Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: We're live.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right. Good morning. Welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning we are starting off with H727, the data center bill. And we are going to walk through the whole bill with the drafter, Maria Royal. I really encourage this group you can ask questions, but let's try to focus on our areas of jurisdiction and questions there. Michael O'Grady has joined us via Zoom, and he may be able to cover our areas of interest so we can ask him questions along the way as well. But if we could not get too in the weeds on energy policy in the area of the energy committee's jurisdiction, that would be great. Representative Boss?

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Other than water, what other jurisdictions?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, stay tuned. Let's walk through. I mean, I think there's land use issues here in particular come to mind with that.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Maria Royal with Legislative Counsel. And I'm going to pull up the document on the screen here, if that's helpful. So, this draft is in the works, in house energy and digital infrastructure. So this is the most recent version that they're working through. So a lot of the highlighting, reflects revisions to the bills introduced that they're considering. So just wanted you to know why there's so much highlighted in here. And also, I don't know how familiar you are with the data center issues, if you want a little background. Okay. So there are data centers in Vermont currently, traditional small data centers, some co located at businesses. I think there are, like, three or four in Vermont currently, but they use less than combined one megawatt of power combined might even be like half a megawatt of power. The data centers that we're talking about in this bill use at least 20 megawatts of power. So substantially bigger. They're usually large warehouses that can be 10,000 square feet on acreage that can run between ten and forty acres. So large, relatively large tract of land. And they have inside them many computer servers that run off of what are GPUs, graphic processing units, which require a lot of power, a lot of computing power to operate. And sometimes there these large data centers are referred to as AI data centers because it's the artificial intelligence, the training and use of AI that requires all of this computing processing and power to keep it going. So the issues that come up are kind of things I just identified. The land, the impact on the land, the environment, the impact on the grid, distribution and transmission, the power, access to power, any impacts depending on what the power source is, environmental issues, water, as you talked to Mike O'Grady, so you're familiar with the water issues. They require a data center that has a capacity for 20 megawatts of power can use up to 500,000 gallons of water per day. And that's on average. They're different I've heard different figures, but that's just to give you some idea. So a lot of water, and that's used for cooling, computer chips, basically. And there are

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: different cooling methods, and you heard from Mike, and

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: he can talk specifically about that. And then the other thing is fiber that it requires broadband, so fiber connection. So this is kind of the basic infrastructure, and the land, issues, environmental issues. So that being said, those are just some brief introductory remarks. And then well, the only other thing I wanted to just mention, in addition to kind of potential impacts, not just on the environment and on the grid, also on potentially ratepayers, just ensuring that any costs that are incurred because of a data center and its needs, the upgraded infrastructure, for example, what this bill addresses is trying to ensure that the data center is responsible for those costs as opposed to all ratepayers. There was something else I was going to say. I can't remember what it is. But then on the flip side, some of the benefit potential benefits, upgraded infrastructure that might benefit all Vermonters, access to potentially other, renewable energy sources, and then, tax potential revenue sources from a data center. So I just wanted to give kind of big picture policy considerations. So with that being is that that okay for now just to kinda set the stage?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Limited time with Maria. So

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So what about jobs? Do you know how many jobs it would create?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So I don't know. But the data center itself, usually, other than the construction, that would obviously employ a lot of people. After that, once it's operational, I don't think there are usually too many people that maintain the system equipment. What people sometimes talk about with respect to AI is maybe the loss of jobs because companies are shifting can do more through artificial intelligence and not necessarily require as many employees. So those are kind of the big picture job considerations. So quickly just going through the bill, the short title, the Vermont Sustainable Data Centers Act. And I'll just read the purpose section because it also provides the context here. So the purpose of this subchapter is to establish a regulatory framework that ensures responsible growth of an emerging industry in a manner that protects existing electric ratepayers from unwarranted costs and promotes sustainable climate, environmental, community, and equity outcomes consistent with state policies. So that is the overarching goal, with respect to the provisions that are in this bill. So there are some definitions. There are actually just two. The definition of data center so for these larger data centers, different states have different definitions based on the amount of power that they use. The proposal here is to get at data centers that are able to use 20, as I mentioned, 20 megawatts of power. And then you'll see there's a reference to a classification code under the North American Industry Classification System. This is a federal document. It classifies different sectors of the economy, and it's used for basically tracking trends in the market with respect to this happens to be data processing, this classification, but it could be healthcare sector or whatever. So this is just trying to be very specific about the sector that's covered here, and then a definition of facility, which is basically all of the buildings and structures and equipment. So that brings us more to the substance. Under this proposal, every data center that locates in Vermont would have to be served by what's called a large load service equity contract. That's a contract that would be entered into between a data center and the electric utility. And it has to meet a number of requirements, which will go through, and it must be approved by the Public Utility Commission. So in terms of the things that have to be included in the contract, I'm on page three. Number one, a method for allocating costs that is equal or proportional to the cost of providing electric service to the data center, including providing for equitable contributions to the embedded costs and the efficiency, reliability, and resiliency of electricity network. So getting at making sure the data center is responsible for all of the costs needed or incurred to meet its demand.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Doug, if he has a With

