Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Meeting host/unknown staff]: We're live.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome everybody to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. It is Wednesday, May 27, and we are here to learn about a proposed amendment or an amendment from representative Bert on h seven ten. So I'm representative Kathleen James from Manchester.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Scott Campbell from Saint John's Mary. Richard Bailey, Lamoille too. Chris Morrow, Windham, Windsor, Bennington. Michael Southworth, Caledonia too. Christopher Howland, Rutland four.

[Rep. Christopher Howland (Member)]: Bram Kleppner, Chittenden Thirteen, Burlington.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Laura Sibilia, Windham two. Great.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And you know what I realized? Representative Torre would like to join us. Autumn, can you send a link Yeah. To representative Torre? And let me let her know right now. Are you gonna send that to her legislative email? Yeah. Super. Ellen, why don't you go ahead and walk us through.

[Ellen Diakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ellen Diakowski, Office of Legislative Counsel. I'm here on Representative Burt's amendment to H seven ten. This is amending just the effective date section, section six. It would be striking out the existing effective date section and replacing it with this new language so that the bill would primarily be taking effect on 07/01/2026, except that sections one and two would take effect 07/01/2028. So two years out, section one is the definition of plant that you all been discussing, single plant, and section two is the legislative intent section that goes with it. So the rest of the bill would be 07/01/2026, but those first two sections would be delayed from twenty twenty teens.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Do we have questions for our attorney?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Okay. What is the effect of delaying legislative intent?

[Ellen Diakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's going that legislative intent is specific to section one. And so if you enacted, it would be like floating in the air. If you just enacted the intense section. Because the intense section is specific to just section one, it's not related to the rest of the bill, so it would be a little bit disconnected. If you kept section two, I guess it wouldn't harm, but it would be a little confusing. I don't know.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I'm sorry. I did not follow this. Okay. So section two so we have proposal to move two dates. Section two is the legislative intent section. And this proposal says that the legislative intent would be would take effect of pushing that out. Yes. And so my question was, what is the effect of pushing out the date the effective date for legislative intent? So that what is the legislative intent is serving what purpose is it serving here? Is it serving for to make things clear for the PUC, for applicants, etcetera. So, we would not be making things clear to the PUC or applicants for two years.

[Ellen Diakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But here, the legislative intent is only tied to section one. It's the legislative intent for section one. Uh-huh. And so, it's working in tandem because they're tied together.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's delaying the new definition of planet and the associated legislative intent that says this new definition can't be applied retroactively. I'm sorry. I was missing

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: that we were delaying plant as well. Yeah. Okay.

[Ellen Diakowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. I've got it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Any more questions for Ledge Council? That's all. Okay. Great. The bill. Can I tell you Yeah? The The bill will be on the floor tonight.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: There's Dara.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Hi, Dara. Or sorry. Would you like to introduce yourself?

[Rep. Dara Torre (Clerk)]: Yes. Rep territory, Washington too.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Great. Thanks for joining us. Representative Bert.

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: Alright. Thank you. Yeah. And thank you for your patience. Thank you for your

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

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: I'm putting this amendment in because I'm concerned about going ahead with single plant the way it is written in 07/10 currently, without giving the PUC some tools first to determine whether or not more solar panels and solar arrays should be put on farmland. It's more of a general I think the PUC just needs another tool or two for that, broadly speaking, with regard to solar arrays, and I just would like to see that happen before we go through this 07/10, the change in the definition of single plan.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I wondered, we have been on a bit of a journey with this bill that you've probably been following. So, just in terms of timing and the PC needing more tools, wanted to explore that a little bit more. We passed legislation last year to ask the PUC to engage in public process with a pretty wide variety of stakeholders to update this definition. So

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: On single plan.

