. And what is next in terms of Act two fifty possible duplicative Act two fifty language?

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: Sure, I would add if you could go to page five, line seven, which is paragraph six.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Will not have

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: let let you get there, Hercept.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: And I think we chatted about this a little bit the other day, will not have an adverse effect on any segment of the waters of the state that have been designated as outstanding resource waters by the secretary of the Natural Resources Agency. We really do feel that that is covered adequately in criterion one, which is air and water pollution, but there are several sub criteria that that certainly endeavor to protect all of our surface waters, our water supplies. It it is very comprehensive. And so this is a this is a small subset of the waters of the state that are protected through criterion one. So we chatted about this, discussed it at length, and we are comfortable believing that those calling out those particular waters is unnecessary because

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: of

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: the other criteria within Act two fifty.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: The just to augment what Brooke was saying there too, that the water criteria under one is no undue water will not result in any undue water pollution. So that's a very broad mandate under Act two fifty for protection of waters. And then there are those subsequent more specific areas. We also have it's not as related to the outstanding waters, but we also have criterion three, which is will not cause an undue unreasonable burden on the existing water supply if one is to be utilized. That's I think we talked about this last time we chatted with you all too, that you know if you're going to be affecting other people's wells, for instance, that would be covered under that criteria.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: And just to very briefly just tick off some of the sub criteria of criterion one, we protect our headwaters. We have water conservation sub criteria, flood hazard, and river corridors, of course, streams, shorelines, wetlands, and then reasonably foreseeable needs of subdivision or development for sufficient water availability. We have those water supply protections that I mentioned the other day, and then the soil erosion and etcetera, other other criteria that Pete was just mentioning.

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

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

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

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: Great. Then same page in lines 13 through 16, we have paragraph eight complies with applicable air pollution control requirements under the Federal Clean Air Act. And then it talks about when it's in effect and inconsistency with state statute. We really think that this is unnecessary and, in fact, somewhat problematic in terms of the supremacy clause, federal regulation, occupying the same arena as state regulation in terms of inconsistencies. Truly, we believe that air pollution and the involvement of ANR and air pollution permitting, which often gives a rebuttable presumption in this area. But it is studied by our experts at ANR, provided evidence to Act two fifty commissions. And we feel the discretion of ANR that is offered through the Act two fifty process, although it's rebuttable, is a very sound method to ensure that air pollution is adequately regulated.

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: It's very similar to under one water. As Brooke mentioned before, it's one water and one air, so it's the same standard that you will not result in undue air pollution. So it's very broad and has a lot of flexibility in terms of its application to a particular development.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry, sorry. I was just going

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: to say, and we also did mention the other day that noise if it pertains to an ill health effect is also one of the air pollution criteria. So our air pollution criteria is actually broader, I would argue than the federal statute. So we feel like we really are buttoned up on that area very well.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, Brooke, just one thing.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What I'm hearing

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: you say is our our standard is higher than than the Federal Clean Air Act? Yes. Okay. So, we were concerned about any rollbacks to the Federal Clean Air Act, but citing it is probably more problematic than not citing it in that regard. Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. It it creates a

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: real conundrum the way in which it looks like it's secondary to the state statute, and I think that would create some difficulties legally in trying to analyze what is the controlling law.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. So strike 13 through 16.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: Okay. And and then that is complies with harvesting procedures and procurement standards that ensure long term forest health and sustainability, including the guidelines and standards adopted under 10 VSA 2,750 that's being called out there.

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

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: And that criteria, we believe

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: Let's see. Nine c. Yeah.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: Is covered by nine c, which is the productive forest soils criteria, and somewhat nine k, but also eight c, which, of course, is the new criteria that act one eighty one has created. And so that has to do with fragmentation of forests. So we think that we have this area covered and plus the standards that are indicated maybe Pete can jump in because he's a little bit more familiar. We were trying to study this area before we were testifying. But I think that those are standards that would be utilized, for example, if because they're administered by by ANR. And so what would typically occur in the analysis under active 50 is ANR would provide conditions or request conditions or a position that would pertain to those standards that you're referring to. So they would be part and parcel of the act two fifty process when a and r would be filing their comments on a particular project. So we think it's unnecessary.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I think you covered that one.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Are you okay? K. And

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: then number the next one down is number paragraph 10. It's the state energy efficiency requirements, including the commercial building energy standards, which in nine g, we cover, and those are the standards that we that we refer to. So we think that is also duplicative. And that was lines 20 Yeah. The next one is That was lines 20. Twenty and twenty one.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Anyone anything else?

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: I think that's it.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Act two fifty doesn't cover I'm now at the top of page six. I just wanted to make sure. I didn't look it up, I'm assuming three VSAs, chapter 72 is our environmental justice law, which is not accounted for in Act two fifty. Right? So we're good leaving that in.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well,

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: yeah, we are a covered agency, but so is the PUC. So even though it's not part and parcel of it's not like a criteria within act two fifty. We are subject to that. So we are required to balance those benefits and burdens, make sure that we are not acting arbitrarily and capriciously, ensuring that those focus populations are being engaged and heard and incorporated certainly in our land use planning position or job that we're working on right now. And I'm looking at Jenny Ronis to supplement if there's anything I've missed.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's on the two fifty criteria, so individual projects are not reviewed for EJ.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: Okay. And what she's making sure that I'd say is because the law is not a criterion, we do not in the processing of an application for a project. It is not something that is dealt with or discussed within a permit itself. But the PUC is subject to it. We're subject to it. So I don't think there's any harm in leaving it in there. It's appropriate, but it's not something I don't think that is going to be seen in act two fifty expressed in any kind of permit or permit conditions.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm just did you have a specific question? I'm trying to wrap my head around that question.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Just a comment, which is I am so fascinated by this comment here, and that's just an interesting thing to think about. Yeah. I'm fact, two fifteen and environmental justice.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm thinking about that intersection because you often think that projects like this wind up citing They often wind up impacting kind of the most vulnerable populations or the most, so it's interesting to know that nobody is specifically I have

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: to think

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: about So the environmental test

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: right here, but that's just this is two fifty issue. Yeah. That's interesting.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We should leave it in.