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: regard to this contract, what in this contract, or is this, the way this wording is written, going to limit if a data center was to be cited here and provided all of its own output?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think there's anything in here that limits a data center from doing that. So yep. And so sometimes that's referred to as BYOP, bring your own power or behind the meter power, and so some data centers do that. They have solar installations, they have their own storage capacity, and then if necessary, not specific to this, but related to their own load flexibility, backup generators in the event of too much strain on the grid.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Hypothetically, if there was a case like that, and this particular data center had the energy capability to actually, if they had access, would anything prevent this data center from actually selling to the grid?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: It's a good question. As far as I know, wasn't specifically asked. I don't think there's a prohibition on that.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: So

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: I think if the contracting parties thought that was appropriate, they could include that in the contract. And, again, the PUC would have to approve and make sure it's consistent with

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Thank you. Sure.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So, also, the contract must mitigate the risk of other ratepayer classes paying unwarranted costs, including any electric generation, distribution, and transmission infrastructure costs incurred to meet the load requirements of a data center or the energy capacity transmission or resource adequacy costs incurred as a result of the data center's load. And then three, skipping down to page four, the contract should be should specify the duration of the contract and the date or the estimated date that the electric company will begin to provide electric service to the data center. That becomes more relevant below, which I'll I'll I'll reference this again. Obligate the data center to pay a minimum amount or percentage based on the data center's projected electricity usage for the duration of the contract to ensure compliance with subdivision b one of the section. So, basically, making sure if you're contracting to have service for ten years, if for some reason you don't require, don't, you end the contract, making sure that you're obligated to pay a certain percentage of the amount that you said you were going to buy. Are a couple of places in here which kind of get at that issue of stranded costs, making sure that you're not going to begin construction, all this infrastructure, and then decide to go somewhere else, and the ratepayers are left with that. So this is one of the provisions that is ensuring that you're going to agree to pay a minimum amount based on your expected usage and the duration of your contract. And then also include a reasonable charge for any demand in excess of your projected electricity demand. So if you go above what you thought you were going to use, that there's, there are rates included for that excess demand. Include a collateral requirement sufficient to mitigate the risk of stranded costs. This is what I was getting at earlier. If you, no longer operate the data center, that other ratepayers aren't on the hook. Also, eight, include provisions requiring implementation of demand side management operational measures, including harnessing load flexibility for the purpose of maintaining grid stability and efficiency. So this might be things such as time of use, like during your peak service, like using it at times when the grid is not under strain. Otherwise, it might be being able to disconnect from the grid and rely on your own power source or storage or backup generator if necessary, but just trying to or have your own power, but trying to understand that there may be times when strain on the grid is such that you'd

