Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: All right.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are going to continue testimony on H727 with Billy Coster from the Agency of Natural Resources. Welcome.

[Billy Coster, Director of Planning and Policy, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources]: Thank you. Good morning and thanks for having us. For the record, my name is Billy Coster. I'm the Director of Planning and Policy for the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. And first, want to thank your committee and others in the house for your attention to data centers and their potential natural resource impacts in Vermont. This is an important issue and a concern that we share. So great to see the conversation started. First, want to say, fortunately, unlike many other states where we're seeing an explosion in data center development, Vermont has an extremely robust framework of existing environmental and state land use laws. So we're in very good shape compared to some of these other jurisdictions to address any impacts associated with these facilities. I had testified in the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee before town meeting week that at this point from our agency's perspective, we feel that our existing regulatory oversight of potential impacts from data centers paired with the Act two fifty review and their very broad criteria related to water and air quality would largely be sufficient to address impacts associated with these facilities. At that time, I pointed out a potential gap in that approach, however, that there could be a data center proposed on, say, a nine acre parcel in a 10 acre town that would not trigger Act two fifty. And at that point, I suggested that an explicit Act two fifty trigger for any data centers of whatever scale you determine appropriate be added. And I see in this new draft, there is a trigger that explicitly does that. So again, from our perspective, we don't see massive gaps in oversight between our existing programs and Act two fifty, but we're happy to be told otherwise. If there is legitimate concerns and evidence where our existing framework is insufficient, we're certainly happy to look at those programs and suggest back revisions that would fill those gaps so that there is no risk to our environment going forward. This new draft, I think, intends to address some of those perceived gaps in section two eighty six, which begins on page nine. I believe it's entitled Water Use Cooling Permitting Quality. Our interpretation of this, and I apologize, just saw it late yesterday, is what it attempts to do is require for data centers that it obtain certain permits from our agency that other forms of development with the same impacts wouldn't be required to obtain. So the idea here is that even if a data center doesn't hit the jurisdictional trigger for a groundwater withdrawal permit or for a water quality certification, it would still need to obtain one from our agency. While, again, we're committed to identifying and filling gaps, we don't think this approach is maybe the best approach for a couple of reasons. First, early indications is that there would need to be other conforming changes in statute under those two programs to basically change their jurisdiction to take oversight of these facilities. Our lawyers say that it would be hard to just direct them to obtain a permit that they're actually not otherwise required to obtain in law. So that can certainly be fixed through additional legislation, but wanted to flag that for you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you go back to the reference in the bill? Just

[Billy Coster, Director of Planning and Policy, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources]: Yeah, so this is section two eighty six. It starts on page nine. And when you get down to section subsection c and e, it basically directs data centers to obtain certain permits. Especially in section c, it explicitly says even if that permit's not necessary or isn't, you know, you're not meeting the the jurisdictional threshold to trigger that. So I spoke briefly with one of the proponents of this idea just before coming on. And I think the intent is that these permit programs offer review of issues that are maybe unique and novel to data centers, and that could add some value to the overall oversight. And if that's true, we're fine to figure out the best way to do it. Just the way that it's proposed here raises just some questions and some concerns. And it could result in us having to undertake fairly robust regulatory proceedings that take staff time, public time for something where there is no actual issue to be regulated. And I guess the other thing I'd share is if there are concerns that data centers present and there's gaps, we should be talking about those for any sort of way, it's not just this specific thing. If a new technology emerges that has the potential for the same environmental impact, we should be looking at that too, not just for data centers. So there's kind of a fairness and good governance component there as well. So long story short, we think existing ANR regulations paired with Act two fifty is likely sufficient to address these concerns. If there are gaps, we're absolutely willing to hear more about them and figure out how and if our program should be updated to address them. But the way that this stress section is currently structured raises some concerns. You know, I think as mister Poor indicated, given the time, if this is where it needs to be to kind of move it through the process, there is time in the second half of the biennium to deal in the session, the dial in some of these issues. Last thing I'll just point out is subsection F in that section requires a PFAS monitoring plan if data centers discharge wastewater into surface waters. Just want to note that the state does not currently have a surface water standard for PFAS, So if there were a monitoring requirement, we wouldn't have a standard to hold them or enforce them to. So just another piece that would need to be tied down a bit if if this was your attempt.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: When will we have that surface water standard?