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: It's it's Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Think we

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: should leave it in.

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: A a matter of time and implementation of those requirements as well. Environmental justice pieces are being put into place on a statewide level and those discussions are happening and we will be right there working on implementing those into our processes over time as those are made uniform on the state processes. So Okay. Although they're not a specific criteria in Act two fifty right now, they will be implemented through our process on those timelines.

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So this is now incumbent on the PUC. I'm not gonna get stuck on this. I'm just gonna flag for everyone that I find this discussion to be extremely interesting.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And Yeah. I some time, my own time, I'm gonna learn learn more about the EJ timeline. I and how it's how it's being incorporated. I just never really thought about it till right now. So okay. Is everybody okay with all the edits we just discussed?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think there might have been one more.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes, there was one more that I had heard from the PUC, which I'm sure they'll correct me if I misspeak. But it was back on page four,

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: line seven,

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: that the proposed data center, including any upgrades to electric generation, distribution, and transmission facilities necessary to power the data center. What I've heard from the PUC is that it's duplicative with Act two fifty.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Upgrades to generation distribution transmission is duplicative to activity. I put

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the question mark there as well, but you know the piece came in the room.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: One second.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Can I can I probably

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah? One sec. Mister Favor is gonna clarify.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So Greg Favor with PNC for. So this is all about the demarcation between the service contract and the actual review, the site review of the building.

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

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: So active fifty is gonna do the site review of the building. This language pertains to our review of the contracts. So I thought it would be appropriate to have on line seven where it says the commission shall find that it's periods or semicolon at that point is. Then you go to one, will not adversely and then you go through all the remaining Oh, that's all I'm saying. Right. The proposed data center will be reviewed by Act two fifty so having it in both places.

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

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Does that sense.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Is that okay with everybody? The commission shall find that it and then we go into all the bullet points. And we've taken out the duplicative PUC Act two fifty stuff. So I feel like we've made progress in clearly delineating between Act two fifty and contract review. Okay, so shall find that.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Starting down within one unchanged. Not adversely affect the sea level out power system. Okay. I think that Brooke and Peter, you now You're welcome to stick around for our water conversation. We're moving into water next, but I'm sure you do not want to I feel positive that you probably don't want to do that. But you're right.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: Thank you for the invitation. We happen to be at a staff all day retreat and training.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Really sorry.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Oh, no. No. No.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: It it's fine. We're we're so glad to have this opportunity. We're very important. It's a very important trigger, and getting it right is important. The one thing I will just say in closing is we did look at the remediation, such, not the new language. I did not see that before we sat down here, but very glad to see that's being addressed in a comprehensive way to be studied because we kind of looked at each other and said, gee, we know what to do to reclaim a quarry, but gosh, I don't understand what the issues would be. And we thought, well, PUC would probably be better at that. So we're very glad to see that that important aspect will be finalized. This literally just flew into my own head, but one of the things that is that is important to know about quarries, for example, act two fifty, that is the only situation, I think, that we have finite permits in act two fifty that go away. They don't run with land forever and ever. When a quarry is completed with its remediation and that is inspected and certified by our district coordinators, at that point in time, a finding is made that act two fifty has been satisfied and jurisdiction dissolves on that property, which is a unique situation with the act two fifty, that might be something that is considered in terms of these data centers after the remediation. And once they are certified to be completed, that that might be a similar situation where one would want jurisdiction to dissolve like the CORI cases. I just bring it up for conversation because it's something perhaps to think about.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Turns out we have two more questions. R. Sibilia?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Thanks for bringing us back to this before you left us. So I think there's been, I think I have heard nearly unanimous, maybe I'm wrong, interest by the committee, making sure that we have decommissioning language in here and also nearly unanimous language from all of the connected agencies. Like, this is not us. And so I think Maria has draft and and there's concern amongst a number of different agencies. So Maria has drafted something I think that is really helpful. We thought it was helpful yesterday. There's one piece that before you leave us, I I would like to ask. So right now, this is constructed as a study, and I think that word is causing some anxiety. And I don't know if that is if we intend for it to be a study or a collaboration or a report or Recommendations. A recommendation. Yes. And so, you know, I had a kind of a flag, like, I need do I need to hire experts for this? Which is not a question for you so much, but just your inputs on the process for coming together with the different agencies to what I'm envisioning, and I think we all agree to it, our recommendations from the appropriate experts in state government to us about what should be included. And draft legislation. And draft legislation. Yeah. Yes. Sorry, that was a lot of words.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: You want

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: to start there? Okay.

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: Yeah. No, I'll I'll just say as you all are very acutely aware, the board is very preoccupied with a number of rule making implementation of Act 181. Appreciate the fact that the Commissioner of Public Service is the lead on that study if that's the direction you choose on this. I think it is important to have that consultation with the LERB, appreciate that.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: Yeah, and I think particularly because if that's going to be an Act two fifty function, you know, it's gonna come over with us, which I I would assume perhaps that would be what folks would want so that we can follow-up like we normally do and ensure conditions are are fulfilled and all of that. But now I think this is very important to accomplish. There's a whole this is very informative in terms of all of the areas that you want looked at and covered. So that's great. And to find those answers quickly is important, obviously, to get these provisions in place in statutory language for you. So I think it's a terrific thing to do to get the to get it right in the right specificity to make sure that these centers that will have significant impacts, that we are not left with, you know, the the same problem that we have historically with some of the quarries that went away where people did not fulfill their obligations. So we appreciate the opportunity to really look into this. It's an important protection for the environment for the future.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think we should move on. So, alright. Thanks for your time, really appreciate it.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: You Yeah, so thank you again for