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: want a

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: little flexibility in terms of the operations of the data set. Also include provisions for the collection of gross receipts taxes, energy efficiency charges, and any other fees or charges that may be applicable to electricity revenues. So data centers would be responsible for paying the energy efficiency charge. There's another provision which I'll get to, which basically says that they can't take advantage of some of the other programs in the state, like the savings accounts that other smaller businesses can do, the efficiency credit accounts, I think they're called. I can't remember, but it we'll reference that. And also it's a SMEEP, self managed energy efficiency program. They're not eligible for any of those. They just pay the energy efficiency charge to the utility. And then just to general meet any other terms or conditions required by the commission consistent with the purpose of the section and in the public interest. And I'll just mention that in the original draft, you'll notice there was a citing provision that's very similar to what was modeled after section two forty eight and 248A, the citing of new generation facilities, new telecommunications facilities. So it followed a similar model. So this current draft removes that requirement, focuses for the PUC's purposes mostly on the contract, the terms of the contract, and then significantly, and there are some factors that this committee is interested in, obviously, but then also has a hook for Act two fifty. So we'll get to that, but just so you know. The definition of development for purposes of triggering Act two fifty jurisdiction, There's a proposal in here to expand that to include these data centers. So all of them as defined here. So and that is the extent of my knowledge on Act two fifty. Ellen Ellen will help you more if you have questions about that. So then, I'm now on subsection d. Before the commission approves a large load service equity contract as required under this section, the Commission shall find that the proposed data center, including any upgrades to electric generation distribution and transmission facilities necessary to power the data center will not adversely affect the efficiency, reliability, and resiliency of the electric power system, will result in an economic benefit to the state and its residents, will not have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites. And this is one of the subdivisions that has overlap with some of the act two fifty criteria. So some discussions in house energy about what should remain here or what is just going to be covered under the Act two fifty process. But a lot of what's in Subdivision 3 falls in that category. Subdivision 4 is consistent with the principles for resource selection expressed in the applicable electric distribution companies approved least cost integrated plan. These are plans that all utilities have to file with the PEC every year, every three years, where they're basically looking ahead, trying to meet the demand, energy demands in a way that, promotes, factors into it the cost of meeting that demand, focusing on affordability, but also compliance or alignment with the state's, energy goals. And those plans themselves have to be consistent with what's referenced in subdivision five, the state's electrical energy plan, which was approved by the department under title 30. Then subdivision six 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 natural resources, can be served economically by existing or planned transmission facilities without undue adverse effect on Vermont utilities or other retail rate payer classes. Again, some of this, Ellen and Mike can speak to more and also may be covered under act two fifty, but complies with air pollution control requirements. There was some discussion about referencing the Clean Air Act as effective on a specific date, recognizing that there may be some changes proposed by the current administration and wanting to, specifically, refer to the existing, provisions of the Clean Air Act. Complies with harvesting procedures and procurement standards that ensure long term forest health and sustainability, including guidelines and standards adopted under title 10, is consistent with state energy efficiency requirements, including commercial building energy standards, is consistent with environmental justice and equity policy as established in Vermont law, and finally, adequately accounts for potential facility decommissioning. So making sure that, there are resources, again, that would not be passed on to ratepayers in the event of a decommissioning of a site. And this is a subsection e is what I alluded to earlier, specifies no data center shall be eligible to participate in an energy savings account or a customer credit program or a self managed energy efficiency program. So, again, they just pay the energy efficiency charge. Then Stricken language. There's one requirement here related to energy efficiency. It requires that early in the design development phase of a data center, the owner or operator shall consult with Efficiency Vermont to ensure compliance with state energy energy efficiency requirements and best practices. The next section is the watery section that you reviewed with Mike yesterday. So I will skip over that. There's a reporting requirement. There's quarterly reporting requirement by a data center, which must report to the Department of Public Service. And in those quarterly reports, it has to include its water and energy usage, including its peak usage per day, as well as an itemization of its payments toward shared infrastructure constructed to support the data center. And then, and obviously this doesn't begin until there is a data center in Vermont. And then the department would annually report beginning on 01/15/2028. Because the effective date is goes out a little bit. I think it's 2028. And provided there's a data center in Vermont, the commissioner shall include in its annual energy report findings and recommendations related to the energy, environmental, and economic impacts of data center construction and operation in Vermont, as well as any impactful developments within the region, including any benefits to all ratepayers from electric infrastructure projects undertaken to provide power to one or more data centers. And then finally, this section two is the Act two fifty hook. Again, it's, adding a provision to the definition of development for purposes of Act two fifty review. So it includes the construction of improvements on a tract or tracks of land for a data center as defined in the previous section. So this would apply to any data center not operational on the effective date of this act. I forgot what the effective date is. Okay. Nope. It is effective on passage. Sorry. Getting confused with another bill I'm working on. So oh, so what also is required here is a report on regional renewable the regional renewable energy market, and its conditions, and this is a PUC report that would come to the standing committees of jurisdiction. It would, be due December 15, basically looking at the cost and availability of new regional renewable electric generation resources during a period of time, and that period of time is between 2027 through 2035, and particularly take into account any changes in federal tax law, tax incentives, or tax credit availability, changes in federal permitting requirements or processes, trade policy, land use, energy environmental policy, supply chain constraints, interconnection timelines, regional transmission development, and any other matters deemed relevant. So understanding the market for renewables and how that may be relative to your policy decisions going forward. Preparing the report, that the commission hear from interested stakeholders, some of which are itemized, but basically any member of the public, consulting with any state, regional, or federal entity as appropriate. And, again, submitting the report to the House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure and the Senate Committees on Finance and Natural Resources and Energy.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: So that's a walk through of the bill.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Thank you so much.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: You're welcome.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: A couple of questions. One for you and one for Michael, I think. I'll start with the one. I think it's yours. So it applies to it doesn't apply to existing facilities, but it strikes me that if we have existing facilities, they might be most likely to expand. What happens if it's an existing facility that expands?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Great question. I don't know if any of the existing can expand based on where they are now, but assuming that they are, you could we could probably add some language to clarify. It would include existing facilities that are converting to a 20 megawatt facility. So, yeah, that could be clarified.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I will relay that to

