Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: I drove one one time.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Alright. Guys, we're live. Alright. Welcome everybody. It is house energy and digital infrastructure. It is Tuesday, May 19. And we are meeting this morning to have a committee discussion on s two zero two. And then in a little bit, we're going to also take some testimony on suggested changes to h seven twenty seven from the land use review board. So just quickly, I wanted to because I think we've got time here. I wanted to just walk folks over kind of where we're at and timing with our impending adjournment and the choices that we're going to have to make. So, we're going to be meeting every morning before floor just to make sure we have time to get our work done. But the we're running very short on time. So I'm sure that everybody received the update from speaker yesterday, and she is still pushing hard for a German this Friday, which means that even if we don't make that and we go into, next week as a chair, I am, acting as if we're adjourning on Friday. It's really the only responsible choice that I can make. So that means that we are very near the end for our bills. Some of them may not make it across the finish line. We need to just say that out loud right now. So in terms of timing, s two zero two, we're gonna talk about right now. Today is possibly the last day, and we're even cutting it close to try to take a bill to conference. I did let speaker know that we might be wanting to take this bill to conference. Her response was great, but I can't guarantee the passage. So just know we're already in that land. Okay? Where taking to build a conference is could require rule suspensions on both the House and Senate side. And so we're already getting into the clock is running down. It may wind up that we move everything forward as quickly as we can this week, and then we're here next week. But I have no I don't have a crystal ball. I have no way of knowing that. And I'm being told that we're still trying to adjourn this Friday as are all the chairs. So that's the that's the context I'm operating. So we've got four bills that are still kicking around. Two zero two, we're gonna talk about right now, and I think take a straw poll on what we wanna do. That was a token session yesterday, so it's actually up for house floor action today. So that's why that's why we're here. But let's see. And I hope everybody got the email I sent out over the weekend. Single plant, our h seven ten bill is has been amended. I sent everybody the link to see the latest, language. That is now sitting in senate approves. So I don't know what's gonna happen to that bill. Could make it across the senate floor and come to us later this week, but I don't know. H five twenty seven cell tower or cell tower bill, that's up for second reading on the senate floor today. So if you think that through second reading today, third reading tomorrow, notice calendar Thursday, and I'm thinking this, you're right, unless there are rule suspensions, which means did you notice Yeah. Which means possible coming to us on Friday. That's right. Self power bill. Data centers is up for third reading on the senate floor today. So, again, without rule suspension, that is notice tomorrow, action here Thursday. So okay. So that's where we're at. Alrighty. So two zero two,

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Let's see here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We did a walkthrough of this bill last week. We walked through the Senate amendments. The senate revised the landlord language and they added expanded scope electric motors to the appliance standards. And we've gotten written testimony in on both basically, both sides of the electric motor issue. We've got people who think that we should not add it and people who think that we should So, hopefully, folks have had a chance to take a look at that. What I what we need to do this morning since it's up for action today is take a straw poll on what we wanna do. I don't think we have time, and I've checked this with other chairs and with the speaker. We don't have time to amend the bill and send it back to the senate. So we can vote to concur, or I think we can roll the dice and vote to take it to conference and hope that we don't run out of time and we may not run

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: out of time. And I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: think there's some, from all the conversations I had over the weekend, I think there is some interest in taking the bill to conference with one specific change. So, Rep. Sibilia, do you wanna pitch what you think would be a worse going to conference for? Yep.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Great. So I would like us to, with the motors, put in a trigger so that should California California's in the rulemaking process right now, should they pass their rules, it would go into crime too.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And your logic there, which we talked about yesterday, is that California is a big enough driver to kind of move the market. Right? So Vermont wouldn't be out there as a small state by itself. Mhmm.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. It's our market shares. And I am also, shall I leave it there? I mean, so I feel pretty strong on that position, but also I can respect the will of the majority in the committee if it goes to the other bank. R. Kleppner.