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

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So the the PUC had a public comment period. They held a workshop with 15 stakeholders representing everyone from, you know, state agencies to, you know, solar developers to environmental groups and then brought this definition to us. So it it's not I guess the the definition the updated definition you're seeing here is the result of a pretty collaborative consensus approach that the PUC led and a lot of folks participated in.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Including the Department of Agriculture. Yes. I've had

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: a conversation with them as well with regard to this a couple times this year.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. So that's speaking for myself, I guess that's my process thought, which is that our our our community anyway took a bunch of testimony on this last year, asked the PUC to do a workshop, asked them to get everybody in the room, waited for the definition, and then took more testimony this year to make sure that the definition was, that everybody had had a chance to weigh in.

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: Yeah, I mean, I have been out participating in that process and don't know everything that went into it. That sounds obviously like a lot of stakeholders were involved, this language didn't appear out of thin air. I understand that. We had, is it Craig Favor?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Uh-huh. In

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: our committee recently, and we were specifically asking about agricultural land and solar arrays being constructed upon them of the ag committee, and when we asked him specific questions about the PUC having tools to be able to decide whether or not an array should be put on ag land, they're really outside of stockpiling primary agricultural soil that is removed for, say, a road going in or a pad being laid down for, you guys know more about what those specific things are, the transmission points, whatever you want to call them, and potentially where the posts go in and attach the panels to the ground, that soil might get stockpiled, and that's really the only stipulation as far as agriculture is concerned, that you save the soil so that it could be returned to the land after, in theory, the site is deconstructed in twenty five years, or unless it continues in perpetuity, that soil apparently stays. To me, I'm concerned that agriculture is an activity, which is greatly hindered when you have a solar array on our agricultural fields, and that's not where they address. Greg spoke about how certain sites were not allowed to be developed for solar because it was a wildlife habitat. Or in another case, was a bobble length found in a field, and that developer had to purchase and conserve the same amount of land somewhere else in order to be able to develop that site, given that there was bobbling there. What about farmers? I'm concerned that we're not putting

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: One of the things we talked about today have

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: goals on food resiliency, and cute. Apparently that just goes out the window when we're talking about solar phase.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: One of the things we talked about earlier today, and then I wanna let Rep Campbell and Rep Kleppner is our floor reporter, I wanna let them chime in too. One of the things we talked about today is the fact that, well, we've added one of the reasons that we, one of the things we'd like to improve, you know, improve about the bill, there's some ag study work that's contained in the bill now, which I'm sure you've seen. So, we had a good chat today with the Department of Public Service and the PUC and the Agency of Agriculture and they're all in agreement that they can get us some good statistics by January so that we can really kind of quantify the ag land question. We do have some info about ag lands, which rep Kleppner will share in a minute, but one of the things we talked about today, and I'm curious about this, what you think about this, is that when a solar array, you know, is being proposed for for a parcel of land, it's because the landowner has either sold it it's it's their land, and they've either sold it to the solar developer or they're leasing it to the solar developer. That's their choice.

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

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I just wanna make sure.

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: Yeah. Am aware of that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Well, and the

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: other part I wanted to point out about this, the thrust of this bill was was to allow add on developments or extensions of existing solar fields without having to add more infrastructure, another road or another set of poles or another pad for some or something like that. Previous so the current law would require, if somebody wanted to extend an existing solar field, they would have to build additional infrastructure. The point to point was to was to conserve land and also reduce costs both for the developer and thereby for all ratepayers because the cost wind up, you know, cost solar wind up getting passed along to everyone a little bit, few cents here and there. So I just wanted to point out that part as well. So that that was the whole idea of the the first place. Yeah. Appreciate that. Thank you.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: Yeah, and I would just add, following along Chair Davis' comments, I mean, you are in the ag community. You're a farmer. Do you have colleagues in the farming community who said, damn developer, like, wish I could be farming. It was anchored, but they just They came in and they razzle dazzle me with their slick developer talk and they built this thing and, like, it's hard to imagine a farmer giving up land they actually wanted to farm, like deciding to sell it or lease it. And if they do, presumably, they sell when they're leasing their 20 least productive acres to solar to get that cash flow.