[Billy Coster, Director of Planning and Policy, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources]: I don't know. Just look. John might know, but I don't know what that said. Certainly could get back to you on it.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. I wanna summarize. I mean, that caught my attention yesterday, this section of, like, these permits would and what and your reading of it is this is saying these permits could be required even if they wouldn't otherwise have been required of another type of similar development. So that seems like something to work out. Are you going to be able to help language to work that out?

[Billy Coster, Director of Planning and Policy, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources]: I guess my first question would be, if you believe that existing permits and Act two fifty oversight is not sufficient and there may need to be more, then we can certainly provide a path to get there. But that's, I guess, a threshold question for us. I think you'll hear from Mr. Grodman that he believes there are some gaps, so you may conclude the answer is yes.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We have heard from him first.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: That's good. Representative Chapin. Thanks, Liz. This is really helpful. I guess we've been specifically asked to think about PFAS in our committee versus the energy. So just we've been talking on PFAS in other ways. Particularly, I'm curious with your suggestion that we think about why we would ask a permit program to cover something that's not jurisdictional. I'm thinking about technology or development that uses this massive amount of water. Then what seems maybe particular to data centers is how coolant gets added to that water. And you have this massive amount of coolant, which is just my very tiny limited knowledge. Like usually coolant isn't that kind of massive amount of water as far as I'm concerned. So you get to deal with coolant in a very specific way for disposal versus when we have this massive water, where is it going to go and it does get discharged either during or at the end of the life cycle or something. I guess I'm curious if you have any idea of any kind of similar development or technology utilize water in a sort of massive way or in a closed loop system, and then ultimately at some point has to get discharged or in a somebody's dreamer are drawing water much more regularly? I don't off the top

[Billy Coster, Director of Planning and Policy, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources]: of my head. I can certainly confer with the folks who run the programs that regulate these source facilities. We certainly do look at a range of pollutants in wastewater discharges and surface water. We may look at PFAS. My point is more that there's not a surface water standard. We've been primarily concerned with groundwater due to the health risks from consuming that water. There's not as many surface water sources. So again, these are likely very legitimate concerns. Just asking people to get permits when they're otherwise not required was my main concern. So we can we can get back to you with some suggestions of how to address these concerns in a way that makes more sense from our perspective.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Thanks. Further questions for mister Coster? Representative Austin.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Does the region have surface water standards like Maine, any waters that come through Vermont, Canada, New York?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Would they

[Billy Coster, Director of Planning and Policy, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources]: be I literally was alerted of our lack of a surface water standard about five minutes before I walked in the room. So I can't speak to it, but I can certainly have the folks with expertise in our agency enter that question.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Anything new come in to the room.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, we're to have one. Yeah. Okay. Final questions. We will let you like Thank you. That's great.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: John Grodman.