[Peter Gill (Land Use Review Board, Executive Director)]: having us.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Water. Mike. Hi. Hi. Okay. So I'm also checking off against the past environment list right now just so you guys know. So we have ticked off everything that environment raised for us under land use except for the trigger being 20 megawatts, and I just don't see Well,

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: it's a percentage of the state total load, total heat at at 2%. So with the 20,000, I think it's this is about the electric effect. That's why the 20 megawatt

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

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would you like me to walk through the water system? So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we let's see. Maria, you said sorry. Just reminding. You added all the water stuff that chair Sheldon and her committee recommended is in there. Correct. Okay. And and also as The NRC.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. The proposed. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I think we need to hear from our water expert.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So just a quick question on February. So this has gotten flagged as it should be living entitled to speech scenario. Sorry. That's

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that that's really up to you. This could go into title 10 because the district commission is the one making many of these decisions. So I that's that's definitely a viable choice.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Let's talk when we get there. If that's okay.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Sure.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I was I got a little order.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay.

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

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the definition of closed loop cooling system remains effectively insane. Seal cooling process, which is the safe water cool circulates continuously within a data center's cooling system that withdraw water from municipal public water, splice groundwater, surface water. Michael, what page are you on? I am on page six going on to page seven.

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

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Except for de minimis discharge, it's authorized under discharge through by A and R. Alright. So Then

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

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The definition of PFAS is the US EPA definite of PFAS under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I I did have a question about that. Sorry. I I keep bringing this up. I know we talked about this kind of at length, but this is pegged to the federal EPA and the 40 specific compounds, flags, trigger

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, there's there's potentially more than 40 that fall underneath these compounds. What the 40 is referencing is the assessment method that EPA currently has for monitoring of PFAS. So there's more than 40 that fall underneath this definition, but EPA only has an assessment method that monitors reports.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we talked about whether there was any more stringent Vermont based standard, and I don't remember the answer.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: By stringent, do you mean incompetent test for chemicals? Yeah. Yes. There there there are. But there is also less stringent as well. So in your consumer products regulation, ski wax, firefighting equipment, etcetera, you define PFAS as any fully fluorinated compound, chemical with any fully fluorinated compound. And that's the definition that creates a universe of 14,000 to 15,000 chemicals. The less stringent version is some where you would find, the hazardous waste rules, the eye rule, the drinking water standards. They define specific PFAS and sometimes cumulatively the compounds of them. And they're they're usually about five to six specific chemicals that are listed.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Let's go on while I about that.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So when a data center is in the I p 50 process, they identify to both the PUC and to the district commission, how the DAPT data center will cool the facility. If it's going to use water, it has to use that closed loop cooling system to minimize impacts to the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater unless the district commission, determines that the use of a closed loop system is not feasible at the closed data centers. If it's using water to cool the data center, It has to identify where the data center will obtain water to cool the facility and where the cooling water will be discharged. I think in the transition and some translation from environment to here that shall identify where the data center language was lost. It's not new. It's what they wanted. It's just that for some reason, it didn't show

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

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In the translation. And then if the data center proposes to use groundwater to cool the data center, they have to obtain a groundwater withdrawal permit notwithstanding the fifty seven fifty seven thousand six hundred gallon current threshold. So that's what triggers that groundwater withdrawal permit today. But you're saying regardless of if they're hitting that per day, they have to get a groundwater withdrawal permit. And they're not exempt because they may be using a standing column geothermal e pump, because those are exempt from the groundwater withdrawal permits because of their solicitude nature. And then if a data center proposes to use surface water tool with facility, the data center style team surface water withdrawal permit, those are not available yet. Probably not going to be available until 2027. I can't tell you what the thresholds are going to be, how they are going to apply, but this would require that facility to get that permit. And it would require the ANR rules for surface water withdrawals to provide that withdrawals with sea storage conditions, which I think is Yeah. Something that they would incorporate into the permit anyway because it would be consistent with the Vermont water quality standards and maintaining aquatic habitat, aquatic Toyota during drought conditions.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry. Which bit of this gets at the drought?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're on page eight, line sixteen and seventeen.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Oh, sorry. Alrighty. Yep. Got it.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then the data center is going to obtain all applicable water quality and water resource protection permits. And then you see the list, stormwater, shoreline, stream all, direct discharge, surface water, groundwater, withdrawal, wetland. This is partly duplicative when you list surface water and groundwater when you've already required it. I don't necessarily know if you need to list it again, but that was a request from the house environment committee. So

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'll skip my Mhmm. So we're not we're just saying it's not actually adding an extra layer of

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You've already said that they have to attain it, and now you're saying that to attain all applicable

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So we're just being clear about what's necessary.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't think it's necessary, but I don't I also don't think it does anymore.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: You. Yeah. It is better set. And

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then a data center shall obtain from ANR water quality certificate that meets the same criteria that a fed Clean Water Act section four zero one water quality cert meets for those criteria under 33 USC twelve fifty one to thirteen eighty eight. That's the Clean Water Act And any regulations adopted there under on 01/01/2026. I'm not sure if it was a member of the committee or Maria that inspired the question of whether or not you should freeze in time, the reference to the Clean Water Act. I I do think that that's appropriate, and it's it's I have a little bit of self debate. The Trump administration is looking at whether or not to amend the four zero one certification at the federal level, but industry doesn't want them to. There's been a back and forth in the four zero one over the past few administrations, and the industry is getting exhausted. I was I was I'm go it's Friday afternoon across every day. I'm a little loopy.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Join the club.