[Speaker 0]: Saying in general, California is a big enough market so that manufacturer will retool to meet California standards as the automakers and everyone else else does. So no sort of extra skin off their back if Vermont joins that train. It's my general sense. That's a former manufacturer.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Rutland, I don't know

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: if anyone knows this off the top of their head. How did two zero two come out of the sound? Just opposed. Out of committee?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's okay. I think it was five of us. Yeah. I mean, it went past the floor. Like, was out of but but I think so. We're just looking at this. I don't think there's any opposition.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: This just makes it stronger. I mean, it that less it reduces risk by adding a treatment. I

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: think that to be clear, my my main concern right now, this is my it's what's weighing so heavily on my mind, is timing. I think Reps Aneelios policy idea is a good one. So like I said, I feel like we're rolling the dice a little bit with conference, but not hugely. But at this at at this time of year, everything's such a crapshoot anyway. Is it really you just have to make your best guess and go for it? Yeah. Rep Southworth?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So I supported the bill as it left this committee. I thought we had done a lot of work on it,

[Speaker 0]: and we we had come to

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: a good consensus on the language. I have two issues with this bill as the senate's proposal is. One of them is I'm not sure if the landowner protections are as strong as they were when we did them. I'm concerned with that. And the second is the the electric motors. We didn't take anywhere near an amount of testimony that would have given us a clear view of it. We're looking at letters from people and their stance, but we're not we didn't actually hear testimony from manufacturers how this is gonna affect everything downstream in the future. And I think doing this is gonna be an issue as far as cost of fees and everything going through. So as the it is amended, I can't support it. I won't support it. We strike out the electric motors, and if it's a consensus that everyone feels landlords are protected enough with the wording, I can support that. K. But with electric motors in there,

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I can't support that at all.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. So with the electric yeah. So we sent it over without the motors for the reasons you said. We we didn't have time. Crossover was coming up. We didn't have time.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: And the system didn't take.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We didn't get into it. So just having checked in formally with with conference committee is our best chance of keeping the bill alive time wise. The and I I have talked that through with enough people so that I feel confident. I think if we amend the bill, knock out the motors, and send it back, the most likely fate is that the whole bill just we run out of time and the bill dies, and it won't take it out. So if we take it in the conference, that's our chance to talk about motors. And we could say the house position was no motors or try to find a compromise with Rep. Sibilia's trigger.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah, and I have concerns with that too. We're facing our laws in California, and and I've seen that time and time again, and I just I don't agree with that. I I think we should be taking the testimony that we need to to make it right for Vermont, not what California is doing.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: K. Other thoughts? Yeah. Rick Allen?

[Speaker 0]: The landlord issue with a plug in solar. I have no problem. K. Morrow is just happy with it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So let's talk a little bit about the landlord language. I don't I don't have it in front of me.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I'm sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: But as I remember, the changes in the landlord language did two things that in some ways I'm trying to convince anybody. I'm just wondering what happened. Yeah. That in some ways sort of came to withdraw. So we had had it that you ask the landlord's permission and the landlord can deny for any reason, or if the landlord doesn't get back to you within ten days, you can't do it. What the senate said was the landlord has to respond in ten days with reasonable restrictions. If the landlord doesn't respond, the tenant may proceed. So that's the exact kind of the exact opposite of what I had. However, the landlord has to give permission to hire someone to do electrical work. And these currently require electrical work. So essentially, landlord permission is at this point still built in here. But

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. And like I say, if the consensus of the committee is that that language is I I can I can support? I just wanna make sure that we are definitely protecting landlords.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. Penny? Yeah. Thanks, Sibilia.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Not Oh, let's see. Note the landlord piece. So I I share the concerns about the landlord, I'm convinced that that change is protect still protect the animals on that on that roofs. Yeah.

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Did we see what the vote was

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: coming out of commission? Oh, was somebody looking?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's not listed in It's gonna be on their web page. Is that In fact, the the final build is in the it's not the web page. Just just the just this merging. Okay. It's the yellow highlight showing the changes for

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: the I know. I think it was voice vote on the floor.

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

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: you're doing that as a.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We can see if the committee They

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: they apparently voted it out on Thursday, fifteenth. She was side by side, strapped 1.2 house version, and then a summary by Ellen. There you go. Those are the only documents listed.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: They don't put like we do? They don't put like

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I mean, they usually

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: do it.