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: or if you would I'm happy to bring that up.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Then, are you still with us? Yeah.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: You want me to close stop the share?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sure. So you can Thanks. I just saw him unmute. Yeah. Michael, I I would like to follow-up a little with PFAS. And, first question is, did the language change from yesterday, this yellow highlighted, with the chemicals are actually called out here in this draft that we are walking through?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. In section two eighty six?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Page 10 of seven twenty seven, the bill we're looking at now. Yep. The chemicals are listed, which is something I don't remember seeing in other references. But regardless No.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: These these are these are chemical structures. They're not the specific chemicals. The there are chemicals that meet these structures, so there's more than three. It's it's, it's more than three. Well, a lot more than three that meet us, but not 15,000.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So but okay. If I could sort of summarize the question before us around the PFAS and then get your input, if I got it right, is that there are concerns around using the EPA definition because it may it could become more or less stringent. It could just it's perhaps vulnerable to that. Do I have that right? That that's kind of like is that the one we wanna link to because it could change on short notice?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So I didn't cross reference the US EPA, definition, the citation, because I because of the uncertainty. But this is the US EPA definition. This is TOSCA 40 CFR seven zero five point three, I think. Don't quote me to that last part, but this is the TOSCA definition, and TOSCA is the toxic substances control act. This is that definite definition under EPA's TOSCA. So if it changes at the EPA level, you have locked it in here. It doesn't mean they have changed it.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. So in to the best of your abilities then, maybe tell us what the potential concern is with using this existing EPA definition or another one. It seems like the other one isn't actually quantifiable at this point. So, like, we usually we've been using this definition. Right?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You have been you have been using the broader definition. You have been in with regard to consumer products, which is most of the regulation has come from. You have generally been using the broader definition, which is, any fluorinated compound. And I I can get you the exact definition in one second. The question is the requirement here in February is for monitoring, and it's it's it's impossible to monitor for all 14,000 specific fluorinated chemicals that have fluorinated compounds. And so that that is part of the discussion. Do you want to put something on the table that might be very difficult for any applicant to actually comply with?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well and, additionally, we know there's background levels of PFAS.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Now I will say that, chair James had the point yesterday, which I think is a good point, is that there is testing just for fluorinated or fluorine in water. And if the that testing indicates high levels, then maybe that that leads to effectively a forensic examination of what the what is causing those levels, and then you test for specific chemicals that you think are creating the, like, fluorofluorinated contamination. And and that that, to an extent, is something that that could be ANR's discretion because the language here is not very specific about what the monitoring plan will require or what ANR will require in the monitoring plan. It's just that the applicant has to submit a monitoring plan. So going back to what is the the other definition that you've used in consumer products, PFAS means a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. And that's the class that creates that's the definition that creates 14 to 15,000 different chemicals. For water, drinking water specifically, hazardous waste specifically, you've you've identified or ANR has identified, EPA has identified about six specific chemicals, PFOA, PFAS, PFAS. I can't remember specifically the other the others, but so that's kind of your choices. Do you go with the six five six specific? Do you go with the EPA definition, which is much it's more than six, but it's not that much more? Or do you go with 15,000?