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: Good morning. Thanks

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: for the opportunity testify about this bill. For the record, I'm John Grodman. I'm Policy and Water Program Director for the Vermont Natural Resources Council. I watched most of Michael Grady's testimony, and he covered some of this. It seems like you already understand the context for the bill, but just before I get into the specifics of it, I'm really glad that the committee has taken this up and that the House Energy Committee drafted a bill. This is a really serious issue as Representative Chapin was just alluding to. I'm going to focus on the water parts of the bill by talking about Act two fifty, other environmental impacts. The rate at the development of these data centers and the environmental impacts they cause is really significant and really concerning. The projection from experts that look at data center development are projecting a doubling of data centers by 2,030 across the country. A lot of the focus now has been in states like Virginia and some other of the Mid Atlantic states, but this is real. Obviously, we all read the news and know that AI is just a major driver of our economy right now, so this is happening. And from a water perspective, to Representative Chapin's question, I don't know. I mean, estimates that I've seen is smaller data centers using 300,000 gallons of water per day to cool the facility. So as you've heard from Michael Grady and others, cooling is necessary for these data centers. So that's a small data center. It could be up to 5,000,000 gallons of water per day. So these are impacts that we certainly have never seen in Vermont, and I think around the country people haven't seen, and it's a major reason for the concern about the siting of these facilities. So I do think that even though Vermont does have some good mechanisms in place, that there are some gaps and I'll talk about those. So the cooling of the water, data centers, they use water to cool facilities either from surface water, so just taking it right out of mostly a larger river, or it could be a lake, groundwater, or from public water supplies. Seems around the country they've used a lot of water from public water supplies. And I don't see that happening in Vermont because we just don't have that many large public water supplies. Like we obviously have Lake Champlain, which is the water supply for most Vermonters actually by percentage. So you could put one of these in Burlington and I guess you could. I don't think that Vermont's larger cities that get its water from Lake Champlain, Burlington, South Burlington, the Chittenden County towns, I don't think they'd be super excited about giving the water that they have a permit for, from ANR to use for drinking water to just give it to a data center for cooling. Given that, they could just take the water from Lake Champlain. Have direct experience with taking water from surface waters for cooling, and that's Vermont Yankee. We have a lot of experience. We had decades of experience, and Vermont Yankee that needed to cool down its nuclear facility took the water from the Connecticut River. That was a significant issue. I want to stress that not only is it a concern about obviously if you're taking water from groundwater, really significant issue in terms of the impact on that groundwater aquifer and other people being served by that aquifer. That's why in 2008, I think we created this groundwater withdrawal permit program and we declared groundwater a public trust resource. I think Vermont has been, it's one of those issues where I think Vermont has been a leader in the environment and really thinking forwardly, Hey, surface water is a public trust resource federally via a Supreme Court decision from over one hundred years ago. But groundwater is not inherently legally a public trust resource. Vermont and New Hampshire, I think, are the only two states that have declared groundwater to be a public trust resource. What that means is that the state has an obligation to manage the taking of groundwater in what's in the best interest of all Vermonters. And what we said in creating the Groundwater Withdrawal Permit Program is that if you can meet these very strict permit standards, and they are very strict, and as Michael Grady said, if you're withdrawing more than 50, I think it's 56,700 gallons per day, that's the trigger for the groundwater permit, that that could cause concerns and for other uses of groundwater and the state should look at impacts on other uses of the aquifer impacts on surface water because groundwater and surface water is hydrologically connected and a whole host of other issues. And so that permit would be needed for a facility that was withdrawing at least 56,700 gallons per and it would be hard to get. So I think that that is something that I don't think we've had one of those permits issued since we created that program. And that program was at the time in 2008, the concern was water bottling. I don't know if people can remember back to like Vermont Pure and all the concerns about water bottling, But it exists for all kind of commercial activities. The bill does state, as Mr. Coster noted, it basically and maybe it's not needed because, as I said, the small one of these facilities is going to use 300,000 gallons per day of water. But the way the bill was written was, Why don't we just say they just have to get this permit? That was the intent. I don't know that that's needed because, as I said, I think that they'll easily meet the 57,600 gallons per day threshold. So that is that permit program, and that's why the bill is drafted, basically says any withdrawal of groundwater would have to go through that program. But surface water is probably a more likely candidate because I think it would be very hard to get the groundwater permit and to find a groundwater source that would provide enough water to cool the facility. With Vermont Yankee, I just want to stress that the impacts of both withdrawing the water and then discharging that hot water back into a surface water are significant. They're not just mild impacts. We we wrangled with Vermont Yankee and then Entergy, Vermont Yankee for their whole history in terms of the impact of that hot water discharge in the Connecticut River. David Dean, who was the chair of the former House Fish, Wildlife and Water Committee, was at the tip of that spear. And the impacts on fish habitat were significant. And it's not just at the discharge point. The debate about Vermont Yankee was these heated discharges create what's called a thermal plume. So it's just a plume of hot water that just moves down the river. And then the experts have to model like how far is that plume moving? There's no question when that water comes out hot, we're cold water fisheries in Vermont, obviously, so the cold water fish, they respond very negatively to that burst of hot water and it kills them. And in the Connecticut River, shad was sort of the species of concern. It was sort of the canary in the coal mine species there. And the shad population there was decimated. And the only debate was how far down. And you do need a Clean Water Act discharge permit, which are called NPDS