[Speaker 0]: They usually shoot.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Do. I've seen the move before. Don't know why it's not here. I don't know why the final voted version is. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, I mean, from checking in with folks over the weekend and from this conversation, it's as I expected. I don't think we have enough votes to vote to concur. You know, a five four vote to concur is that's not that's not okay to me. Actually, it's just too close. But I think we could get I think we could get six votes to at least at least take it to conference. Otherwise, they'll nuts. So and it's a fraction on the floor today, so we have to do something. So why don't we yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm sorry to do this. I know you've been with us a million times. Conference is faster than amending sending back where they could concur.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. And from the conversations I've had, they will not concur. So we just we waste a day on trying to get They will not concur with us Right.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Sending it back with the correct area. Correct.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, I've been really a number of conversations about this bill, and I'm trying to find a way to have it not die. While So, accommodating the varied voices of everybody around the table. So I am recommending that we take the bill to conference. Great, let's do it. Great, so can we get a straw poll on that? So how many folks will support taking this bill to conference? Great. Super. So on the floor So

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: that would be eight, eight, Thanks

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: guys. So we will take it to conference.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: How many cannot support?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: To many do not support making conference? Okay, thanks for appellant. So, will, so what's gonna happen on the floor today is that, so I go right now to the speaker and I say, we're taking two zero two to conference. I'm going to ask that she appoint the three of us at the top of the table to the conference committee. When the bill comes up on the floor today, yeah.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So how do we determine who's on the committee of conference?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I make recommendations and then the speaker decides. So do we have other folks who are interested in being considered for the committee of conference?

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I would love to be on it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Let me why don't we huddle up after this and talk about that? Did you it's not tradition, but did you vote you voted for the bill committee?

[Speaker 0]: We did. Alrighty.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Let's why don't we talk right after? Yep.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: So what happens if you have, you know, the agreement and the

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: committee accounts? The bill dies. They are taxing. They're

[Speaker 0]: And what is sorry. What does agreement in a committed conference mean? Four two or four two is enough to be in every town?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Just majority vote. Okay. So and then if we get agreement so there's so many ways for bills to die at this time of year and very few ways for them to succeed. So the path that this bill has to succeed is if we don't run out if we get it over to the Senate fast enough they appoint a committee of conference and we can meet. We might be able to hash out an agreement on the bill in one meeting. Today?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: For instance, if everybody suspends rules.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. If everybody suspends rules. Given that level of support. Yep. So we'll see. Yep.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: This will this bill was for the solar. And then this was added in, and we had consensus of our entire committee to support the solar. And I just find it very difficult to accept that we're gonna like bill based on added language, which has nothing to do with the service.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That's why we're doing the fifteenth.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I thought, yeah. That's my stance. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And this is so typical.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah. R. Tory? I was just gonna say, how many manufacturers are you gonna hear from? I mean, that's what we'll make this for. That's that's where, you know, we never do that level of detail on equipment. This is, like, a lot bigger than us. So you really have to think about risk right now. I like that you're so diligent, but in this particular case, I think that this is unusual and I don't think it's going to happen to your satisfaction. So think about that.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I don't think we have enough information to make a good choice for the public health. Oh.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So the conference committee is more gonna be about what's worth jettisoning the whole bill. It's gonna be a tactical discussion. So you should think about it. I

[Speaker 0]: do wanna be on it because

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I think that my point of view is here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. We'll talk why don't we talk after? Okay. So we've got our vote. So what will happen on the floor today is that assuming we've been I assume we'll get to it. I think the speaker is gonna be very focused this week on, like, getting through our whole calendar. Right? But it's it's almost last. Is it the speaker will you know, the clerk will read the bill. Speaker will call on me. I will stand up and say, the senate made some changes to the bill. We have some questions and concerns. We would leave on an eight poll, eight one straw poll, we would like to request a committee of conference. The speaker will say, everybody has to vote. I'm sure the house will vote. We move to conference. The speaker will name out the members of the conference committee and then message our action over. Yeah, and we'll see if we can get rule suspension, on both sides to try to

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: move it along quicker. So just for agreement out of the conference committees, out of three. I'm sorry. I to agree. So you can't have three on one side and

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: one on the other side.

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

[Speaker 0]: Four side of that, please? It's gonna

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: be two size three on each side support in order for it to be. You can't have three. Right.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. So two zero two takes another step forward, we hope. And to to to do that.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: And and what's the what's our position if we decide that we jettison the whole way and things out just to make sure you get two zero two patents.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So, basically, in a conference committee, how it's supposed to work is that there's the house position, which is the bill we passed, and the senate position, which is the bill they passed, and you try to come to compromise. You you don't take a bunch of you know, you don't

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You're supposed to add in, but

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: You're not supposed to add in unrelated things or start taking a bunch of testimonies.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Could be agreed to jettison there. It caught on both sides. The same language.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: know, the senate could agree to dump the electric motors, which would be then completely coming to the house positions. But the bill passed the senate with strong votes.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Alright. Well, I'd like With voters in.