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Pritchard.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Thank you. Couple questions. I'll I'll start with the the PFAS thing so I kinda understand that. Is this is this water supply being tested before it comes in? And the reason I ask that is is we already know that a lot

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: of our

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: waters contaminate PFAS. So is this suggesting that this is induced into the water as a part of the the process of using water?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There there's no specific requirement that if water is used for cooling, that it'd be pretested. I think that answers your question.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: So we so the water could contain that as it enters the system. Could already be contaminated.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Okay. So I guess I don't understand what we're

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So you're monitoring the discharge of it to a surface water. So it might be entering the facility through the water, but do you need to implement controls on its discharge once it leaves the facility? And that's what the monitoring is about to to ensure that you're not discharging high levels to surface waters.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Okay.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Okay.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: If I'm representative Pritchard, you done with PFAS?

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yes.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can I just I wanna do one follow on to PFAS? And that is, are these data centers known to produce p excessive p sap PFAS discharges?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I think there's there's a potential. The material used and the cooling systems may have PFAS in them, and the equipment itself for cooling might have PFAS in them.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Mhmm. Okay. Thank you.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Well, go ahead, representative. So we would allow a closed system to have PFAS in it? And that's why I asked, is it induced by the system? We it it sounds like we really don't know.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, it it really will depend on each system. You know, industrial equipment, which these cooling mechanisms are, many of them have PFAS in them. It's it's very useful for some of the the needs of that equipment.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: The the other question I was wondering is, is water the only way to cool these systems? I mean, is that is there any other things? I mean, like refrigeration, a closed Yep.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There's cool Coolants can be used.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: That doesn't require anyone.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I can say that for sure.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Okay. That would be it seems like an a terrible, awful waste of water to me, especially at some of these numbers. And I'm just I'm just wondering if it can be accomplished with a closed refrigeration system. I mean

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, re remember, your your preference in this language is that they use closed loop systems, and closed loop systems are not supposed to take their water from the traditional sources. They're not getting it from public water supplies. They're not getting it from groundwater. They're not getting it from surface water unless the district commission in the act two fifty process determines it's not feasible to run a cooling system without one of those traditional sources. So you already have a preference built into this for not using those traditional systems of water or sources of water, but you're not precluding it. You're not making it impossible except the district commission has to determine it's not feasible to run that closed loop system.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Well, there's a system exist that doesn't use water. I guess that's my point. Do we know that?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I am I am not I am not an expert on the use of all of these systems, and I apologize. I don't know who is that you could talk to. Maybe I just On

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: the last question I had, page nine seventeen, it just gets back to representative tech Tagliavia's question about if they could provide their own power. On the first line, it says, and it's struck from the bill, authorization for a goddess center to procure its energy resources. So I'm just curious is because the answer to his question was it was it was okay, but now it's but I see it's not I see it's been struck from the language on page nine, the first line. So they that to me, that says they won't have authorization to procure their own energy source resources. Is that correct?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: So I think that's a a good question, and maybe I need a clarification. But I think what was meant here in the procurement was, potentially the data center, maybe interconnecting with the transmission grid and directly purchasing power through a long term power purchasing contract. So procuring their own power, and not going through a distribution utility, which will procure the power. So I think I think that's what was being contemplated here, but I think it's a good question. I think that's one of the things that the energy committee is trying is gonna be looking at. It's what exact can they interconnect directly with the transmission grid and potentially procure their own power, essentially be a self managed utility like GlobalFoundries? Yeah. I think that that's how I interpret what procure means, but I think it's a good question and should clarify.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Being silent on it doesn't mean it's not allowed. So having your own energy source so that language was just striking that doesn't mean That's

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: a change, yeah. Thank you.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: Further representative? Thank you, Madam Chair. Section D3 talks about community noise levels that would fall within What page are you Page

[Kate Logan (Member)]: six. Page six, line seven.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: You were indicating that that section is vulnerable maybe to getting struck?