permits, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for the thermal discharge. Thermal pollution is listed in the Clean Water Act as pollution that has to be addressed, and it's in our water quality standards because we're delegated authority under the Clean Water Act to implement that program. But we have a lot of experience with this. So any of these facilities coming in would have to address this discharge of hot water and get that permit. This is why the bill, I think, really a provision in here that I think is really you know, a smart provision is really encouraging, more than encouraging saying you have to use this closed loop system unless it's not feasible. And the idea is that if you're kind of taking water from whatever your source and you're circulating and reusing it, it's going to minimize the amount of water you need to take and it would minimize the amount of water that gets discharged. It would not eliminate the need to withdraw water. There's evaporation, there's a loss of water in the system. I don't know exactly how these closed system works, but from what I've read, that's fairly clear about it. So what the bill says now is that you have to use that system unless it's determined that it's not feasible. And that would be essentially the Act two fifty Commission under the bill determining that feasibility. Because I think anything that we can do to minimize the thermal discharge or the withdrawal of water, whether it's from groundwater or surface water, if it came from a public water supply, it really would be essential. That's sort of the key to, I think, those provisions. I think what I heard from Mr. Koster is that A and R's only concern with that is should you have to get a groundwater withdrawal permit if you're below the threshold? And again, probably not needed because of $300,000 The research indicates that you'd probably exceed that threshold anyway. The other provisions that are in here related to water that Mr. Costa raised, which you could talk a little bit about, have to do with in addition to the discharge permit, which would be for thermal pollution, but there could be other pollutants in the discharge that are also in our water quality standards. The way the Clean Water Act works and our water quality standards work is that we have in our water quality standards a list of pollutants, and we have criteria limits for those pollutants. And for any of the pollutants that we have listed and those limits, the permit needs to assure that the discharge doesn't exceed those limits. So there are requirements in the permit that you can't exceed those limits. There's very strict monitoring that goes on to make sure you're not exceeding those limits. But there are pollutants that are not listed in the standards that don't show up in that NPDS, Clean Water Act Discharge Permit. And the obvious one is PFAS. So we have not created a standard for any PFAS in our water quality standards. PFAS, as you've heard through other your work on other bills, know, a class of chemicals. There's something like 14,000 class of PFAS chemicals. Those are basically perfluorinated chemicals. There's any chemical with fluorine in it. Then there's a subset of chemicals that EPA is focused on that have been the most chemicals that have been monitored and of concern, I guess, mostly in drinking water systems. There's about 40 or 50 of those. Then Vermont and other states have focused on for drinking water and PFAS and groundwater and PFAS, like about five to 10 different PFAS chemicals. I think right now we're up to five in Vermont, different compounds. But we have in Vermont a drinking water standard for PVOS and we have a groundwater standard, we don't have one for surface water. This is despite the fact that, and this came up when you looked at the landfill leachate bill, there was a law passed three, four, or five years ago that required that ANR make a determination about whether it could regulate the whole class of PFAS, all the 14,000 approximately PFAS chemicals, both in drinking water standards and in surface water standards. And if it concluded that that was not feasible, that it should at least adopt a surface water standard and a drinking water groundwater standard for, I think it was three to five PFAS chemicals. I don't remember. ANR did adopt the standard for drinking water and groundwater, as I said, and actually added chemicals to that list recently, but it never adopted the surface water standard. It determined that it couldn't regulate the whole class of chemicals. Now, EPA has been slow to this game. Part of the reason that ANR gave for not regulating the whole class of chemicals was that EPA was not recommending that, that there wasn't good guidance on how to treat for the whole class of PFAS or how to monitor for the whole class of PFAS. VNRC and CLF, we advocated very strongly for the regulating of the class of PFAS. We pointed out in our comments that there is something called a total fluorine test where you can actually monitor for the whole class pretty easily and it's not that expensive. But the treatment technologies for PFAS could be expensive and I think ANR at the end of the day, and you can read it, submitted a response to the legislature as to why they didn't regulate the class. It was basically, I think, concern about cost to the water systems in particular. They would be doing something that hadn't really been done the rest of the country. Since that time, EPA has, like I said, I think there are up to 40 or 50 different PFAS chemicals that they basically recommend be monitored for and that be considered by states for regulation through drinking water standards and surface water standards. At the very end of the Biden administration, EPA issued a document that basically said, Listen, we haven't settled on what the standard should be for surface water, but we encourage states if you think that there are PFAS in discharges that are being made to the waters in your state, that you should regulate those. And there are ways to treat them and there are ways to monitor them, but they didn't recommend a standard. And that's kind of how EPA left it at the end of the Biden administration. Not surprisingly, the Trump administration hasn't really done anything on that. They didn't rescind that though. They didn't rescind that guidance, but they haven't moved it forward. VNRC certainly has talked with the agency a lot. We're concerned that the agency, I think, is a year plus past the deadline for adopting the PFAS Surface Water Quality Standard. And you should have ANR and they could explain why they haven't done it. Our argument basically is that if ANR thinks it can't do it or the reasons why they can't do it, they should come to the legislature and we should have a debate and we should change the law. Like, the law says they should do it right now. And if they're if they have a rationale and they do, when we don't agree with it, we think that we could and we should regulate certain PFAS in these discharges. Let's have the debate. Let's have a debate out here in the legislature. If the legislature is convinced we can modify the law, we can provide resources to do it, whatever, but just ignoring the law is not acceptable. But that's the status quo. So this gets to the issue of