[Speaker 0]: Act like you really don't like to land our stuff, but you'll be reluctantly agree to it. Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Why don't

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: we move on? Alrighty.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So seven twenty seven. This is a bill about data centers. And that's third reading today. So it is making its way back over to us. And I feel again that our choice here is concur. And concur or conference. On this one, we would need, I think, agreement that we're gonna get rule suspensions. I do not wanna risk the clock running out on this bill. I think it's too important. So we had testimony we went over all the senate changes last week with ledge counsel. We heard from a lot of witnesses. We had some recommended revisions from the PUC, but no written testimony on that. And the Land Use Review Board, very hopefully offered, to summarize those changes. They said they agreed with the spirit of them, and the Land Use Review Board has submitted language for us to look at. Because we don't have time to take possession of the bill and send an amendment back to the senate, I think our choices on this language are gonna be to try to take this teleconference if we feel strongly about this to simply or to simply concur with the bill as sent over by the Senate and put this in a small heap of things that could be addressed next year if the bill passes into law. So so, Brooke, I know you're here. Thanks for being here. Are you gonna testify as a

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: chair? I'd

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I'd be happy to. Great. Okay. And I don't think we even introduced ourselves. Brooks? Yeah. Normally do. So sorry about that. I'm rep Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell, who's Ed John Ferry.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Richard Bailey, the loyal two. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia two. Christopher Howland, Robin Ford.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Dara Torre, Washington two.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden 13, Burlington. Laura Sibilia.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: In the room. Maria Royal, legislative council.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And Julie Walsh with. Chair of carpenter, like, Alrighty.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Let me just pass these out if I could Great. So that you have a paper copy. There's a memo on the top that's from last week and a memo on the bottom that's from this morning. Super. So I'll just pass that. Take one top and one bottom if you don't mind. And I have Jenny Ronis, our general counsel on on the screen. My name is Brooke. No. It's I'm a land use re board member, and Jenny is our general counsel. Good

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: morning. I can also screen share our two memos if that's easy for people as well.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Sorry about that. We had a loud hallway. All right. Could you My

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: name is Jenny Ronis. I'm general counsel for the Land Use Review Board, and I can screen share our memos if that's easier for you guys. But if you have hard copies, that's also great. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We have hard copies. So okay. So, thanks for being here.

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Thank you so much for having us.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: I was listening to the testimony last week, and, let me just address one issue right out of the gate, and that's in the May 15 memo. There seem to be some concern about checking in with compliance for the data centers. You were discussing public utility commission, what process that that might take. And so Jenny had identified that this was a bit duplicative of the district commission process when we institute conditions on permits. And then we have enforcement authority. Pardon me. So that it's an automatic authority that we have that might give you comfort in terms of making sure that there's compliance with the important conditions for these facilities that are provided for an act two fifty permit. And so not only would it be kind of duplicative to have the PUC she have done those things, but because we have in 10 BSA chapter two zero one, that is where our environmental law enforcement authority comes from. So we wanted to point that out to show that there would be enforcement authority in case commissions were not

[Speaker 0]: followed the letter.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: So housing, the land use review board provisions of this in title 10 would provide us with that type of authority.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So sorry, to go back. So the land the land the act two fifty and land use provisions have to be should be housed in title 10. You guys have the authority to am I understanding that?

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Yeah. There's I think there's two purposes to housing everything in 10. It keeps all of the act two fifty law provisions in one place. And there was also we didn't necessarily wanna have duplicative authority. Right. We really thought, you know, they deal with the electric issues, the contract issues that you've identified, but the actual land use citing issues and the impacts on the environment are square within Act two fifty jurisdiction. So we didn't think it was necessary on the environmental issues that we already attend to to have any kind of duplicative authority there. Jenny can jump in and try to explain better questions.

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Specifically, if the goal is that each qualifying data center is subject to an F-two 50 permit, if you wrap the concerns, the conditions that you require into that permit, that becomes enforceable through our enforcement chapter two zero one. I understand that there was some concern about who would be responsible for overseeing these. And so we would already have that authority because chapter two zero one gives us enforcement authority over violations of chapter 151. The other in the May 15, specifically I can walk through that really quickly if that helps you

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: guys. Yeah, I have questions about it. So let's do.