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: I was reading

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a a Dallas Federal Reserve Bank survey of the oil and gas industry, and they asked specifically about the four zero one. And one of the responses was like, this is idiocy. We keep ping ponging back and forth. Just pick one and keep it. And, like, that's basically, like, what you're saying. You're gonna freeze this in time the way it was 01/01/2026. So

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And and, of course, it hasn't changed since 2025.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It it it and not since 2025. That's correct. Yeah. So what the Trump administration is doing right now is basically a a stakeholder feedback they're getting is especially from those highly regulated industries like oil and gas. Just Yeah. Stop. Give us regulatory certainty because we can't go forward without that regulatory surge.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Then

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: if a data center that discharges wastewater into surface water, they shall identify the PFAS that may be used in the operation and submit a plan to ANR establishing a program that monitors the discharge of the presence of PFAS, which must be approved by the agency. So what this is how this is different from language you previously saw is that previously it was they were submitting to ANR monitoring plan for PFAS. They weren't necessarily identifying PFAS that may be used in the operation. I think there was some discussion about whether or not the PFAS has to be that that's identified. It has to be those that are intentionally added or any PFAS in the system. I think that's a policy decision. I think it will be difficult to identify all PFAS because it's with certainty. I think many of these types of industrial equipment well, let me step back. One of the major uses of PFAS is for temperature control, heat resistance. And so I would imagine a facility that's built for cooling will have to have some sort of heat resistance and and equipment that has heat resistance built into it, and it will I think it may be difficult for a data center to identify every every specific P class that's part of their facility. So I think having this language that's a little bit open ended, P class that may be used in the operation. I I think that that's appropriate, especially since it now needs to be approved specifically by ANR.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, Mike, I'm sorry. So you're recommending so you're okay with lines eight through 12 as edited here, a data center that discharges. Correct?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I think that's appropriate. That's a policy decision that I think it's appropriate. I don't know how it interacts or overlays with the next

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. That was my question. So it's how

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because you in the lines eight through 12, you require a monitoring plan or or a plan to establish a program that monitors the discharge of the presence of EPOS. But then you say that they can't be be discharged. So why do you need a monitoring plan? So I I don't and discharge is it doesn't have a mens rea. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't know what that means.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't have an intent. You don't need to knowingly discharge or recklessly discharge or intentionally discharge. You just need to discharge. So I I don't know how or why you have a monitoring plan if you have a prohibition on discharge, unless you just wanna monitor any effluent from the facility. And as part of that monitoring plan, you monitor for PFAS that may be used in the operation.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We have BNRC here.

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: To speak to I could explain what I was trying

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to do and then maybe we

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: could talk about it. In the record, John Bram and Vermont Natural Resources Council. So, yeah, my my Mike is right. So the the goal is not to discharge. And that language came from ANR, which is good. But I think we should check to see what actually is in the effluent. So you you could say that it's prohibited, but I don't think that that I think it would be good to know what's actually coming out because I think there will be some PFAS that is in the wastewater and it could be just pee pops from the water that you're pulling, for example, and it just in in the water. But if if there's monitoring discharge, even though there's a prohibition, there is it's not. It's it's it's still a discharge. Just because you say there's a prohibition doesn't mean that they're gonna follow it. So it's kind of a condition. It's kind of a check is what to to kinda see what was actually happening once these things were up and running. And, you know, the way it was structured is that it's a plan. I think the question is if you can monitor for the four whatever the EPA assessment is, however many you could you could monitor based on the EPA's methodology of assessment, then just see what's in there, you know, and then ANR could react accordingly. Right? You could reopen permits. You could you know, they have continuing authority to have oversight over the permit. So that was the intent. It's just to basically have a check to see what actually was happening in there.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if that's that's what you wanna do, I think the language in eight to 12 should be tweaked just slightly. It would say establishing a program that monitors the wastewater discharge from the data center, comma, including monitoring for the gusts p class. So you're just monitoring the discharge and not just monitoring it for PFAS. That works. Yeah. And then then I think the rest of it's fine.

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

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: I think Yeah. Let's see what's going on.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: We don't want PFAS discharged into the waters, so we wanna make it clear that you're not allowed to discharge.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I wanna I wanna stop you there. It's the addition of PFAS. Because the other day, I think you asked what if water comes in with PFAS in it. That that's that may happen.

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

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That may happen. So it's when the facility, the data center is

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Right. Adding.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: You know, sort of, okay. Do you monitor the water going in and water going out and see if the PFAS level has gone up? I mean, that's sort of the only way I think to know that it's coming from that facility, but what we want is if the PFAS level is going up, you're not allowed to add PFAS And

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So you're saying there's no consequence.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah. There's there's no you know, if the if the PFAS levels and the discharge water are higher than the PFAS levels and the intake water, then there needs to be an action to remediate from my point of view.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well well, currently, there's no requirement to remediate.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Indeed. So we'll just know that it's higher and be irritated.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or the agency responds with their discretionary authority to say, because of those levels, you need to put in filtration or you need to take additional measures to reduce the P and L. But there is no effluent standard right now under Vermont law or PFOS. But but they have they have established prohibitions. I I think let me just Campbell's from the Northeast area. And do you know that the landfill has a prohibition on effluent of PFAS. And so they the agency is able to do that when they identify initially. Yeah. That's what I

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: was gonna talk about. If the if the if you think sky high, you know, numbers, the agency does have the authority, especially with the bordering line certificate, to reopen these permits and then to require some action. It's hard to say what the action would be before you you know, it depends on what the evidence shows essentially. So just wanna give the state that authority, and then we're we're leaving it up to them. That's actually action. Maybe that's an issue that comes back to the legislature. The debate about creating a a standard for PFOS is ongoing. The agency is legally required to create a standard, and they haven't done it. So I don't know. I mean, I think eventually they'll do it. You know? Like, I don't know when. I can't tell you when, but it's not like, as if that's not an active issue that is not being worked on. So that will make all the skis here.