like, why require a water quality permit that's beyond just the discharge permit? This is what Mr. Coster has alluded to. What he was alluding to is in the bill, and it is all in section two eighty seven, I think that it starts on page nine of the bill. It basically says in addition to the discharge permit, in addition to the groundwater withdrawal permit and a surface water withdrawal permit, which I'll talk about in a second, applicant should have to get what's known as a water quality certificate. A water quality certificate is a broader water quality review that's required under the Clean Water Act for projects that require a federal permit or license. Those are usually energy generating projects that need a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, like hydroelectric facilities. Ramayankee needed a Clean Water Act Water Quality Certificate because they had to get a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We've got biomass facilities over the years that needed to get a water quality certificate because they needed a FERC license as well because they're generating power. And then you could require a water quality certificate if you need a wetlands permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Those are classic ways, but we have no idea whether these data centers are going to require an Army Corps wetlands permit. It's not clear whether they would require a FERC license. They could if they're generating electricity, and this is the Public Service Department's expertise. What I've heard listening to testimony over the last week is that they might, they actually might generate electricity, so then they would trigger this water quality requirement. But what the bill says and what we suggested, and again, we really want this bill to move forward and we're open to working with the agency and talking about the best way to do it. But the reason why we suggested requiring a water quality certificate, even if you didn't have a federal permit or license involved, is because it's a broader water quality review and allows you to review impacts that aren't in the discharge permit, like PFAS. So as we just discussed, PFAS is not going to be regulated in the discharge permit because we don't have a standard. The agency may conclude that there's a lot of PFAS being used in these data centers. There are going to be discharges. We would like this regulatory tool to deal with it through a permit. The water quality certificate would provide that tool. Also, and this is something we learned from Vermont Yankee. We looked at this a lot. Vermont Yankee, like I said, they needed a discharge permit and this water quality certificate, because they needed that license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We argued, and this is when I worked at ANR at the very end right before Vermont Yankee closed and it eventually closed down. So shut down, they didn't get any of these permits in the end because they closed down. But we argued there are erosion issues that go beyond our stormwater permitting. There could be other endangered species issues that are classically dealt with under this water quality certificate and other pollutants. In Vermont Yankee, that included radioactive pollutants like tritium that were not specifically in the standards either. Looking at the groundwater connection with surface water, which also isn't addressed in the discharge permit. It is just a helpful tool, we think, to give the agency the authority to deal with these issues that wouldn't be in that specific discharge permit. That's why we suggested it. We don't think it's duplicative and don't think that other types, my gut is that I don't think it's unfair because I think this is a really unique, really large type of development and use that raises impacts that other developments and uses don't raise. So that's why we suggested it. You could argue, well, under Act two fifty, the agency could go to the district commission and say, well, we can't address PFAS in our discharge permit, but we can go to the Act two fifty, which is broader. This is an instance where we often talk about what's the value of Act two fifty. It's broader. It's a broader umbrella review that brings in issues that are not narrowly in those permits. But our thinking is, well, why make ANR go to Acting 50 and ask for that? Why don't give them the authority? They're the technical experts in pollutants like PFAS and other issues, water quality issues that aren't covered in the discharge permit. Let's cut out the middle person in all of this and just let ANR regulate this. Then Act 50 still gets to look at it. Those permits would be rebuttable presumption permits. And then Mike talked about this when he testified. So, Acting fifty would still get to look at it, but they are like, 99% of the time, they rely on ANR for this. So, we just think it makes sense to give ANR this authority. Again, we don't want to hang this bill up. Mean, there's some way I haven't had time to talk to ANR about all of these issues. I had a good conversation with Mr. Costa before the testimony, so happy to continue these discussions. But I just wanted to provide sort of the rationale for the thinking behind some of the provisions that are in the bill. Similarly, what's in the bill with regard to PFAS is monitoring. The way it's written is monitoring for the PFAS that EPA recognizes as like the PFAS of concern. So it's not the whole class. It's not the 14,000 approximately. It's about 40 to 50. I think it's the definition in the Toxic Substances Control Act for PFAS, which is a step forward because, as I said, we only regulate this state five PFAS compounds. But we do think if we're going to look at these facilities, why not We do think the class approach to regulating PFAS is the right approach. Why not just require the applicant to monitor for all the PFAS that's out there, send it, let the public know, let ANR know. You can do these total fluorine tests. You can find out if there's PFAS in there. And then that would allow the regulators to respond if they have the regulatory tools to do so. And even though the agency doesn't regulate PFAS or the discharge permit, are other, whether it's Act two fifty or if they had this water quality certification tool, they could have authority to deal with these issues. But we think that this is a good use to use the class approach because I think we've talked about this when we talked about PFAS. Otherwise, it really is like every time you choose five or 10 or 30 or 40 PFOS, because there are thousands of compounds, chemistry just keeps changing. You can pick a chemical that's outside the realm of regulation or even monitoring, right? But it's just as dangerous. All the research shows that every version of PFAS has the same health risks and environmental risks. So we can continue to chase down like 40 or 50. But I think eventually my prediction is like ten or twenty years from now, we would be dealing with a whole class of PFAS and banning it and regulating it. This seems like a good place to start to doing something like this.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You just pause for one second? Are you saying you think this is an adequate approach or are you advocating for the total fluorine test?