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Okay, so starting on page two, we were recommending changing the name of the suitability analysis to just project design suitability analysis over in Chapter in Title 30. So there wasn't any confusion about the site design, which is something that ACTU50 would be reviewing. So that was those are those first few lines, just maybe coming up with a slightly different name for the analysis that doesn't confuse the site analysis style work that the Land Use Review Board and its district commissions would be reviewing. We also recommend that you strike the first one item B1A that the analysis has to comply with required building and energy standards adopted under section 53 of this title. Criterion nine F of Act two fifty requires the permit cannot be granted unless the development complies with the applicable energy standards, which are those commercial building energy standards or the residential in other contexts. So they wouldn't be entitled to an Act two fifty permit if they don't comply with the commercial building energy standards. So it doesn't make sense to have them pre review that in one context if it's also going to be reviewed and a requirement of the other. That also avoids the very I mean, I don't know that it would happen, but theoretically, what would happen if this review approved that the project found that the project complied with the required building energy standards and then they went in front of Act two fifty and there was a finding that they did not, there'd be a conflict there.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, okay. Requiring this in the pre work on the PUC contract side is not necessary because once they get to the Act two fifty side, that's required there.

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Questions? Okay. Let's talk, guys, if you have questions or comments about this as we go, now is definitely the time, right? So, I'm going to ask all my questions now, everybody should do that now. Yeah. I'm

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: challenged actually to be following what fact. Am I looking at the memo here? Am I looking at the senate as passed? Page

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: two of the May 15 memo. There's a strike through of subsection. Right?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Which I don't. Right there.

[Speaker 0]: Right. So,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: there. So instead of calling it a site suitability analysis, they wanna call it a project design suitability analysis. Great.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Okay. Hold

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: on. And now we're there.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Great. Let me just also mention compliance with the CVs as they refer to the commercial building standards is not necessarily a pass for Act two fifty. There are situations where, due to unique facts or circumstances of a project, more stringent standards are required. So, the other concern that I had was sort of saying, Well, do you comply with this set of rules? When in fact there might be a need to put something more robust, sanitize the home notion of the permit. So we wanted to be sure there was not a disconnect or an inconsistency between what the PhD was doing and what we Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do folks have questions about that? Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think it makes sense. I think maybe this might have been added in suggestion way back west. What you're saying may sound good. So I would agree with this. If we can do that and still have time to get this across the finish line.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Jenny, you want to pick up on two if Yeah. You

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: There's two other strikeouts proposed on page three that also relate to the requirements of criterion 9F that as Brook mentioned, the CBs provide basic, like the minimum standard and higher standards could be implied. So again, our goal is to concentrate the review of those energy efficiency requirements and best practices in one house, which we recommend is that it be on the Act two fifty side.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, sorry. I never have short answer. Well, as I was reviewing this, it's good to me that maybe the entire subdivisions to project design might be at two fifty stuff and maybe ought to be stripped completely.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: You have a decision on that, Jenny?

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Well, there's language in this about maximizing the potential of the site for hosting renewable energy.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Which I think is referred to elsewhere as well.

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, I think that's more that that's maybe a little beyond what we typically project review is for the project as designed. So we were happy to leave the evaluation of whether there's potential for hosting renewable energy to the Public Utilities Commission.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Subdivision B above this says maximize the limit of on-site renewable energy generation, battery storage, demand response assets. Does that cover the same ground?

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: I think it depends on how strictly you read deployment versus potential. Part of a demonstration of deployment could be showing the potential.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: I think it's fair to say that the renewable energy field is public utility Yes. Emissions per the Yes. So we when we were looking at this, we were trying to extricate the act two fifty portions so that there was a clear separation.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Well, but but if if if we get to a we do amend this, and and it looks like it probably should, then he's looking to to to clean up and references to renewable energy so that it's not scattered either sections or subdivisions.

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: I don't think we'd have any concern with that.

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

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: And it seems like, for example, the heat coming from these facilities, there was some effort to utilize that or perhaps put a renewable energy project nearby, sort of like a net meter project where, you know, it's not going to go out onto the grid necessarily and we set the infrastructure. It's an interesting aspect to try to weave in, But I don't think we can alert having concerns about the remaining language in terms of how it impacts us.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And not requiring them to consult with an EU?