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: Well, think you make a good point. With single plant, obviously that's a little more nuanced. It's not gonna be like 20 selected acres, it's gonna be the 20 acres that's Next to an existing. Next to an existing, right? So it's not gonna be a selected site, it's gonna be adding onto sites that already exist. And if you look at the Shaftsbury project and similar projects that are proposed for Panton, they're going on 100, and I know this is different than single plant, but you're not necessarily talking about single plant. There are hundreds of acres that are whole farms that are being turned into a solar generation facility. And yeah, I mean, the guy I mean, if you're talking about supply and demand, for me, if somebody decides to cut down thousands of acres of maple trees, pretty pure, mature, that's to my advantage, it's arbor, because that's one less guy I have to compete with to sell a gallon of syrup, or if you're a dairy farmer, that's one less guy you have to compete with to sell a gallon of milk. As a state, though, we can't think that way. We think higher level than that. We want healthy competition, we want healthy supply, we want resilient systems. Individual farmers have to think about their farm and only their farm, and sure, but I think there's also, farmers actually don't think about those things. They to see their neighbors prospering and probably continuing to farm

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: and

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: continuing agriculture. Solar panels might make sense for some farmers to put up, but it all depends on are we creating a system that makes it make sense for them, or are we creating a system that makes sense for them to continue to farm. Pushing back a little bit I'm pushing back a little bit as a farmer and as someone who is a proponent of working lands and saying, think we need more tools and more language before we continue to roll things that increase more acres of farmland being underneath solar panels. There are systems where you can do agrivoltaics. It does limit the scope of what You're you can pretty much limited to small, whether they're sheep or something that can graze around panels and not tamers then. There are some successful businesses that it seems like that are doing that, but not everybody is going to switch to a model of raising sheep or other small I think we all share your concern with ag lands. And I was

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: a farm man for a year and a half and full time, more than And the value of ag to the land and communities is is very clear to me. Yeah. And I would say solar is not the threat to ag lands, and I would say that because the farmland trust testified to house ag, I remember this on January 28, that over the last seven years, almost all of the 20,000 acres we lost were to low density residential development and commercial sprawl. And then they modeled out to 2040, showing we'll lose 41,000 acres to residential development and 1,200 acres to solar. So the solar is, like, two and a half percent of the problem. Right? Sprawl residential subdivisions. And I would also say that if you do a if you do a megawatt solar project on on five acres, as you heard from the PUC, the requirement is that the soil they remove be stockpiled. It's less than three weeks to turn that bag to ag. A subdivision is gone forever, more or less. Like, you know, the real world we live in, once a subdivision's built, it almost never will be restored to agriculture. But solar, it's temporary. And in twenty five years, if we don't need it anymore, there are other power sources. If demand for foods, you know, shifts the value, so it's higher value to produce food than green electrons, then you can unwrap that in a way you can't do with with residential or commercial development on ag land. For me, what we need and we've had discussions about this, so generally how we cite everything, like how we cite housing and cell towers and energy projects and all of that, that would address the actual threat to ag lands, which I don't think is solar. Solar's not permanent and it's a small tiny fraction of the ag lands that are getting getting plows there. So I I think, you know, this this bill that we've worked on for a couple of years with a lot of stakeholders addresses an unintended consequence. Delaying it for two years allows that harmful unintended consequence to stay for two more years. And for all those reasons, I just don't think this amendment makes sense and I don't disagree that, you know, the PUC has some tools to encourage solar development in preferred sites, rooftops and brownfields and landfills and all that stuff. And the more we can develop those tools and develop tools to make ag the least favorable place, well, product forests are the place we'd least like it, and then ag lands next, and then open unused land. Like, there's a hierarchy that we can build. I don't think we need to do that through this bill.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I guess I have one final thought, and I don't know. Did the speaker say when we have to be on the floor?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I have 20 after she said.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oops, okay. I did have one final thought, is that, yeah, I agree with R. Kleppner. Think the issue of where we put everything is super important and something that we need to, you know, really spend time on. Make sure we're seeing, you know, I I think everybody agrees. Wouldn't it be great if we just put all of our solar on rooftops and parking lots? And if that's the case, we need to develop policies that will incentivize that and drive, you know, drive solar that way. But in the meantime, I think the reason that I've been supporting this single plant bill is that a solar developer can you know, if they've got an array in a field, they can apply and put up a second array right next to it. Right now, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from doing that. There's no reason it won't be permitted. But the way the law reads right now, they're gonna have to chew up extra land to put in more towers and more poles and build an extra road. So, the unintended consequences that R. Kleppner talked about are what we're trying to fix, which is that there's nothing to stop a solar developer right now from expanding a site. And the way the law reads right now, they're going to have to cut another road or put in another pole in order to do that. That is really all we're trying to fix.