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: Well, advocated for the class, but the bill requires the 40 or 50 and I understand why. Because that's EPA's basically recommendation right now or how they define PFAS in their TOPSCA rules. They don't prohibit states from doing it, but I understand why it was chosen. But I just want to give you the other kind of view of how to Yeah, yeah, know. Said, I want to see the bill move forward. And whatever happens, we can continue to discuss it as it moves to the Senate and try to figure some of these things out. Anything that we do along the lines of what's in this bill is a step forward. So I want to be really clear about this. This is all really positive. We're just trying to provide the range in a short period of time of options and explain why the rationale for at least our preference for some of those options, but it's all a step forward. If you choose the definition of PFAS that's in the bill now, step forward. If you don't require the work life certificate, I think you're taking a toll away from ANR, but overall the bill still has added protections that will help if we have a data center.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So back to the water quality, the four zero one, you said it can, so it allows the agency flexibility in determining the pollutants that are required to be monitored.

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: It's not a permit, it's a water quality certificate. So it's basically an analysis of like what are the sort of overall water quality impacts and what's necessary to determine broad compliance with the water quality standards. The discharge permit is like what is being discharged? And what is in the standards for limits? Are those limits being met? It's more of like a command and control kind of permit, engineers and scientists just focus really narrowly on what's in the discharge and what's in the standards.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess I just right. So the certificate can allow the agency to what account for PFAS. Just, the word can not shall require them to. I guess I'm stuck on that. How does the agency decide?