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: I'm sorry. Could you say the last part of your sentence again?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, one thing that I'm sorry. And I'm sorry if I missed this or I'm just trying to catch up. But this language had required them to consult with Bike Efficiency Vermont. That seemed like a I'm still at the bottom of page two. Top of page three. The lang- the struck language. So, as it had been amended, they were requiring them to consult with the efficiency utility a aka efficiency Vermont, for example, on the project, and that's gone now.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: That was

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: That was the senate.

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

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Or they maybe they somebody's. Do

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: you guys have any thoughts on that? I I thought that consulting with Efficiency Vermont felt important.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: What about, Jenny, can you speak to our energy efficiency criterion?

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Right. So that's criterion 9F specifically, that a permit will be granted when it's demonstrated that in addition to all the other applicable criteria, the planning reflects the principles of energy conservation, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the use of energy, incorporate the best available technology for efficient use or recovery of energy. And then also a requirement is that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the appropriate version of the commercial building energy standards.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: So,

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: I mean, as a general statement, the state agencies and boards can obtain party status in our proceedings. So we could the efficiency utility appointed by the Public Utility Commission would be entitled to appear in any Act two fifty hearing on a permit for this project.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: I

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: don't know if we could compel them, but I don't think we've particularly reviewed the removal of that language because that was proposed by the senate.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Mhmm. Okay. So you're what I just heard you say, and I I I didn't jot everything down, was that you was it nine f criteria nine f of Ag two fifty covers this? Yes.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Okay. Mhmm. It's a criterion. Yeah. They have to pass muster on it. Otherwise, they don't get their permit.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, so whether they're consulting with Efficiency Vermont or not, they're not going to get their Act two fifty permit unless they've demonstrated that the design incorporates energy efficiency and has maximized the use of, etcetera, etcetera. Latest technologies. Okay, And then what you're further saying as a backstop is that if Efficiency Vermont had a had a huge concern, they could appear as party on this Act two fifty hearing anyway, which if it were a center, I would imagine would be kind of a big deal that people would be paying close attention to. Did I put

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: it better than I did? That is correct. Thank you.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Sure. Yeah. So, I have two questions. One, generally, I think what the Lurb is recommending is an untangling of a double jurisdiction. So, the worst case scenario, if we were to confer- concur with this, what's coming over is we would have double juris- double oversight with

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Correct.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: And then second, I wonder if you would be willing to hazard a range a range of time that you think it would take for a 20 meg or larger data center with the current language, without your changes, to get permitted through the water and Act two fifty, and other permits without making changes.

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: I would not be comfortable trying to speculate how long this would take to get through any organization other than Land Use Review Board. Generally, land use, the Act two fifty permit is the last two issue because people rely on the permits that they've acquired to help satisfy the Act two fifty criteria. And we can't issue permits contingent upon a future approval from another agency. So that's often why there's the appearance that the Act two fifty permits take so long is because they're usually waiting for another approval to be able to be finished. I mean, we have performance metrics in the issuance of our permits, but the biggest factor for timing is the level of completion of a permit application.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: So, what I'm trying to gauge is, what I'm trying to gauge is how it seems clear to me that we'll be back to this bill even if we make your changes next year because this is an emerging area of policy, but it will have given us protections in the meantime. And it will also put some regulatory certainty out in the market for those that are looking to come to us. I'm trying to understand is you can't even speculate on the floor of, you know, how long it would take to get to act two fifty?

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: No. Because I don't know enough about the low the caseload or the the processes that these other agencies would be going through for their permit approvals. To your first point before that, my concern about the duplicative process would be in the event that if two agencies review the same issue and come to separate conclusions, that could be reconciling those could be a problem without further guidance as to how how to deal with that

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: conflict. Just seems exceedingly unrealistic to think that that's going to happen in spite of the next hearing loss months.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And I I just wanna I don't wanna put words in your mouth, but if if you're thinking what I'm thinking in terms of the goal that we all share, is to make sure this bill doesn't die for lack of time,

[Speaker 0]: that

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: this particular untangling could be untangled at the start of the next biennium without a data center is not gonna arrive

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: tomorrow, I don't think. What I'm speculating out loud. And I know it feels I have heard from a lot of Vermonters how imperative it is to them that we have this that we address data centers in this regulatory way. And I also know that it's important to put some regulatory certainty out in the world for opportunities that may be looking to come in this or provide some regulatory circumstance. Okay. Just speculating.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alrighty. And then we have we have floor in seven minutes. So, although it's steakhouse time, I think there's one more suggested

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: edit. Right. We were removing in e one, the greenhouse gas emissions language. Just because that again is duplicative of our review anyway within our existing criteria in Act two fifty. So it's just superfluous language. And I think when

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And remind me where in Act two fifty I know we talked about this. I'm sorry. Does Act two fifty specifically involves greenhouse gas emissions?