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

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would it be appropriate that we include some language that if testing shows the elevated levels, then ANR will step in with appropriate measures or something to that effect. Don't know what elevated levels would be. Alright. Alright? Because we don't have We don't have that initial standard.

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

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so what did you measure that against? Okay. They do have discretionary authority underneath their general water discharge authority when there is there is a contribution that they feel it is is contributing to water pollution to to require permitting or to require honestly, they can require it to stop it.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Does anyone know how burdensome, time consuming, expensive, complicated it is to monitor water for PFAS?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that goes back to what universe you're talking about. If you're if you're using the EPA definition current one. Yeah. And you're using their EPA assessment method, that's something that that's very viable and done. And I don't know the cost of it off the top of my head, but it it's out there in that suite of testing methods. It's probably not as expensive as trying to test for every fluorinated compound and then doing basically a forensic analysis of what the fluorination the increased fluorination might come from. That to me would probably be more expensive than doing, it's called EPA assessment meant for, like, 1666 or something like that.

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: 1633. That's 1633. That's 1733.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I don't know any like, do you have to take water and send it off to the lab? Because it like, if you just stick a wand in the water and it's wired to something that automatically tells you what's going on, then, yeah, make a monitor intake and outtake. It's probably not that easy. I'm guessing.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I I don't think it's that easy because you don't you have timing and and durational and and volume that that they're all usually part of monitoring assessments. Like, you don't just take a one time and then walk away. One time little vial. Like, that's enough. You have to do it over time, and you have to take enough volume. And you have to take it from different places because there's what are called mixing zones. The the closer to that discharge point, obviously, it's gonna be greater. Right? Further away What a Solution is dilution kind of thing. You're gonna have but you still wanna test out there to see what the scale and scope of contamination away from the discharge point is. And so that that's the type of you know, that's kind of what monitoring does. There's multiple facets of it.

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: But the like, the drinking water standard is five parts per trillion, I think. So, like, if you're saying, like, 100 parts per trillion or 300, you know, you know something's wrong. Right? Like, there shouldn't be those type of levels even in the water that you're taking, you know? And so and we sadly don't really know because we don't sample, like, the surface. We don't really know what the levels are in the various surface waters, but I would hope that they're not hundreds of, you know, times what EPA EPA is saying, even for surface water, think they did did set like a guidance standard. I forget what it was. So we do have that information. And so you'd imagine that that would be kind of the average baseline. So if you're seeing numbers way above that, that would be a flag and that, you know, then the ANR would be hopefully concerned and take action.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do we have any sense of in a closed loop system, how much discharge is gonna be happening? You have a sense, but it's not a great sense. So closed loop systems reduce water usage by 70 to 80%. So that depends on how much water you use. Right? A lot of the water will evaporate, but they will still have a discharge from that reduced amount of it's, like, five to 10%.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: But it's still a sizable.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it depends. Right? It depends on your you start from. You reduce that by 70 to 80%. You then evaporate off that, and then what's left is five to 10 I mean, I don't I I can't even there's somebody in a data center in Virginia that could probably give you that information, but it's not

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: not me. They all be talking.

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

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: The thing to bring this up at this point, but we're we're highly focused on one class of chemicals here. And I'm wondering whether there are other classes of chemicals known or being invented in the near future before we get a data center ten years from now that, if you want language to cover this bill.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Like, who does the toxics sort

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of thing? There are

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: other things besides PFAS that are potentially relevant. So

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yes. And if you're discharging and you're discharging a certain gluten that's already covered by the water quality standards, it's you're covered. You're gonna have to

[Jon Groveman (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: get a discharge permit, and you're

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: gonna have to meet those affluent limitations. So everything is already listed. You have to get a permit for, and you have to meet those affluent limitations. And you may even need to do pretreatment or other types of of filtration. And so those chemicals, yes. Going into the future, it's naive to think that PFAS won't have alternatives, and you don't won't know what they are, and you don't know what they are now. And that's a product of a precautionary approach. It's it's a an an initial analysis approach with general testing, but then it it then re relies on kind

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: of a reactionary approach. So I guess the question is, is there language that we could put in here that would address future novel substances, or can we not even go there at this point?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, you tried to do that in, like, 2017, 2018 to define, like, that class of what what forever chemical is, and you you couldn't define it. You had to refine it back down to PFAS. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Hey. So my sorry. I was gonna just go over where we left the waterline though. Does that be

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: your question? Try to type it in. Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just I just would recommend just tweaking that monitoring component.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we're leaving in okay. So online you had something on lines one eleven or something on page nine.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Hold on a second. I'm I'm looking at the wrong draft. I had I don't have the paper copy of the current draft.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Here's an extra copy right

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: here. Thanks. It would just be, on page nine. It would read something like submit a plan to ANR establishing a program that monitors the wastewater discharge from the data center, comma, including monitoring for the presence of PFAS. And then I would probably do a new sentence and say the monitoring plan must be approved by or shall be approved by the agency.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Of natural resource?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Did did you get them?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then and then what 13 through 16, how does that read then?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you read it as Maria has it.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: That's fine. Yeah. Rutland? Do we want this rebels and suspenders to add at the end of the sentence which says which must be approved by the agency, something like, comma, which shall take any action necessary to protect her mother's health.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: How about something that would

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The senate would The

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: agency should the the monitoring plan shall be approved by the agency on a determination that it meets the water quality standards.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Yeah. So

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we could submit that. That makes sense. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: That work for you if that works for me?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It meets the Vermont water quality standards. Yes.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Thank you.

