Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. Alright, welcome everybody. It's House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Wednesday, May 20. And we are here to have a committee discussion and straw poll on h seven twenty seven, which is the Davis Center bill. I'm representative Kathleen James from the Bennington 4 District, Manchester.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint Johns Ferry. Richard Bailey, Lamoille too. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Philadelphia too.

[Christopher Howland (Member)]: Christopher Howland, Rutland Moore. Dara Torre, Washington too.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Bram Kleppner, two the 13, Burlington. Laura Sibilia, Windham two. Alright.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So just to recap, we have spent weeks before crossover working on a bill that would put really robust regulatory protections in place in the event that a data center would want to locate in Vermont. Our feeling was that, and the bill sponsor, Rep Sibilia can speak to this, but the idea was that these data centers can pose an enormous risk to rate payers, to the environment, to water, to communities. And we wanted to make sure that we took a really proactive step forward to make sure that these data centers would be subject to very strict scrutiny. So, we've devised a bill through again a lot of testimony that basically would require any prospective data center to sign a contract, a large load contract with the utility wherever it's trying to connect. And that large load contract has a number of ratepayer and other protections built into there. The PUC would have to review this contract and sign off on it. So on the energy side, in terms of ratepayer protections, the grid, renewables, and I think we should talk about that a little bit, maybe you can speak more to that. We have the PUC overseeing the signing of a robust contract between the data center and the utility. Then, we wanted to make sure that any data center would have to go through the full Act two fifty permitting process. And so, the other side of the bill guarantees that any data center would have to go through Act two fifty, meet all of the Act two fifty criteria in terms of land use and sighting, in terms of noise, in terms of its impact on the community and the environment, in terms of air pollution. And that is basically handled in an interesting way because when you read the bill you might not even see it. But basically, we added the definition of data center to the Act two fifty trigger criteria. So, as this bill is written, any data center of 20 megawatts or larger is now an automatic Act two fifty trigger. It will have to go through Act two two fifty review. So we've got a walk around bill that looks at both the, I guess, the energy side and the community impact side. And we also have provisions that will require strict water permitting so that we're making sure that there's not, an impact on the water. And we are addressing PFAS, contamination as well. So it's a very robust bill. The senate changed it. We could we take your testimony on the senate changes. We have heard from ledge counsel. We have heard from the environmental advocates. We have heard from the water folks. We've heard from the land use review board and the PUC. The land use review board and the PUC did recommend that we shift a few things around to avoid confusion between the energy side of our regulatory framework and the Act two fifty side of our regulatory framework. We heard in testimony today and also I think a little bit yesterday that while these changes might be good to consider, they are not timely, They're not urgent. And in the interest of making sure that this bill gets across the finish line so we have strict scrutiny in place, I am going to recommend that we concur with the senate amendments, which would basically send the bill off to the governor for this consideration. So with that setting the table, folks have comments? You're the bill sponsor. I'm sure you might have some.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. No. I mean, I I I think we have done good work in terms of base. I think we got five critical out of our monitors. I've seen all sorts of monitors weighing in that want to make sure that we are paying attention to this issue. I think we set out with the intention of, as you said, walking around, what would happen, how the data center a larger data center, two megs or larger, would interact with our existing environmental and, energy laws. And I think that we have done the work Having a sense of how that interplay would happen and making sure that we're covering CPAPs. I was thankful for testimony this morning that this work is gonna be outgoing. So the water work is ongoing. Okay. And such water permits won't be available until 2027, which makes a lot of, it will not be available until 2027. So there's a guarantee that we will need to come back to this, for our office time to compliance this, next year. And just do think it is important that we say to Vermonters, we are paying attention. We have, done our due diligence here in terms of ensuring we understood how this would interact, and we're bringing forth this legislation. You know, the governor has just established his AI, task force. I certainly need some input from them next year. Mhmm. So, I think this will be a topic working on that. I think this is a good bill to bring forward on that. So I definitely do support. Yes. Let me see.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Rex Southworth. Just

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: wanna ask if someone can just shed some light on an energy transformation

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Someone can't stop the word. I'm sorry. I

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: saw embarrassing. Had four twenty five today.