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: I understand. So how would you try to make it so that people own that land? They wouldn't sell to a solar developer. I mean, like we heard today, it it is their land. They lease it or they sell it. How do you how how could we hear? How do you think we could prevent them from selling it or leasing it? I mean, that's the whole thing.

[Rep. Bram Kleppner (Member)]: We learned that today. It's their land.

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: Yeah. Yeah. We we can't prevent them from doing what they want with it. That's what we've been fighting all year in this building. So I guess my my question is is, you know, we we are in charge of systems that are in place. If the renewable energy standard didn't exist, would any of this be taking place necessarily, or to the degree that it is? Or were there federal incentives to construct these? Would any of that be happening? It wasn't really until, in my little knowledge of the history of this, that until there were federal subsidies and more incentives coming from our governments to do these projects, they weren't necessarily happening. So if the developer has no initiative to create the development, then private owner wouldn't have the option in the first place to go have someone purchase their land in order to put solar panels on it.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I know it's bigger question here.

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: It's a bigger question, but you asked, that's, you mean, private land is, and if a developer means, that's, we create the systems that ultimately dictate what the land ends up looking like when we're done. So we stood up a new renewable energy standard, but we didn't stand up a working land standard. So you're seeing

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the outcomes of that. To some extent, a farmer leasing some of his land, least productive land, or solar panels, provides a revenue stream, and they help keep the farm going more financially.

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: But we don't have anything that says put it on the least productive land. Put it Well If They they the developer is gonna do exactly what they're proposing to do a single plant, is the least cost, most effective system, which is I don't need to put in another road. I don't need to put in more poles. Yeah. I can simply put up more panels on more land that abuts it, whether it's farmland or not, I'm going to go get purchasing it or renting it. The system is geared toward not, you mentioned concerns, but we're not actually addressing the concerns. So I would bet my proposal is to wait two years to actually give tools to the PUC to address the concerns that I'm So bringing

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: this is a although you bring up a lot of, I think, really interesting and relevant kind of system level thinking, which is great, like that's the kind of conversations we should always be having here in the legislature. This is at its heart a narrow bill that fixes what actually is a harmful, what we've heard testimony is actually a harmful unintended consequence of this one very narrow slice of the law. It beefs up and improves the decommissioning process. It clarifies intent so that this would only apply to permits going forward. It's not going to be, you know, or some sort of retroactive upsetting of the apple card. And it gets us some informed and I think really useful stats soon on ag and soil. So, I really appreciate this conversation. I know what a thoughtful advocate you are. I'm gonna move we find the amendment unfavorable and ask for a strawful. So can I get hands on finding representative Burt's amendment unfavorable? All right. That is one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. And favorable? Seven to two. Okay. Representative Rutland, thank you so much for bringing your idea and the good conversation going.

[Rep. Burt (amendment sponsor)]: That's mainly what I'm trying to do. Yeah, appreciate it. It. And thank you

[Meeting host/unknown staff]: for