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So water? I need to go back to that question on where. So he seems to suggest that this Oh, yeah. And and I don't know what the right answer is. I mean, we're not so we have a we have a unicorn, and so, you know, nobody is familiar with it. So, you know, goes there. So can you talk about

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, there are there are unicorn sections in Act two fifty. I think they were the Peter and Rick were talking about quarry section, but that's a unicorn section. You could move this into act two fifty as a stand alone section. Does that make sense

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: to you? I mean I shouldn't say does that make sense to you. Do you see any advantage to moving it into the act two fifth 50 section of law as opposed to the p public service section of law where it currently is?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I I I do. I don't know who said it earlier. The there is that distinction. The PUC is reviewing the contract and the liability and versus acting 50 looking at the appropriateness of sightings. This is more of a sighting requirement. Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. Sorry. So what we're talking about title.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section two eighty six.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So we've got we're sticking that right now into the PUC section?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. It's in title 30 currently. But it's

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: better to the label down.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, sorry. So I've come back around to knowing what we're talking about. So we're talking about whether we should move it out of that into

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Title 10 and and make it a standalone section in act two fifty. Because this is going through act two fifty.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You would say something like at the beginning, you know, the, when development is a data center underneath this chapter, The data center shall identify to the commission. It's a well, it'll be just to the district commission room reviewing the data center's application, and then all the rest of it's the same.

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: No. I think that looks good.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: It will be entitled to that next time.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So if we do that, there's one other change, I think, that connects to that, on page seven being

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page seven, line 15.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. You got rid of the reference to the commission. Yeah. We don't.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I get the time?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I I absolutely did not catch it, Reverend Rutland. So Good friends interrupted. What do you you say to? Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So Is there mind if

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I go to another committee?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. I was gonna ask. Are we? I feel like we're done talking about water. Mike, you've been so helpful. Thank committee. Thank you so much.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Appreciate it. Y'all have a good weekend.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. You too. Thanks.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Bye. Mike, chance. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So does anybody have any further comments or questions on this bill?

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Just do a one word thing on page five, line eight or line nine. You should the state secretary of the agency.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You start them. Restart that there?

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Restart the news. Okay. We're good then.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I got a couple.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: One is on page three, line 18. It has been suggested that we have missed, at the end there, we should add paired with energy storage. So that would be including provisions requiring implementation of demand side management operational measures for the purpose of maintaining grid stability and efficiency, including demand response, flexible load management practices, such as load shifting, peak shaving, and the use of distributed energy resources paired with energy storage.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I thought DER included That's

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: what my understanding. What's that?

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Storage is a DER. That's considered DER. Okay.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I think the stakeholder who was suggesting that, you're gonna pursue that. Downstairs. Then I've got one more, which is in giving you the.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: This is the report.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: This is the decommissioning? Yeah. And just my request is that we got I don't think well, I guess we

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: should talk about whether or not we

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: want a study or if we want recommendations or or and if we're putting in a study, that does seem to suggest hiring experts, and we do not want it here as opposed to Recommendations. Recommendations. That's better.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: If that if that doesn't trigger the money conversation, that's fine. I mean, it's clear what we want. Recommendations and draft legislation.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let me ask mister paper if he

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: has any suggestions on how we should frame this, not whether or not we should do it. Right. I'm just

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: asking for a recommendation from the departments in consultation with whoever. That makes it a lot easier. Recommendation.

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

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

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: No. I'm not I'm

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: not speaking for the department.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Nope. We're just paying you for the framing of

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: That was posed to me. Yes. So I would Yes.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Less time and

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: It's less of a

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: conduct a study. So,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the title of the section should be recommendation on data center decommissioning and then shall make recommendations in line 14 on data center commissioning. Let's look through for any other

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or provide. Should Maria recommend a regulatory model for data center deconstructing?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. Line 17. Say again.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's December 15. We get that back.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Any final So Yep. May

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I ask one more question with regard to this bill and the decommissioning? So I would not want a contract to be signed, like, for a the the contract between the DU Yep. That you all are looking to approve before we have that language for the decommissioning. So Oh, yeah. Do you do is it possible that could happen, that there could be a contract signed before December 15, given what's necessary for the contract? Let's go

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: back and see what has to be in

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the contract. It does seem unlikely.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: See, very unlikely. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. But we struck all mention of decommissioning out of a contract.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right. But would someone be able to negotiate a contract and cite a profit concurrently in that shorter time trend, I'm thinking that

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Because they have to have the siting?

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. Typically, you can do it together. Yeah. You you you want one before the other, but typically, both of them. And there's water quality permits you'd have to get here. My goodness. Those are gonna take you years to to be on those. So I don't think that

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: But we haven't put things in order, intentionally allowing

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: companies to pursue parallel. When you when you pursue a permit, like a water quality, for instance, that often includes studies, which must take place before you even start your app application to her site.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Oh, right. Because actually no. Because the decommissioning is likely gonna live in February.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Right. Right. So February is not gonna be done before No. So that No. Contract could be signed.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: You could start at the same time, but it's something like that that way.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's right, because there's permits built in here that don't even exist yet.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: You have to get studies to get those permits and those take months, if not years.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, I'm thinking about also too. I think I'm talking about something slightly different than you. We're requiring permits to be procured here, and those permits don't even they haven't even been developed yet once in 2028. Right? Mhmm. So I think we're in for the question. Okay. Sorry. Greg, do have a question?