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: It's based on the facts and circumstances they would have to look at like this facility is going to be discharged, going to be using PFAS, it's going to be either discharged or having an impact, and they can go beyond the four corners of the discharge permit and say, the evidence shows us as a concern about PFAS that even though we don't have a specific standard for our discharge permit, we're concerned about it. We think that if this level of PFAS got the groundwater and then got into the surface water or got directly into the surface water, it would have an undue adverse effect on water quality, on aquatic habitat, and they could put a condition in the four zero one to deal with that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What does that look like?

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: Well, like for example, in Vermont Yankee, we were talking about the four zero one because we thought the evidence showed that the tritium was getting into groundwater and then the groundwater was getting into the Connecticut River. The agency didn't have authority in the discharge permit to deal with that groundwater discharge. But through the four zero one, could. It could basically say, well, because this is going to get into the surface water, and it could adversely affect water quality and habitat. They could regulate that groundwater discharge and put requirements in that water quality certificate that they couldn't put in other permits. It was a broader set of a review.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Did it stop the tritium?

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: Well, we ended up shutting down, so we never got there. But we were talking about what those conditions could be, And we were wrangling with Vermont Yankee about that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. I'm just trying to understand that. So someone's applying to do this. We leave the four zero one in there, which I think is probably a great idea. I'm not questioning it. I'm just wanting to understand it. And They haven't monitored or we don't know. They don't know that PFAS

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: I thought about that actually. Mean, I thought Yeah, the bill should like I mean, is a bit of a catch right too. Think the application should say, are you using PFAS chemicals in your processing? I think we do need an upfront list. Certainly with monitoring, you could have a condition that basically says that there's continuing jurisdiction. And if the monitoring shows that PFAS in the groundwater or surface water that you could reopen the permit to address the discharge. But I had the same thought that upfront this should be It would be better if there's a way to understand what chemicals are using in their processing so we would know upfront. That is something I thought about as well as I looked at the bill.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We need to figure that out.

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: Yeah. Anyway, I this is all I've had a whole of a week to kind of think about this on the full disclosure. Just trying to identify these gaps and discuss tools. Again, I think most importantly, Bill should move forward. We can continue to try to of wrangle with this.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Larry?

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: But I just wanted to explain some of the thinking behind it and just acknowledge that we're still in the process of trying to analyze it. The only thing I didn't mention, and this is a more minor issue, but if there is a surface water withdrawal to cool the facility, we did create, as you well know, a surface water withdrawal permit requirement a couple of years ago. That will be helpful because we're going to have ANR is developing right now the program, which is going to have a rule and require a permit for the surface water withdrawals. It's not been developed yet. I think the rules are going to come out this summer or fall. I would hope that they'd be in place no later than 2027. But right now, the bill requires one of those permits, even though it doesn't exist right now. So I'm not sure exactly how that works.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Who was that supposed to be done by?