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Sorry about that.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Just to explain energy transformation payment, Is that something that is that it can place anywhere else? Why is it managed? Why is utility? That sort of difference. So

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: the energy transformation payment, we heard testimony this morning from Maria that is directly tied to the renewable energy standard, which is an obligation. It's a performance standard on power electric utilities that they have to meet. And one of those objectives is tier three, which is to help their customers reduce their fossil fuel usage. This contract will go to the utility, which all of that load will be subjected to the rest. But because it is so large, such a large amount of power that we are asking for, it is likely to support or incentivize new or existing fossil fuel usage. So it is my understanding that, to blunt that in the senate, they have added this additional education education transformation payment, which would act like tier three. It would also go to the utility, and it would also be used by that to help their customers reduce their fossil fuel usage. That ends up looking like, if you already know this, look like chargers. It could look like panels. It could look like heat pumps. It could look

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: like weatherization. So being such a large amount of electricity, that payment's gonna be extremely large. Mhmm. Is that a normal size that utilities are dealing with, or is this maybe something to that list for us to come back on?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: That much money? Yeah. So I think I cannot speak with now about the numbers. Right. I think they're dealing with significantly more dollars than this on an annual basis. I could not give you the exact No.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: That's fine. Yeah. I just didn't know whether there was something new that all of a sudden they're gonna say, oh, we don't know how to handle this.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I think we've taken testimony about demand for these types of things. About what I've been saying? Demands for tier three incentives.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So Okay.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Thank you. It's actually good.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. So it's actually yeah. It would be a a new revenue source for the utilities on how they can help folks weatherize and put in chargers and

[Dara Torre (Clerk)]: R. Torre? Yeah. I was just gonna say it also makes sense because part of reducing the rate pressures is optimizing grid utilization and and flexibility piece, which is what chargers can do. So having more access to EVs in the region where the energy is really being used is big value add. So I I kinda like that they added that too. We didn't think about zero degree as a. So it's really an electrification measure. It's an investment in electrification, and this makes it local because as we're learning where energy comes on and goes off and what time of day it does matters to what energy costs. So that's one of the big pieces of this bill. Recognizing that there could actually be a grid benefit from having a well managed large load. Well cited and well managed large load. So, I think this is a nice addition. What

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I like about this bill especially is that right now we're a data center to try to cite in Vermont. None of this is in place. So, you know, none of these protections, none of these provisions. So

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I would I would just say also, madam chair. Hopefully, I don't regret my my words here. You know, I've definitely heard from Vermonters who are interested in, I mean, no AI data centers here in the state. There are data centers that are used, smaller ones, for, our businesses. Good stuff. But I've definitely heard from Vermonters who are absolutely not interested in having these. Really wanna make sure. I also read the case that Raptoria did just well articulated in terms of a 29 people that could be helpful around some. I think what's important is that we have taken a walk, a preliminary walk around. We've checked and we know that we'll come back to this next year. Yeah. And so I think folks on either side of that equation should be reassured this conversation will be popular.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Any other comments, questions? If not, I can move the straw poll. Okay. So I propose that we concur with the Senate on H727. So all in favor? Okay. And opposed. Alrighty. That is it. What time are we back on the floor?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: 03:30.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: 03:30? Okay. Fifteen. We have a little bit of time. Nothing else is on our agenda for today, but just keep an eye on your text or I'll come around if we think we're gonna meet again today. Let's see. Two zero two is done. That's concur we've sent that back to the senate with its proposed amendment. Seven twenty seven, we've concurred. So the bills we still have floating around are $7.40 greenhouse gas and clean heat repeal, seven ten, single plant solar siding, and five twenty seven cell towers. And five twenty sorry. I'm losing track of what's on notice and what's anyway, we'll have to meet to discuss all of those before floor action happens or plus one floor action if we're not ready. So just stay tuned, and we can