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Well, just some things I wanna point out. This has to do with things from title 30 to title 10. Because all the stuff is living in title 30 right now, and that that's an artifact of having us do the site in the first place when this bill was originally built. So if you look at section two eighty seven on page nine, and this has this has to do with quarterly and annual reports. So the one line nine p says in a form

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and manner, this term by the That's

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: appropriate for act two fifty to do at this point. We don't need reports on energy usage as long as the contract is is correctly designed. We wouldn't really need those kind of reports. Active 50 might want reports on the water that seems appropriate, But we don't need energy usage reports, which which are on the next page. That's on page 10 on line one. And the the itemization of the data center's payments toward infrastructure, that's done upfront. The utility will not build that infrastructure until you pay them. It's not a ongoing kind of payment thing. You have to pay that upfront so that the idea of getting annual reports on that doesn't really make any sense. So I would change that to active 50 and then move it to title 10. That whole section. So it make any sense.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm just getting there. The information feels really important to me. So if that information is not being reported on a regular basis to the commission and the department.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: If there's any problems with the energy usage that weren't taken care of in the contract, utility is going to come to us at that point and say, we need to change that contract because something something is going wrong. Having an annual or quarterly report on that, it's not really useful to us.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I think where I'm at with that, Dana, is I was reading this differently.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So for example, like, on page 10, line five, so presuming provided that one data center is here, the commissioner shall include in the department's annual report, and then all this valuable data, well, that comes to us. So I'm not

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Oh, I think we're looking at the wrong the different sections.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Where are you? I'm about a.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: You're talking about a section two eighty seven. You're looking at b. Yeah. You're looking at b. Okay. I'm not suggesting management is there. It's a these are quarterly energy reports coming to us because that's not seem how that's useful to us.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, actually, I think, Greg, mister, I think you were suggesting moving two eighty seven into title 10.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Right.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And just

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: taking us out of it.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So then because then But then we have b is about the twelfth.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Oh, yeah. So so leave b. Yeah. Leave b and and then yeah. So not the whole section. Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: But just a. Because you want the you you you if actually 50 wants this water usage or so maybe they do. This should live in their idle.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So, secretary, I would make a suggestion. Mhmm. I wanna suggest that we ask mister Favor and I a fair number of moving pieces, and it might be good to have sectioning. Yeah. Just to make I mean, we're looking at the time and knowing we have You are. While we have another draft that Maria said you need to get for us. And so if the committee is okay with that, I would be willing. And if that's the intent, if the committee wants to do that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm interested in the data in section B. As long as we're not changing that, I'm okay with us looking on A down the road.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I think it's just reconstructing the section to put it in different sections of the print. Okay. I mean, the senators are definitely I'm fine.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So we're gonna leave it.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's my recommendation, madam chair. It just feels like this just to get this just right might take us a minute or two. Fine, buddy? I will work you

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: on that. Yes. No.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do have any danger to leaving that in there

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: to where it would stay in there if that's written?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It mister people will have more work.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: We we might get useless reports.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. That would be the first time ever.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Right?

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: We Yeah. We never get that. So it's been unusual.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: You guys are pretty overstaffed right here.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Yeah. We're overstaffed.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good to read reports. Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And just as a reminder to folks, we may not even recognize this one. We'll see what happens in the sentence. So Maria, what's your timeline? Does anybody have any additional comments before we get a final draft for both? Maria, what's your timeline? No. Because we have other stuff we could do.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I like to hold another John by four. Okay. Do you have a good evening for Mike? Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Okay, so we'll, we'll look at a final draft of this for a vote at four. And that should give us enough time to vote out our committee bill. So let's switch gears. And you know our clerk will

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: tell me the right word today.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It works really easy. Okay. Good. Let me get to bill ER two six zero seven eight one, and act relating to something. All right. So on Friday, March 13, we should be looking at BR two six zero seven eight one draft three point one. That's in the folder. And just as a reminder for folks, and Ellen will have to get a final cleaned up copy to submit. But we had on page one, line 19, a change that the PUC had requested. The entity appointed under May. So this is the Burlington Electric section. Then there's the whole energy planning section, which is page 10 already. Bottom of page 10, we had had a just an edit that we had missed that the,

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the RPCs had submitted. And then on page 11, we knocked out the telephone plan language because that's in the budget, both the language and the the bill. This bill isn't going anywhere else. So we'll vote it out today. It'll be on notice Tuesday. It'll be on the floor Wednesday, Thursday. And I'm planning to be the floor reporter. So any questions or discussion?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Still sticking to what I suggested. It's a shame that we can't get any further with that.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I really feel strongly about that.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And, unfortunately, I the other pieces of bill I was all in favor of is one piece I'm not. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Dara, what do we say? I'm supportive. Okay. And what am I supposed what's support? How do we get a motion? So, we need a motion to approve the bill draft number for introduction because this is a committee bill that was not that it's. Okay. So that and just the one motion to do it. And then there's some directions for US reporter. Okay. So to approve it for introduction? Mhmm. Alright. Anybody wanna make that motion? I move we

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: approve draft 3.1 of 20 six-seven 81 for introduction. Okay. Representative

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

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

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

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

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

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Representative Butler?

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Representative Warren? Yes. Representative Williams? Yes. Representative Southworth? No. Torre? Yes. K. That is 810. Okay. So that gets a number. Goes on notice. Fluor Wednesday, Thursday. I'll be working on my flu report. I'll let folks know if I have any questions. And then since we're killing time here for a minute, and I wanna allow just a ten minute break before we vote. But let's wrap up odds and ends. Okay. So next step for all of our bills. I did go down to approves to introduce and talk about seven forty, the greenhouse gas reduction bill. We had a good conversation. There were good questions. I was there for, like, half an hour. I mean, it was pretty, you know, pretty robust. And one good piece of news is that JFO is revising the anticipated cost of the building downward a little bit. They thought ANR had kind of overestimated the amount of funding they needed for this two FTE. So, that came down from 300,000 to 185,000. So the total cost of the base the requested base appropriation to ANRs now probably gonna be something a little bit less than 500,000 a year. I mean, sorry.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 400.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 400? Thanks. I think that next week, approves will probably do what they often do, which is that they if it's not a slam dunk for the money, they'll strip out the money, They'll vote it out, you know, on whatever vote, probably some for, some against. And then our our funding request starts $400,000 that's attached to that bill goes into, like, a contingency list, and they prioritize those. So there could be 20 things in order of if funds become available, we would like you to to fund, you know, versus and that and that and that. It's called like a cascade or waterfall money. And I've I I'm just speculating, but it seems like that is gonna be the fate. So this will probably come to the floor without any money on it, and the funding will be contingent on funds becoming available wherever that falls on a contingency list on the senate side or even next year in BAA. So, however, we have to pass, you know, the bill has to make it all the way across the finish line, passed by the house, passed by the senate, signed by the gov for the bill to be there in case the money becomes available. So that's $7.40. I don't know what happened with $7.18.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: How'd it go? Went