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: Think they're not that far. They're working on that. Unlike the PFAS issue, it's not like PFAS is just stalled. ANR is working on that program. And so there's just been, it's been, I don't even know how much it's delayed. I have to go back and look. But I do know that the rules are going to come out this summer. I think in a way I feel it's sort of validating some of the work that the legislature has done over the last recently creating that surface water withdrawal permit. We've thought about it. Previously, if you triggered Act 50, you can look at these issues in Act two fifty, but even ANR didn't have a set way of analyzing them, but they will with this rule. That would be good to guide ANR and to guide anyone who's an applicant, let the public know what the rationale is. The groundwater withdrawal permit, I think that was really not most states don't have that. Like I said, most states don't declare groundwater public trust resource. So we have some good tools that we've put in place over the years that will help us. We have Act two fifty. And I am heartened to see Act two fifty spoken about with positivity and hope rather than concern. And it shows how powerful Act two fifty could be as a positive tool to address concerns like this. I think I hit on the aspects of the bill that I wanted. I'm happy to answer any questions. I know I'm also on the list to talk about the other bill, and I don't have very much to say about that. I could pivot to that if you want me to.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Pritchard. Yeah. Thank you. So a couple of times, you mentioned that PFAS is part of the process. So where is it in the process?

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: And I guess, you know, if we already know that there's going to be, it's going to be in the water and there's going to be discharge problem, why aren't we addressing that immediately?

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: I mean, PFAS generally is just, it's like, you know, it's something that's sort of a super lubricant, you know, and nothing sticks to anything, you know. And so that's why it's good in Teflon pans, you know. But also, I think in industrial processes, just kind of helps the whatever the processes are, like, work better.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: You're saying they're doing that right now. Is that

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: what Yeah. They definitely use PFAS. I don't know how much. I know which ones, and I don't know exactly how these facilities operate. It's, know, but I think it's been the research shows that they they something that are many up and running and PFAS is is been detected in the in the discharges and in their operation.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Wouldn't it seem smarter to address the root cause?

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: Yeah. Well, as you know, your committee has talked about this a lot. We're continually trying to ban the use of PFAS as much as we can. So, we shouldn't use it in my opinion, but it still is used. It's not banned, and you can use it in lots of different ways. It's very commonly used.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It sounds like this bill is allowing it to be used.

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: This bill is trying to deal with the byproduct of its use, basically. Not in that Having discussed banning use of PFOS in the operation of data centers, I that I mean, certainly wouldn't be opposed to that, but I'm sure you'd get the attention of the data center community.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right. So we only have five minutes left. So did you have a question,

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Representative Morris? I can help.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I have a question. Kate? Yeah. I like to speak out.

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: So do you want me I don't have much to say. I'm on the agenda for the bill regarding the municipal regulation of agriculture. I just wanted to be honest that the NRC hasn't taken a position on this bill. We haven't been following it, but we haven't read it carefully. We haven't talked about it internally and taken a position on it. When the Supreme Court decision came down that you heard about, I've been practicing land use law in Vermont for over thirty years, and I've been on my development review board and planning commission. Before the Supreme Court decision, there was very limited authority of town to regulate any aspect of farm practices that were covered by the required agricultural practices. Then that Supreme Court decision changed that. I know that there have been groups, the Agency of Agriculture, VLCT, Royal Roman and NOFA have been working to try to respond to that decision and find the appropriate balance. I think you should hear from them. They've been working on it. I just don't feel comfortable because I haven't been involved with those discussions at all. I do think it's important how the legislature decides to narrow that decision. But I'd have to go back to VNRC, and we just haven't been involved with the parties that have been talking about that. And I'll go back to VNRC, and we'll talk about it as the bill moves through the legislature. But, yeah, I think you should hear from those groups first, certainly. And I can't talk until I really go back to BNRC and see what the position would be. Okay.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Fair enough. I was surprised to learn you hadn't been involved in

[John Grodman, Policy and Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council]: Yeah. I mean, it's oversight, but I'll go back. But you'll hear from the I know you have on the agenda the groups that have been working on that. I'll follow that. So I can't be more helpful.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So your testimony, very helpful. Members with that, we're bumping up against the noon hour. We will