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, think there are just some questions because some of this is covered by Act two fifty, so there are findings that would need to be made under Act two fifty, so it just kind of yeah.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: Reason I'm raising the question is that that particular aspect, community noise levels, I know that's one of the main claims about these centers is they're very noisy, very loud hump continuously, then the nut, which an Act two fifty of addresses noise through aesthetics, but it's not very specific. So having that particular characteristic called out somewhere, I think, would be beneficial.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. I have a question about just where the committee is in their process, because when did they add the direct Act two fifty, change the definition of Act two fifty to include these, was this language, did this precede that? And is it a hangover from before they decided to actually include it in

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: this This language preceded the Act two fifty, and that's part of the process therein. Yeah. Do we still need to have this, or maybe it's just a finding that they got their act two fifty permit? I think that was part of the

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And, you know, for what it's worth, I don't remember the specifics, but I was involved in an act 50 amendment when I was on the commission that very much had strict sound standards. It was at Pike in New Haven, and there were scientists involved and neighbors involved, and they worked it out seamlessly and have an agreement that works. Impressive.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: I just want to make sure I was covered.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes, sure. Good one. Final questions as we wrap up here. Representative Austin?

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: The document, it talks about the public interest, the general good of

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: the

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: state, economic benefit to the state. Can you expand on that a little bit, how it benefits us? How might How might one of these

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: A data center revenue, potentially,

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: tax revenue. Tax revenue. Okay.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Infrastructure improvements that other ratepayers or water infrastructure if that if that's needed.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So we're gonna And there's

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: general question about AI generally, whether that's you know, makes running the business more efficient. Right? So there you can argue on both sides, but I think those are some of the big picture.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Not a lot of job.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: We're gonna the data center itself. Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't think that it's necessarily fair to ask legislative counsel on

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Okay.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: On those kind of things, unless you happen to know.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: But That's all I know. Just the big picture. But yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you so much. You're welcome. Members, we are going to hear a lot more testimony on this later this morning and this afternoon. Keep your thoughts engaged and questions front of mind. Great. We are, I think, gonna just transition. Bradley's here. We have the latest draft on the posting bill. Thanks, Michael, for joining us. Representative Satcowitz is joining us. Is representative Labor able to join us? You send the link.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Change shift gears and talk about land posting with the latest draft, with our legislative council. Shelby with the Office of Legislative Council.

[Shelby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Today, I'm presenting on draft number 3.1 dated 03/10/2026. This, the change that I made based on feedback from the committee last night was on page two by 19. We changed this language to accidental or unintentional deviations from the requirements of subdivisions A and B of this section shall still be deemed effective to prohibit or permit by permission only. Hunting, fishing, trapping, or taking of game or wild animals if the notice signs would lead a reasonable person to believe that hunting, fishing, trapping, or taking of game or wild animals is prohibited on the left. The rest of this bill is the same as you saw yesterday afternoon.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members have further questions for listed council. Seeing any further comments or discussion on this

[Kate Logan (Member)]: draft. Representative Hoyt.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yeah. I think this is a good I think we landed in a good place on this. I think this does make the old changes, I

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: don't think, closing in easier.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I know it doesn't go all the

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: way that some of the folks want it. They can email me this, but I think it's definitely a if it's a good bill and see what happens in the Senate.

[Maria Royal (Legislative Counsel)]: Kristi, Chapin.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'm really glad we got to work on this. Frankly, it feels like a win win to me. I think it helps give wardens more tools. Ideally, I hope help reduce some conflicts that have been ongoing that really need to be addressed by law enforcement. I do believe it makes things easier for people who have health and mobility issues or have property that's extremely difficult to post or walk. I'm not sure it goes far enough to really make a big difference for those folks because in my mind, well, not in my mind, the bill seems to clearly still continue to put quite an onus on landowners to enclose the land and maintain those. It just no longer says every year you have to go out and check them all and repair them all. Now it's on the landowner to figure out how often do I need to go out and check my boundaries and double check my signs. So I think that I do think that paint would make a much bigger difference to a lot of folks. And I'm still curious about that option for down the road, but I think we do make a really great progress for everyone to some degree. So