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: okay. I imagine the same thing's gonna happen. You probably want to get an education see this.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: K.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: But I think the questions were good. The reception seemed good. It seems like they'll pass it back, but I I don't know.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Seven fifty three off to the senate. Congrats. Great job on your floor report, Dara. Thank you. I'm missing something. Committee bill. Oh, yeah. No. I'm not missing something. Committee bill, data center, greenhouse gas, building energy code, disconnections, which brings us to our fine thing. So this is a very funny quirk of the inverse. So our conversations about the Joint Carbon Emissions Reduction Committee ended us with us not voting out a bill but deciding we're gonna write like a recommendation letter after crossover. And lo and behold, unbeknownst to anybody in this committee, gov ops technical correction bill updates the joint carbon emissions reduction committee. So there is a bill, H927, that's gonna be on the floor on Tuesday. The very first page updates the I mean, it's a very long bill with a zillion technical corrections. The only thing gov ops did was add us. They didn't change any other language. And because I know that this really mattered to some members of our committee, I have offered an amendment. It's already submitted that adds that on both the House and Senate side, not all members can be from the same party. So that amendment is drafted. It's submitted to the clerk. I'll go and, you know, pitch it to house gov ops, but I already talked to the chair and vice chair, and I feel pretty confident it will be a friendly amendment. So you'll see me stand up to offer that on the floor on Tuesday, I guess. So we'll be at it, you know, as official members or we'll have an appointee to that committee and we've added our language about not all members of that committee on both the House and Senate side being from the same party. So that's that. That's joint carbon. That's nine twenty seven. Data centers might have to go to Ways and Means.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: For what?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: For what? I don't know. And I'm not sure. I don't know, Marie, if you have any ideas about it. Come to ways and means real quick, and she pointed out that you some word study somewhere. I don't think it was study, I think. Anyway.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Comment maybe. You know, he's, like, money.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: To be honest, it was like a conversation in passing. I I didn't have a chance. Just Gross

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: receipts tax?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Oh, actually. That's what it is. It's the mention of the gross receipts tax.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. We don't wanna let them out of that.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I mean, you can take that word out. There's

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: They're not gonna do anything.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Still have the intent of it. Wanna get that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We'll leave it.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: I think you you can get to the intent of it without that exact word, but I'll I'll leave that to you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Just leave it. They're not gonna mess around with it.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: We don't wanna leave any money on the table for our friends over at the PVC.

[Gregory Faber (Vermont Public Utility Commission)]: Okay. They'd have to do it anyway.

[Brooke Dingledine (Land Use Review Board, Chair)]: So that's that. So There you go.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, we've got two atoprobes, one maybe ways of means, other straight to the floor, and then next week, and then bills coming from the Senate. So, we have S202 plug in solar. We're gonna take that up next week. We're starting to line up testimony. I'm making sure that we're gonna allow time to hear from I'm sorry. Can't remember what stands for UL. Underwriters

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Underwriters.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Laboratories. UL is coming in. We're trying to track down the international brotherhood, the ones that workers

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I did. I I found them. Talking about one. Okay.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Okay. Should we got anybody from the control section that we get that control section? System protection of of utility?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We have all the utilities coming in. So

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: At their government affairs level or at their

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: They usually what they usually do is we we reach out to the government affairs person, and they bring whoever they need to bring.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Or they come back?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Or they come back. Yeah. So yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Division of Fire Safety. Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Division of yeah. Yep. Division of fires. What what we did was we looked at everybody that the senate heard from. And it was a pretty long list. It was like DPS, PUC, fire safety, you know, the advocates. I we have a group coming in who makes these units. We have UL. We have the electrical workers. It's pretty long list. I don't think we're even

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: getting it all done next week. Yeah.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: All the utilities.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: The division of fire safety, FP one zero one, then the electrical code subsection of FP one zero one, fire.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'll tell you what. When the agenda is posted, it this is not like the be all end all. We've got we invited, like, 15 initial witnesses. So when the agenda is posted, everybody can take a look at it, and we'll get you can either make suggestions, or we can get through the first round of testimony and see what gaps what we didn't cover. Because I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be vague. I just

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I sent a really long list to Alex. And if the information that witnesses come in with just doesn't feel detailed enough, we'll come back to it. It's not like we're voting this out next week.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: No. No. No. But just the level of the because when you you said you were bringing in the what was the union people you were bringing in from

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: The the electricians.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: The electrical oh, you said the electrical work.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'm sorry. I meant electricians. Okay.

[Maria Royle (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alex, who did we get? It's the electrical workers.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It is the electrical workers.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: IBEW? IBEW. Yes. So to me, the IBEW is on the distribution voltage, not the consumption voltage. Okay. So that was my concern because we're plugging in at the construction.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. You would take, a residential electric

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So it's that portion. So the the line work the IVEW works under the National Electric Safety Code. The housing that works under the National Electricology Code. Okay. So that's I am specifically looking for the detail at the underneath the breaker, underneath the meter, behind the meter.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I think my my suggestion stands. We'll get the agenda posted, the initial list, or we can take a whole big round of testimony and then see what what gaps we need to fill

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: in. Does

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that sound okay? Because you've got expertise here.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: I'm just looking for that particular specialty of that individual. Okay. The individual may know of, which I do not. I Okay. Depended on other persons in my career for subject determination.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okey doke.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Sounds good. So we'll make sure we get you the testimony in

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: one. That

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: is all I know. So why don't we take a break and come back in seven minutes and twenty nine seconds?