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Jenny gave me the number.

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. Criterion 9F, that's 10 VSA6086A9F requires a demonstration that there will be the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the use of energy.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: I think this was also language back, I think it was on crossover day, testified and we were trying to pull those pieces that are already covered by our existing criteria and greenhouse gas emissions. Was one of those.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Another so one question I had was from some of the PUCs comments, I thought that I was expecting to see you guys be lifting stuff out of title 30 and moving it into title But it sounds like the same goal is being accomplished by simply removing title 30 stuff that is already in.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Title 30.

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

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

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: There's no need to duplicate it in 30 because 30

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's already there. Because I expected I I just thought we would see everything under here is title 30. I was like, oh, where's title 10? I thought we're moving stuff, but I understand now. We're simply removing stuff that we've we would we're comprehending or that we're contemplating adding to title 30. We don't need to do that because it's already. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm noticing that the paper copy did not include the May 19 updates. My paper copy didn't solve it. I'm gonna I'm to print May 19 update if anybody else wants one. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I actually don't have the May 19 update printed either. Sorry about that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. So it's alright. Let me talk. Yes.

[Rep. Christopher Morrow (Member)]: We we went through the fifteenth. We're done. Yeah. Fifteenth is done.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Now oh, I see. Oh, god. There's more. Alright. We need to keep going.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: We can move through this quickly.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I'll take these questions. So

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: the May 19 memo actually does look at title 10 and give some suggestions to sort of finish that separation out a little bit.

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

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: So the the bill proposes the creation of a new section in the act two fifty statute, sixty eighty six a, which might actually be numbered 6,080. It might be it might get end up with a different little subletter after it, depending on some other changes. But what it essentially how we read this is that it creates additional conditions required specifically of data centers in order for them to be able to obtain an Act two fifty permit. So going to page two of the nineteenth memo, in sub paragraph two, we had some small strike in amendments that align the district commission's finding about alternative cooling systems with how district commissions typically handle any water used in projects. Wanted to Act two fifty looks at all existing water supplies, not necessarily just public water supplies. And so we wanted to make sure that cooling systems under the for data centers are held to that same standard, that they wouldn't be able to unreasonably burden private water supplies either. And we also wanted to make sure that there was a use of the word and between groundwater and surface water because of the potential that someone might be using both. And we didn't, we wanted to just make sure that it was very clear that these things would be reviewed under the Act two fifty process. Anyone has any questions about that paragraph? Otherwise, I can keep going.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'm trying to catch up. So the strikeouts on page two of the May 19 memo are strikeouts that the LERB is recommending to the Senate. Is that correct?

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: The red ones. The black ones come from

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the We have black and white here.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, we think that white goes Okay.

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Strikeout in the middle of that paragraph is from the Senate. Strikeouts and additions in the last four lines of that paragraph are the ones that we are recommending to make sure that closed loop water, that the water in the cooling systems for data centers is held to the same like environmental impact review as other water sources.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Are you able to share your screen?

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Yes. Happy.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Great. I'm sorry. This got printed this morning and I guess our printer doesn't have the code. I apologize for that. It's a little confusing. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Now the Now the things you said make make more sense. Can

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: you guys see my screen now?

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

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: So this is the the language. I'll just write there that I was talking about. That our criterion, we talk about conserving and minimizing, and that we wanted both groundwater and surface water to be reviewed if applicable. And then that would be the project would not unreasonably burden any existing water supply, either public or private.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: And that's criteria three in Act two fifty is it can't be an unreasonable burden or undue adverse impact upon existing water supplies which covers your neighbor as well. These often come up in the blasting or pouring contexts, but they are also very important for other types of projects.