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think should move it forward. Representative Logan.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. I am disappointed that we couldn't get to agreement on purple paint. I I do think that's the substantive request that was being made was that folks didn't have to go post signs physically post signs. I do think there's a big physical difference between stapling a sign to a tree that has a date that has to be physically maintained and painting a stripe on a tree. And that is what we heard from lots of people who own land and have to enclose their land. This is a standard that's really typical in The United States. Many other states have adopted it. And I wish we could have gotten there, but I do, agree with everybody else that we've made, you know, a step forward. There's some progress, slightly less onus on the landlord or on the property owner to post their land. It's not what people were asking for in terms of accessibility, but it's a compromise. It's a step forward. Representative Pritchard.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. I think it is a good compromise. I guess I differ representative Chapin and Logan about it being onerous. It's really freed them up as much as it would have with purple paint. I mean, there's no provisions where they have to go out every year, or every two years, or every three years. There's nothing that they ever have to go out. They have to maintain their signs. And that's the same that they would have to do with purple pants. So we have a system we've had for decades in place. The signs are already up for most places. So it's a matter of visiting them, bringing them up to where they should be, and moving up. I think it was a great compromise. For me, the main thing that I heard from the folks, and I think this was a concerted effort by a certain group to push this Purple Paint thing forward. I mean, many of the committee members I'm sure received lots of emails. I received over 300. Out of the 4,000 people that I represent, there was three that contact me about this. And I'm willing to bet it's not much different from any committee. So, you know, what I heard from folks was this is difficult for us, especially the elder. And we have accomplished everything that you would have accomplished with perfect pain on this as far as this goes. So and and stopped a lot of confusion from the new system that probably wouldn't have been spelled out well and and left a lot of errors, you know, left a lot of openings. You know, we we had testimony about 13% of the people can't see purple paint. I mean, everybody recognizes that sign because we've had it for years and years. It's recognized universally. So I think I feel good that we addressed the main concern that I Message that I felt that we got from the folks, and that was the elderly and disabled folks that have made it difficult. And we have certainly, without question, made that much better for them.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Think

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: this is We obviously took a lot of testimony. We obviously got a lot of emails. I agreed with representative Pritchard. I think maybe I think I got maybe 10 that were actually in my district. The other thing I wanted to bring up is we talk a lot about forests, and we use the word stewardship. Posting to me is stewardship. If you're going to have the land, part of being a good steward. If you want to have the land posted, it's stewardship. So I'm happy where we landed with this.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm hearing that it's a good compromise. Yeah.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: Same thing. I'll just echo also that I feel thank you, Chris, for being so eloquent about it and staying very well. And also to chime in on the my constituents that I've heard from who were originally pushing either Purple Payment or really requesting aid and have subsequently contacted me based on the most recent and brass and and said, yeah. That that's a good compromise. We we we can live with that. So I think we achieved it.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: With that, I wanna make oh, representative Austin.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. I mean, for me, and I think I spoke of this throughout, was about the enforcement and accountability on the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And so, you know, that's a concern for me. And it's not, again, it's not against the department. It's I think the capacity is very difficult for us when someone's trespassing or hunting on someone's land. So I'm just hoping that we can have some kind of data collection or record where we land on this call, a warden, or Fish and Wildlife, and report that someone is on their land, they've spoken to them, they've all leave, or they've caught them tearing down side. So if you have a record where Fish and Wildlife can come in and say, we've had so many complaints, you know, this year about people not respecting the signs and not following the regulations. So that would be really helpful to get some data on this.

[Shelby (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe I am available until ten.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I was going to say, I think if you need to leave, you feel free. Thank you.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Thank

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: you. Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I wanna make sure representative Satcowitz is connected to us. Are you I'm here. Okay. Do you have a camera off or no? I do. Let me bring that up. Folks, I guess if you really if you're feeling a burning desire to continue this, I feel like we're moving. Representative Pritchard, you had your hand up. But I think

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. I they all I wanted to say is is that to to representative Austin, they they stated that in testimony. They had 55 people last year that that reported it. So they do they do keep track of it. They always have. So it is that part is in place.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Great. So with that, is there a and representative, offer to be the presenter of the bill. Is there a motion to So moved. To approve the current draft? Moved by representative North by representative Logan. Is there further discussion? Not seeing any. Will the clerk please list

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: all the role? Sarita Austin. Represent Austin, yes. Representative Chapin? Yes. Representative Hoyt?

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yes.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Elaibor?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Not with us today. Representative

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Logan? Yes. Representative Morris?

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: Yes.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative North? Yes. Representative Pritchard?

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yes.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Sakowitz?

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Tagliavia?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Yes.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: And Representative Sheldon?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: 10 yes and one yes.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you all. With that, we'll take

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: a