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

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Moving down to the boxed off language in paragraphs C, D, E, and F, we generally would recommend that those get moved to a different part of Title 10, because they appear to refer to permitting that ANR performs not Act two fifty. So if it Since they Oh, I apologize. So these references to surface water withdrawal permits, groundwater withdrawal permits, etcetera, and potential rulemaking by the agency of natural resources, we would recommend putting those with the water permitting processes. Have a direct reference for you, but I could get you one if you'd like, as a recommendation of where to place them. We don't want them to be sort of lost at the end of Act two fifty where ANR might not be aware.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So the note at the bottom of the page, could you scroll down, please? Yeah. Right there. Mhmm. So the b section above, you say this should move somewhere else. We're not totally recommending where that it should go to a section that govern governs how ANR does its water permitting. That's what you're saying. Right? Yes. Okay.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: And it may still be set in Title X. I was not aware of where it would go, but it sounds like it may be in Title X, just not in the Act 50 portion or section.

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah, our Act two fifty statute is chapter 151, you know, in case you like a lot of numbers to memorize. So to the extent that we can keep the Act two fifty stuff in chapter 121 in 151 and the non Act two fifty permitting outside of it, that's sort of an organizational assistance. The other point that we wanted to look at was in sub paragraph B, regardless of whether this language gets moved or not, there's language about the issuance of a surface water withdrawal permit creating a rebuttable presumption under Act two fifty that the data center does not result in undue water pollution. We don't recommend this language specifically because while there are a series of act of ANR and other permits that entitle permittees to presumptions of compliance, surface water withdrawal involves just removing the water from a source, whereas it would be giving it a presumption of undue water pollution doesn't speak to, they're sort of unrelated. Undue water pollution would be coming from people injecting that water back into the original source of it, as opposed to the withdrawal of it. So perhaps there's a different permit that would be there, but as far as whether a water withdrawal permit under from ANR would be looking at pollutants going back into the source water, we don't see that that lines up.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. We have our ledge counsel in the room and Michael Grady as well, who's not here, he's our water guy, so he could certainly reflect upon that.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: Sure. It's really the difference between the spigot and the drain. And if they're giving a withdrawal permit to turn on the faucet, that does not make sense to then provide a presumption for the discharge of that water somehow having any you know, reference to it. I would also point out that Activities Rule 19 provides a whole laundry list of the presumptions pertaining to the various permitting for ANR. Water is probably a very robust part of Act two fifty. We have water pollution under Criterion one and a whole subcategory grouping of different water sub criteria under one. We also have criterion two that's about do you have sufficient water for the project, and then three is very important about whether or not it impairs existing water supplies. There are also some other criteria later on, for example, municipal or public investments such as a municipal water supply. So it's very robust grouping of different Criterion Act two fifty, many of which can dependent upon the introduction of a permit from ANR to cover most, if not all, of the determinations. It gives rebuttable presumptions. That means you sail through unless somebody can prove that you shouldn't pass less around that particular criteria. Got it. So rebuttable presumptions are already well established, and this one does not seem to be consistently connecting anything for helpfulness in terms of water.

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

[Jenny Ronis (General Counsel, Land Use Review Board)]: And then the final recommendation that we had at this time is that a feature of the Act two fifty permitting process is that depending on the criteria, the applicant or a person opposing the project carries the burden of proof on that criterion. And in order to create some more clarity about who carries the burden of proof of demonstrating these additional requirements for data centers, we make, we recommended a change to our statute 10 BSA 6,088, which clarifies that the applicant would have to carry the burden of proof on the data center specific conditions in 6086A. In other words, that a party opposing I'm I'm sorry. Sorry. I'm having a really hard time hearing if there's a question.

[Brooke (Land Use Review Board member)]: So just to give you an example to understand the and HSV Yes. That is one of the more subjective and controversial criteria. It is the opponents that have to come and say have the burden of truth to say they don't pass muster because there's a clear written community standard that's being violated or it's shocking and offensive, that kind of thing. Whereas many of the criteria are in the lap of the applicant to prove that they pass muster. So it's important, we think here, to be consistent with all the other water criteria, that it is the applicant's burden, not to shift that burden to someone wanting to oppose it. So just making sure that that's covered as well in the statute in the in presumption section just to add that new section about data centers. Just to be clear on that so

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that there's no question. Okay. Alright. Well, thank you so much for coming in and for providing these suggestions. We will I have no idea what we're doing.